PDA

View Full Version : Old engines, future?



Ernie
09-13-2011, 07:09 PM
So I would love to have a Waco RNF. Warner engine. Fewer and fewer parts, fewer and fewer places willing to overhaul. The Wrights are getting close to the same place and a host of other engines, are worse off. What's going to happen in the future. Will these airplanes only fly with a machinist standing by? Internal parts can (maybe) be made by automotive shops. Crankshafts? Cylinders? Mags?

What is the future for these jewels of the past?

Ernie

rosiejerryrosie
09-14-2011, 08:11 AM
Boat anchors?

Adam Smith
09-14-2011, 12:03 PM
Here's a website that can give you some hope:http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/oberursel-engine/oberursel-ur-ii-rotary-engine-build-history If it's possible to build a WW1 rotary from scratch, I think pretty much anything is technically possible. The cost is another matter. Plentiful, cheap supplies of military spares will be a thing of the past.

JimRice85
09-17-2011, 12:48 PM
That same concern is what has kept me out of a Monocoupe. I want one with a radial, not a horizontally opposed.

DanChief
10-13-2011, 06:45 AM
I'm learning to be creative and have a good, patient, understanding A&P/IA to work with.

I have a Lycoming )-145-B2 in my Chief, and some parts are rare. There are several engines sitting in hangars which may yield some parts. Some can be manufactured -- there's still adequate technical data.

Tom Downey
10-27-2011, 07:52 PM
I had no problems getting all the parts I needed to overhaul my Warner 165

Mike Switzer
10-27-2011, 09:11 PM
Hey Tom, how ya doing


I recently tuned up a Continental from 1952, had to hunt for parts...


(T'was in an Oliver tractor)

I need a sleeve for another... That's harder to find

Aaron Novak
10-28-2011, 07:41 AM
Piston engines can always be overhauled, and parts manufactured for them. However dont expect there to be a catalog of parts, its going to be up to the overhaul shop ( or individual ) to do the "engineering" on replacement parts. At least the FAA is now able to release the drawings for older engines I am told.

Tom Downey
10-28-2011, 09:15 AM
Piston engines can always be overhauled, and parts manufactured for them. However dont expect there to be a catalog of parts, its going to be up to the overhaul shop ( or individual ) to do the "engineering" on replacement parts. At least the FAA is now able to release the drawings for older engines I am told.

Would you mind giving the reference for those drawings, what data base are they in? I have never heard of the FAA keeping any drawings for engines.

Aaron Novak
10-28-2011, 02:21 PM
I believe its something you have to request from them. Yes the FAA does have the drawings, engines, aircraft, everything that was certified, I have heard some have been destroyed over the years, but that the collection is pretty through. I have actually had good luck getting old drawings right from the manufacturers.

Tom Downey
11-02-2011, 08:43 PM
I believe its something you have to request from them. Yes the FAA does have the drawings, engines, aircraft, everything that was certified, I have heard some have been destroyed over the years, but that the collection is pretty through. I have actually had good luck getting old drawings right from the manufacturers.

All drawings that the FAA holds are propitiatory and can not be given out with out the owners permission

Aaron Novak
11-03-2011, 07:42 AM
All drawings that the FAA holds are propitiatory and can not be given out with out the owners permission

I was under the impression that the drawings were to become public if there had not been any activity with them for some certain length of time, and that this was a recent change. Meaning manily for engine companys that no longer exist, or the very early engines of current companies. Now of course if the rights have been bought and are current, thats different I.E. Franklin.

P.S. Quick search brought up this exact subject in the US supreme court, and indeed through the FOIA the drawings held by the FAA for the typical antique are no longer considered "secret" or of military importantance, and therefore are public. Apparently it was a long and drawn out legal battle since 2002, but the final decision was made this year.

Tom Downey
11-04-2011, 11:39 PM
I was under the impression that the drawings were to become public if there had not been any activity with them for some certain length of time, and that this was a recent change. Meaning manily for engine companys that no longer exist, or the very early engines of current companies. Now of course if the rights have been bought and are current, thats different I.E. Franklin.

P.S. Quick search brought up this exact subject in the US supreme court, and indeed through the FOIA the drawings held by the FAA for the typical antique are no longer considered "secret" or of military importantance, and therefore are public. Apparently it was a long and drawn out legal battle since 2002, but the final decision was made this year.
that's great,, but it really applies to dormant STCs that are not supported by anyone, but most old engines we see today like my Warner, the type certificates are owned by some one.. and some charge for the blue prints and other data, when you have that data its pretty simple to use FAR 21.9 (a) (5) to certify the part.

The FAA has added guidance that the AC 43-13, can be used as approved data to repair aircraft that has no supporting manuals or prior approved data. problem is, most do.

AndyNZ
11-08-2011, 11:48 PM
Yes, our technical ability and understanding, the resources available to us, are not an issue. We are held back by the monetary paradigm we live in. The ultimate end in the future, will be purely the cost in my opinion. The price tag is what holds us back as a species...tragically, this has no relevance to what we can ultimately achieve in all kinds of fields of endeavour.

uavmx
11-09-2011, 03:37 AM
while I understand it's important to put these documents out there, I wonder if it will open up some more headaches. For example, if you attain a drawing, for lets say a piston. Can you then manufacture that piston and sell it? Who "owns" the data? I wonder if any of these sort of issues and liabilities were addressed?

nc10730
11-12-2011, 01:28 AM
I have a Monocoupe 110 with the 125 Warner. The problem I have run into is guys that have the parts won't use them or sell them to those of us who will. We are left to manufacture our own to keep flying. Since metalurgy has improved much in 80 years we can easily make parts that far exceed the quality what was made in 1930. We can do it relativley inexpensively with CNC machines. If a group of us gets together and "engineers" cylinders for our Warners, Kinners or what have you, then we can have brand new parts that will last longer than the originals. Me, I like the idea of cylinder barrels made of 4140 and nitrided, nice forged pistons and titanium valves. Might not be original but I want to fly the hell out of my airplane and not worry about the guts coming unglued.

Tom Downey
11-12-2011, 10:18 AM
while I understand it's important to put these documents out there, I wonder if it will open up some more headaches. For example, if you attain a drawing, for lets say a piston. Can you then manufacture that piston and sell it? Who "owns" the data? I wonder if any of these sort of issues and liabilities were addressed?

Before you can sell the part you must have FAA parts manufacturing authority.

CAVU Mark
11-12-2011, 10:25 AM
Before you can sell the part you must have FAA parts manufacturing authority. You can manufacture a part for your own aircraft as long as it is based upon reliable information, i.e., duplicating a part or the drawing for the part. This is according to Mike Busch A&P, IA who presents on the EAA online seminars. A logbook entry about the method of manufacture is required. You are right about selling them, FMA, required.

Tom Downey
11-12-2011, 10:31 AM
while I understand it's important to put these documents out there, I wonder if it will open up some more headaches. For example, if you attain a drawing, for lets say a piston. Can you then manufacture that piston and sell it? Who "owns" the data? I wonder if any of these sort of issues and liabilities were addressed?

I am involved at this time in trying to get the FAA to use the data that was used on my F24 to upgrade the engine to a Warner 165, on a different aircraft. The FAA considers this information intellectual property of the DPE/engineer that developed the engineering. and will not use it with out their permission. I believe this is as it should be, so now we have altered course and are trying to gain a STC for all F24s to use the 165 under this STC..

Tom Downey
11-12-2011, 11:09 AM
You can manufacture a part for your own aircraft as long as it is based upon reliable information, i.e., duplicating a part or the drawing for the part. This is according to Mike Busch A&P, IA who presents on the EAA online seminars. A logbook entry about the method of manufacture is required. You are right about selling them, FMA, required.

Mike Busch gets his reference from FAR 21.9 (a) (5) and AC 23-27 look them up on the FAA web site FAA.Gov

oowiee
11-13-2011, 01:48 PM
And I agree completely! Trouble I have is so many of the younger A&P guys don't understand about the antiques. All the old guys are retired and are burned out. I'm searching now for someone to rebuild certified engine that understands these are worth saving at a reasonable price. W

Tom Downey
11-13-2011, 08:20 PM
What engine?? I'm old but not totally retired :)

uavmx
11-14-2011, 02:25 AM
And I agree completely! Trouble I have is so many of the younger A&P guys don't understand about the antiques. All the old guys are retired and are burned out. I'm searching now for someone to rebuild certified engine that understands these are worth saving at a reasonable price. W

Here we go again, old folks generalizing about the youth!! First off there aren't many young A&P's because the industry doesn't make it worth joining, but that's another subject. :-)

Secondly, they are antiques for a reason and it's not something people come by on a regular basis. How can you learn about them having never been around them. I don't think you would have a hard time finding an A&P to go down a path with you. Is that what you are thinking of? Starting an engine shop focusing on antique engines?

And what's a "reasonable cost" because anything IO is $20-30k to have a shop rebuild, considering the amount of machining equipment you would need to build the one off parts, and the FAA approval to sell those parts (don't know how hard that is to get, or how expensive).

In A&P school and I had an oppurtunity to rebuild a radial engine....it's a PAIN IN THE ASS, much harder then anything Opposed. It was cool, and it was an extra curricular thing that a couple off us students did on our own time. Granted, we didn't have all the tools we probably would have made it easier, we had to adapt and overcome....


where are you located?

oowiee
11-14-2011, 09:28 AM
My statement was kinda tongue in cheek. There just seems not to be guys here willing to work on antiques. I'm in Ar. and it's been a long time since I've messed with aircraft etc. so you can imagine my surprise with todays prices. I had a C-100 rebuilt in the late 60's for $500. lol

Tom Downey
11-14-2011, 03:04 PM
Here we go again, old folks generalizing about the youth!! First off there aren't many young A&P's because the industry doesn't make it worth joining, but that's another subject. :-)

Secondly, they are antiques for a reason and it's not something people come by on a regular basis. How can you learn about them having never been around them. I don't think you would have a hard time finding an A&P to go down a path with you. Is that what you are thinking of? Starting an engine shop focusing on antique engines?

And what's a "reasonable cost" because anything IO is $20-30k to have a shop rebuild, considering the amount of machining equipment you would need to build the one off parts, and the FAA approval to sell those parts (don't know how hard that is to get, or how expensive).

In A&P school and I had an oppurtunity to rebuild a radial engine....it's a PAIN IN THE ASS, much harder then anything Opposed. It was cool, and it was an extra curricular thing that a couple off us students did on our own time. Granted, we didn't have all the tools we probably would have made it easier, we had to adapt and overcome....


where are you located?

I have none of the equipment to do any machining that is required to be done yet I do complete overhauls, But I can ship to many shops that do..

Tom Downey
11-14-2011, 03:12 PM
My statement was kinda tongue in cheek. There just seems not to be guys here willing to work on antiques. I'm in Ar. and it's been a long time since I've messed with aircraft etc. so you can imagine my surprise with todays prices. I had a C-100 rebuilt in the late 60's for $500. lol

The last overhaul on my Warner 165 was $785.00 this time I have less than $600 total in parts. dissemble, inspect, clean, and reassemble with a new oil feed bushing, two new mag drive gear bushings, two new mag drive gears, new gaskets, 12 new master rod bushings, 6 new articulating rod pins, and 1 new master rod insert bearing lapped to size.

Tom Downey
11-14-2011, 03:15 PM
The kids in this industry know more about computers, cnc machining, and reverse engineering that most geezers ever will.

Aaron Novak
11-15-2011, 08:03 AM
The kids in this industry know more about computers, cnc machining, and reverse engineering that most geezers ever will.

Perhaps, however they know less and less about engine design and mechanical engineering in general, as that is a dying art and vital knowledge to even be able to reverse engineer an existing part. Bottom line is that any engine part can be designed and made under the direction of someone with intimate knowledge metalurgy, the engine and its workings....on an engineering level.

Tom Downey
11-15-2011, 10:40 AM
Perhaps, however they know less and less about engine design and mechanical engineering in general, as that is a dying art and vital knowledge to even be able to reverse engineer an existing part. Bottom line is that any engine part can be designed and made under the direction of someone with intimate knowledge metalurgy, the engine and its workings....on an engineering level.

It's simply a matter of education, they will learn what they need to know, and the data is available to them more readily than any time before, and the research is easier than ever.

Aaron Novak
11-15-2011, 02:07 PM
It's simply a matter of education, they will learn what they need to know, and the data is available to them more readily than any time before, and the research is easier than ever.

Tom,
I hope you dont mean using the internet when you say "research" :) Honestly about 1% of what is known in the field of engine design is published "online".

Tom Downey
11-15-2011, 03:16 PM
Tom,
I hope you dont mean using the internet when you say "research" :) Honestly about 1% of what is known in the field of engine design is published "online".

That is because it is known as intellectual property. it's out there, you just have to buy it. as far as supporting the old engines there is plenty of data already in circulation.

Aaron Novak
11-15-2011, 05:43 PM
That is because it is known as intellectual property. it's out there, you just have to buy it. as far as supporting the old engines there is plenty of data already in circulation.

Eh I beg to differ on the point of being able to buy information. Typically the experts dont publish anything. Do you work in engine design for a living?

Tom Downey
11-15-2011, 07:56 PM
Eh I beg to differ on the point of being able to buy information. Typically the experts dont publish anything. Do you work in engine design for a living? design,,, no,, repair yes.

Aaron Novak
11-16-2011, 11:22 AM
design,,, no,, repair yes.

Ok. Well honestly there is a large information gap between the design world and the "outside" world, just like in any industry. We try to bridge it when we can especially with fun stuff like old engines. So I think "anyone" could reverse engineer a part, no, not at all. You can reverse engineer dimensions, and basic material specs, however material processing is one of those details that borders on impossible to reverse engineer. The devil is in the details. Give the old engine part to a group well versed in engine design and materials, and thats a different story. Or look at it this way, if it was easy to reverse engineer, the engines coming from china might actually be decent.

Tom Downey
11-16-2011, 11:49 AM
With the type clubs we have today and the ability to contact many different people/organizations involved in restoration and repair of old aircraft and engines we are now able to do in a couple days what took years in days gone by.
With links to the FAA and the ability to converse with your FAA engineering staff at several FSDOs at the same time, we have been able to get a 337 authorized in less than a day by passing data by e-mail, and FAX.

MY point in this thread was we have the ability these day to gain authority and pass data that we were never able to do in days long ago. Finding the blue prints and other data to gain authorization to manufacture parts is easier than many believe, and the kids entering this occupation know how to do this better than most older A&P-IAs.

We in the repair part of the industry have no need to design any thing, all we must do is duplicate. and prove it is as good as OEM that is not difficult with a blue print.

For a good example the Fairchild Club has a CD they produced that has over 5000 blue prints on it, that gives the details of all the parts of the F-22 and the F-24. When I need to prove any thing to my PMI at FSDO all I need to do is take the CD to Office Max and have the blue print cleaned up printed. The Warner engine has a parts supplier that has all the prints for the Warner series and the Jacobs engines and several others.

All we need to know any more is Who's got What, and we can get it in a couple days

Http://www.whidbey.com/fairchild-nc19143/

Aaron Novak
11-17-2011, 08:24 AM
Ok I see where you are coming from. My point is that you cant just hand an old factory drawing to a supplier and expect the same part as was made 60 years ago. All the information needed to make the part is NOT on the drawing, never has been and never will be. So thats why I am saying that not just anyone can take a drawing and have a part made, and expect it to be OK. Now of course its also dependent on the type of part, material, etc. A simple bushing from a copper based alloy should be straightforward. A ground bearing race for a roller type bearing, much more difficult to reverse engineer if it was even possible. A drawing for an exhaust valve may indicate the materials and dimensions, and if it were a multi piece valve may say "spin weld" or "flash weld" or just "weld". The details of the welding such as rpm, inertial loading and force ( if spun welded ) are not on the drawing usually. Since every supplier has its own ways of welding, if you just handed over the 60 year old drawing, they might make a part that while technicly meeting the drawing, might be unsatisfactory for use. Thats what I mean when I say that all the process engineering is missing, and so having someone experienced in the design field of the same components can be very helpful when it comes to reverse engineering it.

Tom Downey
11-17-2011, 11:38 AM
Ok I see where you are coming from. My point is that you cant just hand an old factory drawing to a supplier and expect the same part as was made 60 years ago. All the information needed to make the part is NOT on the drawing, never has been and never will be. So thats why I am saying that not just anyone can take a drawing and have a part made, and expect it to be OK. Now of course its also dependent on the type of part, material, etc. A simple bushing from a copper based alloy should be straightforward. A ground bearing race for a roller type bearing, much more difficult to reverse engineer if it was even possible. A drawing for an exhaust valve may indicate the materials and dimensions, and if it were a multi piece valve may say "spin weld" or "flash weld" or just "weld". The details of the welding such as rpm, inertial loading and force ( if spun welded ) are not on the drawing usually. Since every supplier has its own ways of welding, if you just handed over the 60 year old drawing, they might make a part that while technicly meeting the drawing, might be unsatisfactory for use. Thats what I mean when I say that all the process engineering is missing, and so having someone experienced in the design field of the same components can be very helpful when it comes to reverse engineering it.

I believe you are off on a tangent to the subject at hand, " the continued airworthiness of old engines". Under the FAA's advice in several ACs they require the new part to be equal to, or better than, the OEM part. "better than" is a qualifying statement in which many A&P-IAs see as a modification, That's a different issue. during Restoration or rebuilding an old aircraft or engine we seldom if any time need to do a complete reverse engineering of any part. So when we do need a complete reverse engineering, and the part can't be made in the same fashion, the field approval system is used to gain authorization to use the part being made, properly documenting the new process used is important to gaining approval.

Many times the original manufacturer used off the shelf parts also used elsewhere in the industry. If you remember the Franklin engine club used tractor bearings in the rebuilding of the Franklin 165, these engine were in service many hours until the FAA found out they used a dead A&P-IA signature to return to service, that got us an AD for any engine built by these folks, point being, these parts do work, and can be used when properly documented.

many times the Illustrated parts breakdown can be used as approved data to return to service with only a maintenance record entry, such as the skins on an early Cessna 100/200 series, the IPB gives the part number, but says "made from (old designation for the aluminum)" and we know that converts to the "new designation", so we manufacturer the new skin from the aluminum called out in the IPB. and record the replacement of the skin as a repair of a larger unit.

Getting back to subject, many new processes can and are used as excepted shop practices now that were never heard of in the days these old engines were manufactured, but as pointed out these processes are not cheap.

Aaron Novak
11-18-2011, 08:26 AM
Hey Tom,
I guess maybe where I was going was not clear, its been known to happen. My basic point is that just because an engine component gets approved by any one of XXX methods by the FAA, does not mean that the part is as good as the original for the application. Thats not to say it CANT be as good or better than the original. So really there are 2 issues, coming up the the replacement part and the associated engineering, and getting FAA approval. The Approval is the easy part as typically the person doing to engineering qualification work should know more about the component and its application than the FAA representitive.

Tom Downey
11-18-2011, 10:27 AM
Hey Tom,
I guess maybe where I was going was not clear, its been known to happen. My basic point is that just because an engine component gets approved by any one of XXX methods by the FAA, does not mean that the part is as good as the original for the application. Thats not to say it CANT be as good or better than the original. So really there are 2 issues, coming up the the replacement part and the associated engineering, and getting FAA approval. The Approval is the easy part as typically the person doing to engineering qualification work should know more about the component and its application than the FAA representitive.

That's why we have DERs

We now have materials and machining process far superior than they did prior to WWII, I don't see any problem making parts now that will be better than New old Stock.

welding in a worn bearing bore and remachining a new surface is pretty easy with the robot welders and CNC machines we have today. In fact Chuck Ney will still do Franklin cases, It will cost you the tear down and set up time, but he will do them. It will be a very strange occasion when you find any thing exotic in these old engines, It usually the cost, not the ability that shuts us down.

Aaron Novak
11-18-2011, 01:03 PM
Tom,
I wouldnt expect a DER to know about the inteaction of valve tip and rocker materials, would you? And the difficulty is also relative to the type of engine. An A-65 or Franklin should be a lot more straigntforward than a TC Wright engine. Dont get me wrong, I love making parts for old engines, however I have seen a lot of poorly made parts that were due to the individuals lack of understanding and knowledge about the part they were trying to duplicate. Take a crankshaft for instance. Sure you can measure it for dimensions, thats simple, materials can be scanned with a GS or an SEM ( both is better ), thermal metal treatments can be estimated. However what about mechanical treatments like shot peening? What size was the shot? What pressure? What angle? How long? How many times? This is where you would make multiple parts, and try various types of shot peening, cut up the cranks and compare them to a cut up original. Under the eye of an expert metalurgist this would still only give you a "best guess". This project undertaken by a group of people experienced in crankshaft design would at least have a decent chance of working. Done by anyone else would be a risky business. So what does this come down to? It aint gonna be cheap! :)

Tom Downey
11-19-2011, 12:18 AM
Tom,
I wouldnt expect a DER to know about the inteaction of valve tip and rocker materials, would you? And the difficulty is also relative to the type of engine. An A-65 or Franklin should be a lot more straigntforward than a TC Wright engine. Dont get me wrong, I love making parts for old engines, however I have seen a lot of poorly made parts that were due to the individuals lack of understanding and knowledge about the part they were trying to duplicate. Take a crankshaft for instance. Sure you can measure it for dimensions, thats simple, materials can be scanned with a GS or an SEM ( both is better ), thermal metal treatments can be estimated. However what about mechanical treatments like shot peening? What size was the shot? What pressure? What angle? How long? How many times? This is where you would make multiple parts, and try various types of shot peening, cut up the cranks and compare them to a cut up original. Under the eye of an expert metalurgist this would still only give you a "best guess". This project undertaken by a group of people experienced in crankshaft design would at least have a decent chance of working. Done by anyone else would be a risky business. So what does this come down to? It aint gonna be cheap! :)

Most cases during overhaul of an early engine we do not see exotic materials, You may in some post war big radials, but the Jake, Warner or Continental have nothing fancy to cope with, the cranks and cam rings are usually in good shape, if not they have methods to metalize back to standard and regrind, most we see are over sized cylinders and worn pistons both are getting difficult to find and expensive.

The P&W 985 / 1340 are still factory supported so no big deal there.

designing isn't a big deal in the daily grind of GA

Aaron Novak
11-19-2011, 02:13 PM
Metalizing crankshafts??

Tom Downey
11-19-2011, 08:03 PM
1125
Metalizing crankshafts??

could you tell which had been and which had not? besides we have bearings that go -.008" under on the crank main bearing. plus these old cranks aren't even nitirded.

I have 2 on my bench now that had a spun bearing, and will clean up at -.006" and will have fitted bearings ready to go this week. their value? $15-$25K but neither is for sale.

It's never the ability, it's always the cost.1124

Tom Downey
11-19-2011, 08:11 PM
More pictures of the Warner 165

11261127112811291130113111321133

David Darnell
11-19-2011, 10:45 PM
Well, I'll take a little offense :P to the comment about the "young kids" not knowing anything about the antique engines. I'm a "old fart" and haven't messed with a radial, V engine, Inline, etc since A&P school 30 years ago. Would hate for someone to come to me because of my being older- the "kid" has had less time to forget everything!

Aaron Novak
11-21-2011, 08:43 AM
1125

could you tell which had been and which had not? besides we have bearings that go -.008" under on the crank main bearing. plus these old cranks aren't even nitirded.

I have 2 on my bench now that had a spun bearing, and will clean up at -.006" and will have fitted bearings ready to go this week. their value? $15-$25K but neither is for sale.

It's never the ability, it's always the cost.1124

Hey Tom,
To the naked eye maybe not, however there are ways to easily tell. Personally, building up of a crankshaft by any means is a scary deal to me, especially in the repair world. I have never seen a repair shop that used anything but plasma arc spray welding, thermal spray welding, spray and fuse, or some form of arc welding for building up non aviation crankshafts, and none of those processes impress me. Going undersize I dont see as anything abnormal. I guess I was just supprized to hear anyone building up aircraft cranks. I assume that by building up a crank it is considered a major alteration?

Tom Downey
11-21-2011, 10:13 AM
[QUOTE=Aaron Novak;6361]Hey Tom,
To the naked eye maybe not, however there are ways to easily tell.

In the field? in a running engine? the only thing that would trigger any investigation of that type, would be a smoking hole, But no worries, we would do this legal if and when we need to.

I assume that by building up a crank it is considered a major alteration? [QUOTE]

Most definitely
(2) Powerplant major repairs. Repairs of the following parts of an engine and repairs of the following types, are powerplant major repairs:
(iii) Special repairs to structural engine parts by welding, plating, metalizing, or other methods.

Remember when I said it is always the cost, not the ability? the cheaper route to repair an under sized crank, is to gain authority to go under size and manufacture a bearing to fit.

Aaron Novak
11-22-2011, 08:45 AM
So have you been using built up cranks? Or was that just a hypothetical? If you have been using them, what engineering basis did you use to determine if the repair was suitable?

Tom Downey
11-22-2011, 10:37 AM
So have you been using built up cranks? Or was that just a hypothetical? If you have been using them, what engineering basis did you use to determine if the repair was suitable?

You are asking for intellectual property that will not be posted on the internet.

When you bring the engine in for rebuild, we will discuss what needs to be done, how it is to be used and where you are going to get the parts.

READ FAR 21.9 (a) (5)

JimRice85
11-22-2011, 10:39 AM
I know of a shop in San Antonio that metalizes cranks for about anything. He has done a great deal of work in various racing applications and has had no problem. I know he has also metalized some Franklin cranks for folks, but there is no paperwork on the cranks. He has also straightened some bent crank flanges for experimental applications and they have run to TBO without issue.

The ability is there.....gaining approval, that is a whole new ballgame.

He once had a FSDO Inspector show up at his shop demanding a bunch of stuff and to inspect the shop. Since he is not a pilot nor A&P and his business has nothing to do with aviation, he told them to go pound sand. When she protested he was working on airplane engine components, he told here, "I work on crankshafts. I don't know what they go to. A customer brings me a crank and specs. I build/rebuild it to the spec and give it back. I don't know and I don't care what it comes from." They never came back. Of course, if you have any aircraft part which goes through there, I'm sure the FAA would condemn them. I know some experimental folks have used him extensively and his results have been outstanding.

Tom Downey
11-22-2011, 10:56 AM
I know of a shop in San Antonio that metalizes cranks for about anything. He has done a great deal of work in various racing applications and has had no problem. I know he has also metalized some Franklin cranks for folks, but there is no paperwork on the cranks. He has also straightened some bent crank flanges for experimental applications and they have run to TBO without issue.

The ability is there.....gaining approval, that is a whole new ballgame.

He once had a FSDO Inspector show up at his shop demanding a bunch of stuff and to inspect the shop. Since he is not a pilot nor A&P and his business has nothing to do with aviation, he told them to go pound sand. When she protested he was working on airplane engine components, he told here, "I work on crankshafts. I don't know what they go to. A customer brings me a crank and specs. I build/rebuild it to the spec and give it back. I don't know and I don't care what it comes from." They never came back. Of course, if you have any aircraft part which goes through there, I'm sure the FAA would condemn them. I know some experimental folks have used him extensively and his results have been outstanding.

Very good point Jim, If you as an owner of an old aircraft engine to be used on a EXP aircraft, what restrictions does the overhauler need to adhere to? Are we required to comply with FAR 42.3?

Every one must remember, every new process has been approved thru the exp program. When we ask the FAA for approval of a major modification most often, that will get you an EXP airworthiness certificate for testing time. The data that was approved during this process is intellectual property of the developer, and can be used on any aircraft that it applies to. This engineering data is not an STC, it is simply engineering data that you can use to request a field approval on any aircraft/engine/prop.

Aaron Novak
11-22-2011, 02:17 PM
Tom,
IF my posts seem offensive, I do not mean them that way. Mostly I am curious how others are presenting their methods of alteration and modification, and to what extent they are going from an engineering basis. I.E. is there component level testing? FEA? Do you hire someone to do the calculations, material compatibility etc, or do you do it yourself? Again, mostly curious from about the process and how it has worked for you. The trouble I have run into, is that in many cases, by the time you put in all the effort and resources to validate ( to myself ) that a repair is safe, one could have re-created the original part without modification.

Tom Downey
11-22-2011, 04:10 PM
Tom,
IF my posts seem offensive, I do not mean them that way. Mostly I am curious how others are presenting their methods of alteration and modification, and to what extent they are going from an engineering basis. I.E. is there component level testing? FEA? Do you hire someone to do the calculations, material compatibility etc, or do you do it yourself? Again, mostly curious from about the process and how it has worked for you. The trouble I have run into, is that in many cases, by the time you put in all the effort and resources to validate ( to myself ) that a repair is safe, one could have re-created the original part without modification.

I do not believe your posts are offensive, but you ask for information I can not give, because it is intellectual property of the DPEs and engineers that spent much time and efforts developing it.

As far as presenting your package to FSDO for a field approval is a matter of following AC 43-210 and the advice of your PMI, and getting them the information they need. As to where that engineering comes from is simply a matter of how to find it, gaining permission to use it if it already exists, or using a DER or ? to document it.

a typical scenario is the one I'm involved with now. My aircraft was up graded to a Warner 165 way back in 1988, I have the original hand written engineering to do the one time STC. A club member posted he was looking for any info to help his FSDO approve the 337 to up grade his aircraft. I answered his post telling him I had that engineering. 2 days later I get a call from the FAA engineer asking If he could get the info. I E-mailed him the one time STC number, and copied the Engineering and mailed it to him, (way to big to e-mail) He then discovered that the engineering was not in public domain, he then went the extra mile and contacted the owner of the engineering ( I didn't know he was still alive) and obtained permission to use the documentation, The owner of the engineering said the needy party would be required to buy the engineering, which he did, and the 337 got approved.

9 times out of 10, the data you need is out there some where, How you find it can be pretty involved, some times the engineering is in the EXP side of the industry, all you can do is try to use it, by proving it has operated there satisfactorily for XXX hours with no problems.

In any case we will continue to support these antique engine in any way we can, even when we must place the aircraft in EXP category for testing.

Personally I see no problems gaining approval for crankshafts being metalized back to standard. I believe it simply a need yet to be seen.

Aaron Novak
11-23-2011, 08:26 AM
Hi Tom,
Not a problem. I see where I am getting confused. My position isusually one of generating the engineering data from a techincal perspective, not the person using the engineering to do something like a 337. So I was asking about the engineering process itself, not the application of the engineering data to the extent of FA'a etc. Basicly the technical side, not the paperwork side. Anyway keep up the nice work!

Tom Downey
11-23-2011, 09:43 AM
Hi Tom,
Not a problem. I see where I am getting confused. My position isusually one of generating the engineering data from a techincal perspective, not the person using the engineering to do something like a 337. So I was asking about the engineering process itself, not the application of the engineering data to the extent of FA'a etc. Basicly the technical side, not the paperwork side. Anyway keep up the nice work!

That's one of the biggest problems we have, finding folks like you who are smart enough to generate the data the FAA engineers will believe.

Aaron Novak
11-23-2011, 11:50 AM
Tom,
I dont think finding the people is the issue, it being able to afford the work. 99% of the time one would need access to the capabilitys of an engine companys engineering facility to be able to do the work, and those that have that access are usually so dang busy that they have little time for these kinds of projects as " side jobs". Most companys in the engine business will do outside work, however most are not willing to do anything aviation related, or are priced above what the antique community could afford. Many of us have toyed with the idea of creating an engineering company just for old airplane engines, but the same problem seems to crop up, there just isnt the money out there to support such an endevor. Most of the cost is in the materials engineering part, gas spectrometers and SEMS arent cheap to own or use, and not cheap to farm out either. Dimensional work is pretty straightforward. Materials compatability is mostly experienced based. It could be done and done well, jsut not cheap.

Tom Downey
11-23-2011, 06:08 PM
Tom,
I dont think finding the people is the issue, it being able to afford the work. 99% of the time one would need access to the capabilitys of an engine companys engineering facility to be able to do the work, and those that have that access are usually so dang busy that they have little time for these kinds of projects as " side jobs". Most companys in the engine business will do outside work, however most are not willing to do anything aviation related, or are priced above what the antique community could afford. Many of us have toyed with the idea of creating an engineering company just for old airplane engines, but the same problem seems to crop up, there just isnt the money out there to support such an endevor. Most of the cost is in the materials engineering part, gas spectrometers and SEMS arent cheap to own or use, and not cheap to farm out either. Dimensional work is pretty straightforward. Materials compatability is mostly experienced based. It could be done and done well, jsut not cheap.

So there ya have it,, I can get tacoma custom crank to do 1 journal at $250.00

which way would you try to gain authority to use it?

Ernie
11-25-2011, 05:21 PM
As the OP, I would like to chime in and say I really have learned a lot, and am hoping to find my RNF soon. Tom, your pragmatic approach sounds, well ... pragmatic to me. I just wanted to know my odds of keeping an airplane with a Warner engine flying were reasonably good. BTW $250 dollars for anything on an airplane is unreal nowadays. ;-)

Ernie

Tom Downey
11-25-2011, 06:37 PM
BTW $250 dollars for anything on an airplane is unreal nowadays. ;-)Ernie

grinding it will be the cheap part, making it run again isn't.. :)