Gipsy troubles

Gipsy Doom? Be Patient

Proplover’s report of the Vintech view is a good one. The right people are working on this and by mid-May the situation should have become a little clearer.

The problem of Gipsy spares – such as exhaust valves, and even re-wound armatures for magnetos – is well known and is being addressed at the same time as the AAIB shot from the hip.

I spoke to Mike V about this some weeks ago, its not all doom but there is a long way to go on this, I fear that there may be some (expensive) compromise made. I feel that to base such a draconion decision on one engine (The Stampes) that I heard might of had a possibly suspect history could of been a little bit of an over reaction. I believe that the CAA werent to happy that the AAIB made such a direct statement in the report as it then forced the CAA to “take an intrest” in Gipsy engines.
We’ll have to see what happens following the next meeting.

Another point re Gipsy engines – any of you people tried getting things like pistons for one recently – how about the oil ring mod rings? Unless there is some latitude given soon re production of “new” bits we’ll all be on the ground come engine rebuild time.

Another excellent source for information is de Havilland Support based at Duxford.

galdri, are you in the Moth Club? I’m sure somebody there will know something. When I get a moment I’ll have a rummage through the back issues of the magazine and see if I can dig anything out.

So basically what we have here, is a BIG problem. Since no-one is holding the type certificate, the CAA can do pretty much as the like. And since they like to play it on the ‘save’ side, it will mean some serious AD 😮

Maybe I better re-engine that Gemini with a couple of Walters and keep it experimental 😮

Deltair are the people to talk regarding Gipsys as they are the type certificate holders for the engine.[/QUOTE]

Not strictly true ref Deltair holding a Type certificate for the Gipsy series. Deltair has a “Type Responsibility Agreement” – see British Civil Airworthiness Requirements, Section A5, for a meaning of this – which is something less than holding the Type Certificate. This is actually the root of the problem. The CAA therefore have no design organisation to turn to and underwrite any technical solution to the AAIB recommendation.

That means that the CAA must take responsibility for any solution – and the CAA is not noted for taking responsibility for anything sensible! People are working on a solution but it could be difficult to get an answer acceptable to owners as well as the CAA. I understand that the next meeting of interested parties with the CAA is likely next month.

The AAIB recommened to the CAA following an accident to a Stampe which lost it’s prop, that a calender life limitation be imposed on Gipsy engines. In particular those engines which operate in the transport/aerial work category.

According to the accident report the CAA partially accepted this recomendation, although it seems the investigation is still open.

I heard a figure of 13 years calender time mentioned on the grape vine, but don’t quote me. If this proposal is adopted and also applied to private cat aircraft it will see my Auster decked. 😮

Deltair are the people to talk regarding Gipsys as they are the type certificate holders for the engine.

Hummm……….Hadn’t thought of that 😮 Thanks Melv.

I would strongly recommend you speak to the people at Vintec. They know more than most about old engines and have doneone or two(!) Gispy’s.

Speak to Paul Sharman, the Chief Engineer, or to Mike Vaisey, the boss.

Very approachable people too.

01767 651974

[email]mail@vintech.aero[/email]

Melvyn