Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:24 am
Welcome to the forum. You've picked on a big topic that's not easy to summarise, but hey, we've all got to start somewhere!
Cooo. Because everyone like a hard life? Cart - horse.
We'd all like to see reasons why not, and there's been some astute folks looking really hard in all sorts of corners, and the best of them haven't managed to squash cost / difficulty beyond where it is.
If you've got a great idea, let's hear it. 90 gets 10 it's been thought of, and don't work, but there's always a chance. Oh, and remember the other thing that's not been mentioned so far, which is legislation. We are all meant to fly legal, and coming up with new ideas often requires paperwork that's hard or expensive to get.
Also many of us operate outside the USA; there's different requirements and environments in Australasia, the UK and Europe, while Canada isn't the same as the US as some think.
engguy wrote:Why is the engine factor so difficult?
I would like to see some good reasons why.
Cooo. Because everyone like a hard life? Cart - horse.
We'd all like to see reasons why not, and there's been some astute folks looking really hard in all sorts of corners, and the best of them haven't managed to squash cost / difficulty beyond where it is.
If you've got a great idea, let's hear it. 90 gets 10 it's been thought of, and don't work, but there's always a chance. Oh, and remember the other thing that's not been mentioned so far, which is legislation. We are all meant to fly legal, and coming up with new ideas often requires paperwork that's hard or expensive to get.
Also many of us operate outside the USA; there's different requirements and environments in Australasia, the UK and Europe, while Canada isn't the same as the US as some think.
Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:14 pm
So how many other such warbird or other outfits that fly these older prop aircraft have had that same problem as Retro does?
I would like a list and some more stories like Retro just gave. It will help with what I'm trying to accomplish.
Since Gary has admittedly said there are known problems with those engines, it makes me wonder why an outfit that is supposed to know what they are doing would even take on the job. Why didn't they say "its junk now and will be junk when we are done, except you will be close to $200,000 dollars lighter". Well at least the weight of your wallet won't be a factor in the weight and balance calculations.
Again if there are parts known to fail in these, then the manufacture should have done what ever to rectify the problem on existing models or sent out word to ground them indefinatly.
I know the history on the R-3350, so that is not what I'm looking for here.
What I really need right now, is more cases of engines failing right after these expensive overhauls.
Another question, about how many outfits out there that operate aircraft with the large round engines such as R-3350's and R-4360's? And how many want to do so but can't because of the engine issue?
Anyone out there that turns wrenches on any kind of LARGE aircraft, recip jets or ? I have some questions.
I would like a list and some more stories like Retro just gave. It will help with what I'm trying to accomplish.
Since Gary has admittedly said there are known problems with those engines, it makes me wonder why an outfit that is supposed to know what they are doing would even take on the job. Why didn't they say "its junk now and will be junk when we are done, except you will be close to $200,000 dollars lighter". Well at least the weight of your wallet won't be a factor in the weight and balance calculations.
Again if there are parts known to fail in these, then the manufacture should have done what ever to rectify the problem on existing models or sent out word to ground them indefinatly.
I know the history on the R-3350, so that is not what I'm looking for here.
What I really need right now, is more cases of engines failing right after these expensive overhauls.
Another question, about how many outfits out there that operate aircraft with the large round engines such as R-3350's and R-4360's? And how many want to do so but can't because of the engine issue?
Anyone out there that turns wrenches on any kind of LARGE aircraft, recip jets or ? I have some questions.
Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:22 pm
Okay, engguy........I spilled my guts here for you, so let's hear it. I think anyone that's keeping up with this post is quite interested in what you've got to say. I can turn wrenches, but I can't read between the lines.
Gary
Gary
Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:36 pm
retroaviation wrote:Okay, engguy........I spilled my guts here for you, so let's hear it. I think anyone that's keeping up with this post is quite interested in what you've got to say. I can turn wrenches, but I can't read between the lines.
Gary
Yea come-on give. What you up to?
Robbie
Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:47 pm
retroaviation wrote:Okay, engguy........I spilled my guts here for you, so let's hear it. I think anyone that's keeping up with this post is quite interested in what you've got to say. I can turn wrenches, but I can't read between the lines.
Gary
Agreed. Conversations, at least polite ones, are two sided. A line of questioning to open a topic is fine but continued questioning without some return info makes me suspicious to say the least. Dad alway taught me to keep my fingers and toes clear of the jaws on a dog trap.....
John
CC CAF P-51C
Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:51 pm
engguy wrote:So how many other such warbird or other outfits that fly these older prop aircraft have had that same problem as Retro does?
I would like a list and some more stories like Retro just gave. It will help with what I'm trying to accomplish.
engguy - I agree that if you want more from these guys who may know something about the engines - you need to come clean with your agenda.
Jim C.
Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:03 pm
engguy wrote:So how many other such warbird or other outfits that fly these older prop aircraft have had that same problem as Retro does?
I would like a list and some more stories like Retro just gave. It will help with what I'm trying to accomplish.
How does it feel to want? What is your point and what are you trying to accomplish?
engguy wrote:I know the history on the R-3350, so that is not what I'm looking for here.
What I really need right now, is more cases of engines failing right after these expensive overhauls.
Why? Are you preparing a deposition or just skipping study hall? Sorry if I'm working you over a little bit, but your line of questioning is odd, onerous and borderline incoherent. Please enlighten us.
Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:17 pm
OK, I'll waste some effort on this.
August 2004, CL-215 waterbomber, R-2800CA3. Caged the 15 hr. SMOH right engine (in time to preclude furthur damage).
Rear Scavenge pump failure. Well known shop in the NW would not warranty since it had been a QEC sitting for 14 mos. on a 12 mo. warranty. This company typically stands behind their work....10 miles behind it, as Gary knows.
August 2004, CL-215 waterbomber, R-2800CA3. Caged the 15 hr. SMOH right engine (in time to preclude furthur damage).
Rear Scavenge pump failure. Well known shop in the NW would not warranty since it had been a QEC sitting for 14 mos. on a 12 mo. warranty. This company typically stands behind their work....10 miles behind it, as Gary knows.
Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:35 pm
Well to work on these things I'm going to have to have information and proof to plead my case to the FAA.
Thats the main agenda I guess. It would be a small scale deal. And not a get rich deal. At least the work would be done by someone that cares rather than waiting for quitting time to roll around.
I think there is a major human factor in some of these failures. A boss just balled the employee out etc. Or being half asleep from getting up at the crack of dawn and driving through massive traffic etc.
Trying to make a dead line. Doing this kinda work is not something that happens fast. So I'm trying to offer a more inexpensive alternative to these costly overhauls. My overhead would be very low. I am not some kid dreaming here either. I have many years experience doing Aerospace machinist work, diesel work, and started out serving time for practical P rating on R1830's R-2800's, R3350's, and a host of the small general aviation engines, in the early 70's, even built some racing engines many years ago. So I need some help.
Thats the main agenda I guess. It would be a small scale deal. And not a get rich deal. At least the work would be done by someone that cares rather than waiting for quitting time to roll around.
I think there is a major human factor in some of these failures. A boss just balled the employee out etc. Or being half asleep from getting up at the crack of dawn and driving through massive traffic etc.
Trying to make a dead line. Doing this kinda work is not something that happens fast. So I'm trying to offer a more inexpensive alternative to these costly overhauls. My overhead would be very low. I am not some kid dreaming here either. I have many years experience doing Aerospace machinist work, diesel work, and started out serving time for practical P rating on R1830's R-2800's, R3350's, and a host of the small general aviation engines, in the early 70's, even built some racing engines many years ago. So I need some help.
Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:32 am
So its like Poof now no one is interested?
I should have just taken my time getting the info I wanted.
I would love to get to fly in some of these old aircraft. And would like to help get them in the air.
I should have just taken my time getting the info I wanted.
I would love to get to fly in some of these old aircraft. And would like to help get them in the air.
Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:49 am
engguy wrote:Another question, about how many outfits out there that operate aircraft with the large round engines such as R-3350's and R-4360's? And how many want to do so but can't because of the engine issue?
Perhaps a look through the WIX registry that Scott has put together will help you work out how many of each airplane operates how many of each of these engines that you're interested in.
If you're thinking about possibly making these engines from scratch or simply retooling to make their components out of newer, stronger materials, that would be great. However, I can tell you that it would be difficult for you to keep the price down to a level that most people could afford. You must remember, that when these engines and aircraft were built, they were designed by some pretty dang smart folks that even knew how to use a slide rule (something that still boggles my mind
). And yes, when the designers saw that there were issues with a particular model of engine, they fixed it...eventually. That is why there is not one single part on the 3350 that the B-29 originally came with that will bolt to the 3350 that we will be putting back on the airplane. Now, if you want to know why certain engine shops like the nice folks up in the NW that have been previously mentioned don't stand behind their work, then you'd need to ask them that yourself. I've had no luck in getting anywhere with them. Just because it's a pretty engine, that doesn't make it a good engine.
Gary
Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:34 am
Well, there is no "case". At best "implied warranty of merchantability". The FAA doesn't dwell there. They're in the business of ensuring public safety thru administrative law (regulation). Essentially, a set standards by which we all will operate. Human factors issues will always exists because of the human element. The FAA certificated CFR 145 repair stations that perform this type of engine work are made aware of risk management concepts and provided with the tools that depict how to transfer, eliminate, accept, or mitigate, perceived risk. Just as pilots should do.
The powerplant technology employed during the 30's/40's era is mind boggling in its brillance. But, they are aged materials with attendant microstructure deformation.
With respect to the RR Merlin design, Roush Engineering has made significant engineering improvements. Costly improvements for what is now an antiquated design. Now, if we could just get his team turned toward the radial powerplant... Good luck in your endeavors.
The powerplant technology employed during the 30's/40's era is mind boggling in its brillance. But, they are aged materials with attendant microstructure deformation.
With respect to the RR Merlin design, Roush Engineering has made significant engineering improvements. Costly improvements for what is now an antiquated design. Now, if we could just get his team turned toward the radial powerplant... Good luck in your endeavors.
Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:03 am
I am by far not the most qualified one here to give advice, so I will offer what I can. As mentioned above the evolution of the large piston engine is amazing. Had not it been for the development of the turbine engine, its really a wonder where things would have ended up. Indeed there have been advancements in technology & materials over the course of the years, much of which has been applied in the Unlimited Air Racing community. Someone with the resources to sit up a shop to overhaul & do repairs could use a lot of what has been learned to rengineer certain aspects of the old engines to make them more reliable. The challanges that a person would have to deal with to accomplish this of course will vary depending on a) the type engines; V-12s, large radials, etc, b) how extensive a job scope; actual manufacturing, complete overhaul, light repairs, & heavy repairs, c) size of operation, & d) STC development & application, these are just a few. Now first you have to have the money to put behind this, with a business plan that includes a projected growth rate. Equipment & a suitable place to perform this operation. Insurance, man you got to have really good insurance these days. If something bad happens the FAA will only be a portion of the concern, the lawyers will tear you a new one. Speaking of the FAA. Never consider anything before you get a good working relationship with the local FSDO and Engineering Branch. Whether you are going to do this on a Powerplant rating or create a Certified Repair Station, you have to know the regs & how your local FAA will interpret them. Also along the lines of Repair Station, I read a NPRM the other day, that is proposing widespread change coming down the line for CRS's. (don't ask me to explain, I gotta read it about a hundred more times before I understand it). I could go on, but I think this may help you a little. Good Luck
Robbie
Robbie
Last edited by Robbie Stuart on Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:29 am
Hey guys help me out here, Isn't there a engine shop that is now making brand new PMA'D cylinder assy. for some of the more popular Pratt & Whitney engines? Could it been said engine shop in the NW?
Scott.....
Scott.....
Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:56 am
Repair Stations - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Comments
Link
The FAA proposes to amend the regulations for repair stations by revising the system of ratings and requiring repair stations to establish a quality program. The FAA also proposes additional changes critical to maintaining safety. These include requiring a repair station to maintain a capability list, designating a chief inspector, and having permanent housing for its facilities, equipment, materials, and personnel. In addition, this proposal also specifies those instances when the FAA may deny a repair station certificate. The proposal looks at the particular cases where a previously held certificate has been revoked. Lastly, the FAA proposes to clarify recent revisions to the repair station regulations. This action is necessary to reflect changes in aviation technology and repair station business practices. DATES: Comments must be received by March 1, 2007.
Link