Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 59 of 59

Thread: Old engines, future?

  1. #51

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oak Harbor Wa
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by JimRice85 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Tom Downey; 11-22-2011 at 11:10 AM.

  2. #52
    Aaron Novak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wi
    Posts
    361
    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.

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oak Harbor Wa
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Novak View Post
    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.

  4. #54
    Aaron Novak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wi
    Posts
    361
    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!

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oak Harbor Wa
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Novak View Post
    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.

  6. #56
    Aaron Novak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wi
    Posts
    361
    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.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oak Harbor Wa
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Novak View Post
    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?

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    62
    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

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oak Harbor Wa
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
    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..

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •