Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Proposed 0-360 Superior Air Parts Crank AD

  1. #1
    behindpropellers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    6,751
    Post Thanks / Like

    Proposed 0-360 Superior Air Parts Crank AD


  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Down low in the hills of Vermont USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    Wow, I am sure that is not the right word.
    Curious in that so far I have not seen any problems with the Continental-Titan built engines. I have felt they might be better but could well be wrong.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    6,917
    Post Thanks / Like
    Looks like a small percentage of the total out there. Haven't we seen about four ADs like this? My crank has a 25 hr. inspection regime.

  4. #4
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,675
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/...ankshaft-nprm/


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

  5. #5
    AkPA/18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Big Lake Ak
    Posts
    668
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks Mike,
    It appears mine was manufactured just prior but in the same year. Really hope they don't expand part numbers and gather me up.Safe for now.

    Would like to know if these are solid or hollow cranks. I missed it if said.
    http://thrustline.com/

    Takeoffs are optional--Landings are mandatory

  6. #6
    nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    So when figuring out the whole cost basis for replacing these cranks, they state that they didn’t include 77 experimental installations? Am I reading this right?
    Likes jrussl, mike mcs repair liked this post

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Down low in the hills of Vermont USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    So when figuring out the whole cost basis for replacing these cranks, they state that they didn’t include 77 experimental installations? Am I reading this right?
    Yup

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's interesting that they say the AD isn't applicable to the experimentals. That's contrary to what my DAR told me (in no uncertain terms) and subsequently what the FAA guys told me during my repairman interview. ADs on certified parts do apply to experimental installations is what I was made to understand.
    Likes mike mcs repair, CharlieN liked this post

  9. #9
    nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yeah I’m not sure what the message is that the FAA is sending by excluding experimental installations? It’s either OK by them that your crank fails or the cost of replacing the crank isn’t important to them. Bit of a head scratcher there...
    Likes CharlieN, mike mcs repair liked this post

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Down low in the hills of Vermont USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    To me if you pay $10K for a crankshaft and it turns out it can kill you. It should not matter what plane's engine it was installed in.
    If an EX crankshaft is half the money because you are not obligated to pay for the cert, it should still be warranted by the manufacturer. But they are not half the money.
    If detonation is causing failures which sounds like a scapegoat, maybe it is time to actually put an hour or two of R&D into these engines which has not been done in 50 years.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    The FAA document specifically identifies a materials problem. That's not the same as what the 400 recall was about, at least that's not what they told us, and the NTSB report on the fatality IO-400 accident indicated detonation, not crank material failure.

    Superior did right by 100+ exp engine owners with the 382/400 recall. I wouldn't panic too much about this until it all settles out.

    If memory serves the last Lycoming crank recall affected 3800 engines. I never heard how many Continental had to replace. This isn't an unprecedented problem.
    Last edited by stewartb; 02-27-2020 at 12:26 PM.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Down low in the hills of Vermont USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes but will Lycoming?
    I have a curiosity who Continental sources it's "Lycoming" cranks from now?
    Thanks windy thanked for this post
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Will Lycoming what?

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Down low in the hills of Vermont USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    Will Lycoming what?
    Sorry for the delay, power has been out the past 8 Hrs,
    Will Lycoming stand behind the EX cranks or as they have done to many time recently to make the owners pay for the exchange.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Lycoming doesn't use Superior's cranks in their engines. These cranks would be in Superior's engines or in engines overhauled by others using a Superior crank.

    I'm pretty sure Lycoming paid for replacement when their crank problem happened. When it happened to my 180 Continental paid for the crank replacement parts and labor. Hopefully Superior helps those affected by this AD. Time will tell.
    Last edited by stewartb; Yesterday at 02:46 PM.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Down low in the hills of Vermont USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    Lycoming doesn't use Superior's cranks in their engines. These cranks would be in Superior's engines or in engines overhauled by others using a Superior crank.
    Then what does this first sentance from the AD proposal state,

    The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all SAP Model IO-360-series and O-360-series reciprocating engines and certain Lycoming Engines (Lycoming) Model AEIO-360-, IO-360-, and O-360-series reciprocating engines with a certain SAP crankshaft assembly installed.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    I interpret that to mean Lycoming engines included in Superior's AML that may have had replacement cranks installed. From the FAA document-

    These SAP crankshaft assemblies are installed as original equipment on SAP Model IO-360-series and O-360-series reciprocating engines and as a replacement part under PMA on certain Lycoming Model AEIO-360-, IO-360-, and O-360-series reciprocating engines.
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Superior Air Parts Free Book Offer
    By stewartb in forum Tips and Tricks
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-14-2017, 04:24 PM
  2. Superior Air Parts in trouble
    By bowhunter in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-16-2009, 11:09 AM
  3. Need 24 hour reply - O-360 with hollow crank or solid crank?
    By GeneHerzog in forum Super Cub Sick Bay
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-21-2006, 09:06 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •