Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:15 AM - Re: IO-360-A!A Rods (cgalley)
2. 07:33 AM - Re: IO-360-A!A Rods (Rhonda Bewley)
3. 08:51 AM - Re: IO-360-A!A Rods (Joe Healy)
4. 09:28 AM - Re: IO-360-A!A Rods (Terry Watson)
5. 02:09 PM - Fuel return lines (Brooks Wolfe)
6. 02:10 PM - Re: IO-360-A!A Rods (rd2@evenlink.com)
7. 02:45 PM - Re: IO-360-A!A Rods (cgalley)
8. 03:04 PM - Re: Fuel return lines (AI Nut)
9. 03:16 PM - Re: IO-360-A!A Rods (Dww0708@aol.com)
10. 03:45 PM - Re: Fuel return lines (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
11. 04:14 PM - Re: Fuel return lines (Ed Anderson)
12. 05:02 PM - Re: IO-360-A!A Rods (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
13. 05:53 PM - Re: IO-360-A!A Rods (Archie)
14. 07:36 PM - Re: Fuel return lines (AI Nut)
15. 09:58 PM - Re: Fuel return lines (Tracy Crook)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IO-360-A!A Rods |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Since it is just a Service letter, one can ignore it for experimental and
part 91. They are only mandatory for part 135.
If it was really important, then an AD should be issued.
----- Original Message -----
From: "red" <redswing@mcn.org>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "red" <redswing@mcn.org>
>
> Live and learn, huh Cy?
> Red Hamilton
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: cgalley
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:40 AM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Wonder why they didn't issue an AD for this?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda@bpaengines.com>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>
>
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Rhonda Bewley"
> > <Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
> >
> > Please also review Mandatory Service Bulletin 439A, issued by Lycoming
> > on 8/18/93, page five of six
> >
> > Part Number Description
> Permissable
> > Repair/Replacement
> > 75059 Phosphate coated rod Do not repair.
> Do
> > not
> > use.
> > Replace
> > with LW-10646 rods.
> >
> > Rhonda Bewley
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of cgalley
> > To: engines-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
> >
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> >
> > You should read the AD. Sometimes well meaning people don't always have
> > the
> > right info.
> >
> > 66-06-03 - Connecting rod assemblies
> > TEXTRON LYCOMING:
> > Category - Engine Effective Date - 03/13/1966 Recurring - No
> > Supersedes - N/A Superseded by - N/A
> > LYCOMING:
> > Amdt. 39-708.
> > Applies to Model IO-360-A1A Engines with Serial Numbers 101-51 through
> > 1231-51A, and All Engines Remanufactured by Lycoming Prior to December
> > 1,
> > 1964.
> > Compliance required as indicated.
> > To prevent further failures of connecting rod assemblies, P/N 74503 and
> > P/N
> > 74308, accomplish the following:
> > (a) Replace connecting rod assemblies P/N 74503 and P/N 74308 with 200
> > or
> > more hours' time in service on the effective date of this AD with
> > connecting
> > rod assembly P/N 75059 within the next 50 hours' time in service in
> > accordance with Lycoming Service Bulletin No. 302 or later FAA-approved
> > revision.
> > (b) Replace connecting rod assemblies P/N 74503 and P/N 74308 with less
> > than
> > 200 hours' time in service on the effective date of this AD with
> > connecting
> > rod assembly P/N 75059 before the accumulation of 250 hours' time in
> > service
> > in accordance with Lycoming Service Bulletin No. 302 or later
> > FAA-approved
> > revision.
> > Effective March 13, 1966.
> > Revised January 16, 1969.
> >
> > I did NOT find a later AD but I only searched thru 2000. You can do a
> > search on the FAA sites.
> >
> > Cy Galley
> > EAA Safety Programs Editor
> > Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <Hopperdhh@aol.com>
> > To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
> >
> >
> >> --> Engines-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
> >>
> >> Fellow listers,
> >>
> >> I bought a core IO-360-A1A 200 hp angle valve engine to overhaul. It
> > had
> >> Lycoming part no. 75059 connecting rods. I have been told that these
> >> rods are
> >> not airworthy. Is this true?
> >>
> >> If so, does anyone have four replacements to sell me? Please reply
> > off
> >> list
> >> with price.
> >>
> >> do not archive
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Dan Hopper
> >> Walton IN
> >> RV-7A
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
In reviewing CGalley's response---" Sometimes well meaning people don't
always have the right info" : The " info " provided stating do not use
The p/n 75059 phosphated rods " is excellent and accurate info. It is a
MANDANTORY SERVICE BULLETIN, not a Service Letter. The bulletin number
is
SB 439A and it is well founded. An AD was not necessary because the
manufacturer had made adequate steps to resolve an UNAIRWORTHY
condition.
I can tell you positively that the p/n 75059 rods WILL FAIL. If you use
them you are not only in violation of FAR's but you deserve exactly what
you get.
It reduces down to this: some people just should not be allowed to
build
Experimental aircraft or engines.
Monty Barrett
Barrett Performance Aircraft, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of cgalley
Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
--> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Since it is just a Service letter, one can ignore it for experimental
and
part 91. They are only mandatory for part 135.
If it was really important, then an AD should be issued.
----- Original Message -----
From: "red" <redswing@mcn.org>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "red" <redswing@mcn.org>
>
> Live and learn, huh Cy?
> Red Hamilton
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: cgalley
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:40 AM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Wonder why they didn't issue an AD for this?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda@bpaengines.com>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>
>
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Rhonda Bewley"
> > <Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
> >
> > Please also review Mandatory Service Bulletin 439A, issued by
Lycoming
> > on 8/18/93, page five of six
> >
> > Part Number Description
> Permissable
> > Repair/Replacement
> > 75059 Phosphate coated rod Do not
repair.
> Do
> > not
> > use.
> > Replace
> > with LW-10646 rods.
> >
> > Rhonda Bewley
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
cgalley
> > To: engines-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
> >
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> >
> > You should read the AD. Sometimes well meaning people don't always
have
> > the
> > right info.
> >
> > 66-06-03 - Connecting rod assemblies
> > TEXTRON LYCOMING:
> > Category - Engine Effective Date - 03/13/1966 Recurring - No
> > Supersedes - N/A Superseded by - N/A
> > LYCOMING:
> > Amdt. 39-708.
> > Applies to Model IO-360-A1A Engines with Serial Numbers 101-51
through
> > 1231-51A, and All Engines Remanufactured by Lycoming Prior to
December
> > 1,
> > 1964.
> > Compliance required as indicated.
> > To prevent further failures of connecting rod assemblies, P/N 74503
and
> > P/N
> > 74308, accomplish the following:
> > (a) Replace connecting rod assemblies P/N 74503 and P/N 74308 with
200
> > or
> > more hours' time in service on the effective date of this AD with
> > connecting
> > rod assembly P/N 75059 within the next 50 hours' time in service in
> > accordance with Lycoming Service Bulletin No. 302 or later
FAA-approved
> > revision.
> > (b) Replace connecting rod assemblies P/N 74503 and P/N 74308 with
less
> > than
> > 200 hours' time in service on the effective date of this AD with
> > connecting
> > rod assembly P/N 75059 before the accumulation of 250 hours' time
in
> > service
> > in accordance with Lycoming Service Bulletin No. 302 or later
> > FAA-approved
> > revision.
> > Effective March 13, 1966.
> > Revised January 16, 1969.
> >
> > I did NOT find a later AD but I only searched thru 2000. You can
do a
> > search on the FAA sites.
> >
> > Cy Galley
> > EAA Safety Programs Editor
> > Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <Hopperdhh@aol.com>
> > To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
> >
> >
> >> --> Engines-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
> >>
> >> Fellow listers,
> >>
> >> I bought a core IO-360-A1A 200 hp angle valve engine to overhaul.
It
> > had
> >> Lycoming part no. 75059 connecting rods. I have been told that
these
> >> rods are
> >> not airworthy. Is this true?
> >>
> >> If so, does anyone have four replacements to sell me? Please
reply
> > off
> >> list
> >> with price.
> >>
> >> do not archive
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Dan Hopper
> >> Walton IN
> >> RV-7A
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IO-360-A!A Rods |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
Thank you for you fine and well researched input. Do not forget gentlemanly
conduct since a little knowledge can go to a persons head.
As for who should be allowed to build...... who do you think you are?
J. Healy
jhealy@socal.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda@bpaengines.com>
Subject: RE: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Rhonda Bewley"
<Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
>
> In reviewing CGalley's response---" Sometimes well meaning people don't
> always have the right info" : The " info " provided stating do not use
> The p/n 75059 phosphated rods " is excellent and accurate info. It is a
>
> MANDANTORY SERVICE BULLETIN, not a Service Letter. The bulletin number
> is
> SB 439A and it is well founded. An AD was not necessary because the
> manufacturer had made adequate steps to resolve an UNAIRWORTHY
> condition.
> I can tell you positively that the p/n 75059 rods WILL FAIL. If you use
> them you are not only in violation of FAR's but you deserve exactly what
> you get.
>
> It reduces down to this: some people just should not be allowed to
> build
> Experimental aircraft or engines.
>
> Monty Barrett
> Barrett Performance Aircraft, Inc.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of cgalley
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Since it is just a Service letter, one can ignore it for experimental
> and
> part 91. They are only mandatory for part 135.
>
> If it was really important, then an AD should be issued.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "red" <redswing@mcn.org>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>
>
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "red" <redswing@mcn.org>
> >
> > Live and learn, huh Cy?
> > Red Hamilton
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: cgalley
> > To: engines-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
> >
> >
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> >
> > Wonder why they didn't issue an AD for this?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda@bpaengines.com>
> > To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: RE: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
> >
> >
> > > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Rhonda Bewley"
> > > <Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
> > >
> > > Please also review Mandatory Service Bulletin 439A, issued by
> Lycoming
> > > on 8/18/93, page five of six
> > >
> > > Part Number Description
> > Permissable
> > > Repair/Replacement
> > > 75059 Phosphate coated rod Do not
> repair.
> > Do
> > > not
> > > use.
> > > Replace
> > > with LW-10646 rods.
> > >
> > > Rhonda Bewley
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> cgalley
> > > To: engines-list@matronics.com
> > > Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
> > >
> > > --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> > >
> > > You should read the AD. Sometimes well meaning people don't always
> have
> > > the
> > > right info.
> > >
> > > 66-06-03 - Connecting rod assemblies
> > > TEXTRON LYCOMING:
> > > Category - Engine Effective Date - 03/13/1966 Recurring - No
> > > Supersedes - N/A Superseded by - N/A
> > > LYCOMING:
> > > Amdt. 39-708.
> > > Applies to Model IO-360-A1A Engines with Serial Numbers 101-51
> through
> > > 1231-51A, and All Engines Remanufactured by Lycoming Prior to
> December
> > > 1,
> > > 1964.
> > > Compliance required as indicated.
> > > To prevent further failures of connecting rod assemblies, P/N 74503
> and
> > > P/N
> > > 74308, accomplish the following:
> > > (a) Replace connecting rod assemblies P/N 74503 and P/N 74308 with
> 200
> > > or
> > > more hours' time in service on the effective date of this AD with
> > > connecting
> > > rod assembly P/N 75059 within the next 50 hours' time in service in
> > > accordance with Lycoming Service Bulletin No. 302 or later
> FAA-approved
> > > revision.
> > > (b) Replace connecting rod assemblies P/N 74503 and P/N 74308 with
> less
> > > than
> > > 200 hours' time in service on the effective date of this AD with
> > > connecting
> > > rod assembly P/N 75059 before the accumulation of 250 hours' time
> in
> > > service
> > > in accordance with Lycoming Service Bulletin No. 302 or later
> > > FAA-approved
> > > revision.
> > > Effective March 13, 1966.
> > > Revised January 16, 1969.
> > >
> > > I did NOT find a later AD but I only searched thru 2000. You can
> do a
> > > search on the FAA sites.
> > >
> > > Cy Galley
> > > EAA Safety Programs Editor
> > > Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <Hopperdhh@aol.com>
> > > To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> > > Subject: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
> > >
> > >
> > >> --> Engines-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
> > >>
> > >> Fellow listers,
> > >>
> > >> I bought a core IO-360-A1A 200 hp angle valve engine to overhaul.
> It
> > > had
> > >> Lycoming part no. 75059 connecting rods. I have been told that
> these
> > >> rods are
> > >> not airworthy. Is this true?
> > >>
> > >> If so, does anyone have four replacements to sell me? Please
> reply
> > > off
> > >> list
> > >> with price.
> > >>
> > >> do not archive
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>
> > >> Dan Hopper
> > >> Walton IN
> > >> RV-7A
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
And who is the one to decide who will be allowed to build experimental
aircraft or engines?
This makes as much sense as saying some people should not be allowed to
express opinions.
Terry Watson
RV-8A #80729
Seattle
It reduces down to this: some people just should not be allowed to
build
Experimental aircraft or engines.
Monty Barrett
Barrett Performance Aircraft, Inc.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuel return lines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Brooks Wolfe" <slipstream13@earthlink.net>
Listers: I'm installing the various fuel lines in my RV-7. Since I'm
planning on an auto conversion with automotive-style pumps, I assume I'm
going to be pumping a lot more gas to the engine than it's burning, in order
to keep a continuous flow of cool fuel moving through the lines. I'm
looking for any thoughts, observations, or hints on the following:
Size and routing of return lines. I remember in the 402s I used to fly, the
return lines would go all the way to the very forward tip of the tank.
-- In retrospect, it would have been smart for me to have installed a
line parallel to the vent line in my tank.. Too late for that now. Between
the rivets and the proseal, I think I'd sooner start fresh.
Fuel selectors: Are Andairs worth the money? ($413US for a duplex
selector! Yeesh).
That's all for now..
Brooks Wolfe
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
--------snip-------------
...
It reduces down to this: some people just should not be allowed to
build
Experimental aircraft or engines.
....
----------snip-----------
You've got to be kidding! Not allowed where? In the US?? Who is the one to
disallow that?
Rumen
do not archive - no sense
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IO-360-A!A Rods |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
The problem is Mandatory Service Bulletins are only mandatory for Part 135
even when issued by the factory. It would be nice to have the factory have
the FAA issue a AD if they really believe they will fail. Using the rods
contrary to the Mandatory Service Bulletin would not make be a violation of
FARs cause there isn't such an FAR. You can check with your FSDO if you
don't believe.
With that said, I would follow Monty's advise before mine as My well-meaning
advise has only given me a red-face. It would be very prudent if you are
into extreme acro.
But It is still your call as NO and I repeat NO Factory Mandatory Service
Bulletins has to be done UNLESS it is backed by an AD. Might be prudent but
not mandatory as many are just CYA written by the legal department.
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda@bpaengines.com>
Subject: RE: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Rhonda Bewley"
> <Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
>
> In reviewing CGalley's response---" Sometimes well meaning people don't
> always have the right info" : The " info " provided stating do not use
> The p/n 75059 phosphated rods " is excellent and accurate info. It is a
>
> MANDANTORY SERVICE BULLETIN, not a Service Letter. The bulletin number
> is
> SB 439A and it is well founded. An AD was not necessary because the
> manufacturer had made adequate steps to resolve an UNAIRWORTHY
> condition.
> I can tell you positively that the p/n 75059 rods WILL FAIL. If you use
> them you are not only in violation of FAR's but you deserve exactly what
> you get.
>
> It reduces down to this: some people just should not be allowed to
> build
> Experimental aircraft or engines.
>
> Monty Barrett
> Barrett Performance Aircraft, Inc.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of cgalley
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Since it is just a Service letter, one can ignore it for experimental
> and
> part 91. They are only mandatory for part 135.
>
> If it was really important, then an AD should be issued.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "red" <redswing@mcn.org>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>
>
>> --> Engines-List message posted by: "red" <redswing@mcn.org>
>>
>> Live and learn, huh Cy?
>> Red Hamilton
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: cgalley
>> To: engines-list@matronics.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>>
>>
>> --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>>
>> Wonder why they didn't issue an AD for this?
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda@bpaengines.com>
>> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: RE: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>>
>>
>> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Rhonda Bewley"
>> > <Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
>> >
>> > Please also review Mandatory Service Bulletin 439A, issued by
> Lycoming
>> > on 8/18/93, page five of six
>> >
>> > Part Number Description
>> Permissable
>> > Repair/Replacement
>> > 75059 Phosphate coated rod Do not
> repair.
>> Do
>> > not
>> > use.
>> > Replace
>> > with LW-10646 rods.
>> >
>> > Rhonda Bewley
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
>> > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> cgalley
>> > To: engines-list@matronics.com
>> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>> >
>> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>> >
>> > You should read the AD. Sometimes well meaning people don't always
> have
>> > the
>> > right info.
>> >
>> > 66-06-03 - Connecting rod assemblies
>> > TEXTRON LYCOMING:
>> > Category - Engine Effective Date - 03/13/1966 Recurring - No
>> > Supersedes - N/A Superseded by - N/A
>> > LYCOMING:
>> > Amdt. 39-708.
>> > Applies to Model IO-360-A1A Engines with Serial Numbers 101-51
> through
>> > 1231-51A, and All Engines Remanufactured by Lycoming Prior to
> December
>> > 1,
>> > 1964.
>> > Compliance required as indicated.
>> > To prevent further failures of connecting rod assemblies, P/N 74503
> and
>> > P/N
>> > 74308, accomplish the following:
>> > (a) Replace connecting rod assemblies P/N 74503 and P/N 74308 with
> 200
>> > or
>> > more hours' time in service on the effective date of this AD with
>> > connecting
>> > rod assembly P/N 75059 within the next 50 hours' time in service in
>> > accordance with Lycoming Service Bulletin No. 302 or later
> FAA-approved
>> > revision.
>> > (b) Replace connecting rod assemblies P/N 74503 and P/N 74308 with
> less
>> > than
>> > 200 hours' time in service on the effective date of this AD with
>> > connecting
>> > rod assembly P/N 75059 before the accumulation of 250 hours' time
> in
>> > service
>> > in accordance with Lycoming Service Bulletin No. 302 or later
>> > FAA-approved
>> > revision.
>> > Effective March 13, 1966.
>> > Revised January 16, 1969.
>> >
>> > I did NOT find a later AD but I only searched thru 2000. You can
> do a
>> > search on the FAA sites.
>> >
>> > Cy Galley
>> > EAA Safety Programs Editor
>> > Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: <Hopperdhh@aol.com>
>> > To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
>> > Subject: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>> >
>> >
>> >> --> Engines-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>> >>
>> >> Fellow listers,
>> >>
>> >> I bought a core IO-360-A1A 200 hp angle valve engine to overhaul.
> It
>> > had
>> >> Lycoming part no. 75059 connecting rods. I have been told that
> these
>> >> rods are
>> >> not airworthy. Is this true?
>> >>
>> >> If so, does anyone have four replacements to sell me? Please
> reply
>> > off
>> >> list
>> >> with price.
>> >>
>> >> do not archive
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Dan Hopper
>> >> Walton IN
>> >> RV-7A
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel return lines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: AI Nut <ainut@hiwaay.net>
If I understand your post correctly:
1. size of the lines is dependent upon the max horsepower your engine is
capable of. I don't remember the exact numbers for all conditions, but
for my 200 hp fuel injected engine, a 3/8" line is adequate. If yours
is larger or your fuel pump is greater than 90 psi, then you might want
a 5/16" or even a 1/2". If it is a fuel injected engine, be absolutely
certain that you get the high pressure fuel lines along with primary and
secondary fitting attachments. For example, if the ends are crimped,
add a stainless circular clamp. If you're using only clamps, use two.
You get the idea.
The return line needs to enter the fuel tank at the highest point
possible so that when the tank is full, there is no resistance to the
fuel return, as it won't be under a lot of pressure downstream of the
pressure regulator.
Can't help with the fuel selector question.
Let us know what you finally do and if it is successful.
David
Brooks Wolfe wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Brooks Wolfe" <slipstream13@earthlink.net>
>
>Listers: I'm installing the various fuel lines in my RV-7. Since I'm
>planning on an auto conversion with automotive-style pumps, I assume I'm
>going to be pumping a lot more gas to the engine than it's burning, in order
>to keep a continuous flow of cool fuel moving through the lines. I'm
>looking for any thoughts, observations, or hints on the following:
>
>Size and routing of return lines. I remember in the 402s I used to fly, the
>return lines would go all the way to the very forward tip of the tank.
> -- In retrospect, it would have been smart for me to have installed a
>line parallel to the vent line in my tank.. Too late for that now. Between
>the rivets and the proseal, I think I'd sooner start fresh.
>
>Fuel selectors: Are Andairs worth the money? ($413US for a duplex
>selector! Yeesh).
>
>That's all for now..
>
>Brooks Wolfe
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IO-360-A!A Rods |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Dww0708@aol.com
By law the FAA can only set minimum standards. Correspondingly the
regulations are iron clad. Air Carrier's are compelled to comply with Service
Bulletins because they are to be held to a higher level of safety. Also their
operations certificate has wording that is binding that they comply with all
service bulletins , for instance Parker Hannifin Brake Disks bulletins, Bendix
King Transponders bulletins, ect. An overhauled engine on a Part 91
operated aircraft is not held to the same level of safety as Part 135 aircraft.
That aircraft could not be operated for heir and experimental are excluded as
well. It boils down to risk assessment and aeronautical decision making.
The choice is with the owner he is responsible for the maintenance of the
aircraft. Sometime owners need to be enlightened and helped with the choices
they
make. Cheers
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuel return lines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
There are a few things missing here.
From the original poster's descritption I am assuming you are talking
about a fuel injected engine...If not it is not clear why you would want
a return line?
I assume you are talking about using Mogas too?
If so do not under any circumstance (and I know I'll get flamed for
this) use either a firewall mounted electric or mechanical fuel pump.
The risks from vapour lock are real and deadly.
The more you can design your system to push on fuel (not suck) the
better.
The Eggenfelner Subaru guys use a compromise where a primary and backup
fuel pump are placed in the center tunnel area where the normal boost
pump goes. They then use the Andair valve to switch both the tank and
return.
Note there is still some sucking on the fuel going on with this
arrangement so its not ideal.
Either way a 3/8ths line is more than adequate for the supply and I
would venture to suggest you could reduce this for the return, if indeed
you are going fuel injected.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AI Nut
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Fuel return lines
--> Engines-List message posted by: AI Nut <ainut@hiwaay.net>
If I understand your post correctly:
1. size of the lines is dependent upon the max horsepower your engine is
capable of. I don't remember the exact numbers for all conditions, but
for my 200 hp fuel injected engine, a 3/8" line is adequate. If yours
is larger or your fuel pump is greater than 90 psi, then you might want
a 5/16" or even a 1/2". If it is a fuel injected engine, be absolutely
certain that you get the high pressure fuel lines along with primary and
secondary fitting attachments. For example, if the ends are crimped,
add a stainless circular clamp. If you're using only clamps, use two.
You get the idea.
The return line needs to enter the fuel tank at the highest point
possible so that when the tank is full, there is no resistance to the
fuel return, as it won't be under a lot of pressure downstream of the
pressure regulator.
Can't help with the fuel selector question.
Let us know what you finally do and if it is successful.
David
Brooks Wolfe wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Brooks Wolfe"
>--> <slipstream13@earthlink.net>
>
>Listers: I'm installing the various fuel lines in my RV-7. Since I'm
>planning on an auto conversion with automotive-style pumps, I assume
>I'm going to be pumping a lot more gas to the engine than it's burning,
>in order to keep a continuous flow of cool fuel moving through the
>lines. I'm looking for any thoughts, observations, or hints on the
following:
>
>Size and routing of return lines. I remember in the 402s I used to
>fly, the return lines would go all the way to the very forward tip of
the tank.
> -- In retrospect, it would have been smart for me to have installed
>a line parallel to the vent line in my tank.. Too late for that now.
>Between the rivets and the proseal, I think I'd sooner start fresh.
>
>Fuel selectors: Are Andairs worth the money? ($413US for a duplex
>selector! Yeesh).
>
>That's all for now..
>
>Brooks Wolfe
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel return lines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
While I have flow for over 260 hours with firewall mounted fuel pumps with
no problem - I do have them shielded from radiant heat sources and a blast
tube directing cooling air to both. I agree with Frank that "vapor lock" is
definitely not something you want to mess with and installing the pumps in a
cooler location is prudent. Had I to do it over, I would install mine in
the wing root area.
I have Electronic fuel injection but do not return fuel to the wing tanks,
so I don't have the problem of switching the return line. There are some RV
(Recreational Vehicles) electromechanical fuel tank switches that switch
both the main fuel line and return line at the same time - however, not
certain the quality of such.
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC 28104
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Fuel return lines
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
<frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> There are a few things missing here.
>
> From the original poster's descritption I am assuming you are talking
> about a fuel injected engine...If not it is not clear why you would want
> a return line?
>
> I assume you are talking about using Mogas too?
>
> If so do not under any circumstance (and I know I'll get flamed for
> this) use either a firewall mounted electric or mechanical fuel pump.
> The risks from vapour lock are real and deadly.
>
> The more you can design your system to push on fuel (not suck) the
> better.
>
> The Eggenfelner Subaru guys use a compromise where a primary and backup
> fuel pump are placed in the center tunnel area where the normal boost
> pump goes. They then use the Andair valve to switch both the tank and
> return.
>
> Note there is still some sucking on the fuel going on with this
> arrangement so its not ideal.
>
> Either way a 3/8ths line is more than adequate for the supply and I
> would venture to suggest you could reduce this for the return, if indeed
> you are going fuel injected.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AI Nut
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Fuel return lines
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: AI Nut <ainut@hiwaay.net>
>
> If I understand your post correctly:
> 1. size of the lines is dependent upon the max horsepower your engine is
> capable of. I don't remember the exact numbers for all conditions, but
> for my 200 hp fuel injected engine, a 3/8" line is adequate. If yours
> is larger or your fuel pump is greater than 90 psi, then you might want
> a 5/16" or even a 1/2". If it is a fuel injected engine, be absolutely
> certain that you get the high pressure fuel lines along with primary and
> secondary fitting attachments. For example, if the ends are crimped,
> add a stainless circular clamp. If you're using only clamps, use two.
> You get the idea.
>
> The return line needs to enter the fuel tank at the highest point
> possible so that when the tank is full, there is no resistance to the
> fuel return, as it won't be under a lot of pressure downstream of the
> pressure regulator.
>
> Can't help with the fuel selector question.
>
> Let us know what you finally do and if it is successful.
>
> David
>
>
> Brooks Wolfe wrote:
>
> >--> Engines-List message posted by: "Brooks Wolfe"
> >--> <slipstream13@earthlink.net>
> >
> >Listers: I'm installing the various fuel lines in my RV-7. Since I'm
> >planning on an auto conversion with automotive-style pumps, I assume
> >I'm going to be pumping a lot more gas to the engine than it's burning,
>
> >in order to keep a continuous flow of cool fuel moving through the
> >lines. I'm looking for any thoughts, observations, or hints on the
> following:
> >
> >Size and routing of return lines. I remember in the 402s I used to
> >fly, the return lines would go all the way to the very forward tip of
> the tank.
> > -- In retrospect, it would have been smart for me to have installed
>
> >a line parallel to the vent line in my tank.. Too late for that now.
> >Between the rivets and the proseal, I think I'd sooner start fresh.
> >
> >Fuel selectors: Are Andairs worth the money? ($413US for a duplex
> >selector! Yeesh).
> >
> >That's all for now..
> >
> >Brooks Wolfe
> >
> >
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IO-360-A!A Rods |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Thanks to everyone who helped to enlighten me on which rods to use, and not
use.
Looks like I've done enough damage for one day.
I always like to know what is inside my engine. The one on the plane, I
have never had apart, but it seems to me like it vibrates too much. OK, it is
a
200 hp angle valve engine with counter weights -- supposedly. Like I said,
I haven't seen inside it, so for all I know its not what the paperwork says
it is. I guess I'd feel better if I had put it together myself, even if some
may think they are more qualified than me. That's why I have an experimental
airplane.
Thanks again,
Dan Hopper
Walton, IN
RV-7A (Flying since last July)
Oh, do not archive
In a message dated 3/2/05 5:47:37 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
cgalley@qcbc.org writes:
--> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
The problem is Mandatory Service Bulletins are only mandatory for Part 135
even when issued by the factory. It would be nice to have the factory have
the FAA issue a AD if they really believe they will fail. Using the rods
contrary to the Mandatory Service Bulletin would not make be a violation of
FARs cause there isn't such an FAR. You can check with your FSDO if you
don't believe.
With that said, I would follow Monty's advise before mine as My well-meaning
advise has only given me a red-face. It would be very prudent if you are
into extreme acro.
But It is still your call as NO and I repeat NO Factory Mandatory Service
Bulletins has to be done UNLESS it is backed by an AD. Might be prudent but
not mandatory as many are just CYA written by the legal department.
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda@bpaengines.com>
Subject: RE: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Rhonda Bewley"
> <Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
>
> In reviewing CGalley's response---" Sometimes well meaning people don't
> always have the right info" : The " info " provided stating do not use
> The p/n 75059 phosphated rods " is excellent and accurate info. It is a
>
> MANDANTORY SERVICE BULLETIN, not a Service Letter. The bulletin number
> is
> SB 439A and it is well founded. An AD was not necessary because the
> manufacturer had made adequate steps to resolve an UNAIRWORTHY
> condition.
> I can tell you positively that the p/n 75059 rods WILL FAIL. If you use
> them you are not only in violation of FAR's but you deserve exactly what
> you get.
>
> It reduces down to this: some people just should not be allowed to
> build
> Experimental aircraft or engines.
>
> Monty Barrett
> Barrett Performance Aircraft, Inc.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of cgalley
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Since it is just a Service letter, one can ignore it for experimental
> and
> part 91. They are only mandatory for part 135.
>
> If it was really important, then an AD should be issued.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "red" <redswing@mcn.org>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>
>
>> --> Engines-List message posted by: "red" <redswing@mcn.org>
>>
>> Live and learn, huh Cy?
>> Red Hamilton
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: cgalley
>> To: engines-list@matronics.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>>
>>
>> --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>>
>> Wonder why they didn't issue an AD for this?
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda@bpaengines.com>
>> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: RE: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>>
>>
>> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Rhonda Bewley"
>> > <Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
>> >
>> > Please also review Mandatory Service Bulletin 439A, issued by
> Lycoming
>> > on 8/18/93, page five of six
>> >
>> > Part Number Description
>> Permissable
>> > Repair/Replacement
>> > 75059 Phosphate coated rod Do not
> repair.
>> Do
>> > not
>> > use.
>> > Replace
>> > with LW-10646 rods.
>> >
>> > Rhonda Bewley
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
>> > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> cgalley
>> > To: engines-list@matronics.com
>> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>> >
>> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>> >
>> > You should read the AD. Sometimes well meaning people don't always
> have
>> > the
>> > right info.
>> >
>> > 66-06-03 - Connecting rod assemblies
>> > TEXTRON LYCOMING:
>> > Category - Engine Effective Date - 03/13/1966 Recurring - No
>> > Supersedes - N/A Superseded by - N/A
>> > LYCOMING:
>> > Amdt. 39-708.
>> > Applies to Model IO-360-A1A Engines with Serial Numbers 101-51
> through
>> > 1231-51A, and All Engines Remanufactured by Lycoming Prior to
> December
>> > 1,
>> > 1964.
>> > Compliance required as indicated.
>> > To prevent further failures of connecting rod assemblies, P/N 74503
> and
>> > P/N
>> > 74308, accomplish the following:
>> > (a) Replace connecting rod assemblies P/N 74503 and P/N 74308 with
> 200
>> > or
>> > more hours' time in service on the effective date of this AD with
>> > connecting
>> > rod assembly P/N 75059 within the next 50 hours' time in service in
>> > accordance with Lycoming Service Bulletin No. 302 or later
> FAA-approved
>> > revision.
>> > (b) Replace connecting rod assemblies P/N 74503 and P/N 74308 with
> less
>> > than
>> > 200 hours' time in service on the effective date of this AD with
>> > connecting
>> > rod assembly P/N 75059 before the accumulation of 250 hours' time
> in
>> > service
>> > in accordance with Lycoming Service Bulletin No. 302 or later
>> > FAA-approved
>> > revision.
>> > Effective March 13, 1966.
>> > Revised January 16, 1969.
>> >
>> > I did NOT find a later AD but I only searched thru 2000. You can
> do a
>> > search on the FAA sites.
>> >
>> > Cy Galley
>> > EAA Safety Programs Editor
>> > Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: <Hopperdhh@aol.com>
>> > To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
>> > Subject: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>> >
>> >
>> >> --> Engines-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>> >>
>> >> Fellow listers,
>> >>
>> >> I bought a core IO-360-A1A 200 hp angle valve engine to overhaul.
> It
>> > had
>> >> Lycoming part no. 75059 connecting rods. I have been told that
> these
>> >> rods are
>> >> not airworthy. Is this true?
>> >>
>> >> If so, does anyone have four replacements to sell me? Please
> reply
>> > off
>> >> list
>> >> with price.
>> >>
>> >> do not archive
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Dan Hopper
>> >> Walton IN
>> >> RV-7A
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IO-360-A!A Rods |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
If you are at OSH this year, take in one of my machinery dynamics,
(vibration) seminars.
I also discuss things found during the balancing process.
Archie
----- Original Message -----
From: <Hopperdhh@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>
> Thanks to everyone who helped to enlighten me on which rods to use, and
> not
> use.
>
> Looks like I've done enough damage for one day.
>
> I always like to know what is inside my engine. The one on the plane, I
> have never had apart, but it seems to me like it vibrates too much. OK,
> it is a
> 200 hp angle valve engine with counter weights -- supposedly. Like I
> said,
> I haven't seen inside it, so for all I know its not what the paperwork
> says
> it is. I guess I'd feel better if I had put it together myself, even if
> some
> may think they are more qualified than me. That's why I have an
> experimental
> airplane.
>
> Thanks again,
> Dan Hopper
> Walton, IN
> RV-7A (Flying since last July)
>
> Oh, do not archive
>
> In a message dated 3/2/05 5:47:37 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
> cgalley@qcbc.org writes:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> The problem is Mandatory Service Bulletins are only mandatory for Part
> 135
> even when issued by the factory. It would be nice to have the factory
> have
> the FAA issue a AD if they really believe they will fail. Using the rods
> contrary to the Mandatory Service Bulletin would not make be a violation
> of
> FARs cause there isn't such an FAR. You can check with your FSDO if you
> don't believe.
>
>
> With that said, I would follow Monty's advise before mine as My
> well-meaning
> advise has only given me a red-face. It would be very prudent if you are
> into extreme acro.
>
> But It is still your call as NO and I repeat NO Factory Mandatory Service
> Bulletins has to be done UNLESS it is backed by an AD. Might be prudent
> but
> not mandatory as many are just CYA written by the legal department.
>
> Cy Galley
> EAA Safety Programs Editor
> Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda@bpaengines.com>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>
>
>> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Rhonda Bewley"
>> <Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
>>
>> In reviewing CGalley's response---" Sometimes well meaning people don't
>> always have the right info" : The " info " provided stating do not use
>> The p/n 75059 phosphated rods " is excellent and accurate info. It is a
>>
>> MANDANTORY SERVICE BULLETIN, not a Service Letter. The bulletin number
>> is
>> SB 439A and it is well founded. An AD was not necessary because the
>> manufacturer had made adequate steps to resolve an UNAIRWORTHY
>> condition.
>> I can tell you positively that the p/n 75059 rods WILL FAIL. If you use
>> them you are not only in violation of FAR's but you deserve exactly what
>> you get.
>>
>> It reduces down to this: some people just should not be allowed to
>> build
>> Experimental aircraft or engines.
>>
>> Monty Barrett
>> Barrett Performance Aircraft, Inc.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of cgalley
>> To: engines-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>>
>> --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>>
>> Since it is just a Service letter, one can ignore it for experimental
>> and
>> part 91. They are only mandatory for part 135.
>>
>> If it was really important, then an AD should be issued.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "red" <redswing@mcn.org>
>> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>>
>>
>>> --> Engines-List message posted by: "red" <redswing@mcn.org>
>>>
>>> Live and learn, huh Cy?
>>> Red Hamilton
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: cgalley
>>> To: engines-list@matronics.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:40 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>>>
>>>
>>> --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>>>
>>> Wonder why they didn't issue an AD for this?
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda@bpaengines.com>
>>> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
>>> Subject: RE: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>>>
>>>
>>> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Rhonda Bewley"
>>> > <Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
>>> >
>>> > Please also review Mandatory Service Bulletin 439A, issued by
>> Lycoming
>>> > on 8/18/93, page five of six
>>> >
>>> > Part Number Description
>>> Permissable
>>> > Repair/Replacement
>>> > 75059 Phosphate coated rod Do not
>> repair.
>>> Do
>>> > not
>>> > use.
>>> > Replace
>>> > with LW-10646 rods.
>>> >
>>> > Rhonda Bewley
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
>>> > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> cgalley
>>> > To: engines-list@matronics.com
>>> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>>> >
>>> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>>> >
>>> > You should read the AD. Sometimes well meaning people don't always
>> have
>>> > the
>>> > right info.
>>> >
>>> > 66-06-03 - Connecting rod assemblies
>>> > TEXTRON LYCOMING:
>>> > Category - Engine Effective Date - 03/13/1966 Recurring - No
>>> > Supersedes - N/A Superseded by - N/A
>>> > LYCOMING:
>>> > Amdt. 39-708.
>>> > Applies to Model IO-360-A1A Engines with Serial Numbers 101-51
>> through
>>> > 1231-51A, and All Engines Remanufactured by Lycoming Prior to
>> December
>>> > 1,
>>> > 1964.
>>> > Compliance required as indicated.
>>> > To prevent further failures of connecting rod assemblies, P/N 74503
>> and
>>> > P/N
>>> > 74308, accomplish the following:
>>> > (a) Replace connecting rod assemblies P/N 74503 and P/N 74308 with
>> 200
>>> > or
>>> > more hours' time in service on the effective date of this AD with
>>> > connecting
>>> > rod assembly P/N 75059 within the next 50 hours' time in service in
>>> > accordance with Lycoming Service Bulletin No. 302 or later
>> FAA-approved
>>> > revision.
>>> > (b) Replace connecting rod assemblies P/N 74503 and P/N 74308 with
>> less
>>> > than
>>> > 200 hours' time in service on the effective date of this AD with
>>> > connecting
>>> > rod assembly P/N 75059 before the accumulation of 250 hours' time
>> in
>>> > service
>>> > in accordance with Lycoming Service Bulletin No. 302 or later
>>> > FAA-approved
>>> > revision.
>>> > Effective March 13, 1966.
>>> > Revised January 16, 1969.
>>> >
>>> > I did NOT find a later AD but I only searched thru 2000. You can
>> do a
>>> > search on the FAA sites.
>>> >
>>> > Cy Galley
>>> > EAA Safety Programs Editor
>>> > Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: <Hopperdhh@aol.com>
>>> > To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
>>> > Subject: Engines-List: IO-360-A!A Rods
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> --> Engines-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>>> >>
>>> >> Fellow listers,
>>> >>
>>> >> I bought a core IO-360-A1A 200 hp angle valve engine to overhaul.
>> It
>>> > had
>>> >> Lycoming part no. 75059 connecting rods. I have been told that
>> these
>>> >> rods are
>>> >> not airworthy. Is this true?
>>> >>
>>> >> If so, does anyone have four replacements to sell me? Please
>> reply
>>> > off
>>> >> list
>>> >> with price.
>>> >>
>>> >> do not archive
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >>
>>> >> Dan Hopper
>>> >> Walton IN
>>> >> RV-7A
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel return lines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: AI Nut <ainut@hiwaay.net>
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>There are a few things missing here.
>
>
>
<<<snip>>>
to quote:
If so (using fuel injection) do not under any circumstance (and I know I'll get
flamed for this) use either a firewall mounted electric or mechanical fuel pump.
The risks from vapour lock are real and deadly.
Not sure I follow the mechanics you're talking about here, so please
tell me what you think of my setup. I have my electric fuel pump on the
engine side of the firewall. It is located physically below the plane
of the fuel tank, so it will be gravity fed as well as (possibly)
sucking from the tank. It then pushes the fuel up about 18 inches to
the intake. Pump is strong enough for the 18" head, but do you see a
vapor lock possibility here???
Yes, I intend to use mogas but I don't see how that makes a difference
here. The vapor potentials for mogas versus avgas have been shown to be
vastly overblown. Under certain limited conditions, yes it can happen
so I want to ensure my system has that possibility engineered out of it.
Thanks,
David
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel return lines |
Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 00:57:58 -0500
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
I use 5/16" return line. Even with dual 35 GPH pumps going (only for takeoff in
case one fails) that has been adequate. I don't switch tanks. Always draw &
return fuel to left tank. Transfer fuel from right tank with Facet pump.
There are many workable arrangements. I prefer the simplest system that covers
all the necessary bases.
Tracy Crook (1000+ hours of EFI powered flight)
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Brooks Wolfe" <slipstream13@earthlink.net<mailto:slipstream13@earthlink.net>>
Listers: I'm installing the various fuel lines in my RV-7. Since I'm
planning on an auto conversion with automotive-style pumps, I assume I'm
going to be pumping a lot more gas to the engine than it's burning, in order
to keep a continuous flow of cool fuel moving through the lines. I'm
looking for any thoughts, observations, or hints on the following:
Size and routing of return lines. I remember in the 402s I used to fly, the
return lines would go all the way to the very forward tip of the tank.
-- In retrospect, it would have been smart for me to have installed a
line parallel to the vent line in my tank.. Too late for that now. Between
the rivets and the proseal, I think I'd sooner start fresh.
Fuel selectors: Are Andairs worth the money? ($413US for a duplex
selector! Yeesh).
That's all for now..
Brooks Wolfe
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|