Which cylinder was off recently?
I'd say there won't be any core credit forthcoming.....
Which cylinder was off recently?
I'd say there won't be any core credit forthcoming.....
The #2 was the one that was replaced (that's the right most one in the picture). I was really expecting to find that one blown to bits but it's the center one that's blasted. BY the time I got to the ground the oil was everywhere so I couldn't tell where the leak started. I suspect something broke and caused the oil to run out which then caused a catastrophic failure. I'd looked at the engine after two test runs and the first flight and there was no noticeable leak (and the level was still up right near 11... you'd expect it to burn a bit breaking in the cylinder).
For those of you still wondering. The wing damage is a bit more severe than I though. The navion wing doesn't have "ribs" per se. It's a monocoque like the fuselage. It will need to go somewhere (most likely the same shop that restored the plane ten years ago) with the jigs to redo that portion. As a result (and the fact I think the engine scares him), the FAA guy from the FSDO elevated the thing to an "accident." The NTSB guy had me fill out one of their accident report (only onerous as it asks for time totals different than what the insurance company and the FAA asked for so I had to get the calculator out again and subtract out the non-ASEL time and the few hours from my student pilot days when I wasn't pilot in command).
The NTSB is having the engine shipped down to Continental to be inspected. I'm hoping to be able to make it down to Mobile for that.
The preliminary is up on the NTSB site: http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...o=10&pgsize=50
It pretty much cut and paste from my statement on the accident report with the FAA guys description of the damage.
I note it says, "...the airplane's most recent 100-hour inspection occurred on September 16, 2016."
As a privately-operated aircraft, the airplane isn't required to have 100-hour inspections. Was this just how your A&P signed off the engine work, or do you have 100-hours done as a safety measure due to the amount of flying you do?
Just curious....
Ron Wanttaja
In fact, it was an annual and signed off as such. Of course, annuals are the same scope as 100 hours so it's technically not incorrect. No, this is not a situation that requires 100 hour inspections (and frankly, I'm lucky if I get 100 hours in a year. Scanning back over the last three annuals, it looks like about 90 hours TIS each year. My time in service is determined by a hobbs meter on the landing gear rather than tach time (the A36 I copped the engine instruments from doesn't have a recording tach), so my TIS is a bit less than what someone using a tach with FRP settings would get.
Well, this sucks.
The NTSB returned the engine to my mechanic. Of course, we know the core is toast (the mechanic says it looks like someone through a couple of grenades into the crankcase). Of course, I knew I was on the hook for a replacement engine. However, I told the NTSB and Continental, that there was much stuff attached to the engine that I needed back when they were done inspecting it. It's all missing.
Lost are:
Most of the unobtainable cooling baffling specific to the Navion installation
The alternator
All vestiges of my Tannis engine heater
The entire exhaust
Who knows what else.
The restoration shop is inventorying things and trying to chase things down.