Results for "lapping"

What we can learn from medicine about fixing things without taking them apart. A longtime friend who was suffering from extreme fatigue and shortness of breath. She was diagnosed with congestive heart failure caused by aortic valve stenosis, and she required an aortic valve replacement. This was a very big deal that required open-heart surgery. It involved cracking her chest, placing her on a heart-lung machine, stopping her heart, cutting into her aorta, surgically removing the defective valve, suturing a replacement valve (harvested from a pig) in its place, suturing her aorta, restarting her heart, and closing up her chest. Afterward, she spent a week in the hospital and more than two months recovering at home. That occurred about 15 years ago. Now, the replacement valve is starting to give out, and she needs another valve replacement. This time, remarkably, the valve will be replaced without opening her chest or stopping her heart.  Nowadays, most aortic valve replacements are done using a technique called transcatheter aortic valve replacement or TAVR. A small incision will be made in her groin, and a guide wire will be passed up through the femoral artery into the aorta, and through the aortic valve using […]

Teaching owners (and mechanics) how to do borescope inspections right In my last column (“Ending the War on Jugs,” AOPA Pilot March 2024 issue), I talked at length about why we should use the borescope—not the compression tester—as the gold standard for assessing cylinder condition. Borescopes are now inexpensive (under $300) and capable of breathtaking image quality. These new borescopes let us diagnose cylinder issues accurately and often early enough that the problem can be remediated using modern minimally invasive techniques—lapping leaking valves in place, and freeing stuck rings with a simple solvent flush—thereby eliminating the need to incur the cost and risk of cylinder removal. But there’s a problem: Very, very few A&Ps know how to do a proper borescope inspection of cylinders. There’s little or no training on this subject in A&P school, and no relevant questions on the A&P knowledge tests. There’s nothing in any maintenance manual or service bulletin from aircraft or engine manufacturers that provides any guidance on this subject.  Interestingly, Continental has “required” that a borescope inspection be done any time a compression test is performed, but they offer not a syllable of guidance on how to do one! What’s wrong with this picture? […]

Weak compression doesn’t always mean that the cylinder has to come off. For most of my nearly six decades as an aircraft owner and three decades as an A&P, the rule about cylinders was simple: If the compression reading was less than 60/80, the cylinder had to come off for repair or replacement, period. The mechanics who worked on my airplanes, then later mentored me about maintenance, and then still later became my professional colleagues seemed quite happy with this straightforward rule. (Mechanics are always happiest when they have clear guidance to follow.) In 1984, Continental muddied the water when they issued Service Bulletin M84-15 that substituted a “master orifice tool” in place of the traditional 60/80 go/no-go criterion. This allowed Continental cylinders to remain in service with compression readings down to the mid-40s so long as the leakage was past the rings. This guidance was based on dynamometer test cell research by Continental engineering demonstrating that an engine with all cylinders at 40/80 made exactly the same horsepower as one with all cylinders at 75/80. (Most A&Ps weren’t comfortable with this, and would still yank jugs if they measured anywhere in the 50s.) However, M84-15 also said that no […]

A maintenance-aware owner is the last line of defense against maintenance errors Corey owns a 1978 Bonanza A36 and is quite involved in its maintenance. He does his own oil changes and other preventive maintenance. He even bought his own borescope and uses it to keep tabs on the health of his cylinders. He’s my kind of aircraft owner! His most recent borescope inspection revealed what looked to him like burned exhaust valves in the #3 and #4 cylinders. He reported this finding to his local shop, and after verifying his diagnosis a decision was made to send the better cylinder out for overhaul by an engine shop in Tulsa and to replace the worse one with a new Superior Millennium. (I’m not sure whether any consideration was given to lapping the exhaust valves in place—maybe they were too far gone for that.) The work seemed to be proceeding smoothly. Before long, the shop installed the new and overhauled cylinders and had the plane almost buttoned back up when Corey stopped by to check on their progress. Informed that the airplane was almost ready for the break-in flight, Corey went over to eyeball his newly installed jugs—and he saw red. […]

How reliable and valid is the almighty compression test? Each annual inspection begins with a moment of terror when the IA removes the top spark plugs and takes a compression reading of each cylinder. We hold our breath awaiting the verdict. If the numbers are good, we exhale and relax. If not, we anticipate the sticker shock of cylinder removal and repair or replacement—and we pray that opening Pandora’s box won’t result in an even costlier verdict requiring an engine teardown or replacement. Sound familiar? Been there and done that? I certainly have.This agonizing compression testing ritual takes place hundreds of thousands of times each year. The requirement for performing a compression test at each annual and 100-hour inspection is written right into the FARs—specifically Part 43 Appendix D—so your IA has no choice about doing it. I’ve seen serious buyers walk away from an excellent airplane because they didn’t like the looks of the compression readings during the pre-buy. Yet this obsession with compression readings is so very wrong on multiple levels. Why wrong? I will explain… For one thing, the differential compression test is spectacularly unreliable. This means that you can test a cylinder multiple times and get  […]

Is the conventional wisdom wrong about why exhaust valves burn? Piston aircraft engines have an awful lot of moving parts. Way too many, if you ask me. The thought of thousands of separate metal parts reciprocating, rotating, wiggling, wobbling, and rubbing against one another thousands of times a minute ought to make you nervous—it sure does me. It’s something I try hard not to think about while airborne, maintly because I fly a lot better when not distracted. Of those thousands of moving parts, two kinds are the most worrisome: the ones most likely to blindside you with a costly, premature, unbudgeted-for engine overhaul or replacement, and the ones most likely to make you fall out of the sky (or at least soil your undies). The biggest offender in the safety-of-wallet category is the camshaft—and for Lycomings, the cam followers a.k.a. tappets—which prepresents by far the leading cause of premature engine teardowns. (Especially if you don’t count prop strikes, which you really shouldn’t since the prop isn’t part of the engine.) In the safety-of-flight category, hands-down the most-wanted villains are exhaust valves. Exhaust valves can ruin you day in at least two different ways: they can stick or they can […]

Low compression doesn’t always require cylinder removal Sam’s 1979 Piper PA-34-200T Seneca II was in the shop, and Sam was not happy. The shop had just done a compression test on the plane’s two Continental TSIO-360-EB3B engines and had given Sam some unwelcome news…  “Compression on left #4 is 35/80 and right #3 is 31/80,” Sam reported. “These engines are factory rebuilds installed in 2014, and they’ve been flying about 150-200 hours per year. The left engine had cylinder #4 replaced less than 1,100 hours ago and now needs to be replaced again. The right engine had cylinder #3 replaced only 500 hours ago and now needs to be replaced again. Apparently, I am doing something drastically wrong with these engines. It cannot be normal to have to replace NINE cylinders in 1,750 hours—two of them TWICE! What am I doing wrong?” Repetitive cylinder removals like the ones Sam experienced often trigger such guilt feelings, but the truth is that usually it’s not the fault of the owner or pilot. More likely they’re the fault of trigger-happy mechanics who were trained that low compression automatically requires removing the cylinder.  It doesn’t. What it does require is a good borescope inspection […]