Return-Path: Received: from mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.116] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c1) with ESMTP id 743297 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:14:32 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.131.116; envelope-from=keltro@att.net Received: from 204.127.135.29 ([204.127.135.29]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12) with SMTP id <200502171913341120028032e>; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:13:44 +0000 Received: from [209.247.222.96] by 204.127.135.29; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:13:33 +0000 From: keltro@att.net (Kelly Troyer) To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: FW: Lycoming Verdict (From AVWeb) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:13:33 +0000 Message-Id: <021720051913.17334.4214ECDD0006842A000043B62160375964019D9B040A05@att.net> X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Oct 18 2004) X-Authenticated-Sender: a2VsdHJvQGF0dC5uZXQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_17334_1108667613_0" --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_17334_1108667613_0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Group, Might be of interest...... Kelly Troyer -------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- Subject: Lycoming Verdict (From AVWeb) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:12:31 +0000 > This just in from AVWeb ... > > ********************************************************************** > > JURY'S CRANKSHAFT VERDICT HITS LYCOMING HARD... > In a stunning verdict (the effects of which could ripple through the > aviation world for years to come) a Texas jury has found Textron > Lycoming entirely to blame for crankshaft failures in high-horsepower > engines between 2000 and 2002. What's more, the Grimes County jurors > found that Lycoming's investigation of the crankshaft failures was > fraudulent and incorrectly put the blame on the manufacturer of the > crankshaft forgings, Interstate Southwest, of Navasota, Texas. In fact, > the FAA also accepted Lycoming's version that Interstate had improperly > heat-treated the forgings, which weakened the steel and led to the > failures. What the jury found was that the crankshafts were > under-designed for high-horsepower engines, and that Lycoming changed > the recipe for the steel alloy used in the cranks by adding vanadium (to > make the metal easier and less expensive to work with) and that that > weakened them. According to court documents obtained by AVweb, the jury > found that the "sole cause" of the crankshaft failures was Lycoming's > design. More... > > ...REPLACEMENT CRANKS AND INTEGRITY QUESTIONED... > Now, the legal wranglings have undoubtedly just begun (Lycoming will > almost certainly appeal) but the Texas decision raises some practical > and potentially disquieting questions about the whole crankshaft issue. > These are questions we'd like to pose to Lycoming but we were unable to > receive a response before our deadline. According to Interstate lawyer > Marty Rose, the forging company's investigation revealed that the design > of the crankshafts used in the brawny turbocharged 300-plus-horsepower > six-cylinder engines in question was based on 40-year-old designs for > four-cylinder engines with much lower horsepower. Rose told AVweb that > their investigation revealed that even though the vanadium problem was > fixed in replacement cranks installed in 1,400 engines recalled in 2002, > the cranks are still under-designed for the stresses created by the big > engines. "The [replacement] crankshafts don't have any safety margin," > said Rose. More... > > ...THE VERDICT COULD BE JUST THE BEGINNING > The decision also raises questions about the FAA's handling of the > crankshaft problem. From the outset, the agency appears to have gone > along with Lycoming's conclusion that Interstate was to blame for the > weak cranks. The original Emergency Airworthiness Directive grounding > Cessnas and Pipers with TIO-540 and LTIO-540 engines cites "a variation > in the heat treatment process" (the jury did not agree) used during > production of the cranks. FAA chief spokesman Greg Martin said the > agency is studying the court decision and there's no word yet on further > action. More... > > ************************************************************************ . --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_17334_1108667613_0 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Group,
   Might be of interest......
 
Kelly Troyer
 

-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
Subject: Lycoming Verdict (From AVWeb)
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:12:31 +0000




> This just in from AVWeb ...
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> JURY'S CRANKSHAFT VERDICT HITS LYCOMING HARD...
> In a stunning verdict (the effects of which could ripple through the
> aviation world for years to come) a Texas jury has found Textron
> Lycoming entirely to blame for crankshaft failures in high-horsepower
> engines between 2000 and 2002. What's more, the Grimes County jurors
> found that Lycoming's investigation of the crankshaft failures was
> fraudulent and incorrectly put the blame on the manufacturer of the
> crankshaft forgings, Interstate Southwest, of Navasota, Texas. In fact,
> the FAA also accepted Lycoming's version that Interstate had improperly
> heat-treated the forgings, which weakened the steel and led to the
> failures. What the jury found was that the crankshafts were
> under-designed for high-horsepower engines, and that Lycoming changed
> the recipe for the steel alloy used in the cranks by adding vanadium (to
> make the metal easier and less expensive to work with) and that that
> weakened them. According to court documents obtained by AVweb, the jury
> found that the "sole cause" of the crankshaft failures was Lycoming's
> design. More...
>
> ...REPLACEMENT CRANKS AND INTEGRITY QUESTIONED...
> Now, the legal wranglings have undoubtedly just begun (Lycoming will
> almost certainly appeal) but the Texas decision raises some practical
> and potentially disquieting questions about the whole crankshaft issue.
> These are questions we'd like to pose to Lycoming but we were unable to
> receive a response before our deadline. According to Interstate lawyer
> Marty Rose, the forging company's investigation revealed that the design
> of the crankshafts used in the brawny turbocharged 300-plus-horsepower
> six-cylinder engines in question was based on 40-year-old designs for
> four-cylinder engines with much lower horsepower. Rose told AVweb that
> their investigation revealed that even though the vanadium problem was
> fixed in replacement cranks installed in 1,400 engines recalled in 2002,
> the cranks are still under-designed for the stresses created by the big
> engines. "The [replacement] crankshafts don't have any safety margin,"
> said Rose. More...
>
> ...THE VERDICT COULD BE JUST THE BEGINNING
> The decision also raises questions about the FAA's handling of the
> crankshaft problem. From the outset, the agency appears to have gone
> along with Lycoming's conclusion that Interstate was to blame for the
> weak cranks. The original Emergency Airworthiness Directive grounding
> Cessnas and Pipers with TIO-540 and LTIO-540 engines cites "a variation
> in the heat treatment process" (the jury did not agree) used during
> production of the cranks. FAA chief spokesman Greg Martin said the
> agency is studying the court decision and there's no word yet on further
> action. More...
>
> ************************************************************************

.
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_17334_1108667613_0--