ECI Cylinders Redux

ScottM

ScottM

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
42,530
Location
Variable, but somewhere on earth
Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...C1CA8C956328150C862574C5005702BD?OpenDocument

Just when you thought it was safe....


First thank goodness their is a cuss filter on this board.

If you will recall, a little under 3 years ago, just after I bought my airplane, an AD came out affecting ECI classic cast cylinders. They were to be replaced by 1000 hours and I had 4 of them at 950 hours.

ECI was gracious enough to buy back unused hours on the cylinders and credit those towards new ECI Titan cylinders.

Again all four of my replacement cylinders are affected by this new AD.

I have three cylinders that need to be replaced by 350 hour TIS. Mine have 250 hours TIS and one that will require every 50 hour compression and visual inspection. Well that is if they pass the inspection that is happening tomorrow.

I am so ****ed my fingers are turning pruple just writing this.

The engine has 1300 hour SMOH on it. I have done tons of work on the firewall forward part of the airplane to keep everything in great working order. I am now facing either a major overhaul, new engine or a top over haul (2nd one). I WILL NOT KEEP THESE ECI CYLINDERS NO MATTER WHAT!

The poor quality of these things is beyond my comprehension. This is yet another quality problem in manufacturing. If you ask me this proves that ECI should not be in the aftermarket parts business at all.

I am so annoyed that I am thinking of getting a lawyer who is familiar with product liability law and go after ECI for the cost of the new top or overhaul, the past out of pocket expenses I had and the future ones, plus anything I can get for agravation!

[/vent]

I would like to hear form people what they would do.

Top over haul with Lycoming cylinders, new engine (overhaul or brand spanking new form Lycoming), or just a major overhaul?

Also anyone else getting hit with this?
 
I feel your pain. I have 4 of the "Group A" cylinders and are more than a little ****ed that they will have to be replaced at 2000 hours TIS. What the hell did I buy new cylinders for?
 
Scott, I don't know a lot about what you should do replacement wise but I always thought these AD issues should have a greater impact on the Mfg. In the Automobile world they have recalls and they compensate the owner or make the necessary repairs on the mfgs dime. For the life of me I can't figure out why aviation mfgs don't do the same.

I recall when Robinson had an AD on the Roterblades for the R22 I was discussing it with Bob Bruneau and they offered the new blades at a very reduced rate. I think depending upon how many hours were left on the part in question I might just bring an action for replacement. Its not really a products liabilty matter thats when you get injured due to a defective prodcut. This is more a case of breach of warranty for a specifc purpose.

I feel for ya.
 
AdamZ said:
Scott, I don't know a lot about what you should do replacement wise but I always thought these AD issues should have a greater impact on the Mfg. In the Automobile world they have recalls and they compensate the owner or make the necessary repairs on the mfgs dime. For the life of me I can't figure out why aviation mfgs don't do the same.
...
Click to expand...

That's what my mechanic says, "With a plane THE OWNER pays."

It's because we don't have an Federal Pilot Commission or National Airspace Safety Administration. :rolleyes:

DEMAND those from the next President!
 
Mechanic called me today with the results of the AD compression and leak checks

Cylinder 1 75/80
Cylinder 2 76/80
Cylinder 3 76/80
Cylinder 4 79/80

All above 70 means that I am good for another 50 hours or until they break:mad:

3 of them still will have to be replaced within a 100 hours
 
Wow, guys, I'm sorry for your misfortune.

I put ECI Titans on my 172 (0-300) when I had it and absolutely loved them. I sold it two years ago...if I hadn't I may not love them any longer knowing what others are going through.
 
I have 8 "A" Titans on my Twin Comanche. The mandated inspection is a PITA and an overkill. The rate of failure of these cylinders is certainly no worse and probably much better than that of weld repaired overhauled cylinders like we used for many years. The new Titans have been tested to a VERY high standard and are most likely better then the competition -but VERY hard to sell. Superior now has cylinder problems as well. Charlie Melot Zephyr Aircraft Engines
 
I think most ADs are overkill... unless your plane happens to have some of the affected parts on it.

I'd be interested to hear what ECI's testing procedures were for their cylinders, both in terms of company testing and FAA certification testing. If you have some info, Charlie, please share it. :)
 
bbchien said:
This is for what CLASS ACTION was created.
Click to expand...
I agree. Adam mentioned to me the possibility of small claims to get some money back quickly. I am thinking of pursuing that type of option. Once I have the final tally of $$$$ that I have to lay out for this mess.
 
charlie said:
I have 8 "A" Titans on my Twin Comanche. The mandated inspection is a PITA and an overkill. The rate of failure of these cylinders is certainly no worse and probably much better than that of weld repaired overhauled cylinders like we used for many years. The new Titans have been tested to a VERY high standard and are most likely better then the competition -but VERY hard to sell. Superior now has cylinder problems as well. Charlie Melot Zephyr Aircraft Engines
Click to expand...
Charlie what are you thoughts about getting rid of these cylinders in favor of some other brand? Keep in mind that three of mine have 250TIS on them and will have to be replaced in the 100 hours anyway to stay compliant with the AD.
 
Scott,

That really s*cks. I feel your pain bros. Hope things work out. Owning airplanes is great isn't it. :rolleyes:
 
smigaldi said:
I agree.
Click to expand...

Great. A class action lawsuit where the plaintiffs will prevail and be paid by the defendants insurance carrier. Then product liability insurance rates will go up again thus requiring manufacturers to pass that expense along to the consumer. Look for the cost of engine parts to rise dramatically then listen to the owners complaining how it's just not right to be charging these exorbitant rates for parts.
 
bbchien said:
This is for what CLASS ACTION was created.
Click to expand...

Suuurrrre. The company will pay $50,000,000. The lawyers will get $49,599,000 and the affected owners will get a certificate for an oil change at Jiffy Lube. :mad:
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Great. A class action lawsuit where the plaintiffs will prevail and be paid by the defendants insurance carrier. Then product liability insurance rates will go up again thus requiring manufacturers to pass that expense along to the consumer. Look for the cost of engine parts to rise dramatically then listen to the owners complaining how it's just not right to be charging these exorbitant rates for parts.
Click to expand...
Well if you want you can just pay me now and we will then stop the lawyers from getting their take. ;)

But why should the consumer have to pay for defective manufacturing? This is the 2nd major AD from ECI that I have gotten hit with in three years. When the last one hit ECI was adement that the Titan would be the trouble free (except normal problems of which this ain't).

Consumers taking it the shorts is not way to make the manufactures responsible for ensuring their product is of a high quality. If all we want is junk maybe we can get Wal-Mart to carry Chinese made aircraft engine cylinders.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Great. A class action lawsuit where the plaintiffs will prevail and be paid by the defendants insurance carrier. Then product liability insurance rates will go up again thus requiring manufacturers to pass that expense along to the consumer. Look for the cost of engine parts to rise dramatically then listen to the owners complaining how it's just not right to be charging these exorbitant rates for parts.
Click to expand...

So then what is your suggestion? That if a company manufactures a defective part for which you pay good money, that the company should not have to compensate the consumer? Just bend over and take it because we don't want the price to go up?

Mind you I'm not sure I agree with Bruce that a class action is appropriate here. And if the AD is ridiculous and not necssary I'd don't think you can blame the manufacuture and if the cylinders fail within a reasonable period of time before their normal life expectacny well thats life but just to lie down and take it so as not to drive up the price is kind of tough to grasp.
 
AdamZ said:
So then what is your suggestion? That if a company manufactures a defective part for which you pay good money, that the company should not have to compensate the consumer? Just bend over and take it because we don't want the price to go up?

Mind you I'm not sure I agree with Bruce that a class action is appropriate here. And if the AD is ridiculous and not necssary I'd don't think you can blame the manufacuture and if the cylinders fail within a reasonable period of time before their normal life expectacny well thats life but just to lie down and take it so as not to drive up the price is kind of tough to grasp.
Click to expand...

Let's get to the real heart of the problem, the FAA. It's because you have this humongous bloated bureaucracy that is schizophrenic at best it's virtually impossible to get new technology approved without years of testing and literally millions of dollars being spent, all to make a small amount of money from the product.

We are dealing with engines that were developed in the 1940's with little changes over the years. If a manufacturer wants to use some new technology to produce his product, Mr. FAA gets involved and uses his favorite word, "NO!".

Remember, ECI had to get FAA approval for it's manufacturing of these cylinders. Now that it has been shown it's not working, what next? More approval from the FAA to change the part manufacturing process, which doesn't happen overnight or come cheap.

At one point in my life I was going to start a company to produce PMI parts for a helicopter. After going around in circles with the FAA, seeing how expensive the product liability insurance was and advice from 2 attorneys not to go into this venture, I backed out. It's a true "rock and a hardspot" for anyone making aircraft parts.
 
Would not Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act apply? :dunno:
MMWA basically covers merchantability for consumer products.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Let's get to the real heart of the problem, the FAA. It's because you have this humongous bloated bureaucracy that is schizophrenic at best it's virtually impossible to get new technology approved without years of testing and literally millions of dollars being spent, all to make a small amount of money from the product.

We are dealing with engines that were developed in the 1940's with little changes over the years. If a manufacturer wants to use some new technology to produce his product, Mr. FAA gets involved and uses his favorite word, "NO!".

Remember, ECI had to get FAA approval for it's manufacturing of these cylinders. Now that it has been shown it's not working, what next? More approval from the FAA to change the part manufacturing process, which doesn't happen overnight or come cheap.

At one point in my life I was going to start a company to produce PMI parts for a helicopter. After going around in circles with the FAA, seeing how expensive the product liability insurance was and advice from 2 attorneys not to go into this venture, I backed out. It's a true "rock and a hardspot" for anyone making aircraft parts.
Click to expand...

Rock and a hard place sums it up pretty well. I do like the schizophrenic analogy as well. " Promote Aviation" no " Quash Aviation" " Promote Aviation " no " Quash aviation"
 
AdamZ said:
Rock and a hard place sums it up pretty well. I do like the schizophrenic analogy as well. " Promote Aviation" no " Quash Aviation" " Promote Aviation " no " Quash aviation"
Click to expand...

It's get worse under Administrator what-er-name when Aviation is defined as "Airlines."
 
smigaldi said:
Well if you want you can just pay me now and we will then stop the lawyers from getting their take. ;)

But why should the consumer have to pay for defective manufacturing? This is the 2nd major AD from ECI that I have gotten hit with in three years. When the last one hit ECI was adement that the Titan would be the trouble free (except normal problems of which this ain't).

Consumers taking it the shorts is not way to make the manufactures responsible for ensuring their product is of a high quality. If all we want is junk maybe we can get Wal-Mart to carry Chinese made aircraft engine cylinders.
Click to expand...

In the end, the consumer will have to pay anyway. The cost of manufacturing QC and rejects is built into the price charged. Doesn't matter whether it's ECI, Lyc, or any of the others. Adding legal fees in the equation will just boost that cost.

If the manufacturer is in a competitive marketplace, then they are incented to fix the problem because excessive QC issues will price them out of the market. If it's not competitive, then they just raise price.

The issue here is going to be the heavy hand of FAA regs. The FAA must sign off not only on the manufacturing process but also the QC process. Even a minor change requires a time-consuming and expensive recertification. Y'all may recall that the Commander owners bought the company. It took almost 2 years to get PMA from the FAA for parts that the company spec'd, held the drawings and design data for, and the tooling/processes. Even for COTS stuff, the factory had to have the QC process approved by the FAA. It took forever.

The company defense will be: the FAA signed off on the manufacturing and the QC process. Therefore, since the Feds found it OK, it must be OK and we did nothing out of compliance with their standards.

Will it stand up? I don't know. What I do know is that the regulation relieves some of the manufacturers burden in this area... and is part of the reason that airplanes are different than cars.

Besides, rich airplane owners can afford it... ;) :eek:
 
mikea said:
Suuurrrre. The company will pay $50,000,000. The lawyers will get $49,599,000 and the affected owners will get a certificate for an oil change at Jiffy Lube. :mad:
Click to expand...
Mike is probably aware that in Illinois we deliver 0.19 cents on the dollar to the worthy plaintiff.

Really doesn't speak too well about the legal brethern.
 
bbchien said:
Mike is probably aware that in Illinois we deliver 0.19 cents on the dollar to the worthy plaintiff.

Really doesn't speak too well about the plaintiffs' bar.
Click to expand...


Fixed that for you.

Some of us focus on keeping businesses out of the courtroom, and productively undertaking their craft.
 
I received an e-mail from ECI concerning potential warranty on my group "A" cylinders. Gonna see what they will do.

Mr. Jones:
The Titan cylinders that are in Group A of MSB 08-1 and AD 2008-19-05 have no known defect, and thus, are not required to be replaced prior to TBO. ECI attempted to get the FAA to not include the Group A cylinders along with their requirement for the 50 hour inspection to insure continued airworthiness. For customers who do not want to deal with the 50 hour inspection, we do have a prorated exchange program for the cylinders based on the time in service for the cylinders. Since the cylinders are not required to be replaced, there is no labor allowance for the replacement of the cylinders. Please submit a completed warranty application form. The form is located on the ECI website under warranty information. From the information on the warranty application form, we will be able to determine the pro-rated cost of replacement cylinders. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Don Jones said:
I received an e-mail from ECI concerning potential warranty on my group "A" cylinders. Gonna see what they will do.
Click to expand...
Have you heard about any deals for the group B?

Not that I will ever use an ECI part again. But I would like to know what they are offering before I consider what legal action I may be taking.

I did place an order for 4 new cylinders late last week. Lycoming has them on back order and I hop to get them by month's end. Since my AD compliance checked out I am not in a huge rush but am scheduling a top over haul for November when I am in Grand Caymen for a couple of weeks.
 
Scott, I haven't heard anything, however since the "B" cylinders require replacement, I am sure there will be some warranty considerations made.
 
Don Jones said:
Scott, I haven't heard anything, however since the "B" cylinders require replacement, I am sure there will be some warranty considerations made.
Click to expand...
I only want $$$. I want them to buy back the unused hours on my group B cylinders. Giving me some extra $$ towards the new top overhaul would also be nice.
 
Scott, find a buddy with a Cherokee 6 (or something with comparable load capacity). Load your engine into it. Overfly ECi corporate headquarters and drop the engine on them.
 
Regardless of which cylinders I choose when it is AGAIN time, I will buy them AGAIN from Seth at http://www.pap2fly.com/

If you need 6 cyliners Seth will probably order 12. Then he'll inspect and weigh everything and put together the best mfg'ed and best balanced six from the 12 and send the other 6 back. He'll rework the crappy factory valve faces and valve seats, he'll port and polish (if you want and if it's legal on the particular cylinder). He'll make sure everything else is mfg'ed properly and then (and only then) he will ship you the cylinders.

Seth's more anal than I am...Seth's my hero.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Scott, find a buddy with a Cherokee 6 (or something with comparable load capacity). Load your engine into it. Overfly ECi corporate headquarters and drop the engine on them.
Click to expand...

Me. me, me! We never tried opening the cargo bay door in flight but I can't imagine why you can't

If it fits, it flies!
 
mikea said:
Me. me, me! We never tried opening the cargo bay door in flight but I can't imagine why you can't

If it fits, it flies!
Click to expand...

I think a two-pronged attack is warranted. Drop the jugs from your Cherokee while shooting the pistons/rods from a big spud gun on the nearest hilltop.


Trapper John
 
Just sent them all the required paperwork, we will see if they will really work with me at all. I will let you know what they say. I personally don't expect much help from them, maybe they will fool me. They have a pretty large share of the market and if they want to keep it they better step up to the plate or like Scott, everyone will vote with their feet and drop them like a hot rock.
 
Well, just heard from ECI. They will warranty them for $500 each:no:
That really sucks, hell they only have 142 hours on them. According to their Warranty Allowance form they sent me they have 92.9% life remaining and would cost $72.99 each to replace BEFORE they applied the $500 per cylinder minimum! Yea that sounds fair.....NOT!
 
I went to visit the plane today. Some extra things poped up with the new top but nothing serious. Just some new bolts and hoses. Most everything is together and the break in will start next week. Crankshaft looked really good and showed no signs of wear.

I was looking at the old ECI cylinders and it is just a crime to have to replace them with 250TIS on them. They were like new!

Hopefully labor costs will not be too bad and I will be up and flying late next week.
 
I'm hearing a lot of stories recently of people having in-flight failures without any warning. All of those happened with ECI cylinders. At least one of them was flying with cylinders that weren't covered by the AD.

Maybe time to get rid of the ECIs altogether?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top