Not wanting to be the next Cirrus Engine failure

You might want to have Continental have the wrist pin examined to find out why it failed before you start tearing apart the rest of your engine. It could be anything from an internal metallurgical fault when that part was manufactured, incorrect assembly, a stress concentration from a flaw in the surface finish or any number of other reasons.

As this engine has never been rebuilt I would think Continental would want the failed part sent to them for that purpose.
 
Last edited:
" He has a Grumman Tiger in for annual and he showed me all the ins and outs of that plane."
hmmm, ya think there was maybe a message - which went right over your head?

All fun aside - it's a bummer when your plane is down (and expensive)
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
well....one can't be too safe. (and if anyone knows bout the bathtub curve they'd understand the fallacy in my comment. :D)
Click to expand...

So from my point of view, he has had an anomaly that most likely was caused by something going wrong in the engine manufacture process. It could have been someone having a bad day, it could have been a bad batch of wrist pins, who knows, but something is wrong, if it is an issue with how the pin was made, the chances are he has other pins from the same manufacturing batch. To me it is cheap insurance to pull the other three cylinders to make sure the last three wrist pins are ok. I know it is going to cost more, but it's easily justified looking at what was found and using a little reasoning. Another broken wrist pin will be much more expensive in the long run, especially if it occurs during takeoff, 200 feet above hostile terrain.
 
Could detonation have caused the failure? Mag timing too advanced? With the consequences of total engine failure with zero warning, I would be interested in having a look at the other ones. I would need to know how it failed before I trusted that engine. Especially since you are already half way there.
 
We are having him replace these three cylinders. He said they were too close to mins to bore out.
For those familiar, this is a guy named Sal out of Prosper. I had two people recommend him to me.
This is also where our A&P said they were going to get the work done. Apparently this is the guy for cylinders(in Texas anyway).

He said with the compression on the remaining cylinders on the plane being as high as they are he would not mess with them but said we will likely be going through this same process on 2 of them in the next year or two.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
We are having him replace these three cylinders. He said they were too close to mins to bore out.
For those familiar, this is a guy named Sal out of Prosper. I had two people recommend him to me.
This is also where our A&P said they were going to get the work done. Apparently this is the guy for cylinders(in Texas anyway).

He said with the compression on the remaining cylinders on the plane being as high as they are he would not mess with them but said we will likely be going through this same process on 2 of them in the next year or two.
Click to expand...
After 1100 hrs, you have replaced 1 cylinder and now replacing 3 more??
What the heck?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
We are having him replace these three cylinders. He said they were too close to mins to bore out.
For those familiar, this is a guy named Sal out of Prosper. I had two people recommend him to me.
This is also where our A&P said they were going to get the work done. Apparently this is the guy for cylinders(in Texas anyway).

He said with the compression on the remaining cylinders on the plane being as high as they are he would not mess with them but said we will likely be going through this same process on 2 of them in the next year or two.
Click to expand...

How on earth does a first run engine from the Continental factory with only 1100 hours on it end up with original cylinders that are beyond being honed/bored? You guys running that thing with no oil? :confused:

Maybe the compression problem and the wrist pin failure are related after all.

I have never owned an aeroplane with a Continental engine, but surely this cannot be indicative of the longevity and reliability of these powerplants? Any ideas as to why the internals of this engine have suffered such premature wear?
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
How on earth does a first run engine from the Continental factory with only 1100 hours on it end up with original cylinders that are beyond being honed/bored? You guys running that thing with no oil? :confused:

Maybe the compression problem and the wrist pin failure are related after all.

I have never owned an aeroplane with a Continental engine, but surely this cannot be indicative of the longevity and reliability of these powerplants? Any ideas as to why the internals of this engine have suffered such premature wear?
Click to expand...

No, your instinct is correct, it's about right for a TCM. :D

Joking aside, it is my opinion N models are not HP rated responsibly. These things are really best left where they came from, a -G model engine rated at 250-280HP and 2500RPM. Then to make matters worse, Cirrus caps it to run at the already whacked out 2700RPM limit by not putting a blue knob, because its customers' heads would explode with a third knob, and you're essentially running a Malibu up there. If you were to install a -G model in the Cirrus, which runs at 2500 and could reasonably get away without a blue knob at that limit, you'd see a lot of these failure and premature wear problems disappear. But that would kill its marketing. That flying molded bathtub doesn't mask a 40HP shave, especially not in a bloated G5.

Yes, I am of the opinion a Lyco NA engine is more robust and insensitive to WOT ops. The cylinders are also without doubt much more lasting when indexed for average use. The fuel injection systems, even as agricultural old as they are, are also superior to the Kelly setup in the Contis, especially the fuel pumps and their specific installation differences. I understand people need to dance with the one that brung them, and in the case of Cirrus they have little choice due to the company's allegiances.

My only bone to pick is when this gets rolled up into the chute narrative. That one is being subsidized by an irresponsible engine installation (550N safety wired at 2700) and then calling the predictable failures evidence that flying in the parachute airplane is safer than airplanes whose engines are not grenading by orders of magnitude in the first place. It's a bit much cultish for my taste. Can you imagine piston Malibus with a chute, and Piper declaring them safer by suggesting more people are not killing themselves by experiencing more engine failures versus people who are simply not experiencing engine failures AND not killing themselves? They'd get laughed out the building. But Cirrus cranks the propaganda machine and the zealots at COPA circle the wagons and watch out; they make the RV tools look like vulnerable and impressionable girl scouts selling cookies door to door by contrast.

They need to admit that engine application is flawed and downrate the hell out of that thing. Or take the chute, personally I don't care. I'm cool flying behind my little Lyco, that thing is just...Stoic. That's really the word for it.

SixPapaCharlie said:
We run it per the poh instructions
Click to expand...

Honestly, in the context of GA, that and a buck twenty gets me a cup of coffee.
 
I find both the results at 1100 hours and the mechanic's advisory to 6PC that the remaining two untouched cylinders might be good for another "year or two" to be astonishing. 6PC hasn't posted anything about what his mechanic or the expert at the cylinder shop have suggested caused these problems. Would be interested to hear.

Maybe I've lead a sheltered life owning and flying Lycomings, but if I had a result like this at 1100 hours I would be using every clue I had available in the failed and worn parts, and every available resource including TCM, to find out what the hell is going on inside my engine before it ever left the ground again, red handle or not. The two indicators (excessively worn cylinders and the fractured wrist pin) may be completely unrelated. Or not. My first suspicion would be a lubrication problem.

And iirc, Piper ditched the Continental engine in the original Malibu for a Lycoming, didn't it?
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
And iirc, Piper ditched the Continental engine in the original Malibu for a Lycoming, didn't it?
Click to expand...

Careful, you're treading close to starting a religious war on here. :D I will say in all fairness, both powerplants were woefully overworked in the Malibu installation, turbos no less, and thus both displayed higher than average casualties when compared to other installations that could be described as less exigent.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Then to make matters worse, Cirrus caps it to run at the already whacked out 2700RPM limit by not putting a blue knob, because its customers' heads would explode with a third knob...That flying molded bathtub...bloated G5.

It's a bit much cultish for my taste...But Cirrus cranks the propaganda machine and the zealots at COPA circle the wagons and watch out; they make the RV tools look like vulnerable and impressionable girl scouts selling cookies door to door by contrast.
Click to expand...

You, sir, are an idiot.
 
Might the tach be woefully out of calibration? I wouldn't want an engine that broke a piston pin in my lawn mower.
 
Crappy situation for Bryan. Tough decision, but I wouldn't hesitate to pull the other cylinders even though it will cost and mean more down time. This is almost a "getthereitis" type situation. I also think a call to Continental would be smart too.
 
Yeah, these are all decisions to be made and recommendations we have been given.
I still have yet to talk to Sal. I have been working crazy hours on projects and just getting 2nd hand information from my dad who has been in touch with these guys. He is traveling next week and I am picking up the new cylinders and I am going to get a breakdown of everything he sees.

Dad and I discuss this stuff in passing and via texts to a lot is lost in translation. Sometimes it is a game of telephone.
He and I will sit down once we have all the information in front of both of us and run it by a couple of people and determine a course of action.

To say "Let's do a top overhaul at this point" would be a knee jerk reaction. It certainly may be the correct action but that decision needs to be made when he and I and a couple other people can sit down and look at everything.

We're not going to do anything dangerous to save money. But we are not going to do additional things until we have taken some time to put a complete picture together.

I am not going to put my kids in a plane if anyone of the smart people that have eyes on the engine suggest there could be potential issues.
I suspect I will be a member of SavvyMx in the next day or two.
 
Tonight After my son is asleep, I am going through the engine log book and chart all of the information from all of its history so I can see history of the engine clearly in one place. My CFI recommended I look at trends over time to get a better idea of what the engine's life has been like.

That combined w/ the the findings from the annual, and the information from Sal should help us determine a proper course of action.

I had never heard of Sal but I think I am the only one.
I was in gun barrel city this morning having coffee at the "Grape and Bean" and the restaurant owner drops by to visit. He owns the airport in GBC as well. We got to talking about planes and I mentioned my cylinders. "Oh man, do you know about Sal? He is the only one I let do hat stuff on my planes." he says...

Sal's aircraft cylinders in Prosper Texas seems to be a good choice. I will meet him on Tuesday.
 
Sorry you're going through this, Bryan. Hope you get some solid answers soon.
 
kayoh190 said:
Sorry you're going through this, Bryan. Hope you get some solid answers soon.
Click to expand...

Meh, It's a first world problem. In the grand scheme of things, "the cirrus is having engine issues" is a pretty unimportant issue to be having in life.

Edit: unless you are in it at the time. Then "the cirrus is having engine issues" is a major first world terrifying, pant crapping, problem.
 
I haven't heard of Sal, but I'll ask Don (our club president who has been aviating in these parts since the 60's). Likely he will add to the roster of folks who approve of Sal's work.

The timeline idea is a good one. I did that on a 182Q I was interested in back in 2011 and found several items that were questionable. Just looking at the pages, you didn't see it. But once you laid it out on a timeline, it was easier to see the problems.
 
Appreciate the time and effort you've taken to share with us what you are dealing with 6PC.
 
Is this an inherent problem with Continental engines or just a mis match between the engine and the airframe manufacturers operating procedures? Continental tells people upfront to overhaul after 12 years. Are people expecting more from the engine than the manufacturer tells them to expect?
 
I know jack-all about Cirri but it sure seems like they're flogging that thing at 2700 RPM. How does one properly do any sort of noise abatement in a Cirri? I try to get the prop back as soon as it's reasonable to be making power changes on departure in the 182, just to try not to annoy the ninnies too much. Bottom of my green arc for my prop is WAY below 2700... Sheesh.

As far as the Connie vs Lyc religious debates go, there does seem to be anecdotal evidence or stronger that *fuel injected* Connies just aren't as happy to be flogged as their Lyc cousins. Ye Olde carbureted Connies like my O-470 are pretty much tanks, but often do need *a* cylinder before TBO, not three or four or all of them! Wow... Not good.

The older 470s had various issues with valve stuff but as you go up in letters they worked most of those out. The S and U even though they're quite different beasts, seem to behave pretty well in this regard.
 
I cruise at 2640 RPM
Not sure where that ranks w/ other planes flying the same powerplant.
 
denverpilot said:
How does one properly do any sort of noise abatement in a Cirri?
Click to expand...

The way the linkage is set up in the Cirrus power lever, the first bit of travel reduces rpm with no significant reduction in MP. So, if one were so inclined, one could just pull back the lever to 2600 or 2500 rpm and still pretty much have full throttle. Pull back much below that and the throttle plate does start to close.

I flew an SR22 for a company that called for a reduction to 2500 rpm, at 1,000' IIRC. I'm of the opinion that reducing rpm without reducing manifold pressure actually increases combustion chamber pressures and is harder on the engine than letting it spin. And the POH does not call for an rpm reduction in the climb.
 
FastEddieB said:
The way the linkage is set up in the Cirrus power lever, the first bit of travel reduces rpm with no significant reduction in MP. So, if one were so inclined, one could just pull back the lever to 2600 or 2500 rpm and still pretty much have full throttle. Pull back much below that and the throttle plate does start to close.

I flew an SR22 for a company that called for a reduction to 2500 rpm, at 1,000' IIRC. I'm of the opinion that reducing rpm without reducing manifold pressure actually increases combustion chamber pressures and is harder on the engine than letting it spin. And the POH does not call for an rpm reduction in the climb.
Click to expand...

Appreciate the info. So basically you're of the impression that WOT and max RPM on these things is less cylinder pressure and fine, and the folks saying 2700 RPM is bad, you don't agree with?

(I'm just asking for clarification. I've got no dog in this fight, my Connie will happily flog all day at WOT and max RPM, but SOP calls for getting the prop back a bit for noise. Which of course raises MP a bit.)

Around here at this altitude it's rare I'm even asking it for 80% power and even that'd be in the dead of winter, but even at lower altitudes you don't hear stories of the relatively low compression O470 trashing cylinders unless they're overheated. Ours obviously had someone abuse the hell out of it in California when it was new, and they paid for it with replacing a jug, but it's been on the same set of jugs since then through two long term owner/owner groups (the guy who owned it for most of its life and us), both at this altitude.

6PC and his Cirri buds all have fancy engine monitors so I'll assume they're not doing that.

So I read "all of the above" and as a systems/pattern/troubleshooting kinda guy and think to myself, "none of these stories match up to a pattern, but there's sure a lot of opinions about why Cirri seem to be munching cylinders".

One way to find out if the de-rating idea holds water would simply be to look at the failure rates of the airplanes that live and fly most of the time at higher altitude airports. If you can't ever make rated power, you're essentially "de-rated" on almost every takeoff, except when you go a-travelin'... And still you'd have a significant percentage of "derated" takeoffs vs not. If the Cirri up here aren't eating cylinders at the same rate as the ones that live at sea level... Anyway, just a thought.

(Obviously not talking about the turbo model...)
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I haven't been doing plane stuff for awhile.
Click to expand...
That's been me and JCranford's excuse.... Last time I flew 55WB was February. I'm hoping we will get it back before the end of this month....
 
Yup I bet I haven't flown more than 5 hours since October :(

Edit: 8.75 actually
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top