Vince Orton wrote:

 This just in from AVWeb ...

 **********************************************************************

 JURY'S CRANKSHAFT VERDICT HITS LYCOMING HARD...
 In a stunning verdict (the effects of which could ripple through the
 aviation world for years to come) a Texas jury has found Textron
 Lycoming entirely to blame for crankshaft failures in high-horsepower
 engines between 2000 and 2002. What's more, the Grimes County jurors
 found that Lycoming's investigation of the crankshaft failures was
 fraudulent and incorrectly put the blame on the manufacturer of the
 crankshaft forgings, Interstate Southwest, of Navasota, Texas. In fact,
 the FAA also accepted Lycoming's version that Interstate had improperly
 heat-treated the forgings, which weakened the steel and led to the
 failures. What the jury found was that the crankshafts were
 under-designed for high-horsepower engines, and that Lycoming changed
 the recipe for the steel alloy used in the cranks by adding vanadium (to
 make the metal easier and less expensive to work with) and that that
 weakened them. According to court documents obtained by AVweb, the jury
 found that the "sole cause" of the crankshaft failures was Lycoming's
 design. More...

 ...REPLACEMENT CRANKS AND INTEGRITY QUESTIONED...
 Now, the legal wranglings have undoubtedly just begun (Lycoming will
 almost certainly appeal) but the Texas decision raises some practical
 and potentially disquieting questions about the whole crankshaft issue.
 These are questions we'd like to pose to Lycoming but we were unable to
 receive a response before our deadline. According to Interstate lawyer
 Marty Rose, the forging company's investigation revealed that the design
 of the crankshafts used in the brawny turbocharged 300-plus-horsepower
 six-cylinder engines in question was based on 40-year-old designs for
 four-cylinder engines with much lower horsepower. Rose told AVweb that
 their investigation revealed that even though the vanadium problem was
 fixed in replacement cranks installed in 1,400 engines recalled in 2002,
 the cranks are still under-designed for the stresses created by the big
 engines. "The [replacement] crankshafts don't have any safety margin,"
 said Rose. More...

 ...THE VERDICT COULD BE JUST THE BEGINNING
 The decision also raises questions about the FAA's handling of the
 crankshaft problem. From the outset, the agency appears to have gone
 along with Lycoming's conclusion that Interstate was to blame for the
 weak cranks. The original Emergency Airworthiness Directive grounding
 Cessnas and Pipers with TIO-540 and LTIO-540 engines cites "a variation
 in the heat treatment process" (the jury did not agree) used during
 production of the cranks. FAA chief spokesman Greg Martin said the
 agency is studying the court decision and there's no word yet on further
 action. More...

 ************************************************************************

 Thought you all would like to know ...

 -Vince Orton

Aircraft piston engines are right on the ragged edge of failure.
The least little thing that goes wrong results in catastrophic
failure.


Paul Lamar

Robin Ream wrote:

    Since appeals are based on procedural issues or matters of specific law
rather than facts, winning an appeal in this type of case would be very much
of an uphill battle.  The statement is absolutely right that this "could
ripple through the aviation world for years to come."  Actually, it may be
the ripple before the earthquake unless it somehow miraculously wins the
appeal...

Robin

Even if Lycoming is successful on appeal, this will open the gates for other trials about other failures, one or more which may become class action. The engineering was discussed in open court. Even
if the jury itself is not engineers, the information discussed is now public info and its just a matter of time. Even if Lycoming wins on appeal, they at a minimum need to re-engineer the cranks.
The other alternative makes the Rotary look like a bargain.

Something to add from a "personal" standpoint regarding this. This trial
took place in a small county with a small population about an hour's
drive from Houston, Tx. I've been to the courthouse there and the towns
surrounding it. This trial took place in the kind of town/county where
everyone knows about everyone else. The venue was set there because
Interstate Forgings was based in the county, at Navasota, the largest
town. Trial was held in Anderson, in a courthouse that is over 100 years
old. I think that the perception was Big Guy Lycoming was placing blame
on the little guy for doing the big guys bidding, and the town/jury saw
that, hence 100% of the blame once the facts were presented, not even
"partial blame" for Interstate.

Dave Staten

The Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2004 All world wide rights reserved.