• Welcome to the new Commander Owners Group Forums. Please bear with us as the kinks are worked out and things are tweaked. If you have any questions or issues with the new platform, please post them here.

Cat Island

Re: Cat Island

Commander91gm said:
I will tell you that it will take almost that long for you to have a level of comfort with the plane to commit to any long trips.
I know after I changed out mine I seem to hold my breath a bit each time I flew it and it took a while to get the confidence back.
I think that the number of hours to get there is different for each of us.
25 might be a bit long but getting the first oil change done and checking for metal gives one a bunch of confidence.
When I did mine I did not leave the Phoenix area (where there are a lot of options) for a while.


"This idea that one can spend 30k on an engine and it fail in 10-25 hours is a bit out of my logic zone. I am sure anything can happen... but what are the real %'s of this? I cannot imagine a shop staying in business if this occurred on a regular basis."


it does happen more than one might like - we are all human. The reason good shops are considered so is not just for the quality of their work but how they treat the customer when it does happen.

And it will - hopefully not to you but the chance exists and if they are going to fail it is usually in the first 25 hours or so.
Click to expand...
I get the human factor.. but I would be curious on the % if that is out there.
 
Re: Cat Island

jukelemon said:
I get the human factor.. but I would be curious on the % if that is out there.
Click to expand...


I am sure it varies by shop and I doubt it would ever be published, no less a compilation of many shops.


This is really a word of mouth business.
 
Re: Cat Island

I think we have to separate these issues :

1)Failure due to manufacturing flaw. This may or may not show up in your early hours
2) Failure due to wear (hours) or other disuse - calendar time and inverse of hours
3) Failure due to assembly. This WILL show up in your early hours
4) Failure due to installation. This WILL show up in your early hours.

1) You cant protect yourself against manufacturing flaws. Remember ECI jugs ?
2) You have some tools for wear items . - oil filter, oil analysis, oil screen and borescope inspections.
3 & 4) You CAN protect yourself against assembly and installation by making your early hours "test" flights.

How many hours ? 10, 25, 100 - you pick. You will find only opinion on this.

But naturally the more hours without issues the more confidence that you're past any assembly and install issues.

Actual % ? I've only found white papers and opinion based articles as joel indicates ..
 
Last edited:
Re: Cat Island

Thanks guys..
 
Re: Cat Island

Thanks


Good article !!
 
Re: Cat Island

Good article but with many holes in my opinion.

How many non accident engine failures? Or is every "engine failure" an accident?

You have no idea on the number of new/overhauled engines against the 180 failures. Was it 50% of engines? 10% etc?

The time in years... again a bit misleading. Why? Because I would argue that most people are going to fly their planes more after an overhaul given the investment so of course you would see higher numbers i.e. higher hours in sky... higher possibility of failure. Without knowing the total number of NON failures...it is just a lonely graph lol.

I get the gist... and it is valuable... but a bit lacking on other variables.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cat Island

Yes, that's the article I remember, and another one suggesting you be very careful after an overhaul for a number of hours. I'd feel better with a factory new engine, but I'm not sure our engines are available anymore
 
Re: Cat Island

atjudge said:
Yes, that's the article I remember, and another one suggesting you be very careful after an overhaul for a number of hours. I'd feel better with a factory new engine, but I'm not sure our engines are available anymore
Click to expand...

They are. I just really didn't like the number Lycoming gave me for NEW.
They themselves stated that a factory overhaul was just as good at a lot less.

Their number was ~$5K more than the 3rd party overhaul shops for the same engine.
 
Re: Cat Island

Less than two hours on a zero time factory O'haul. I thought I was bullet proof and a big man on campus with my fresh setup . . .

I fully agree that it just doesn't seem fair to make that type of investment then have to cautiously exercise the new equipment during it's break-in.

I'd be more expectant and concerned about adjustments vice something actually breaking. It takes a good deal of time to fully 'setup' a new engine.
 

Attachments

  • I 95 Ldg.jpg
    I 95 Ldg.jpg
    15.3 KB · Views: 0
  • wings off.jpg
    wings off.jpg
    26.5 KB · Views: 0
Re: Cat Island

jukelemon said:
Good article but with many holes in my opinion.

How many non accident engine failures? Or is every "engine failure" an accident?

You have no idea on the number of new/overhauled engines against the 180 failures. Was it 50% of engines? 10% etc?

The time in years... again a bit misleading. Why? Because I would argue that most people are going to fly their planes more after an overhaul given the investment so of course you would see higher numbers i.e. higher hours in sky... higher possibility of failure. Without knowing the total number of NON failures...it is just a lonely graph lol.

I get the gist... and it is valuable... but a bit lacking on other variables.
Click to expand...




You can pick it apart all you want but it was just an attempt by someone to give you some quantifiable data in relation to your question about how many. The reality is you should just accept the fact that infant mortality is a real and the suggestion to be cautious is a prudent one.
 
Re: Cat Island

Jamesdub said:
Less than two hours on a zero time factory O'haul. I thought I was bullet proof and a big man on campus with my fresh setup . . .

I fully agree that it just doesn't seem fair to make that type of investment then have to cautiously exercise the new equipment during it's break-in.

I'd be more expectant and concerned about adjustments vice something actually breaking. It takes a good deal of time to fully 'setup' a new engine.
Click to expand...


I have a friend who had his engine done at a respectable Rebuilder, and in the first three months the engine had to be removed and sent back two times. It does happen even with the very well-respected shops.
 
Re: Cat Island

Commander91gm said:
You can pick it apart all you want but it was just an attempt by someone to give you some quantifiable data in relation to your question about how many. The reality is you should just accept the fact that infant mortality is a real and the suggestion to be cautious is a prudent one.
Click to expand...
Understood and I appreciate the data/answer to my question.

Just trying to put the data in perspective... which should always be done in my opinion.
 
Re: Cat Island

Interesting commentary. This is ultimately all about risk, threat, probability and costs to remediate after risk event occurs. With an open ocean crossing on a low time engine, the remediation of an engine failure is all about insurance. From a personal threat perspective, as others have mentioned, warm waters, life vests, raft, US Coast Guard, etc, the threat is manageable. However, the aircraft will be written off. As we have seen in other postings, not a lot of Commanders out there to replace your baby. Insurance remediation after an off airport landing on ground is probably going to get your baby back in there air (most cases, assuming that the bird doesn’t hit something on the ground).

Call me an overly risk adverse Canadian Canuck, but I don’t think I would undertake a riskier flight (over water, marginal VFR [I’m not IFR]) with a new engine. But to each their own. It’s all about personal limits.
 
Re: Cat Island

Interesting discussion as I just spent about 10 hours tracking down two faults - both caused by the human factor.

The first was a cold solder joint on an indicator and the second was incorrectly stripped wire done at the factory in 1974 that nicked quite a few of the stranded connectors which eventually - with the help of vibration - corroded until the wire lead broke off.

It's similar to my always having to fix something after annual. I just expect it.
 
Re: Cat Island

gmores said:
Interesting discussion as I just spent about 10 hours tracking down two faults - both caused by the human factor.

The first was a cold solder joint on an indicator and the second was incorrectly stripped wire done at the factory in 1974 that nicked quite a few of the stranded connectors which eventually - with the help of vibration - corroded until the wire lead broke off.

It's similar to my always having to fix something after annual. I just expect it.
Click to expand...

Can relate, after we recovered the I-95 landing it took us a couple of months and many phone calls (Lycoming, Jim, other local smart guys) to finally find the culprit (a locally fabricated main fuel line). JPI flight trending is what caught my attention (fuel flow reduction).
 

Attachments

  • fuel line.jpg
    fuel line.jpg
    56.8 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Re: Cat Island

Jamesdub said:
Can relate, after we recovered the I-95 landing it took us a couple of months and many phone calls (Lycoming, Jim, other local smart guys) to finally find the culprit (a locally fabricated main fuel line). JPI flight trending is what caught my attention (fuel flow reduction).
Click to expand...

I am all for owner produced / reproduced parts but the issue hit me when i first bought the plane - A non-standard , non-lycoming, non-beechurst throttle cable. Was binding regularly.

Logbook entry stated : throttle cable replaced.
Sure ! With what ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top