Yeah... But............
The best way is for the manufacturer to build and sell DEFECT FREE products.......
SB569A - exact start of 12 year deadline?
- Thread starter peter-h
- Start date
Yeah... But............
The best way is for the manufacturer to build and sell DEFECT FREE products.......
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
You think the attempt is to do anything less?
Ted, Ted, Ted........
Look at what you wrote in this thread.........
The cranks were defective...
Cylinders were defective..
And in other discussions............
Mags were/are defective.....
ETC, ETC.........
I highly respect your intelligence, but.. You are starting to sound like a corporation zombie.....IMHO...
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
There's a difference between "attempt" and "successful."
But, if there wasn't so much litigation going on, there'd actually be the money to work on product improvements. But we can't stop litigation until the products are better. Wait...
Aviation has been around for 105 years....
During 90 of those years ALOT of continued development went on to perfect the product....
15 years ago the motors were just about indestructable... Then a noticable decline in quality.......
Lawyers ?
. NAW..Corps trying to boost their bottom line at the expense of 60 years of a great reputation....... Seems pretty obvious to me...
.There is a BIG reason I don't run factory made stuff anymore..
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
And if the cause for the supplier change was because the old supplier got sick of getting sued?
I'm not saying any manufacturer is made up of angels by any means, and lots of bad decisions get made. It's just ironic that the worst enemy of most companies are the very customers they're trying to sell to, especially in such a limited market.
I'm not saying any manufacturer is made up of angels by any means, and lots of bad decisions get made. It's just ironic that the worst enemy of most companies are the very customers they're trying to sell to, especially in such a limited market.
Ted... You make some very valid points, and I agree. The Market is so limited as to create a unique set of interactions between the manufacturer and the customer..
Also, you were at Lyc during those trying times and you have seen WAY more then you can admit to in a public forum and I respect that.
My thoughts on the manufacture of a aircraft engine is to keep EVERY part fabricated in house. That way you can control the quality, delivery and inventory...
Maybe you can answer me so I have my facts straight.
1- Lyc subcontracted out the forging of the cranks to a Texas company. ?
2- During this time Lyc decided to explore a new method of creating those cranks using a VAR process. Vacuum Arc Remelt process.?
3- Things started to fail and Lyc blamed and sued the Texas forging company ?
4- That company contested that case and won, overturning the verdict against it ?
Am I correct in those assumptions?
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I'm not going to answer the below questions, because to give a complete and representative answer (which is more than yes/no) would delve into that "things I can't talk about" realm.
However, I agree with you fully that everything should be kept in house. I can't think of a single engineer who'd disagree with you on that.
But then our bosses tell us...
Ted..
I appreciate the position you are in and admire you for not commenting on this subject...
.I will just have to use the internet, Google and other search engines to seek out the facts in this case to draw my own conclusions.. Since it is too cold to go flying this morning I spent a few hours and dredged up these links, and from reading those I cannot arrive at any other personal conclusion then to think Lycoming brought this whole fiasco onto themselves. That the owners of their products were and are still being given the royal shaft,, (no pun intended)...
http://www.airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0505020
http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2008/sep/03/interstate-southwest-wins-lawsuit-lycoming-cranksh/
http://www.rosewalker.com/downloads/1358788567.02779100_22d10b75da/Av_Consumer-2.pdf
And there are dozens of other links that clearly say...... Lycoming is responsible for their poor decisions...... And the end users of their products are going to have to spend ALOT of their own money to fix Lycomings mistakes...
Ted..
I appreciate the position you are in and admire you for not commenting on this subject...
I will just have to use the internet, Google and other search engines to seek out the facts in this case to draw my own conclusions.. Since it is too cold to go flying this morning I spent a few hours and dredged up these links, and from reading those I cannot arrive at any other personal conclusion then to think Lycoming brought this whole fiasco onto themselves. That the owners of their products were and are still being given the royal shaft,, (no pun intended)...
And there are dozens of other links that clearly say...... Lycoming is responsible for their poor decisions...... And the end users of their products are going to have to spend ALOT of their own money to fix Lycomings mistakes...
Ben, now you can begin to feel the frustration that I and other owners
have had with this entire process. Sadly, the only recourse that many of us had was to join a class action suite at the time http://www.avweb.com/newspics/Complaint_CA.pdf.
This makes a good read and will further enlighten you to the lycoming mess.
peter-h
Line Up and Wait
Did anything come of that Robert Mills class suit?
I recall writing to him but never heard anything.
What I do know for sure is that Lyco, if credibly threatened with legal action (meaning, engaging real lawyers and taking it some way) did individual deals with pilots. These were always covered by an NDA and I'd imagine the disclosure penalties were severe because nobody disclosed the details, even to their very good friends, but rumour has it that Lyco reduced the engine OH cost pro rata to how much time was left on the engine. I know two people who took legal action (both wealthy men) and both came out smiling but neither would talk.
I recall writing to him but never heard anything.
What I do know for sure is that Lyco, if credibly threatened with legal action (meaning, engaging real lawyers and taking it some way) did individual deals with pilots. These were always covered by an NDA and I'd imagine the disclosure penalties were severe because nobody disclosed the details, even to their very good friends, but rumour has it that Lyco reduced the engine OH cost pro rata to how much time was left on the engine. I know two people who took legal action (both wealthy men) and both came out smiling but neither would talk.
With prices like that, it seems the market is ripe for a "offshore, barely legal" company to start spitting out cranks to fill the void... After all, there seems to be multiple, onshore, cylinder manufacurers who get FAA approval with dismal product results..
I could get Crower or Hank to machine me out a billet super light for less than half that.
Sometimes I wonder, however given it being true, the manufacturer should make it right when they do turn out a defective product that they themselves condemn. As many lawyers that are pilots, I'm surprised they get away with things car manufacturers can only dream of getting away with.