Why Aircraft Engines Quit

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by RyanB, Apr 11, 2021.

  1. Bell206

    Bell206 En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2017
    Messages:
    4,310
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bell206
    Never pretended to be an expert in your case. But have been paid as one in other circles. Regardless, you continue to dance around the elephant room with your conspiracy theories and what not. So who installed the temp probe in the cooler? You?

    Seems with all your evidence of a cover-up (x2) by TCM, FAA, and NTSB, you would have taken your engine once released and had your own analysis done. Why not? It's done all the time in the civil litigation world.
     
    Doc Holliday likes this.
  2. flyingron

    flyingron Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    20,457
    Location:
    Catawba, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FlyingRon
    I did take the engine (well I had it shipped to the shop that was working on installing the new engine, just on the chance that there was some accessory or piece of baffling I needed for the replacement engine). As I pointed out, the mechanic and I went over what was left of the engine after Continental got done with it.

    Why didn't I pay for further analysis? What would have been the point? I was already out $60K for the new engine. Doubtful I would have made a case against anybody with what was left even if I was so inclined.

    I didn't say there was a conspiracy theory with the FAA and the NTSB, just that I think the policy of not allowing me to be a party sucked and resulted in a NET LOSS of safety.
    I do believe Continental scapegoated some imaginary person on the temp sender to avoid having to explain why a fairly recent and well-maintained engine handgrenated. As I said, there's stuff in the report that are clearly WRONG (with regard to overhauls, etc...). I have no idea where they invented that stuff. I have severe doubts about the rest as it doesn't fit the observed behavior in the failure sequence (or the fact that if that was a problem, why hadn't it leaked a drop in 900 hours and then suddenly pumped 9 quarts of oil overboard in 45 minutes?
     
  3. Doc Holliday

    Doc Holliday Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Messages:
    2,040
    Location:
    Tombstone
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Doc Holliday
    So who installed the temp probe?
     
  4. Bell206

    Bell206 En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2017
    Messages:
    4,310
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bell206
    There's nothing imaginary about it. That temperature probe didn't come from TCM. Someone had to cut the safety on the TCM plug that was installed from the factory and install your Navion temp bulb in that port and safety it when that engine went in your aircraft. It is what it is.
     
  5. flyingron

    flyingron Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    20,457
    Location:
    Catawba, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FlyingRon
    There is no Navion "temp bulb". The oil temperature probe was the one Beech put in that cooler at the factory and it fed a temp sensor that said "Beechraft" on it. But again, there was six years and 800+ hours on the engine since that work was done. No sign of any oil leaks.
     
  6. Doc Holliday

    Doc Holliday Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Messages:
    2,040
    Location:
    Tombstone
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Doc Holliday
    So, the entire time you owned that engine, the part in question was never removed. Am I reading this correct? The previous owner installed and safety wired it?
     
  7. David Megginson

    David Megginson Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,595
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Canuck
    And, where relevant, remember to switch tanks from time to time. :)
     
  8. Bell206

    Bell206 En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2017
    Messages:
    4,310
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bell206
    Which one is correct?
    So Beech removed the Continental factory plug and installed the "Beech" temp probe in the cooler? Is there a record showing that?
    Sheet happens. Perfectly good items fail, leak, whatever with no warning. Perhaps it remained good until during the cylinder replacement or last engine wash it got disturbed and bingo it leaked. Regardless, with the safety wire still attached it leaked with 30PSI of air applied to the cooler during the tear down.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2021
    RyanB likes this.
  9. flyingron

    flyingron Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    20,457
    Location:
    Catawba, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FlyingRon
    Eh? Both are the same.
    Yep, standard Bonanza installation. A guy in South Africa bought a brand new A36, flew it to Tradewinds for a turbo prop conversion. I got the the engine and everything related to it that wasn't needed for the turboprop conversion. As I said, all my engine instruments were Beechcraft ones. To get this to work I have a 14-28V Dc-to-DC converter as the Navion is 14V.

    All this went away with the new engine. I have an MVP-50 now (in addition to the 830). What is different is that my new IO-550 is nowhere near as nice as the Bonanza "Platinum" engine.

    ANd it got disturbed and it still took three hours to start leaking... I still have sincere doubts about the supposed inspection that nobody other than person with a pecuniary interest in it inspect. By the time the engine was returned, Continental and already disassembled the thing they claim they had isolated the cause to.
     
    AKBill likes this.
  10. Bell206

    Bell206 En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2017
    Messages:
    4,310
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bell206
    Maybe it’s my math. You said:
    That works out to be 17 years at 833 hrs since any work was performed on the cooler. Then you state:
    How are they the same, 17 yrs vs 6 yrs, both at 800+ hrs? So you see my confusion. Ironically that’s the same confusion date-wise you pointed out the NTSB got wrong in their report.

    FYI: the NTSB participated in the tear down at TCM. So that is not accurate. This information is readily available in the public record to include the name of the NTSB rep who participated in case you wish to contact her.

    You are aware they are required by NTSB procedure to disassemble the complete engine? There is also a TCM accident tear down form they use to guide them during these investigations. With pictures. Did you request a copy of that?

    However, none of this accounts for the safetied temp probe being loose and leaking. Correct?

    But after reading through the reports, your posts blaming TCM for the failure/cover-up of your engine, and dodging the temp probe remove/install questions it kind of moves this narrative in one direction.

    If you really want my take, given the proximity of the temp probe to the #2 cylinder, my SWAG is the probe was removed during the #2 cylinder replacement for access (probably to swing a cylinder wrench) and was not torqued when reinstalled. And it probably started to seep oil shortly thereafter which would account for the oil staining on the cooler housing and surrounding area that several of us noted. That was 2 hours prior to the incident flight. Correct?

    Perhaps a discussion with the person who performed the cylinder replacement might be order to see if they removed the temp probe?

    Regardless, I could never quite understand why you absorbed the entire cost of a new engine without a fight. Most people wouldn’t unless there was a personal connection to the event. Reminds me of another PoA related accident with a 150 where the blame was put on cylinder bolts instead workmanship due to a personal relationship. But at least those owners tried to sue the bolt vendor to get their money back.
     
    Doc Holliday and RyanB like this.
  11. Tarheelpilot

    Tarheelpilot Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,224
    Location:
    North Carolina once again.
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Tarheelpilot
    You never should have allowed the FAA or NTSB to take the engine. Then you would not have had these issues. It’s your private property. They can’t take it from you.
     
  12. Doc Holliday

    Doc Holliday Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Messages:
    2,040
    Location:
    Tombstone
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Doc Holliday
    The FAA certainly can inspect the engine upon request. See 49 US Code 44709.

    Furthermore the NTSB can use Title 49, Subtitle B, Chapter 8, Part 831, Subpart A and Subpart B to do their investigation.

     
    Bell206 likes this.
  13. Tarheelpilot

    Tarheelpilot Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,224
    Location:
    North Carolina once again.
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Tarheelpilot
    Yeah and if you don’t comply they ***** a lot and go away. At least that was my experience.
     
  14. Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

    Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    13,335
    Location:
    DXO124009
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Light and Sporty Guy
  15. mondtster

    mondtster En-Route

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,495
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    mondtster
    We've done several lube system tests at work that end up similar, but instead of just draining all the oil at once it is methodically removed a quart at a time to take measurements and see what happens. Just like this test, the engines have all made more power for a while once the oil is drained out. They usually have lasted longer than this one did though.

    Of course there are the engines that are full of oil that still spit a rod out, but that's a different story...
     
  16. flyingron

    flyingron Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    20,457
    Location:
    Catawba, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FlyingRon
    Actually, we were both ron 2004-2016 is only 12 years. But that's how long it was. The hours was the same in both 833.
     
  17. AKBill

    AKBill En-Route

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2014
    Messages:
    3,288
    Location:
    Juneau, AK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    AKBill
    My guess is the most GA engine failures are improper fuel management...:(
     
  18. Doc Holliday

    Doc Holliday Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Messages:
    2,040
    Location:
    Tombstone
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Doc Holliday
    Or cheap owners who won't spend money on preventative maintenance.
     
  19. AKBill

    AKBill En-Route

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2014
    Messages:
    3,288
    Location:
    Juneau, AK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    AKBill
    That is the same as improper fuel management. Check the fuel and do the maintenance when your life depends on it
     
  20. Dan Thomas

    Dan Thomas Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7,648
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dan Thomas
    Maybe 20 years ago AOPA published an article on engine failure accidents. The biggest cause, by far, was carb ice. Pilots aren't properly trained in what causes it, the atmospheric conditions conducive to it, and how to handle it and what to expect.

    Next, IIRC, was fuel exhaustion or starvation. Exhaustion is running out of fuel. Starvation is having fuel that doesn't get to the engine: mismanagement.

    Oil starvation, caused by no oil or a busted old oil hose.

    Catastrophic structural failure of the engine was a distant fifth. Swallowing a valve, throwing a rod, blowing a cylinder off the case, breaking a crank or gear.

    Partial power losses? Magnetos, usually, IMHO. No 500-hour inspections. Run them until failure, which isn't really smart in an airplane. If you're really oblivious and unlucky you might have both of them fail on the same flight.
     
    AKBill likes this.
  21. David Megginson

    David Megginson Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,595
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Canuck
    Carb ice is probably becoming less common as the older Cessnas with the early Continental "ice machine" engines make up a smaller percentage of the training fleet. It can happen with any carbureted engine — I actually experienced it once with my Lycoming O-320 — but the carb venturis on those old Continental-powered 150 and 172 trainers ice up like clockwork.
     
  22. Dan Thomas

    Dan Thomas Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7,648
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dan Thomas
    The 172s with the O-300 Continental had the carb mounted the same way as a Lycomings: on the oil sump. It still ices up, and Lycomings do, too, in spite of the popular myth that they're ice-proof.

    The O-200 and it's ancestors, the A-65, A-75, A-80, C-85 and C-90 are all bad icemakers. Their carbs are separated from the crankcase by an induction manifold popularly known as a "spider."