As expected, the FAA issued an emergency AD grounding all potentially affected Lycoming engines until either proven unaffected via paperwork or inspection:
Savvy write:
FAA estimates that this AD affects 778 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry, and estimates the inspection to cost $1275 in labor and $150 in parts. It sounds to us like that’s based on the engine already being out of the airplane on a stand. So factor in another n hours for R&R.
My O-320 was overhauled in 2016 by LOMA-AIR in Belgium and I emailed them to ask if my engine was affected. Once they had the serial number they replied in less than 30 minutes; not affected. Happy days
@LeSwing
“Statistically a non-certified Rotax 912 series is more reliable than a certified Lycoming”
Do you have any independent research based data to back this opinion?
Our 172 is effected 75 hours post overhaul. It also been away for 3 weeks having 14 grands worth of 8.33 radio work done. I’m not very happy especuially as the low voltage light comes on when you turn everything on.
The rotax in our microlight has done 1800 hours with nothing but routine maintenace and its never had a single drop of oil to top it up between checks either.
It doesn’t mean that Rotax is statistically more reliable then Lycoming. Not in any way.
My dear friend got burned alive after crashing when his Rotax suddenly stopped. It’s disturbing but I woudl not use this tragedy to prove that Rotax is statistically less reliable.
Robin_253 wrote:
Do you have any independent research based data to back this opinion?
It’s not an opinion (well, that too), but it’s mainly a fact. I have presented this earlier here (I think, maybe it was some other place?), but I have no idea how to find it either way. They have done analysis of this in Australia.
My personal experience is a Rotax is as good as 100% reliable if you follow the book regarding maintenance. Start modifying on it, then you better know what you are doing though, the Bing carbs seem to have a life on their own for instance. Another thing is that the actual installation is done by the aircraft manufacturer. Several examples of poor tubing, hoses and clamps exist. Here in Norway, for all microlight aircraft (meaning Rotax power for 90%), the factory fuel hose clamps had to be changed before taking the next flight. There are lots of hoses and clamps in a Rotax (external oil tank, liquid cooling etc), which are all done by the aircraft manufacturer. Some are much better than other regarding this, which is something to be aware of, but also very simple to fix.
LeSving wrote:
It’s not an opinion (well, that too), but it’s mainly a fact.
Fantastic start of a posting. Saves me the time to read on.
For the FAA to receive a report, the situation had to be relatively serious. So there must have been many others.
This is curious:
I wonder how that was calculated!
Peter wrote:
I wonder how that was calculated!
The calculation is detailed in the AD.
