Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 22:32:03 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from 100m.mpr200-2.esr.lvcm.net ([24.234.0.81] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b4) with ESMTP id 1581185 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 22:16:42 -0400 Received: from lvcm.com (cm167.183.120.24.lvcm.com [24.120.183.167]) by 100m.mpr200-2.esr.lvcm.net (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 2.9.3.5) with ESMTP id AGA62727; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 19:16:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Message-ID: <3D210B51.16CF5CE8@lvcm.com> X-Original-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 19:09:22 -0700 From: rickschrameck Reply-To: rickschrameck@lvcm.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: " (Lancair Mailing List)" Subject: Re: [LML] URGENT SAFETY NOTICE for ENGINEAIR V8 USERS References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9F20942193C9239F36C4AF78" --------------9F20942193C9239F36C4AF78 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here we go again! First I applaud your notice to the owners of your gearboxes to stop using them without replacement of the drive shaft. But I have a big problem with your service bulletin and it accusations. You designed a part that was totally inadequate for the job of driving the propeller of the Engineair power plant. You blame everyone but yourself, that Jack is bunk. It seems that no one but you can install your gearbox correctly. If that is so you have designed a non serviceable product. I do not care if the engine is misfiring or had software that Al wrote that caused this problem. Under NO circumstance should any misfire or rough running, with the exception of a prop strike break such a critical part. You do not have a witness that saw mishandling or severe misfiring of Tom's engine. I was the only one that witnessed the test runs. No one else was there. Name the individual or retract your fabrication. I witnessed all the runs made after the engine was rebuilt and saw the shaft break. The engine never misfired once. It just broke. Your design was faulty and you should admit it and stop blaming everyone else. As far as the engine rebuild was concerned it was done by one of the best engine builders in the country. No change to compression or anything else was done to the engine. He just did a proper valve job installed new rings and bearings and installed new pistons that were far superior to the street rod pistons supplied by EngineAir. The engine was run on the dyno and produced the power that EngineAir claimed and no more. The shaft and gearbox was examined and photographed by EngineAir and you could have done the same. You did not offer to replace the shaft as you claim. If you did Tom would still be using your product. Step up and accept the fact that you had to build a better shaft and that should be the end of it. Rick Schrameck Epijk@aol.com wrote: > Gentlemen: > As many of you probably already know, the June 2002 issue of Sport > Aviation magazine contained an article about Tom Zedaker's Lancair 4, > which told of a failure of the prop reduction gearbox in his aircraft. > IN FACT, there have been TWO such failures. EPI has issued a service > bulletin (SB 260003, available at the URL above) which gives the > details and conclusions about these failures. -snip- > --------------9F20942193C9239F36C4AF78 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here we go again!

First I applaud your notice to the owners of your gearboxes to stop using them without replacement of the drive shaft.  But I have a big problem with your service bulletin and it accusations.  You designed a part that was totally inadequate for the job of driving the propeller of the Engineair power plant.  You blame everyone but yourself, that Jack is bunk.  It seems that no one but you can install your gearbox correctly.  If that is so you have designed a non serviceable product.

I do not care if the engine is misfiring or had software that Al wrote that caused this problem.  Under NO circumstance should any misfire or rough running, with the exception of a prop strike break such a critical part.

You do not have a witness that saw mishandling or severe misfiring of Tom's engine. I was the only one that witnessed the test runs.  No one else was there.  Name the individual or retract your fabrication.   I witnessed all the runs made after the engine was rebuilt and saw the shaft break.  The engine never misfired once.  It just broke.  Your design was faulty and you should admit it and stop blaming everyone else.

As far as the engine rebuild was concerned it was done by one of the best engine builders in the country.  No change to compression or anything else was done to the engine.  He just did a proper valve job installed new rings and bearings and installed new pistons that were far superior to the street rod pistons supplied by EngineAir.
The engine was run on the dyno and produced the power that EngineAir claimed and no more.

The shaft and gearbox was examined and photographed by EngineAir and you could have done the same.  You did not offer to replace the shaft as you claim.  If you did Tom would still be using your product.

Step up and accept the fact that you had to build a better shaft and that should be the end of it.

Rick Schrameck
 
 

Epijk@aol.com wrote:

Gentlemen:
As many of you probably already know, the June 2002 issue of Sport Aviation magazine contained an article about Tom Zedaker's Lancair 4, which told of a failure of the prop reduction gearbox in his aircraft. IN FACT, there have been TWO such failures. EPI has issued a service bulletin (SB 260003, available at the URL above) which gives the details and conclusions about these failures. -snip-
 
--------------9F20942193C9239F36C4AF78--