X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [167.176.6.5] (HELO fdic.gov) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.6) with ESMTPS id 920381 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:30:31 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=167.176.6.5; envelope-from=brogers@fdic.gov DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; d=fdic.gov; s=fdic; c=simple; q=dns; t=1136910581; x=1136996981; h=from:date:subject:message-id:content-class:content-type; b=Yscwn9NgumDn6m0h83cV5+2cjAsm1O4eNJxWKec7oWMf/gjW6X5m8OcZma0ZafFLyHgoO6mWM/Jf9adpOMcm/g== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C61603.01438CD4" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Subject: RD-1B Service alert Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:29:18 -0600 Message-ID: <15839C662A43B844B6E393DBFEAA90BF0390D324@dalexc101p.prod.fdic.gov> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RD-1B Service alert Thread-Index: AcYTq17uk0fY3Yp8RBeXh+UOnM4ELQCVdQ0w From: "Rogers, Bob J." To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Return-Path: BRogers@FDIC.gov X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jan 2006 16:29:19.0568 (UTC) FILETIME=[01B04500:01C61603] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C61603.01438CD4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am wondering how much stronger the drilling and pinning is than the welding of the input shaft. Are there any disadvantages or drawbacks to drilling and pinning (other than the effort involved in making the modification)? As I understand it, Dave Leonard's engine was backfiring when the shaft broke (I do not know about Steve Brook's incident). Absent some abnormal torque pulses, such as backfiring, can we still expect that a 13B Turbo engine will break a welded shaft? If drilling and pinning is the superior method, why wasn't that method used to begin with? =20 Bob Rogers (agonizing over having to remove my RD-1B Redrive - again) =20 ________________________________ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Tracy Crook Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:52 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: RD-1B Service alert=20 =20 Service Alert on B drives=20 =20 I will publish a service alert later today on the website (www.rotaryaviation.com) on B drives used on turbo charged 13Bs and 20B engines. =20 =20 Decided to do this after reviewing Steve Brooks input shaft problem. His input shaft was previously used for well over 100 hours on Ed Anderson's drive (fairly early drive) with no problems. It used the welded style sun gear attachment to the input shaft. Steve's turbo engine apparently had enough torque to break the weld in the same way that Dave Leonard's (another turbo) did. =20 =20 Shortly before starting C drive production (4-23-03) we changed over to a drilled and pinned input shaft. This service alert requests (strongly) that any B drive used on a turbo charged 13B or 20B engine delivered before this date be inspected for presence of a pinned input shaft. If the sun gear is welded instead of pinned, the input shaft should be returned to RWS to have it drilled and pinned prior to any flight. This service will be performed for only the cost of materials and shipping. No problems have been encountered on RD-1, RD-1A or RD-1B drives used on normally aspirated engines but if you wish, this update can be done for a nominal service charge ( parts & shipping + shop time TBD). =20 [snip] =20 Tracy =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C61603.01438CD4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

I am wondering how much stronger = the drilling and pinning is than the welding of the input shaft.  Are = there any disadvantages or drawbacks to drilling and pinning (other than the = effort involved in making the modification)?  As I understand it, Dave = Leonard’s engine was backfiring when the shaft broke (I do not know about Steve = Brook’s incident).  Absent some abnormal torque pulses, such as backfiring, = can we still expect that a 13B Turbo engine will break a welded shaft?  If drilling and pinning is the superior method, why wasn’t that = method used to begin with?

 

Bob Rogers

(agonizing over having to remove my = RD-1B Redrive - again)

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Tracy Crook
Sent: Saturday, January = 07, 2006 10:52 AM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: RD-1B Service = alert

 

Service Alert = on B drives

 <= /font>

I will = publish a service alert later today on the website (www.rotaryaviation.com) on B drives used on turbo charged 13Bs and 20B engines.  =

 <= /font>

Decided to do = this after reviewing Steve Brooks input shaft problem.  His input shaft = was previously used for well over 100 hours on Ed Anderson's drive (fairly = early drive) with no problems.  It used the welded style sun gear = attachment to the input shaft.  Steve's turbo engine apparently had enough torque = to break the weld in the same way that Dave Leonard's (another turbo) did.  =

 <= /font>

Shortly = before starting C drive production (4-23-03)  we changed over to a = drilled and pinned input shaft.  This service alert requests (strongly) that any B drive = used on a turbo charged 13B or 20B engine delivered before this date be inspected = for presence of a pinned input shaft.  If the sun gear is welded = instead of pinned, the input shaft should be returned to RWS to have it drilled and = pinned prior to any flight.  This service will be performed for only = the cost of materials and shipping.  No problems have been encountered = on RD-1, RD-1A or RD-1B drives used on normally aspirated engines but if = you wish, this update can be done for a nominal service charge ( parts & shipping + shop time TBD).

 <= /font>

[snip]

 <= /font>

Tracy

 <= /font>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61603.01438CD4--