You could surely have a serious leak from anything anywhere on whole engine that is taken apart for repairs and not reassembled properly. However, on most Lycomings there is no particular reason to take the valve covers off – its not part of scheduled service, given hydraulic valves and no periodic adjustments.
Making it easier and more accepted among pilots to report engine failures would enhance safety in GA. We have 2021 and the data situation in Europe is very sparse. Not good.
Engine monitors, or even just a small data box that records basic parameters would also be helpful.
Snoopy wrote:
Engine monitors, or even just a small data box that records basic parameters would also be helpful.
Hmmm, as this is indeed something very helpful, my brother is actually working on a small box to record the regular output from the EDM-700 engine monitor. Newer installations store engine data on their own, and it can be downloaded, but the popular basic EDM-700 does not.
And we also want to have this information available to analyze any development, which (being honest) is practically impossible when flying. We plan to store it along with some time and GPS position data on a flash disc or the like. He’s got enough knowledge to get this working, and it doesn’t look all too difficult, but time is a factor at the moment, so will be summer when hopefully things start to work. Up to now we didn’t have any plans to do more than one sample of the box (which is, for my engine), but of course if there was further interest we could think about that…
IMO, an engine is just a machine. The best way to keep these machines running is to get the pilot out of the loop regarding operation. This is done with FADEC. The other alternative is to de-rate them to a point where the pilot simply cannot operate them out of the “envelope”, unless on purpose.
I am not sure FADEC solves fuel contamination & fuel starvation problems, it may aggravate these?
From a small data set: C172 Lyco running out of fuel, PA18 C90 cutting on takeoff and DA40 FADEC Austro losing half power, the first, well understood pilot is guilty as charged, the second, carb ice was suspected but not cut clear, the third, no idea WTF was going on, manufacturer did send this after 6 months “it does look like the reason was bad injector behavior (means possible injection timing or fuel quality was faulty)”, later issued SB for injector change at 900hrs
I agree, FADEC will help for regulation & engine management, pilots will be less busy debating MP/RPM over-squares and LOP/ROP mixture and concentrate on flying 
Snoopy wrote:
I doubt a FADEC managed O-320 will soon appear on the market
A O-320 is probably a good example of an engine that is “de-rated” enough so it doesn’t need a FADEC to maintain reliability (Compared with a 200+ hp 360 for instance). We see the same in Rotax 912 UL vs 912 ULS. The 912UL has 80 HP, the 912 ULS has 100 (slightly larger volume and higher CR). The 912 UL is well within it’s “envelope”, the 912 ULS is much closer to the edges, and consequently develop more trouble.
I would be very interested in the little box for the EDM700
I never download my data as it is a PITA to do – in fact I’d have to look up how to do it. As somebody once said on this forum, it’s the most useful instrument, I watch my CHT’s on the climb every time to look after my engine. But it has the worlds worst GUI
I download mine fairly regularly. Have to, since the EDM700 has so little memory. A product I designed in 1991 has more 
It works fine using the JPI utility, and a cable. A win10 laptop runs it fine. The EDM products are 1970s era but they got certified early on…
I just read the Feb’21 issue of the CessnaPilotsAssociation magazine.
It carries a Mike Busch piece on magneto failure.
He reports a cadre of 300 aircraft (no idea how, randomly or not, this was selected) over a two-year period with six mag distributor gear failures (one of the more frequent mag failure modes with consequential outcomes). That is 1 per 100 aircraft-years, not terrible, but it evidently leaves room for significant improvement.
None of them ever made it in the NTSB engine failure stats that Paul Bertorelli evaluated because other than the post-flight condition of " the pilot’s brief or boxer" (his words, not mine;) there were no major personal or material damages. This makes it obvious, yet once again, that reporting is key to safety improvement. Too bad that authorities insist on using MOR’s for placing blame, hence killing the effort before it is really started in GA, where MOR’s only happen when someone has to blame someone else for commercial or official reasons…but that is cause for another thread (did we do one on this yet?)
Well, not a single one of those six needed to have led to the power-off landing that it did result in in all instances, on or off airfield. All of them could have continued flying single-mag but in no case was the problem isolated by the pilot, who took his engine for (mostly) dead in all cases, effectively meaning all of them make it into this thread..
This raises an eyebrow, opens a couple of eyes and raises a few questions
[edited to add the 300 aircraft were all single or twin piston engined, I presume all spark-ignition, but it is not reported]
