What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

ECi Cylinders - advise wanted

RV7AJeremy

RV7AJeremy

Well Known Member
Hello all, I am building my 7, and my brother is looking to buy a 9a. We found one that seems to fit him quite well, and at a fair price. Everything about the plane seems great except for the fact that the 0-320 has ECi type A cylinders on it. The Mandatory Service Bulletin http://eci.aero/pdf/08-1.pdf applies to these cylinders.

The engine has approximately 800 hours on it, and compression was 76,74,78,76 at the last check.

I was wondering if anyone out there had any experience in dealing with this MSB and these cylinders. Compression checks every 50 hours does not seem that much of a pain. If the engine has been strong so far, is it reasonable to assume it will be good till 2000 hrs? Any thoughts, experiences, and or guidance is welcome.
 
My Type A cylinders did just fine until about 1400 hours, when they fell off a cliff (compression-wise). Oil consumption was never what I woudl call good - about 6 hours per quart. The problem turned out to be not with the cylinders, but with the rings, which were delaminating. The Nickel-cylinders require a ring that has a very hard layer of material on the contact surface, and back in '05 and '05 (ish), they had problems getting this to stay on (although I never saw or heard about it). I didn't know about the delamination until I took the jugs off.

I bought a set of rings to hone and re-ring, then found out that the cylinder shops didn't want to try and re-hone the nickel cylinders. At that point, I just punted and went with four new Lycoming jugs.

I still like and support ECI, but I had such good results with the new Lycoming jugs on our RV-3 engine that I just decided that was simpler than trying to chase those older cylinders to get them to go another few hundred hours. I'd ask the owner about their oil consumption.
 
Thanks!

Thank you Sir, that was exactly the info I was looking for. As it turns out, the sale fell though this morning anyways; which I am happy about. Those jugs did not give me a warm fuzzy. Thanks again!
 
Ironflight said:
My Type A cylinders did just fine until about 1400 hours, when they fell off a cliff (compression-wise). Oil consumption was never what I woudl call good - about 6 hours per quart. The problem turned out to be not with the cylinders, but with the rings, which were delaminating. The Nickel-cylinders require a ring that has a very hard layer of material on the contact surface, and back in '05 and '05 (ish), they had problems getting this to stay on (although I never saw or heard about it). I didn't know about the delamination until I took the jugs off.

I bought a set of rings to hone and re-ring, then found out that the cylinder shops didn't want to try and re-hone the nickel cylinders. At that point, I just punted and went with four new Lycoming jugs.

I still like and support ECI, but I had such good results with the new Lycoming jugs on our RV-3 engine that I just decided that was simpler than trying to chase those older cylinders to get them to go another few hundred hours. I'd ask the owner about their oil consumption.
Click to expand...

Had the same problem and ECI covered the overhaul costs. Very pleased with the service, however would buy steel cylinders next time.
 
Ring delamination was covered under ECI Service Instruction 06-6 http://www.eci.aero/pdf/06-6.pdf
and was a result of not getting good adhesion in the corners when the moly is thermally sprayed on to the face of the ring. You can send the cylinders back to ECI and they will hone and re-ring them for you if your shop is unable or unwilling to do them for you.
Group A cylinders do not have a manufacturing or metallurgical defect; the FAA was quite overzealous in adding all the Group A cylinders to the AD when Group B is the only group with cause for action. Initial compression test is at 350 hours and recurring every 50 hrs after that. They must be retired at 2000 hrs.
Grub
 
grub0927 said:
Group A cylinders do not have a manufacturing or metallurgical defect; the FAA was quite overzealous in adding all the Group A cylinders to the AD when Group B is the only group with cause for action.
Click to expand...

That was my understanding as well, but it seems to be contradicted by Paul's experience with his Group A cylinders.

erich
 
erich weaver said:
That was my understanding as well, but it seems to be contradicted by Paul's experience with his Group A cylinders.

erich
Click to expand...


The AD was for barrel cracks. I don't think that was the issue with Paul's cylinders. ECI told me that the failure rate on the group A cylinders has been no different then any of their other cylinders or other manufacturers cylinders.

George
 
To be clear, I really don't have any problem with the Group A cylinders per se'....I think the potential for barrel cracks and head separation was extremely low. I was always bothered with the higher oil consumption, and then when I found out it was a known issue (the ring delamination) despite my asking for ideas on the oil consumption, I felt like I wasn't getting the whole story out of ECI.

With good compression, I probably would have flown them to TBO - but the compression went away.
 
sailvi767 said:
The AD was for barrel cracks. I don't think that was the issue with Paul's cylinders. ECI told me that the failure rate on the group A cylinders has been no different then any of their other cylinders or other manufacturers cylinders.

George
Click to expand...

Grub0927 posted that group A cylinders do not have metallurgical defects. My point was that the delamination that Paul experienced seems contrary to this. I guess you can say the delamination is a problem with the rings, not the cylinders, whatever, either way its a major problem.

I personally have not heard of similar problems with other group A cylinders, and have not experienced high oil consumption on mine, so hoping for the best, although I only have about 310 hours on mine.

On a related subject, assuming I ever reach 2000 hours, and there are no problems revealed by inspection, borescope check and compression test, it would seem silly to retire the cylinders for no other reason than the AD says to do so. Why not keep flying until there is a legitimate reason to retire them? I don't see the logic in the AD, and I guess ECI doesn't either.
Regards
erich
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top