What's new
Van's Air Force

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

NEW ECi Cylinder AD - Bummer!!!!

I just talked to James Ball with ECI, and he explained to me that if you have a "certified" aircraft ECI will exchange your effected cylinders. If you have an experimental aircraft ECI will only "rework" your effected cylinders.
It seems to me that I paid the same for my cylinders as anyone with certified engines did.
Are there any legal experts out there that can advise those of us with effected cylinders on experimental aircraft if a class action lawsuit is an option? It sure appears to me that we are being discriminated against. Is it poss. E.A.A. would assist?
 
I just spoke with James Ball from ECI. He told me that if you have effected cylinders on a "CERTFIED" aircraft you get replacement cylinders. If you have effected cylinders on an "EXPERIMENTAL" aircraft they rework and return your existing cylinders. I for one see this as I paid the same for my effected cylinders as the "CERTIFIED" owners did and feel I should be treated the same. Are there any legal experts out there reading this that would have an opinion as to whether this would qualify for a class action lawsuit as it appears to me we "EXPERIMENTAL" owners are being discriminated against. Is it poss. E.A.A. would assist?
 
ECI Kit engine

The AD applies to lycoming engines that had replacement cylinders. Does anyone know if it applies to an all ECI Titan engine kit ?
 
RV4 N21471 said:
I just spoke with James Ball from ECI. He told me that if you have effected cylinders on a "CERTFIED" aircraft you get replacement cylinders. If you have effected cylinders on an "EXPERIMENTAL" aircraft they rework and return your existing cylinders. I for one see this as I paid the same for my effected cylinders as the "CERTIFIED" owners did and feel I should be treated the same. Are there any legal experts out there reading this that would have an opinion as to whether this would qualify for a class action lawsuit as it appears to me we "EXPERIMENTAL" owners are being discriminated against. Is it poss. E.A.A. would assist?
Click to expand...

On one of the aviation podcasts there was an interview with Amy Laboda. She and her husband has na RV-10 and they had those B cylinders bought as certified. They have heard from ECI the same story you do, but then they researched and found out that there is official FAA document stating that if cylinder came from factory with serial number as certified cylinder it doesn't matter if it's put on certified or experimental engine, all the ADs and SBs apply. The thing is that 'the FAA is not in habit of enforcing this' when it comes to experimental aircraft/engines. They followed up on this document with they lawyer and got replacement cylinders from ECI and their RV-10 is now flying again. So I think everybody should try to follow this path.

You can listen to her here: http://uncontrolledairspace.com/wiki/doku.php?id=ucap174 (about half the episode).
 
wrong

Dave Cole said:
I doubt if you paid as much as the "CERTIFIED" owners did for your "EXPERIMENTAL" cylinders. That's what makes the experimental kit engines such a good deal.
Click to expand...

You would be guessing "WRONG". When you order cylinders, you buy the same exact cylinder as a "Certified" engine would use. E.C.I. does in fact now offer "Experimental" cylinders with tapered cooling fins on the barrel, but these are not what we are discussing. Mine are in fact "Certified" cylinders that just happen to be on an "Experimental" aircraft. And I did in fact pay the same as owners of "Certified" aircraft did.
By the way, I never said I had "kIT" engine. I run a Lycoming O-360 A4M.
 
Last edited:
update

I thought it was time for an update. The story is not good. ECi has had my cylinders since Feb. 12th. I still don't have them. They are now telling me April 12th. Two months? Did I mention that my airplane was done waiting for inspection? Don't mean to whine. Sorry. So, my conclusion is that as an owner of an "experimental" engine I am getting treated as a second class citizen. If this had been a certified install I would by flying by now. I have taken this up with Aero Sport Power as Bart and Sue built my engine. Sue is going to see what she can do for me. I'll let you know how that goes.
 
My cylinders arrived at ECI on Jan 22. I still do not have them back and of course I am not happy about that. In retrospect mine are in the "A" group and I could have flown with them as they were until the stampede was over with. It was my hope that I was in early enough that the wait would not be so long. While I am not defending the delays the reason that I have ECI cylinders is a bad experience with Lycoming jugs. Step back in time to 10 years ago. There were no ECI jugs, no Superior jugs, just Lycoming. They were more expensive then they are now and of not very good quality; try complaining to a company that has no competition. My last brand new Lycoming cylinders, at that time, had to be flow matched to be even close to running right. Three of the cylinders had so much flashing stuck between the fins that the cooling air could not circulate. I had to file/drill the flashings out and lo and behold I came up with at least a tablespoon of casting sand on #5. I called Lycoming about this and all I got was... silence.
Superior came out with new castings, they were beautiful, ECI came out with jugs and they were a great improvement over Lycoming castings. In fact they were so much better that my engine re-builder sold his flow bench as he found it was not necessary with the new cylinders. Lycoming cylinders suddenly were able to get better after years of so what.
Am I happy about delays at ECI, no way, am I happy they are in business, you bet!
 
Last edited:
Really good post Tom - exactly my feelings on the topic! I have been in this aviation game a LONG time, and with the old Lycoming monopoly, cylinders were always an issue. I'm quite happy flying with my Group A cylinders for now - should I have a problem down th line, I can take action after the "rat is through the snake" at ECI. I understand why people are upset, and I would be as well if my airplane were grounded. But given the alternatives, ECI still looks pretty darn good to me.
 
I feel kinda silly posting this because I know the collective wisdom is much greater than my own but just as a point of reference. I had four group A cylinders... compression on all of them were good, I sent them in anyway because it was the right thing to do for me. Turns out 2 of my cylinders were cracked a supercub at my airport had a group A cylinder on it and he had an off airport landing when his group A cylinder head blew apart.
Just be careful
 
New vs Repaired

I just got off the phone with Jim Ball at ECI. One of my questions was, even with repaired cylinders, until the FAA approves the repair, are we still tied to the inspection requirements of AD 2009-26-12? His response was, “Your engine is in the experimental category….” I guess you could read between the lines on this one.

I am sitting on the fence as to whether to send the cylinders in for repair, or simply to purchase all new. My previous luck with cylinder repair hasn’t been good. More than once, I've had to return a cylinder for re-work. At any rate, Jim is sending me the boxes. In the mean time, I’m mulling this over ($$$).

For those of you who have been waiting for your cylinders, Jim mentioned that they are finally spooled up for the production re-work of the cylinders. He mentioned that some customers have been waiting over 8 weeks for repairs. Once they get through the backlog, they are estimating a turn-a-round time of 21 days.

Regards,
 
Last edited:
If you check with the FAA, you will find they do not differentiate between experimental, and certified in regards to A.D. compliance. Any aircraft with an N number must comply with the A.D.
 
I cant figure out why anyone would want to have ECI do the cylinder rework when the AMOC hasnt even been approved by the Feds yet. Seems like both the customer and ECI are asking for trouble and more delays by going this route. I would think that you would want to either wait for the Fed blessing of the AMOC or just buck up and pay for new cylinders. No?

erich
 
New vs Repaired

erich weaver said:
I cant figure out why anyone would want to have ECI do the cylinder rework when the AMOC hasnt even been approved by the Feds yet. Seems like both the customer and ECI are asking for trouble and more delays by going this route. I would think that you would want to either wait for the Fed blessing of the AMOC or just buck up and pay for new cylinders. No?

erich
Click to expand...

I ordered new cylinders today.

Regards,
 
RV4 N21471 said:
If you check with the FAA, you will find they do not differentiate between experimental, and certified in regards to A.D. compliance. Any aircraft with an N number must comply with the A.D.
Click to expand...
You sure about that? Who told you this? I've found that many feds are not versed on experimental amateur built rules.
 
Advisory Circular 39-7C

Low Pass said:
You sure about that? Who told you this? I've found that many feds are not versed on experimental amateur built rules.
Click to expand...

FAA Advisory Circular 39-7C, Section 8 Applicability of AD's:

Unless specifically stated, AD's apply to the make and model set forth in the applicability statement regardless of the classification or category of the airworthiness certificate for the aircraft.
 
DAGO said:
I just got off the phone with Jim Ball at ECI. One of my questions was, even with repaired cylinders, until the FAA approves the repair, are we still tied to the inspection requirements of AD 2009-26-12? His response was, ?Your engine is in the experimental category?.? I guess you could read between the lines on this one.
Click to expand...
Somewhere I heard, I think from JB, that the re-worked cylinders would have new serial numbers. The new S/N's wouldn't be on the AD so the AD wouldn't apply. Check with ECi but this was my understanding.
 
newtech said:
Somewhere I heard, I think from JB, that the re-worked cylinders would have new serial numbers. The new S/N's wouldn't be on the AD so the AD wouldn't apply. Check with ECi but this was my understanding.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post Steve. I decided to go with new cylinders. Today, I pulled cylinders 1 & 2. They both look great. Tomorrow, I'll pull 3 & 4 then send the whole lot to ECI for exchange.

Regards,
 
Any bad EXP cylinders

I am wondering if any of the newer tapered fin EXP cylinders had this problem? Were any of these manufactured in the AD serial number range?

Walter
 
ECI vs Me Venting!

20103conditioninspectio.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

Shipping the cylinders off to ECI for exchange today. All four of the cylinders appeared to be in excellent condition. Looking beyond the frustration, time, and expense, of complying with the AD, there are some positives in having the engine open for inspection.

Having the cylinders off, you have an excellent opportunity to inspect the innards for corrosion. You also can see how effective the anti-dispersant qualities the engine oil was in keeping sludge out of the crankcase.

My aircraft is 3 years old and is low time. It sat idle for 18 months while we did a number of mods. I was pleased to discover that the camshaft, crank, and connecting rods all look like new. However, I did find light corrosion of the sides of the push rods. Since I’ve elected to replace the cylinders with new, I am going to order new push rods.

On a “venting” note, I have a bone to pick with ECI. They have been highly responsive to my calls…no problem there. However, in my opinion, I am being raped by the cylinder exchange deal they offered me.

In exchange for my cylinders, which they will repair, and re-sell, they initially offered me a 25% discount off the new cylinders. I asked them to reconsider the offered discount, my cylinders are very low time, they will also make a return on the re-sale, and the inconvenience, time, and labor on my behalf, was all the result of ECI’s faulty cylinder head to barrel bonding technique. ECI countered, after consulting with the PRESIDENT of the company, to extend me a 27% discount. What a rip-off!!!! Anyhow…”vent” terminated.

Regards,
 
Last edited:
DAGO said:
On a ?venting? note, I have a bone to pick with ECI. They have been highly responsive to my calls?no problem there. However, in my opinion, I am being raped by the cylinder exchange deal they offered me.
Click to expand...

Tom, any chance you'd like to share with us the cost of the new cylinders (minus the hassle and labor)?
 
Please see letter I sent via e-mail to FAA today. I will post reply when and if I recieve.

Mr. Peter W. Hakala:



I have the following questions/comments regarding AD 2009-26-12:

I have been in contact with ECI regarding AD compliance on two Group "B" cylinders installed on a Van's RV-4 experimental aircraft I own.

ECI stated to me that on experimental aircrafts they are only offering to rework the cylinders and return them to the owner.

I am questioning the legality of this based on the following:

1. AD 2009-26-12 Section (N)Prohibition of Group "B" ECI Cylinder Assemblies Affected by this AD cleary states: "not to attempt to repair or reuse Group "B" cylinders."

2. AC 39-7C Section 8 Applicability of AD's clearly states that: "Unless specifically stated, AD's apply to the make and model set forth in the applicability statement regardless of the classification or category of the airworthiness certificate issued for the aircraft."(Case in point Experimental Aircraft)

3. AC 39-7C Section 8, paragraph E. clearly states: "In no case, does the presence of any alteration, modification, or repair remove any product from the applicability of this AD."

4. AC 39-7C Section 12clearly states: "Any alternative method of compliance or adjustment of compliance time other than that listed in the AD must be substantiated and approved by the FAA before it may be used.

I look forward to hearing your opinion on the legality of the rework ECI is offering. And your opinion as to whether the rework ECI is offering would constitute compliance with the above referenced AD.
In the event there is someone else I should be comunicating my questions to, would you please forward to the same?

Thank You
Regards
Logan Walker
 
important memorandum

In response to my e-mail to Peter Hakala at the FAA, he forwarded to me a memorandum from FAA acting regonal counsel Christopher Poreda to the manager of the technical standards branch.
This memorandum clearly backs up, and makes many references to AC 39-7C.
Anyone with a Lyoming engine with affected cylinders would be well advised to obtain and read this memorandum, and decied for yourself if ECI's unapproved AMOC is actually legal, and if it puts you in compliance with the AD 2009-26-12. I for one will not be putting reworked cylinders on my plane.
If anyone would like a copy, I could e-mail you one, or fax may be preferred.
[email protected]
 
Last edited:
I completely understand your choice but I will also say having your cylinders looked at may be very well worth it. Like I said in a earlier post I had 2 of my 4 group A cylinders with the starts of cracks in them, again I respect your choice but if I understand the issue the cause of the AD was a machining issue and having the AMOC done does make me feel much better about my cylinders
 
There is no requirement to comply with AD's on experimental aircraft at all. If you have a certified lycoming... that is kinda a gray area, but if you have an experimental lycoming or a clone... well, it just doesn't apply at all.
 
Doesn't a certified Lycoming automatically become an expermental engine when installed in an expermental airplane? I think it can only retain the certified status if it is used in an aircraft approved for it. I've never seen the regs that support this, so if some one knows please say.
 
not according to the FAA

osxuser said:
There is no requirement to comply with AD's on experimental aircraft at all. If you have a certified lycoming... that is kinda a gray area, but if you have an experimental lycoming or a clone... well, it just doesn't apply at all.
Click to expand...

If you read "Advisory Circular" AC No: 39-7C you will find that it very clearly states that AD's apply to experimental aircraft. If you read the "Memorandum" issued by the FAA Office of the Regional Counsel to Manager, Technical Standards Branch, dated March 26, 2003 which makes it extremely clear that AD's on engines and propellers still apply when installed in experimental aircraft, you will find there is no gray area. Can forward copy of same if onterested.
 
you need to read memorandum

wilddog said:
Doesn't a certified Lycoming automatically become an expermental engine when installed in an expermental airplane? I think it can only retain the certified status if it is used in an aircraft approved for it. I've never seen the regs that support this, so if some one knows please say.
Click to expand...

You simply need to read "Advisory Circular" AC no: 39-7C. Just Google same to find copy. Or better yet, and more importantly read Memorandum from FAA Legal Department to Technical Standards Department. You will find this will clarify any questions you may have. Can forward to you if interested.
 
RV4 N21471 said:
If you read "Advisory Circular" AC No: 39-7C you will find that it very clearly states that AD's apply to experimental aircraft. If you read the "Memorandum" issued by the FAA Office of the Regional Counsel to Manager, Technical Standards Branch, dated March 26, 2003 which makes it extremely clear that AD's on engines and propellers still apply when installed in experimental aircraft, you will find there is no gray area. Can forward copy of same if onterested.
Click to expand...

Logan,

I can tell that you are especially passionate over this topic for your own reasons. It IS important for people out there with Experimental aircraft to FULLY understand the regulations the FAA has establish, and why.

As you have said, the AC says it all:
"Some aircraft owners and operators mistakenly assume that AD's do not apply to aircraft with other than standard airworthiness certificates, i.e., special airworthiness certificates in the restricted, limited, or experimental category. Unless specifically stated, AD's apply to the make and model set forth in the applicability statement regardless of the classification or category of the airworthiness certificate for the aircraft." I didn't underline that part, the FAA did.

The reason for this Advisory Circular is simple.....an engine or component failure in any aircraft in-flight (whether it's a helicopter or airplane, experimental or not) has the same implications.....danger to the occupants and danger to those on the ground.
 
Yes, never ending debate. How many of you run a certfied Lycoming WITHOUT adding at least one EI? The minute you add the EI, it isn't a certified lycoming anymore... no matter how you spin it. I do agree, that if you run a completely stock certified lycoming, then it technically does remain certified, and AD's and SB do apply. When I say gray area, I don't mean that there is no guidance, I just mean that there are so many twists, turns, and gotcha's, that it sometimes becomes impossible to see the forest through the trees.

I have been working on RV's a while now, and I've never seen one with a Certified engine installed that conformed to it's type certificate.
 
osxuser said:
Yes, never ending debate. How many of you run a certfied Lycoming WITHOUT adding at least one EI? The minute you add the EI, it isn't a certified lycoming anymore... no matter how you spin it. I do agree, that if you run a completely stock certified lycoming, then it technically does remain certified, and AD's and SB do apply. When I say gray area, I don't mean that there is no guidance, I just mean that there are so many twists, turns, and gotcha's, that it sometimes becomes impossible to see the forest through the trees.

I have been working on RV's a while now, and I've never seen one with a Certified engine installed that conformed to it's type certificate.
Click to expand...

It's really not a question as to whether or not the engine is certified or not. The AD is on the cylinders, and according to the AD, the AC, and the memorandum from the legal department the AD's still apply to the cylinders even if installed on a non certified engine, even if modified, even if on an experimental.
 
I.M.P.O. AD's do apply to experimental aircraft unless the text of the AD specifically exempts experimental's from its applicability. Service bulletins also apply. I don't see any gray area. I don't know how ECI is able to get away with differentiating between normal and experimental categories in their cylinder dispositions.
 
apkp777 said:
I.M.P.O. AD's do apply to experimental aircraft unless the text of the AD specifically exempts experimental's from its applicability. Service bulletins also apply. I don't see any gray area. I don't know how ECI is able to get away with differentiating between normal and experimental categories in their cylinder dispositions.
Click to expand...

To add to the AD / Service Bulletin compliance part:

Every component part of my Mattituck IO-360 has a FAA-PMA stamp on it. The engine is assembled by Mattituck, however, all of the components are ECI. The Mattituck sticker in my logbook states: ?All FAA AD notes applicable to the engine as a whole, the accessories supplied with the engine or any parts or components used in the assembly of the engine have been complied with to date. As of this date, any and all published Service Bulletins or Service Letters, as provided by the manufacturers of the parts or accessories used in the assembly of this engine, have been complied with.?

Obviously, the manufacturer constructed the experimental engine within full compliance of all applicable AD?s, Service Bulletins, etc. Why would an owner of such engine not be compelled to comply with future mandates?

I am obligated to maintain my experimental engine in an airworthy condition. In my opinion, if a future AD was ignored, in the event of an accident involving personal injury, death, and/or property damage, the courts could very well prove negligence. Present case in point would be to ignore the current ECI cylinder AD and then having an accident as a result of non-compliance with the AD.

With respect to the experimental class of engines produced by Lycoming and Continental/Mattituck, these engines are sold at a discount relative to the price of a new certified engine for the following reason: When purchasing a new certified engine from the manufacturer, part of the purchase price includes costs to cover potential contingent liability claims against the company. An experimental engine is sold minus those built-in costs.

In my mind, ?Experimental? does not mean?yippie, no more compliance issues. It means that I own an aviation grade engine, purchased at a discount, subject to future engine, parts, components, and accessory, compliance mandates.

Thank you to all whom highlighted the regulation side of this issue.

Regards,
 
Turning an ECI AD Lemon into Lemonade!

Continuing to look at the positives from having to pull my cylinders, besides now having had the opportunity to peek inside the engine to inspect for corrosion, yesterday I’ve discovered several issues affecting my baffles. Both of the issues would not have been detectable without the removal of the baffles for inspection.

I discovered several baffle wear areas from the cylinder fins. The good news is that none of the wear areas had gone completely through the baffle material.

The second issue was the discovery of a couple of baffle cracks developing along the inboard edge of the oil cooler mounting pad.

Both repairs are simple. Thanks to the cylinder AD, I guess the AD is saving me some money. (Humor me…thanks!):D

Regards,
 
Last edited:
Just curious

Has anyone who has sent cylinders in to ECI gotten anything back yet????????
As far as I can tell talking to friends who have sent cylinders in we are all getting the same story"They will be ready in a week or so" and that turns into another "several weeks" and so on. I know ECI is slammed but I am on the verge on being down for going on 4+ months with no cylinders back yet, I am hoping I can fly some time this summer:rolleyes:
 
ADs

This debate never ends.

The problem I have is in using an Advisory Circular as the basis for the assertion AD's are mandatory for Experimental aircraft. Advisory Circulars are NOT regulations and are in fact "Advisory". This then becomes a self licking ice cream cone with FARs pointing to ACs pointing to FARs. The fact that an FAA regional counsel believes ADs must be complied with highlights the more systemic non-standard policies within various branches of the FAA or between regions and districts. Ask two different FSDO's and you'll get two entirely different answers. Specifically, the closer you get to the Washington, DC FSDO the more conservative they get. Believe me I KNOW :)

For me the point is academic...I comply.
 
AD Applicability

The text of the ECI cylinder AD identifies applicability as:
(d) This AD applies to the Lycoming Engines (formerly Textron Lycoming) models 320, 360, and 540 series, "Parallel Valve," reciprocating engines listed in Table 1 of this AD, with ECi cylinder assembly, part number (P/N) AEL65102 series "Titan," and with cylinder head, P/N AEL85099, installed.
​
The important point is that the AD applies to Lycoming engines with the specified ECI cylinders installed, not to the cylinders themselves.

For example, I have a TMX IO-360 engine from Mattituck. The engine data plate identifies it as a TMX Experimental Aircraft Engine. Although it is built with PMA Lycoming parts, it is not a Lycoming engine, and it is not listed in Table 1 of the AD. Consequently, the AD is not specifically applicable to this engine.

This doesn't mean that I can or should ignore the AD. I am still responible for maintaing the aircraft in a conditioin for safe operation, and this AD informs me that certain cylinders that may be installed on my engine are subject to failure. One way to address the problem would be to comply with the specific requirements of the AD. However, a suitable alternate means of compliance could also be used.

The particular case of the TMX engines is certainly not applicable to all Experimental aircraft, but it does illustrate that the cylinder AD applicability is not black and white.

Fortunately, I recieved my new TMX IO-360 about 3 months ago, and my cylinders are not in the range of affected serial numbers.​
 
Last edited:
I love a good AD debate. . .

Since we are using Advisory Circulars instead of FAR's I'd thought I'd throw in another FAA piece of paperwork. . .EAA members might be familar with this since it was in direct response to the EAA request for clarification after the now "infamous" AC from 1995.


Report to the Aircraft Certification Management Team, Airworthiness Directive Applicability Team, April 28-30, 1998: ?A type design can exist only with a type certificate, and only after a showing of compliance with applicable requirements and approval by the FAA. A non-TC‟d aircraft cannot have a type design. ?Type design‟ as defined in ?21.31 is the intent of Part 21.? And, ?The wording of the rules shows clearly that in writing the rules, FAA had no intention of issuing AD‟s for non-TC‟d aircraft. ?39.1 requires that the aircraft have a type design as defined in ?21.31. A non-TC‟d aircraft has no type design. ?21.31 requires that the TC holder report product safety problems to the FAA, and ?21.99 requires that the TC holder prepare corrective fixes. A non-TC‟d aircraft has no TC holder. There is no credible interpretation of existing rules that implies FAA ever intended to issue AD‟s against non-TC‟d aircraft.?


:p
 
In consideration of the above....
Why would any do-it-yourselfer want to own a TC'd aircraft, especially with VAN's service bulletin system online?
I'm planning to sell the Cessna when the RV-9 is up and running.
 
FYI New ECI Cylinder Inventory

Today, I placed my order for four new cylinders. The current remaining inventory of new cylinders in stock are three.

Regards,
 
WOW!!! AERO Drops ECI?

This is news to me- If A.E.R.O drops ECI then what will happen to ECI!:eek:

The Email I just received says it all- AERO wants to sell a reliable product and ECI no longer fits that case (Pun intended!)- That eliminates ECI as a kit engine for me(maybe). This is big news I think! Anyone with more in depth news??

Now I had a chance to read the lawsuit between ECI and AERO… what a tragic mess!
 
Last edited:
AZtailwind said:
This is news to me- If A.E.R.O drops ECI then what will happen to ECI!:eek:

The Email I just received says it all- AERO wants to sell a reliable product and ECI no longer fits that case (Pun intended!)- That eliminates ECI as a kit engine for me(maybe). This is big news I think! Anyone with more in depth news??

Now I had a chance to read the lawsuit between ECI and AERO? what a tragic mess!
Click to expand...

The way I read the letter from AERO, this isn't about quality of product, it's a legal wrestling match (with Type-A personalities) between two companies. I've never bought anything from AERO, although I would have if I'd needed replacement parts for my 100% ECI component engine. Now I guess I'll have to go elsewhere.

I think that AERO just reduced their customer base by a non-insignificant amount - they will only sell to people who want genuine Lycoming parts.

I unfortunately remember the days when Lcyoming parts were the only thing available, and their cylinders had become absolute junk. I think they are much better now - due to competition from ECI and Superior. Do we really want to go back to a sole-source system?

This is just two company's lawyers arguing in public.
 
I bought my ECI kit from AERO. Just received my tappet bodies (the last parts I was waiting for). I can tell you that the customer service at AERO was FLAWLESS. They were a bit embarrassed by ECI's delays. I assured them that I understood Aviation Supply Chains and that I was very happy the way everything turned out. ECI had an AD on their cylinders, big deal! Welcome to aviation, AD's are just part of life. There are lot's of worse AD's than cylinder problems. Without ECI you can get a fine set of overpriced Lycoming cylinders with 1950's technology. I am sure there are lots of Subie guys that are laughing the heads off right now. Overheating, bah!
 
I see it the same way Paul does. ECI isn't turning out a bad product, just a public pi$$ing contest. Maybe AERO will drop them forever...doesn't change the fact that there's demand for ECI's product. I've got their 0-360 kit, and bought it through AERO. The service from both companies was great.
 
I read it a bit differently...

lostpilot28 said:
I see it the same way Paul does. ECI isn't turning out a bad product, just a public pi$$ing contest. Maybe AERO will drop them forever...doesn't change the fact that there's demand for ECI's product. I've got their 0-360 kit, and bought it through AERO. The service from both companies was great.
Click to expand...

...if a manufacturer is suing a major distributor (with a excellent, informative web site, BTW), what do you think the other distributors are going to think?

It could be that ECI products will be factory direct only in the future...:(

As far as the kit engines go, try calling all of the suppliers listed on the ECI web site. Lat time I checked they were all engine builders, and mark up the kit parts so much that makes it almost cheaper to buy an assembled engine from them...:)
 
az_gila said:
...if a manufacturer is suing a major distributor (with a excellent, informative web site, BTW), what do you think the other distributors are going to think?

It could be that ECI products will be factory direct only in the future...:(

As far as the kit engines go, try calling all of the suppliers listed on the ECI web site. Lat time I checked they were all engine builders, and mark up the kit parts so much that makes it almost cheaper to buy an assembled engine from them...:)
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying, Gil. I was only stating that I believe ECI has a great product, and my 2 seperate experiences with both ECI and AERO were very good. It does sound like a PR nightmare for ECI, but reading AERO's letter doesn't make me doubt the quality of their product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top