My Ney Enterprises Re-Man Lasted 200 hours

[N. Shane]

Caution to those pondering a zero-choke re-man by this company.

My O-470J lasted 200 hours before four cylinders showed mid-fifties
compression with Blackstone labs reporting symptoms of excessive ring
wear.

Even after admitting, view phone, that the test-stand results were
abnormal, Ney himself refused to stand behind the engine, on the
grounds that the plane's former owner -- his customer -- made him use
reconditioned cylinders.

[Matt Whiting]

Gene Kearns wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 06:06:10 -0500, N. Shane >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Caution to those pondering a zero-choke re-man by this company.
>>
>>My O-470J lasted 200 hours before four cylinders showed mid-fifties
>>compression with Blackstone labs reporting symptoms of excessive ring
>>wear.
>>
>>Even after admitting, view phone, that the test-stand results were
>>abnormal, Ney himself refused to stand behind the engine, on the
>>grounds that the plane's former owner -- his customer -- made him use
>>reconditioned cylinders.
>>
>
>
> My sympathies are with you, but I suspect the whole story behind this
> tragedy involves a prior owner getting a "cheap" repair using customer
> supplied parts. Having done business with Ney, myself, I suspect that
> this owner was told by Ney Enterprises that they wouldn't stand behind
> parts that were barely within acceptable limits.... and the customer
> proceeded because their intent was to sell the aircraft with a
> "re-manned" engine to jack up the price. It seems to me that there
> was full disclosure. Apparently, from your own post, it is clear that
> the test data was available prior to your purchase. If it wasn't in
> the logs when you bought the aircraft... the prior owner *must* have
> seen them. It appears to me that either the seller sought to hide
> the information or you and/or your mechanic (at pre-buy) missed the
> relevant figures.
>
> Trade-a-Plane is full of ads that read TSMO 234 hrs., Time Since Top
> Overhaul 2 hours.... Not all repairs are equal and you generally get
> what you (or the seller) has paid for.
>
> Your beef is with the seller and/or your mechanic, not with Ney...
>

Yes and no. Personally, I don't have much respect for anyone who will
let the customer talk them into doing substandard work. I'd tell
customers like that to talk to one of my competitors.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Gene Kearns wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 09:25:10 -0400, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>Gene Kearns wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 06:06:10 -0500, N. Shane >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Caution to those pondering a zero-choke re-man by this company.
>>>>
>>>>My O-470J lasted 200 hours before four cylinders showed mid-fifties
>>>>compression with Blackstone labs reporting symptoms of excessive ring
>>>>wear.
>>>>
>>>>Even after admitting, view phone, that the test-stand results were
>>>>abnormal, Ney himself refused to stand behind the engine, on the
>>>>grounds that the plane's former owner -- his customer -- made him use
>>>>reconditioned cylinders.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>My sympathies are with you, but I suspect the whole story behind this
>>>tragedy involves a prior owner getting a "cheap" repair using customer
>>>supplied parts. Having done business with Ney, myself, I suspect that
>>>this owner was told by Ney Enterprises that they wouldn't stand behind
>>>parts that were barely within acceptable limits.... and the customer
>>>proceeded because their intent was to sell the aircraft with a
>>>"re-manned" engine to jack up the price. It seems to me that there
>>>was full disclosure. Apparently, from your own post, it is clear that
>>>the test data was available prior to your purchase. If it wasn't in
>>>the logs when you bought the aircraft... the prior owner *must* have
>>>seen them. It appears to me that either the seller sought to hide
>>>the information or you and/or your mechanic (at pre-buy) missed the
>>>relevant figures.
>>>
>>>Trade-a-Plane is full of ads that read TSMO 234 hrs., Time Since Top
>>>Overhaul 2 hours.... Not all repairs are equal and you generally get
>>>what you (or the seller) has paid for.
>>>
>>>Your beef is with the seller and/or your mechanic, not with Ney...
>>>
>>
>>Yes and no. Personally, I don't have much respect for anyone who will
>>let the customer talk them into doing substandard work. I'd tell
>>customers like that to talk to one of my competitors.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> My turn to say, "yes and no."
>
> I agree with you, but this poster has already said, in an earlier thread, that
> the CHT was within limits, but at the highest end of the acceptable limit. I
> don't think we can call this substandard work, although I am quite the soft
> touch when we discuss "barely within limits" work. I simply don't like it, one
> bit. We must give the contractor (Ney) the benefit of the doubt in that he did
> nothing that was contrary to acceptable practices.

An overhaul that lasts only 200 hours is substandard work in my book.
Your standards may be different. :-)


> IMHO, the customer *did* get screwed, but not by Ney.... he got screwed by
> Ney's customer that called the shots.... again... probably, with full
> disclosure.... which seems to muddy the waters a bit....

He got taken by both parties. A seller who didn't disclose things and
an engine overhauler who performed a substandard overhaul.


Matt

[Kyle Boatright]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Gene Kearns wrote:
>
Snippage
>
> > IMHO, the customer *did* get screwed, but not by Ney.... he got screwed
by
> > Ney's customer that called the shots.... again... probably, with full
> > disclosure.... which seems to muddy the waters a bit....
>
> He got taken by both parties. A seller who didn't disclose things and
> an engine overhauler who performed a substandard overhaul.
>
>
> Matt

Without having all of the facts (i.e. getting Ney's story and the story from
the previous owner), I'd venture that Ney is free from criticism, and we can
examine the actions of the previous owner.

The previous owner takes the engine to Ney, says (in essence) "Fix the
bottom end, but don't replace any cylinders, unless absolutely necessary."
The cylinders are serviciable, so Ney re-uses them. At that point, the
owner has saved several thousand dollars on cylinder replacement costs, and
the cylinders *may* make TBO. Or, they may not. No way to tell. However, if
the cylinders do go bad, the owner has had the benefit of $4-$6k in his
pocket for some period of time, and can take this money and maybe a little
more, and get 4 (or 6..whatever) new jugs. No harm, no foul. However, in
the meantime, he decides to sell the plane. The engine still runs fine, so
he can honestly advertise it as a new rebuild that runs well. He still has
no idea if the cylinders will last 25 hours or 2000 hours. Neither does the
guy who has brand new cylinders.

Now, let's talk about the responsibilities of the new owner... What kind of
pre-purchase did he do? Did he take the time to figure out how many hours
the cylinders had? He should have. Also, he should have negotiated the
aircraft's price to reflect that. If he did, good for him, if he didn't, he
didn't do his due dilligence.

The bottom line is that whatever you buy without a warranty, you're taking
the risk that it'll break. You've got to understand that risk and walk away
from situations you don't like. If you buy it, then it breaks, you can't
blame the previous owner.

KB

[Al Marzo]

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 06:06:10 -0500, N. Shane >
wrote:

>Caution to those pondering a zero-choke re-man by this company.
>
>My O-470J lasted 200 hours before four cylinders showed mid-fifties
>compression with Blackstone labs reporting symptoms of excessive ring
>wear.
>
>Even after admitting, view phone, that the test-stand results were
>abnormal, Ney himself refused to stand behind the engine, on the
>grounds that the plane's former owner -- his customer -- made him use
>reconditioned cylinders.

So I guess he's saying that he can't build an engine unless he has new
TCM or Millennium cylinders. Sure was able to sign the logs and take
the money, wasn't he? And what's wrong with reconditioned cylinders?
Ever notice the crap that comes out of the continental factory?
>

[Newps]

Gene Kearns wrote:


>>Ever notice the crap that comes out of the continental factory?
>>
>
> In the last few years, Continental has, on virtually every part, changed
> virtually every manufacturing process, in some way.... Is this question fishing
> for old news, new news, or.... what?

Continental has repeatedly told us how much better their cylinders have
become. The evidence I have seen is exactly the opposite. I will be
putting an O-520 into my 182 this winter, no way I go with new
Continental cylinders.


>
> Is Lycoming any better?

For cylinders yes. For everything else no.

[James M. Knox]

Newps > wrote in
:

>>>Ever notice the crap that comes out of the continental factory?
>
> Continental has repeatedly told us how much better their cylinders
> have become. The evidence I have seen is exactly the opposite. I
> will be putting an O-520 into my 182 this winter, no way I go with new
> Continental cylinders.

Ask the guy two hangars down from me. Just had his second TOP in about 800
hours, on a TCM re-man with all new cylinders. Classic "break-in with ZERO
oil consumption" problem.

[Al Marzo]

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 08:37:43 -0500, "James M. Knox"
> wrote:

>Newps > wrote in
:
>
>>>>Ever notice the crap that comes out of the continental factory?
>>
>> Continental has repeatedly told us how much better their cylinders
>> have become. The evidence I have seen is exactly the opposite. I
>> will be putting an O-520 into my 182 this winter, no way I go with new
>> Continental cylinders.
>
>Ask the guy two hangars down from me. Just had his second TOP in about 800
>hours, on a TCM re-man with all new cylinders. Classic "break-in with ZERO
>oil consumption" problem.

No matter who tries to be gallant and come to their rescue, they'll be
10+ others who have experienced the crap that TCM put out called
"cylinders". 700 hours is about all you can expect from a TCM
factory cylinder before taking it off and sending it out to be done
properly. Heck, I even know a few people who have taken the cylinders
off of a new TCM engine so that they may be corrected before putting
them into the plane. Sad story especially since they seem to spend
more on marketing than they do on quality assurance and control.

[James M. Knox]

Al Marzo > wrote in
:

> No matter who tries to be gallant and come to their rescue, they'll be
> 10+ others who have experienced the crap that TCM put out called
> "cylinders". 700 hours is about all you can expect from a TCM
> factory cylinder before taking it off and sending it out to be done
> properly.

To be fair, not ALL of them break in with this problem... but a large
number do.

> Heck, I even know a few people who have taken the cylinders
> off of a new TCM engine so that they may be corrected before putting
> them into the plane.

True... LPM (a magazine widely respected in the field) insists no
reputable shop would put a new TCM cylinder onto an engine without at
least first mic'ing everything and almost always having to relap the
valves.

> Sad story especially since they seem to spend
> more on marketing than they do on quality assurance and control.

Also sad, since one of the things that started this whole sad (and
expensive) story years ago was an attempt by TCM to actually IMPROVE
their engines. Now their latest approach (almost certainly to stave off
a class action suit) is just to continually lower the limits on an
"airworthy" cylinder. It's now so low (26/80 with air leaking past the
rings and valves, and a pressurized crankcase) that pretty much any
piece of scrap iron is considered "good" by TCM.

[PaulH]

>
>
> >
> > Is Lycoming any better?
>
> For cylinders yes. For everything else no.

This isn't a new issue. Looking back through the logbooks of my 69
Arrow, I see the engine was totally replaced at 200 hours (mid 70s),
no reason stated, no other damage reported or indicated.

[Robert M. Gary]

N. Shane > wrote in message >...
> Caution to those pondering a zero-choke re-man by this company.
>
> My O-470J lasted 200 hours before four cylinders showed mid-fifties
> compression with Blackstone labs reporting symptoms of excessive ring
> wear.
>
> Even after admitting, view phone, that the test-stand results were
> abnormal, Ney himself refused to stand behind the engine, on the
> grounds that the plane's former owner -- his customer -- made him use
> reconditioned cylinders.


That's one of the problems with buying a plane with a recent overhaul.
There isn't much of a chance that the seller did a good job of
overhauling the engine if he's just hours away from selling it. You'd
probably be better off buying a run-out airplane and getting the
overhaul done yourself. Also, you'd know that the engine was properly
broken in.

-Robert

[xyzzy]

Robert M. Gary wrote:


>
>
> That's one of the problems with buying a plane with a recent overhaul.
> There isn't much of a chance that the seller did a good job of
> overhauling the engine if he's just hours away from selling it. You'd
> probably be better off buying a run-out airplane and getting the
> overhaul done yourself. Also, you'd know that the engine was properly
> broken in.

For purposes of avoiding one when buying, what's a "recent overhaul"?
100 hours? 200? 300? Put another way, after how many hours on an engine
can you tell that it's properly overhauld and broken in?

[G.R. Patterson III]

xyzzy wrote:
>
> Put another way, after how many hours on an engine
> can you tell that it's properly overhauld and broken in?

It's not really hours so much as calendar time, IMO. If the engine was overhauled
within about the last six months and there are no extenuating circumstances (such as
lost medical or death of the owner) prior to that, I would be a little leery of the
quality of the work. On the other hand, a "name" shop like Mattituck doesn't cut
corners on request for anyone (though their engines *have* failed on occasion), so I
would tend to assume the work was good if it came from one of those shops. There are
other factors besides time.

AFAIK, there's no way to really be sure that the engine was properly broken in,
especially with chrome cylinders.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[James M. Knox]

Gene Kearns > wrote in
:

>>Now their latest approach (almost certainly to stave off
>>a class action suit) is just to continually lower the limits on an
>>"airworthy" cylinder. It's now so low (26/80 with air leaking past
>>the rings and valves, and a pressurized crankcase) that pretty much
>>any piece of scrap iron is considered "good" by TCM.
>
> I'm not going to champion the quality of TCM cylinders.... but
> 28/80???? Where did that come from? AFAIK, they still require the
> calibrated orifice test (per SB03-3) to establish the minimum
> allowable pressure.... and I have *never* recorded a pressure *that*
> low...

It's 26/80, not 28/80, so slightly worse than you thought. <G>

Where does it come from? It comes straight from TCM. Used to be the
requirement for airworthiness (according to TCM) was 40/80 with audible
air leak only past the rings (anything past the valves was automatically
failing). About 10 months ago, to head off numerous lawsuits, TCM
issued an updated "standards" circular with the MUCH lower requirements
for a "good" engine.

As for the reading itself, the true reading on most of these engines is
closer to 0/80. Once the problem starts to manifest they quickly wear a
"step" near the upper part of the cylinder. Pressure is supposed to be
tested at TDC. What you will find is that the reading is essentially
0/80 (I've seen 3/80 and 7/80) when the cylinder appears to be TDC by
normal means (a dowel rod on the top of the cylinder). *BUT* you can
wiggle the prop the most microscopic amount and sometimes hit a spot
where it will suddenly jump to something more like 78/80. You've caught
the rings right under the step. [All this assumes, of course, that
there isn't too much air leaking around the valves.]

The comment from the southern USA rep for TCM - "Hell, if it will pass
the annual, why do you care?"

jmk

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 10:47:11 -0400, Gene Kearns
> wrote:


>I think you have been grossly misinformed.
>
>I just spoke with the person at Teledyne Continental that writes the
>service publications and he was utterly unaware of your ""standards"
>circular" and emphasized the fact that SB03-3 is *still* the standard
>for checking cylinder leakage.

Maybe just a little misinformed. The "low" reading (as you have
indicated) is still determined by the orifice tool. I've never
personally had a comp tester come in using this method under around
35.

They have changed the verbosity to allow initial e&i valve leakage
(originally, any valve leakage was verboten), but if the valve/s are
still leaking on the "re-check", the cylinder gets yanked.

TC

[James M. Knox]

Gene Kearns > wrote in
:

>
> I think "grossly" fits.... bear in mind that the poster offered a
> statement, "About 10 months ago, to head off numerous lawsuits, TCM
> issued an updated "standards" circular with the MUCH lower
> requirements for a "good" engine. " And then backed the statement up
> with anecdotal evidence, "The comment from the southern USA rep for
> TCM - "Hell, if it will pass the annual, why do you care?" "
>
> I'd still like to know *which* document sets forth this "standard."
>
> And personally, I've never had a calibrated orifice test go as low as
> 35... usually it is around 43. Lower than Lycoming's suggestion,
> perhaps, but then they don't *require* a borescope at inspection...
> and their standard is: if the test is below 60/80 cylinder repair
> should be "considered."

Been grossly misinformed about many things in life, including women. But I
don't think so this time. First off, TCM has always allowed readings as
low as 40/80 to be considered good - this change into the 20's just lowers
it further. The exhaust valve leakage is new - used to be any valve
leakage was failing.

If you are getting 35/80, then you have a GREAT cylinder from TCM.

I'll look for that TCM AC. Should have a copy back at the other office.

jmk

[James M. Knox]

"James M. Knox" > wrote in
2:

>
> If you are getting 35/80, then you have a GREAT cylinder from TCM.
>
> I'll look for that TCM AC. Should have a copy back at the other
> office.

FWIW... tried the TCM site (which, as always, left me more frustrated than
anything else). The primary item was SB03-3, which was revised last year
to greatly reduce the requirements for a "airworthy" cylinder. I was wrong
about one thing - I still thought that leakage past the intake valve wasn't
permitted, but in fact audible leakage past all valves and rings is now
considered normal.

Unfortunately, the reference to the actual leakage limit is in another
document, and (as usual) their links are broken. So I need to find a hard
copy somewhere.
jmk