---------------------------------------------------------- Engines-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 07/17/03: 1 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:54 AM - Re: Engines-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 07/16/03 (Miles McCallum) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:54:16 AM PST US From: "Miles McCallum" Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 07/16/03 --> Engines-List message posted by: "Miles McCallum" Actually, there were a couple of failures (crank breaking in flight, loss of prop, successful forced landing) but in both cases - and those cranks found to have cracks in the affected region during isnpection - there was evidence that the problem was caused by previous propstrike incidents, and nothing to do with pitting. Given the number of cranks that were scrapped over here, if it was a problem, you would have expected to have seen far more serious incidents/failures that actually occured. The only time I'd be concerned would be if the engine was fitted to an aerobatic aeroplane - and that's one thing the Glastar ain't! Miles > > Here's one for you experts out there... > > My Lycoming O-320-D3G crankshaft failed compliance with S.B. 505, but not > until $600 of other work had been accomplished. My question is: Since the > application will be in an experimental aircraft (a Glastar), is this crank > viable? > > I ask this because, the shop rep stated the crankshaft could be yellow > tagged for a 150 hp application, but not for the 160 hp that is the engine's > current configuration. Also, (off the record) he stated that he would have > no qualms running this crank indefinitely and that his shop had routinely > passed cranks in this condition (prior to the A.D. coming out in 1997). > BTW, this is a huge shop with an excellent reputation. > > The crank is serviceable in every other way except failing the S.B. 505 > criteria. Is the 10 hp difference justification for buying a new crank? Am > I nuts for considering its continuing service? What is the history of S.B. > 505, i.e. what prompted its implementation? > > Wanting to be safe- > Scott in Colorado > > > > Time: 03:00:57 PM PST US > From: "Archie" > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Mandatory Service Bulletin 505... > > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie" > > As I understand it, there was only one failure. > (in England) of an aircraft that sat for long periods of time. > This is the only filed report that I am aware of. > Is/Are there more? > Archie > >