FFS. I need a new hobby.

farmrjohn said:
The tractor is the correct color.
Click to expand...
Sigh... I come from a red-tractor family, but all of our red tractor brands are now gone. :(

Plus, Deere is making some really nice stuff. I've been lusting after a 1025R (which it looks like this might be?), but I'm probably gonna keep tinkering on my last red tractor for a while, maybe even buy one of the later produced models to keep going for a while while I build up my 3-point attachment collection.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Sigh... I come from a red-tractor family, but all of our red tractor brands are now gone. :(

Plus, Deere is making some really nice stuff. I've been lusting after a 1025R (which it looks like this might be?), but I'm probably gonna keep tinkering on my last red tractor for a while, maybe even buy one of the later produced models to keep going for a while while I build up my 3-point attachment collection.
Click to expand...
You've got me curious... what red tractor brands no longer exist? Massey is still around as part of agco (and has a pretty popular line of compact tractors) , and caseih is even using the farmall name again on compact tractors. Graham bradley... cockshutt...haas... that's all i got.

Mine is 4052R which is the biggest of the baby tractors. It's been kind of an issue because the dealer uses their lawn & garden guys to work on the compact tractors, and from what I've seen those guys aren't qualified to work on lawn mowers. It seems technicians screwing up on things I own is a running theme of my life, but I digress. The tractor itself has been awesome and WAY more capable than I expected. I bought it primarily to run a grain conveyor in the fall, but I wind up using it 3-4 days a week. The hydrostatic transmission is amazing. Teresa even enjoys using it.

The overhead doors in that garage are 2" too short to get in there with my forklift, but that little tractor will just clear with the rops (and my head) folded down.

The 1 series is a little small for my taste; this one is a little large for some jobs. The 2/3 series i think are the goldilocks lawm/small acreage tractors.
 
Jim K said:
You've got me curious... what red tractor brands no longer exist?
Click to expand...
Honda made tractors for a few years in the 90's... 3 cylinder honda diesel. Runs like everything else Honda. Dad bought this from an estate and restored it. Tractor and 12 attachments including front end loader and backhoe for 4k. Not quite what you had in mind but it's red.Screenshot_20241027-104001.png
 
Jim K said:
No, just considering making the switch to get rid of the dual mag. Two years might as well be never.
Click to expand...
Use a 3rd party engine shop. We sent two engines off to Columbia in PA (IO550 and O360) and they did full major overhauls in about two months. They do very good work at a fair price. I recommend them!
 
Re: Camshaft front end picture and possible lobe taper?

If you get one, I want to see if the end face looks vaguely like an end mill or file. There shouldn't be any serious thrust generated in the camshaft, but maybe the lobes are all tapered in the some direction to make the followers rotate in their bores. Remember half the followers are on opposite sides of the engine so they may grind the camshaft lobes to a specific taper direction. Admittedly, this would be a long shot, but it seems likely there is thrust in the camshaft to "end mill" that plug.
 
Last edited:
nrpetersen said:
Re: Camshaft front end picture and possible lobe taper?

If you get one, I want to see if the end face looks vaguely like an end mill or file. There shouldn't be any serious thrust generated in the camshaft, but maybe the lobes are all tapered in the some direction to make the followers rotate in their bores. Remember half the followers are on opposite sides of the engine so they may grind the camshaft lobes to a specific taper direction. Admittedly, this would be a long shot, but it seems likely there is thrust in the camshaft to "end mill" that plug.
Click to expand...

Highly unlikely it is going to come from the cam. There is a thrust surface to keep it in place and the gear driving the governor off the cam is straight cut. If anything, I’d be concerned about the bevel gear that actually drives the governor.

But, that said, there is something unusual about this deal. The shaft that the governor drive gear rides on is always turning in the narrow deck engines and it is retained by the cap that is getting milled in Jim’s engine. So what is different? Perhaps a weak or cracked case in the governor drive area that has went unnoticed?
 
Given he's already saved a good clip on the teardown labor, i'd chuck the case for a different one and press with the re-assembly. Whether he got had by shoddy worksmanship from the prior IRAN repair, is a sunk cost at this point. I'd def use use loctite on that thing this time around; it's not like not using it during the IRAN (I know, unsbeknownst to him) the first time around did him any favors.
 
FWIW,Thank you Jim K for posting pictures and walking us through the teardown. I will likely never in my life be splitting an IO-540, but non the less, this sort of thing is fascinating. (I know, more ****enating than fascinating for you, but...)
 
Okay. More progress today. If you ever wondered what in IO-540 looks like blown apart into it's constituent parts, here you go:

IMG_20241027_182854115.jpgIMG_20241027_182900975.jpgIMG_20241027_182847495.jpgIMG_20241027_182910986.jpgIMG_20241027_182905121.jpg

I think I'm to the point I can take the steel parts and cylinders to a machine shop. Everything is still pretty tight; would've been a shame to trade it in to Lycoming. Mainly just need to do NDT and replace a few parts like counterweight bushing, bearings, rings, and valve guides to call it an overhaul.

Found a couple interesting things I'll put in another post...
 
Last edited:
Jim K said:
… Found a couple interesting things I'll put in another post...
Click to expand...
I bet you did. I’m wondering if any of those were contributing factors to the failure or the oil analysis.
 
There was some question about how the parts in the front end go together.

IMG_20241027_115947346_HDR.jpg

Cam endplay is well within new limits. Runout on that gear is .002. There's no spec for that, but the Lycoming support guy suggested checking to make sure it's not excessive and putting load in the idler. The cam itself is allowed .006.

Governor drive shaft to bore is good, as is the idler gear to its shaft, in spite of the apparent wear. Backlash between the two was also correct. The way the gears are beveled means that the idler is thrust back in the direction of the cam. You can see that there is nothing stopping it from coming forward. So why does the shaft try to escape? It's hollow and the aft end is ported to the oil galley to provide oil to the idler gear. This basically makes it a hydraulic piston being forced forward. If it gets free to spin, hydraulic pressure constantly forces it against the cap.

The narrow deck engines have the idler keyed to the shaft, and the shaft spins. The idler turns around 2X the cam speed, so I'm thinking they decided to fix the idler shaft in place to prevent wear on the case. I think it's also splash lubricated on the ND, so it doesn't get forced against the cap.

Now the answer everyone has been waiting for....was there loctite?

IMG_20241027_185254524_HDR.jpgIMG_20241027_185425562.jpgIMG_20241027_185506375_HDR.jpg

Nope. I spun that sucker out with one finger on the short end of an allen key.

I also found these suspicious markings on the front bearing shells

IMG_20241027_132043526.jpg

And the back of all the bearings in the engine look like this:

IMG_20241026_191411335_HDR.jpg

I don't know for certain that 08-03 is a production date, but it seems mighty suspicious. The front bearings are Lycoming parts and are stamped 08-05. The rod bearings are Superior parts marked 09-05. I'll be calling Superior tomorrow to see if these are in fact date codes, but it looks to me like he didn't replace the bearings, when he explicitly stated in his log entry & 8130 that he did.
 
Last edited:
Jim K said:
Leaning towards doing all the requirements to be able to call it a major overhaul. Need to talk to a couple machine shops Monday to see what their turn time would be. Wear seems to be pretty non existent, so it'll mainly be just NDT and the required parts. My primary goal is to get back in the air in 2024.
Click to expand...
I'll bet a ham sandwich that your primary goal is to get it back together right, so it has a really good chance of giving you way more hours of safe service than last time, and so you'll be comfortable flying in that airplane again. And I'm even more certain you'll do that.
 
Jim K said:
You've got me curious... what red tractor brands no longer exist? Massey is still around as part of agco (and has a pretty popular line of compact tractors) , and caseih is even using the farmall name again on compact tractors. Graham bradley... cockshutt...haas... that's all i got.
Click to expand...
Ah, I didn't know they brought Farmall back.

My dad grew up on a farm in rural PA and they had a Farmall H. He went off to Penn State and got a degree in Dairy Science, and then to the University of Wisconsin where he got his master's and PhD. He really took to the research and teaching of dairy science and is well known in the field today, but his dad sold the farm once he knew he wasn't coming back.

Tractor color loyalty is a thing, though, so the whole time I was growing up we had Simplicity lawn tractors, and I've continued that tradition. I have a Simplicity Legacy, the largest model they make, which was also sold as the Agco 2025H and the Massey Ferguson 2925H, and is more of a "Garden tractor" than a SCUT like the 1025R - The front end loader and 3 point hitch are optional, and the FELs are not particularly common whereas the majority of 1025Rs I see have them.

I actually was turned on to the 1025R by a post on a Simplicity forum. Simplicity was really going downhill the last 20 years, after being sold several times. A Legacy XL from 2004 is practically identical to one from 2021, whereas Deere clearly kept improving during that timeframe. At the time the post was made, the 1025R was actually $1K cheaper than the Legacy, and the poster regretted their purchase of the Legacy after their dealings with trying to get the loader for their new tractor - The loader was made by a third party who apparently did not have their act together.

The 1025R appears to have FAR easier attachment switching, with the auto-connect mower decks, front quick hitch, etc. It's really hard to beat the Simplicity's mowing quality though, with its free-floating deck riding on rollers that can do great ballpark stripes in the process. I only stripe my lawn a few times a year, usually alternating which lot line I start on for a nice diamond pattern after the 2nd mow, but what I'm more concerned about is potential scalping with the Deere since the deck isn't free-floating. Maybe even more concerning is the amount of money I would spend on attachments since they're so easy to switch out! I can easily see myself ending up with mower, FEL, snowblower, MCU, broom, grapple, sprayer and spreader and a new garage to store it all in. :rofl:
Jim K said:
The 1 series is a little small for my taste; this one is a little large for some jobs. The 2/3 series i think are the goldilocks lawm/small acreage tractors.
Click to expand...
TBH, the 1 series would probably look big for what I'd be doing with it. I mean, it's a glorified lawn mower. I was just at the dealer the other day poking around at what they had, and the 2 series looked too big to me. I'm already gonna have to do a lot of tree trimming to be able to fit the ROPS where I normally go, even folded down. The taller I go, the worse that'll be. It does seem like the folks with the 2038R are VERY happy with it though, although the vast majority of 1025R owners are very happy with theirs too, and those who aren't tend to bump up to a 2 series.
 
Jim K said:
I don't know for certain that 08-03 is a production date, but it seems mighty suspicious. The front bearings are Lycoming parts and are stamped 08-05. The rod bearings are Superior parts marked 09-05. I'll be calling Superior tomorrow to see if these are in fact date codes, but it looks to me like he didn't replace the bearings, when he explicitly stated in his log entry & 8130 that he did.
Click to expand...
Did it say new bearings? these appear to marked by position, which is what one might do if dis-assembling and re-assembling using existing parts. You might also mark them if they are first test-fitted, removed, and then put back if there's a concern that they have taken a liking to the position. I.e., new bearings, inserted, some clamping put on, and then removed for whatever reason. Might want to preserve their homes in that case.
 
Last edited:
Prior to this shop working on it, when was your engine last overhauled / opened up where someone would have put new bearings in? If the cases hadn't been opened since the 90's, then he might have used NOS. (But probably didn't).

Did anyone split the cases around 2003 and note that they put new bearings in?

Can you trace the serial number of the bearings by any chance?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Ah, I didn't know they brought Farmall back.

My dad grew up on a farm in rural PA and they had a Farmall H. He went off to Penn State and got a degree in Dairy Science, and then to the University of Wisconsin where he got his master's and PhD. He really took to the research and teaching of dairy science and is well known in the field today, but his dad sold the farm once he knew he wasn't coming back.

Tractor color loyalty is a thing, though, so the whole time I was growing up we had Simplicity lawn tractors, and I've continued that tradition. I have a Simplicity Legacy, the largest model they make, which was also sold as the Agco 2025H and the Massey Ferguson 2925H, and is more of a "Garden tractor" than a SCUT like the 1025R - The front end loader and 3 point hitch are optional, and the FELs are not particularly common whereas the majority of 1025Rs I see have them.

I actually was turned on to the 1025R by a post on a Simplicity forum. Simplicity was really going downhill the last 20 years, after being sold several times. A Legacy XL from 2004 is practically identical to one from 2021, whereas Deere clearly kept improving during that timeframe. At the time the post was made, the 1025R was actually $1K cheaper than the Legacy, and the poster regretted their purchase of the Legacy after their dealings with trying to get the loader for their new tractor - The loader was made by a third party who apparently did not have their act together.

The 1025R appears to have FAR easier attachment switching, with the auto-connect mower decks, front quick hitch, etc. It's really hard to beat the Simplicity's mowing quality though, with its free-floating deck riding on rollers that can do great ballpark stripes in the process. I only stripe my lawn a few times a year, usually alternating which lot line I start on for a nice diamond pattern after the 2nd mow, but what I'm more concerned about is potential scalping with the Deere since the deck isn't free-floating. Maybe even more concerning is the amount of money I would spend on attachments since they're so easy to switch out! I can easily see myself ending up with mower, FEL, snowblower, MCU, broom, grapple, sprayer and spreader and a new garage to store it all in. :rofl:

TBH, the 1 series would probably look big for what I'd be doing with it. I mean, it's a glorified lawn mower. I was just at the dealer the other day poking around at what they had, and the 2 series looked too big to me. I'm already gonna have to do a lot of tree trimming to be able to fit the ROPS where I normally go, even folded down. The taller I go, the worse that'll be. It does seem like the folks with the 2038R are VERY happy with it though, although the vast majority of 1025R owners are very happy with theirs too, and those who aren't tend to bump up to a 2 series.
Click to expand...
Holy scope creep, Batman!
 
WDD said:
Prior to this shop working on it, when was your engine last overhauled / opened up where someone would have put new bearings in? If the cases hadn't been opened since the 90's, then he might have used NOS. (But probably didn't).

Did anyone split the cases around 2003 and note that they put new bearings in?

Can you trace the serial number of the bearings by any chance?
Click to expand...
2006 was last time the engine was opened up. Hence my suspicion those were date codes. Admittedly even 03 was longer than I would expect, but the nose bearings and rod bearings had '05 dates.
 
Jim K said:
Yep. Superior tech support confirms that's a production date code. So he either just happened to have some 19 year old NOS bearings laying around for an IO-540, or he lied about that too.
Click to expand...
I was hoping for his sake they might have been oversized bearing codes. Now I'm looking for a middle finger emoji.
 
Jim K said:
I don't know for certain that 08-03 is a production date, but it seems mighty suspicious. The front bearings are Lycoming parts and are stamped 08-05. The rod bearings are Superior parts marked 09-05. I'll be calling Superior tomorrow to see if these are in fact date codes, but it looks to me like he didn't replace the bearings, when he explicitly stated in his log entry & 8130 that he did.
Click to expand...
In light of this, any plans to revisit your discussion with the prior shop over whether they do or do not bear any liability for this failure?
 
DJTorrente said:
In light of this, any plans to revisit your discussion with the prior shop over whether they do or do not bear any liability for this failure?
Click to expand...
Seens like he should at least be refunded the labor costs the shop charged him for the first rebuild as well as the bearings that weren’t replaced at a minimum.
 
kmacht said:
Seens like he should at least be refunded the labor costs the shop charged him for the first rebuild as well as the bearings that weren’t replaced at a minimum.
Click to expand...
Far more than that. If he made a log entry attesting to the FAA that he replaced bearings in 2022, which bearings all coincidentally are all dated 03 and 05, which coincides with the time of a prior overhaul/bearing replacement, I think that shop owner would find it in his enlightened self-interest to ensure that OP is one VERY satisfied customer.
cowman said:
Lawyers ruin everything I guess.
Click to expand...
I carry no water for the plaintiff's bar, but when a service provider says "Too bad; So sad" under circumstances like these, the benefits of lawsuit over pistols at 10 paces begin to come clear.
 
Occurs to me I haven't posted the log entry on here yet so you guys can play "spot the lies"

CCI10282024.jpg

I'm done communicating with the guy. I gave him two chances to be helpful. He won't do anything other than blow me off. I wouldn't let him anywhere near any airplane I own again now that I've uncovered his willingness to straight up lie about what he's doing. I would be interested in finding a lawyer to send him a nastygram, but I don't even know where to start looking.
 
That shop just went from bad to worse. Definitely pursue legal action against them, that is unacceptable.

Had you been injured or worse if that engine failed in-flight, a good lawyer would've sued them out of business for good.
 
Wait until the rebuild is complete before going lawyer.

You want to have EVERY failure documented before negotiations start. Then there is no chance of compromise settlement before an additional big ticket item is found.
 
Hopefully you have an itemized invoice showing parts and part numbers.
 
Jim K said:
Occurs to me I haven't posted the log entry on here yet so you guys can play "spot the lies"

View attachment 134679

I'm done communicating with the guy. I gave him two chances to be helpful. He won't do anything other than blow me off. I wouldn't let him anywhere near any airplane I own again now that I've uncovered his willingness to straight up lie about what he's doing. I would be interested in finding a lawyer to send him a nastygram, but I don't even know where to start looking.
Click to expand...
Lawyer is just throwing good money at the bad. I'd report this to the local fsdo. Cant imagine they'd be too happy with a repair station re-using bearings they said they replaced, failing to follow SI's because they don't follow SI's. All In writing.
 
Indeed, the paper trail is what I find astonishing. That's some straight up hubris.

And the status quo sycophants on here have the temerity to gaslight rec owners as cheapskates that need to be corraled for their own good. You mean these self-dealing gatekeepers? gluetus clowns.
 
Jim - Still trying to get my arms around the mechanical lash up of the camshaft front end, the intermediate double gear on a static shaft retained by a set screw, the second bevel gear that drives the governor and lastly the governor itself. The governor input shaft is axially opposed by the cap which has been worn/chewed down. Do I finally have it right?

If so, the crankshaft torsional damper weights and that whole system is completely forgiven. The camshaft drive and its end face is forgiven too.

What a kludge. I would suspect the bevel gear system had/has an assembly misalignment. Not only must the two gear shaft axes intersect within a few thou, but the plunge distances (i.e. the axial positioning of each gear) must BOTH be correct or the pitch line velocities of the gear faces will make the output rotational motion into the governor uneven. Torsional vibration again, but this time it will be at the tooth frequency. Worse though is the possibility of the governor face gasket (is there one?) or shim or the governor itself being setup too close to the opposing plug. I don't know how this would be checked on initial assembly, maybe with a depth mic and associated hocus-pocus from the plug end? But it should be documented somewhere in the Lyc assembly manual.

That's my guess, unless there is a less obvious design or manufacturing error.
 
Another angle on this. I'm afraid any and all other log book entries this guy made has to be reviewed by another IA. Hopefully he didn't do much else besides that engine work. Your log book will probably need an "X" over his work, a note on why this is being invalidated, and a reference to a new review/inspection by the new IA.

Which is why the FISDO might be interested, as it is affecting others.

And all of this might explain how he was able to do your previous work so cheaply. He simply didn't do the work / the hours or pay for parts.
 
It’s interesting how the 8130-3 entry says “bearings” were replaced without any more detail on which bearings, as one would normally list. My guess is that was for a reason.
 
nrpetersen said:
Jim - Still trying to get my arms around the mechanical lash up of the camshaft front end, the intermediate double gear on a static shaft retained by a set screw, the second bevel gear that drives the governor and lastly the governor itself. The governor input shaft is axially opposed by the cap which has been worn/chewed down. Do I finally have it right?

If so, the crankshaft torsional damper weights and that whole system is completely forgiven. The camshaft drive and its end face is forgiven too.

What a kludge. I would suspect the bevel gear system had/has an assembly misalignment. Not only must the two gear shaft axes intersect within a few thou, but the plunge distances (i.e. the axial positioning of each gear) must BOTH be correct or the pitch line velocities of the gear faces will make the output rotational motion into the governor uneven. Torsional vibration again, but this time it will be at the tooth frequency. Worse though is the possibility of the governor face gasket (is there one?) or shim or the governor itself being setup too close to the opposing plug. I don't know how this would be checked on initial assembly, maybe with a depth mic and associated hocus-pocus from the plug end? But it should be documented somewhere in the Lyc assembly manual.

That's my guess, unless there is a less obvious design or manufacturing error.
Click to expand...
The governor gear is retained only by the idler gear. And hope. It's free to move in & out. The idler actually can move fore & aft as well if it wants to. If i understand bevel gears correctly however, they're constantly trying to get away from each other. The lash is controlled by washers behind the idler gear. The contact/ wear pattern on the gears looks perfect. The only intended purpose of the cap is to close the hole in the case through which the idler shaft is inserted.

Part of the impetus to replace the case is in the off chance that there is some weird misalignment or wear causing this. Although it didn't seem to be an issue for the first 4500 hours of this engine's life.

Tusayan said:
It’s interesting how the 8130-3 entry says “bearings” were replaced without any more detail on which bearings, as one would normally list. My guess is that was for a reason.
Click to expand...
I think he was just doing a copy/paste. He replaced a grand total of zero bearings of any description, unless you count re-placing the old crank nose bearing back into the case. He also mentions new "stressed hardware", but there should've been no stressed hardware removed.

In case anyone isn't aware (and why would you be?), lycoming sb240 specifies what is required to be replaced when you open an engine up:

Screenshot_20241028_220106_Drive.jpg

Now the argument can be made that the bearings weren't technically removed, with the exception of the big front one that has to come out to get the crank out, but it seems to be generally accepted that splitting the case constitutes removal of the main bearings.

The more telling thing to me (and at this point i can't remember if I mentioned this upthread) is that SI 1343, the one that covers staking and loctite, was incorporated into the overhaul manual in 2007. It's no longer in a separate service instruction, it's right there in the book he claims to have referenced.
 
Don’t forget to do stuff with those kiddos, between engine and POA time suckers. They grow up way too dang fast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top