snoogan6 Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 I have heard a couple of reasons why the H-60 engine chip detectors do not provide you fuzz burn capabilities. I have read some "myth buster" type information from Sikorsky on this but, I am curious as to what you guys have heard on this topic? So, why is it the H-60 engine chip detectors do not provide fuzz burn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Lyman Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 I have heard a couple of reasons why the H-60 engine chip detectors do not provide you fuzz burn capabilities. I have read some "myth buster" type information from Sikorsky on this but, I am curious as to what you guys have heard on this topic? So, why is it the H-60 engine chip detectors do not provide fuzz burn? OK, most of my experience is with the T700-GE-401 and T700-GE-401C engines in the Seahawk, but I do have some Blackhawk (T700-GE-700 & T700-GE-701C) experience too. If you notice, the main transmission chip detector fuzz burnoff feature is disabled at 140 C. It's normal operating temp is -50 to 105 C. The engine oil normal operating temperature is -50 to 135 C. This is closer to the cutoff temp for the main transmission chip detector. Granted, the chip detectors are not the same for the engine and the transmission, but I think the operating temperatures at least have something to do with it. Throw in there that the two chip detectors are monitoring systems with vastly different parameters (load & rpm) and you have two different needs. In the Navy, we were simply told that the engine system did not require the fuzz burn off and the operating temperature of the engine more or less made fuzz burnoff moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoogan6 Posted December 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 Well, I will tell you the two that I have heard and I don't know if one or both is true or what. 1. I have heard that because of the liquid to liquid cooler and because of the possible mixture of oil and fuel it doesn't have the capability. 2. I have also heard that because of the filter there is no need to have one. This one coming from a "myth buster" type book. Supposedly I heard an IP had written Sikorsky to find out these "myths" and this was one of the answers he got. The only thing with this is that the filter is a 30 Micron filter. The gear box has a 30 Micron filter as well but, it unlike the engine chip detector does have fuzz burn. They both sound logical and one and/or two could be true but, I really don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Lyman Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 Well, I will tell you the two that I have heard and I don't know if one or both is true or what. 1. I have heard that because of the liquid to liquid cooler and because of the possible mixture of oil and fuel it doesn't have the capability. 2. I have also heard that because of the filter there is no need to have one. This one coming from a "myth buster" type book. Supposedly I heard an IP had written Sikorsky to find out these "myths" and this was one of the answers he got. The only thing with this is that the filter is a 30 Micron filter. The gear box has a 30 Micron filter as well but, it unlike the engine chip detector does have fuzz burn. They both sound logical and one and/or two could be true but, I really don't know. #1 doesn't seem plausible. The fuel and oil never mix, of course. Perhaps the explanation is because of the proximity of the oil and fuel that is the issue? Charging the fuzz burn off in an engine chip detector might send an electrical charge through the oil and then into the fuel due to its close proximity in the fuel/oil heat exchanger? The whole accessory section of the engine is internally cored to allow fuel and oil to pass from one accessory to another internally. I doubt that the fuel/oil heat exchanger is a plausible reason to not have a fuzz burn off feature on the engine chip detector. BTW, look where the chip detector is in proximity to the engine driven fuel pump (right above the pump and to the left of the fuel/oil heat exchanger). I think if there was any loss of integrity of the fuel channel, the heat of the engine would be enough to set the thing ablaze. Something to consider is the makeup of the systems being lubricated. If I recall, the gearing in the main transmission module has some coating (nickel or something like that). At least the Navy version did. I think it was a slightly beefed up version. I know the Navy transmissions had a tendency to shed pieces of this coating a little more regularly, thus the fuzz burn off feature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoogan6 Posted December 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 I would like to recant my statement about a 30 micron filter it is only a 3 micron filter. As far as the first statement I made it was due to the fuel and oil being so close together in the liquid to liquid cooler that with the possible fuzz burn could ignite the fuel. I personally believe it is due to the filter. When you think about it one micron is equal to 39 millionths of an inch. That along with there not being much metal if any that could get in that system leads me to believe it would be stopped by the filter. If any did make it through the chip detector would hopefully catch it. With all of these factors taken into account I don't believe there would be a need for fuzz burn on the engine chip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.