Compression Tests

[Doug]

Does anyone do an "automotive" type compression test on their aircraft
engine? I think this kind of "dynamic" test might show problems (such
as valves not opening all the way), that a leakdown test would not
(and vice-versa). Anyway my annual is coming up and I want to do it. I
imagine something that screws in and has a long hose to the guage, so
no one has to stand behind the propellor.

[Jim Weir]

Although I'll do either one the owner wants, I prefer the automotive style
tester. I can hear wheezes and such using this method that the other test just
will not show. Whistle through the carb, you've got an intake valve leak.
Singing out the exhaust, exhaust valve. Blowing out the crank vent and it is
blowby the rings. Lots of good information.

AND you don't have to get in the arc of the propeller and hold it steady against
80 pounds of pressure...you KNOW the propeller is going to spin.

Jim

P.S. It is not necessary to put the same question in all the rec.aviation.*
newsgroups. Most of us read them all and it is just a waste of bandwidth. This
one probably belongs in ra.owning.


(Doug)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->Does anyone do an "automotive" type compression test on their aircraft
->engine? I think this kind of "dynamic" test might show problems (such
->as valves not opening all the way), that a leakdown test would not
->(and vice-versa). Anyway my annual is coming up and I want to do it. I
->imagine something that screws in and has a long hose to the guage, so
->no one has to stand behind the propellor.

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Dan Thomas]

(Doug) wrote in message >...
> Does anyone do an "automotive" type compression test on their aircraft
> engine? I think this kind of "dynamic" test might show problems (such
> as valves not opening all the way), that a leakdown test would not
> (and vice-versa). Anyway my annual is coming up and I want to do it. I
> imagine something that screws in and has a long hose to the guage, so
> no one has to stand behind the propellor.

The automotive-type compression test doesn't find valves that
aren't opening properly. It would take a high RPM to detect that.
The differential compression test used on aircraft engines is not
only safer, but any leaks can be pinpointed. For instance, exhaust
valve leaks can be heard at the exhaust stack. Intake valve leaks can
be heard at the carb or induction filter. Ring leakage can be heard at
the oil filler or crankcase breather. Cylinder leaks can be found with
soapy water around the cylinder and head. None of these are possible
with the automotive compression test, except perhaps the cylinder/head
crack test, and it won't be nearly as easy.
Further, with the differential test an exhaust or intake valve
leak can sometimes be corrected by tapping the respective rocker arm,
with the cylinder pressurized, to dislodge some bit of carbon or lead
deposit that's interfering with valve seating. Saves on unnecessary
cylinder removals.

Dan

[JDupre5762]

>Does anyone do an "automotive" type compression test on their aircraft
>engine?

This used to be more common than the differential compression test. I have
seen a set up for a 9 cylinder radial engine that had 9 adapters and gauges so
that you can do all 9 cylinders at one time. I believe the gauges would hold
the highest reading until reset.

The old version of the AC 43.13 Acceptable Methods, Practices and Techniques,
used to mention the direct compression test as acceptable. I believe that the
current AC 43.13-1B no longer mentions it. Which begs the question is the
direct compression test no longer acceptable?

John Dupre'

[[email protected]]

On 22 Mar 2004 07:51:45 -0800, (Doug)
wrote:

>Does anyone do an "automotive" type compression test on their aircraft
>engine? I think this kind of "dynamic" test might show problems (such
>as valves not opening all the way), that a leakdown test would not
>(and vice-versa). Anyway my annual is coming up and I want to do it. I
>imagine something that screws in and has a long hose to the guage, so
>no one has to stand behind the propellor.

Yup. Useta do them all the time to R985AN14B's. Hangar neighbor had a
set of nine testers that resembled a stick-type tire pressure gage
that screwed directly into the spark plug holes.

Works best with a GPU that can be used for cranking, or a "fresh"
battery.

The 985's always either read 80/80 or 0-15/80 on a differential
compression check. If you had an inking of power problems/excessive
oil usage/etc. and 9 cylinders that were 80/80, it was about the only
tool available to get a better idea of what was going on.

Never took the opportunity to try it, but have an idea that it might
have pointed to the cylinders being fed by the "flat" cam lobes (with
perfect diff. compression) on the fixed-pitch Lycoming engines that
came into the shop with static rpm issues.

TC

[Pat Barry]

You can conduct whatever you like - however your IA will require that a
leak down test be performed since it is prescribed under Part 43.



Doug wrote:

> Does anyone do an "automotive" type compression test on their aircraft
> engine? I think this kind of "dynamic" test might show problems (such
> as valves not opening all the way), that a leakdown test would not
> (and vice-versa). Anyway my annual is coming up and I want to do it. I
> imagine something that screws in and has a long hose to the guage, so
> no one has to stand behind the propellor.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:20:47 -0800, Pat Barry > wrote:

>You can conduct whatever you like - however your IA will require that a
>leak down test be performed since it is prescribed under Part 43.

prove it.

TC

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:35:32 -0500, "Gene Kearns"
> wrote:


>Here is the train of thought.....
>
>Example, Lycoming engine (Continental is similar):
>
>FAR 43.13(a)
>Lycoming SSP-399 Page 1
>Lycoming SI 1191
>

I like it, but...

43.13(a) is a catch-all reg, kinda like conduct unbecoming for a
pilot. BTW, does it mention "inspection"?

Lycoming may consider all it's publications mandatory/regulatory, but
I'm afraid in reality, the FAA does not, unless you are operating Pt
135 (ref 135.421 if memory serves).

TC

[Jim Weir]

Pat Barry >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->You can conduct whatever you like - however your IA will require that a
->leak down test be performed since it is prescribed under Part 43.

That happens to be bull****.

Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Dennis O'Connor]

Uh, Gene, I will be less blunt than Jim and TC, and a bit more
informative... You are not reading carefully enough..
An IA is signing off a condition inspection, which is is not maintenance and
therefore 43.13(a) does not apply.

The regulatory language that specifically applies to the annual/100 hour
condition inspection is 43.15(c)(2)<i,ii,iii,iv> and Appendix D. No where
in those paragraphs will you see a leakdown test required.
denny

"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:08:26 -0500, wrote:

[JDupre5762]

>The regulatory language that specifically applies to the annual/100 hour
>condition inspection is 43.15(c)(2)<i,ii,iii,iv> and Appendix D. No where
>in those paragraphs will you see a leakdown test required.
>denny

Then how is it that I know of at least one IA who had his authorization revoked
at least in part for not recording compression test results in an annual entry.
As I remember he made exactly the same argument.

John Dupre'