A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Wow! Ooops, take #3



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 3rd 15, 02:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Leonard[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Wow! Ooops, take #3

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:02:11 AM UTC-5, Dave Walsh wrote:
I think it says more about the technical competence of the
engine designers; maybe God doesn't like them either?


Well, crankshafts don't like to be loaded at their output location other than along the axis of rotation. Put a belt reduction drive on there, and you are applying load perpendicular to that. Interesting dynamics happen with a two cylinder in-line engine with this setup. It is not an easy system to design.

Steve Leonard
  #12  
Old April 3rd 15, 02:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Nadler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,610
Default Wow! Ooops, take #3

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:42:40 AM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
Well, crankshafts don't like to be loaded at their output location
other than along the axis of rotation. Put a belt reduction drive
on there, and you are applying load perpendicular to that.
Interesting dynamics happen with a two cylinder in-line engine
with this setup. It is not an easy system to design.

Steve Leonard


The failure is the prop hub (receiving end of belt reduction),
not at the crankshaft. Last round was classic fatigue - nice
crystalline structure on broken part.
  #13  
Old April 3rd 15, 03:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Leonard[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Wow! Ooops, take #3

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:48:59 AM UTC-5, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:42:40 AM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
Well, crankshafts don't like to be loaded at their output location
other than along the axis of rotation. Put a belt reduction drive
on there, and you are applying load perpendicular to that.
Interesting dynamics happen with a two cylinder in-line engine
with this setup. It is not an easy system to design.

Steve Leonard


The failure is the prop hub (receiving end of belt reduction),
not at the crankshaft. Last round was classic fatigue - nice
crystalline structure on broken part.


Same sort of issue. Up and down loading on that shaft due to increasing and decreasing tension because of engine dynamics and the loading going in and out of phase with the prop being in low or high moment of inertia relative to the motion (prop horizontal, low moment of inertia relative to motion created by pushing up and down by the drive belt). Likely source of the fatigue failure. But, as stated before, these are complex systems with lots of interactions. Be interesting to know the crack propagation direction relative to the blades on the prop.
  #14  
Old April 3rd 15, 04:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Wow! Ooops, take #3

On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 4:44:59 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
Yikes.
http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2015-0052-E


Sounds along the lines of this.....

http://www.bugatti100p.com/web_docum...lvibration.pdf

Sorta long read (the link), but curious to see results from the new AD.
  #15  
Old April 3rd 15, 06:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Nadler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,610
Default Wow! Ooops, take #3

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:44:26 AM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:48:59 AM UTC-5, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:42:40 AM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
Well, crankshafts don't like to be loaded at their output location
other than along the axis of rotation. Put a belt reduction drive
on there, and you are applying load perpendicular to that.
Interesting dynamics happen with a two cylinder in-line engine
with this setup. It is not an easy system to design.

Steve Leonard


The failure is the prop hub (receiving end of belt reduction),
not at the crankshaft. Last round was classic fatigue - nice
crystalline structure on broken part.


Same sort of issue.


Yep.

Up and down loading on that shaft due to increasing and decreasing
tension because of engine dynamics and the loading going in and out
of phase with the prop being in low or high moment of inertia relative
to the motion (prop horizontal, low moment of inertia relative to motion
created by pushing up and down by the drive belt). Likely source of
the fatigue failure. But, as stated before, these are complex systems
with lots of interactions. Be interesting to know the crack propagation
direction relative to the blades on the prop.


Crack propagation direction wasn't obvious on the broken part I saw.
Propagation *appeared* to have started at stress points from inadequate
flange radius and/or rough machining marks.
Not my area of expertise!

See ya, Dave

  #16  
Old April 3rd 15, 07:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Munk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Wow! Ooops, take #3

I have seen a picture of the fracture. Could be a brittle fracture, but
can't say for sure without having seen it live... I am sure Solo will be on
to it. Engine apparently was run well within operating limits, had very low
time and had the mandatory SB performed (new part failed).

  #17  
Old April 3rd 15, 09:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan St. Cloud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default Wow! Ooops, take #3

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 6:02:44 AM UTC-7, John Galloway wrote:
At 07:46 03 April 2015, Tango Whisky wrote:
It affects ONLY 2350C engines with non-foldable propellor. That's

DG1000T
in the first place (which caused the AD) and probably J'S. S-H is not
concerned (and I'll use it on my Ventus cM).


Also the turbo Antares - or at least the prototype according to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mxwvd-ps2A


Try buying an Antares 23, they are not even being made.
  #18  
Old April 3rd 15, 10:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
howard banks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Wow! Ooops, take #3

On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 2:44:59 PM UTC-6, Dave Nadler wrote:
Yikes.
http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2015-0052-E


Based on Mr Nadler's description, failure more or less inevitable.
Too small a radius will reduce the part's fatigue limit by somewhere between one third and one half roughly speaking. A 90 degree non-radius would result in a more or less infinite reduction in the fatigue limit (which is the stress on a part below which it should have an infinite fatigue life; in the real world all sorts of things reduce this limit, as we are seeing).
Rough machining can be even more insidious. Each piece of rough machining that you can see by eye is more or less the same as an already existing early fatigue crack. Its root radius at a microscopic level is effectively infinite with a corresponding reduction in the fatigue limit. Very bad news especially when it happens at a designed in place of inherently high stress.
All they had to do was to add some hard chromium plate on any wear surface that ran around the radius and failure would have been even earlier.
Pretty basic stuff. For it to have been repeated, as seems to have happened after a known problem, amounts to extreme carelessness.
  #19  
Old April 3rd 15, 10:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Nadler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,610
Default Wow! Ooops, take #3

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 5:25:34 PM UTC-4, howard banks wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 2:44:59 PM UTC-6, Dave Nadler wrote:
Yikes.
http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2015-0052-E


Based on Mr Nadler's description, failure more or less inevitable.
Too small a radius will reduce the part's fatigue limit by somewhere
between one third and one half roughly speaking. A 90 degree non-radius
would result in a more or less infinite reduction in the fatigue limit
(which is the stress on a part below which it should have an infinite
fatigue life; in the real world all sorts of things reduce this limit,
as we are seeing).
Rough machining can be even more insidious. Each piece of rough machining
that you can see by eye is more or less the same as an already existing
early fatigue crack. Its root radius at a microscopic level is effectively
infinite with a corresponding reduction in the fatigue limit.
Very bad news especially when it happens at a designed in place of
inherently high stress.
All they had to do was to add some hard chromium plate on any wear
surface that ran around the radius and failure would have been even
earlier.
Pretty basic stuff. For it to have been repeated, as seems to have
happened after a known problem, amounts to extreme carelessness.


To be clear: The failed part I examined in fall 2013 was a "take #2" part.
The part was redesigned for "take #3", "resolving" the 2013 AD.
The new "take #3" part failed, leading to the most recent AD.
I have no idea what the failure of "take #3" looks like...

It is a bit surprising that 3 iterations of this part have failed...

But it is not an easy problem!

Hope that is clear,
Best Regards, Dave

  #20  
Old April 3rd 15, 11:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Wow! Ooops, take #3

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 5:34:23 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 5:25:34 PM UTC-4, howard banks wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 2:44:59 PM UTC-6, Dave Nadler wrote:
Yikes.
http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2015-0052-E


Based on Mr Nadler's description, failure more or less inevitable.
Too small a radius will reduce the part's fatigue limit by somewhere
between one third and one half roughly speaking. A 90 degree non-radius
would result in a more or less infinite reduction in the fatigue limit
(which is the stress on a part below which it should have an infinite
fatigue life; in the real world all sorts of things reduce this limit,
as we are seeing).
Rough machining can be even more insidious. Each piece of rough machining
that you can see by eye is more or less the same as an already existing
early fatigue crack. Its root radius at a microscopic level is effectively
infinite with a corresponding reduction in the fatigue limit.
Very bad news especially when it happens at a designed in place of
inherently high stress.
All they had to do was to add some hard chromium plate on any wear
surface that ran around the radius and failure would have been even
earlier.
Pretty basic stuff. For it to have been repeated, as seems to have
happened after a known problem, amounts to extreme carelessness.


To be clear: The failed part I examined in fall 2013 was a "take #2" part.
The part was redesigned for "take #3", "resolving" the 2013 AD.
The new "take #3" part failed, leading to the most recent AD.
I have no idea what the failure of "take #3" looks like...

It is a bit surprising that 3 iterations of this part have failed...

But it is not an easy problem!

Hope that is clear,
Best Regards, Dave


I'm NOT an "ME", I'm a field service guy with a "ME" background (as well as spending a lot of time fixing "good enough bits" on many different types of machines.....).

My link before was to show that there are quite a few factors to consider (not that anyone here know all the facts or can direct the final decision).
Just pointing out that some failures have been hit before, thus a research can find a suitable resolution.

"Thus that ignore history are doomed to fail in the same manner"..... or close to that....
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ooops... Zomby Woof[_3_] Aviation Photos 0 April 21st 09 04:36 AM
ooopS! my Bdadd Bertie the Bunyip[_2_] Piloting 4 March 29th 07 10:40 PM
Ooops ... incident at Santa Fe A. Sinan Unur Piloting 18 November 10th 06 02:44 AM
Derby weekend ooops Jack Harkin Soaring 0 June 22nd 06 05:44 PM
Ooops - Correction Bill Denton Piloting 0 August 9th 04 01:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.