X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:57:37 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c1) with ESMTPS id 5736899 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:59:44 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=74.125.82.50; envelope-from=joeczabaranek@gmail.com Received: by wgbds11 with SMTP id ds11so1280430wgb.7 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:59:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.81.38 with SMTP id w6mr2484140wix.10.1346353147255; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:59:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.7.144 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:59:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:59:07 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] Performance Engines and the FAA From: Joseph Czabaranek X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044288c0159bf404c880452d --f46d044288c0159bf404c880452d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Ive got an IO-360 from Performance Engines delivered in April 2001. It has a little over 500 hrs on it now. I purchased the plane from the builder who did most of the maintenance himself, with most powerplant maintenance being done by his local A&P. There haven't been any problems with the engine. At my first annual inspection the mechanic noted the use of ny-lock nuts forward of the firewall and a nut or two that was not torqued to spec; after 10 yrs of use that's not surprising. I had an intake pipe crack that had to be replaced. After placing an order with Performance, it took nearly a month for them to acknowledge that they had no record of the order. It took another 3 weeks for them to admit that the pipe was a standard Cessna part and I could order it myself with the correct part number. So I've had bad customer service from them but I cant complain about the engine. Is there anyone who can bear witness to a bad 360 from Performance? All of the horror stories relate to 6 cylinders. After 500 hrs I'm not concerned enough to consider an overhaul, but I'd like to know if I should be. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Mark Davis wrote: > As one of those who have previously posted on problems with my Performance > Engine Lyc. IO-540, I offer what I'm able to on FAA involvement on the > matter. My contact with the FAA has asked that I not give any details > since, while I was not told that what they said was "off the record", they > are in what seems to be a bit of a legal bind (surprise) on subject - my > interpretation. They apparently have a not insignificant amount of hard > documentation on the problems with these engines, including my own, but are > unable to take action since all of our engines are "experimental". I was > told that since Performance Engines, at least at the time of my contact > (several years ago now) held a Repair Station certificate, they could act > on any problems noted with a certificated engine but they could take no > action regarding experimental engines since there are no real legal > standards for what that means - again my interpretation. To be honest, I > was impressed with the apparent sincere regret expressed during my contact > that their hands were tied and the recognition of the potential safety > problems involved. Unfortunately, I suspect that Paul's suggestion of > submitting SDRs on problems would probably fail for the same reason. > > My last post on the problem was about 2 years ago before overhauling my > engine at 98 hours. I would be willing to share the problems, pictures, > required fixes, etc. from the tear down/overhaul with anyone interested. > Suffice to say that I was very glad that we did tear it down because a > number of things we found can only be described as scarry. The engine is > now back in operation with about 150 hours total on it and is one that I > now have some real confidence in. Like many others on the list, I strongly > recommend that anyone with a Performance Engine that has not been > overhauled since receipt do so ASAP. > > Mark Davis > Legacy N422MD > San Diego, CA > > > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:** > 81/lists/lml/List.html > --f46d044288c0159bf404c880452d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ive got an IO-360 from Performance Engines delivered in April 2001. =A0It h= as a little over 500 hrs on it now. =A0I purchased the plane from the build= er who did most of the maintenance himself, with most powerplant maintenanc= e being done by his local A&P. =A0There haven't been any problems w= ith the engine. =A0At my first annual inspection the mechanic noted the use= of ny-lock nuts forward of the firewall and a nut or two that was not torq= ued to spec; after 10 yrs of use that's not surprising. =A0I had an int= ake pipe crack that had to be replaced. =A0After placing an order with Perf= ormance, it took nearly a month for them to acknowledge that they had no re= cord of the order. =A0It took another 3 weeks for them to admit that the pi= pe was a standard Cessna part and I could order it myself with the correct = part number. =A0

So I've had bad customer service from them but I cant co= mplain about the engine.

Is there anyone who can b= ear witness to a bad 360 from Performance? =A0 All of the horror stories re= late to 6 cylinders. =A0After 500 hrs I'm not=A0concerned=A0enough to c= onsider an overhaul, but I'd like to know if I should be.



On Thu, Aug 30,= 2012 at 1:17 PM, Mark Davis <marksdavis@cox.net> wrote:
As one of those who have previously posted on problems with my Performance = Engine Lyc. IO-540, I offer what I'm able to on FAA involvement on the = matter. =A0My contact with the FAA has asked that I not give any details si= nce, while I was not told that what they said was "off the record"= ;, they are in what seems to be a bit of a legal bind (surprise) on subject= - my interpretation. =A0They apparently have a not insignificant amount of= hard documentation on the problems with these engines, including my own, b= ut are unable to take action since all of our engines are "experimenta= l". =A0I was told that since Performance Engines, at least at the time= of my contact (several years ago now) held a Repair Station certificate, t= hey could act on any problems noted with a certificated engine but they cou= ld take no action regarding experimental engines since there are no real le= gal standards for what that means - again my interpretation. =A0To be hones= t, I was impressed with the apparent sincere regret expressed during my con= tact that their hands were tied and the recognition of the potential safety= problems involved. Unfortunately, I suspect that Paul's suggestion of = submitting SDRs on problems would probably fail for the same reason.

My last post on the problem was about 2 years ago before overhauling my eng= ine at 98 hours. =A0I would be willing to share the problems, pictures, req= uired fixes, etc. from the tear down/overhaul with anyone interested. =A0Su= ffice to say that I was very glad that we did tear it down because =A0a num= ber of things we found can only be described as scarry. =A0The engine is no= w back in operation with about 150 hours total on it and is one that I now = have some real confidence in. =A0Like many others on the list, I strongly r= ecommend that anyone with a Performance Engine that has not been overhauled= since receipt do so ASAP.

Mark Davis
Legacy N422MD
San Diego, CA


--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/list= s/lml/List.html

--f46d044288c0159bf404c880452d--