Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: PPONK 470-50 Question

  1. #1
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,813
    Post Thanks / Like

    PPONK 470-50 Question

    Hey guys,
    Here is one for you. Got a 180 in for annual, and it has a freshly overhauled 470-50. It was a TSIO-520-P converted via the STC to be a 470-50 (520 C.I.) While doing an AD search I came across the VAR crank Ad 97-26-17 says at overhaul or whenever the crank is removed from the engine to replace it with a VAR Crank. Northpoint when I called said well its technically a grey area and because its technically a 470 that AD doesn't apply to it. Whats the consensus? Am I over thinking it? Just trying to cover my a$s. Seems like if I was overhauling one that is a 520 and the only change is fuel delivery I would have changed cranks, but maybe I'm using too much logic?

    Thanks
    Likes mydoghasa170 liked this post

  2. #2
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    12,361
    Post Thanks / Like
    I looked up AD 97-26-17 and got this "No results were found; try another search."

    Based upon what you said, that engine was an TSIO-520 when the crank was removed. So the AD would apply.

    Now if it is permitted to later install that same crank in an O-470, it would be legal.

    What does the AD say to do with the crank when it is removed?

    I would want to see some documentation that it is legal to use that crank in that engine. Unless the person who did the overhaul specifically shows approval, I would not accept it. Make them give you some documentation. Once you sign it off, they are off the hook.
    N1PA

  3. #3
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    12,361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Found it.

    "Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each engine identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For engines that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.

    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously."

    Also ... "
    remove the crankshaft from service and replace with a serviceable crankshaft manufactured using the VAR process."

    Is there something in the records which documents "
    approval for an alternative method of compliance"?
    N1PA

  4. #4
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,813
    Post Thanks / Like
    Interesting, this was in the critical SB
    ďDO NOT USE NON-VAR CRANKSHAFTS IN ANY ENGINE NOT AFFECTED BY THIS SERVICE BULLETIN UNLESS IT CAN BE SUBSTANTIATED THAT IT HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY OPERATED IN AN AFFECTED ENGINE.Ē

    http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/CSB96-8.pdf

    Here is a link to the AD

    https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...25684800545EBB


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,813
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Found it.

    "Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each engine identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For engines that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.

    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously."

    Also ... "
    remove the crankshaft from service and replace with a serviceable crankshaft manufactured using the VAR process."

    Is there something in the records which documents "
    approval for an alternative method of compliance"?
    No the ad search done buy the engine builder was for ď470 series enginesĒ which doesnít have the VAR ad, as itís not a 520. The ATP program I used didnít allow 470-50 or just straight 470 so I searched it using the TSIO-520-P model number. That lead me to call the stc holder who verbally told me over the phone that itís a grey area and technically doesnít apply to this engine because itís now a 470-50


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,813
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is no V on the crank flange, and the original log books for the engine arenít with the new engine. They have the total time of the engine, but started a new log book. The yellow tag for the crank doesnít mention var at all.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    12,361
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the engine was originally one of the applicable engines then the AD does apply. The fact that it now isn't doesn't make it a grey area. The guy on the phone is passing the buck.
    N1PA

  8. #8
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    7,560
    Post Thanks / Like
    This topic has been discussed among Pponk owners for many years. The engine type is changed legally to O-470-50 so most believe there is no AD requirement for the VAR crank. In fact there’s a market for non-VAR cranks as a result. In this case the absence of early engine logs is probably intentional.

  9. #9
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    12,361
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the engine was originally one of the applicable engines and it can be proven, should something happen which can be traced to the crankshaft then the last IA or A&P who signed the log book is liable. He in turn can pull the person who signed off the overhaul into the law suit.

    Don't forget, an annual is not signed off in the engine log book. That doesn't remove liability.

    Using an applicable crankshaft in an engine to which the AD does not apply defeats the original intent of the bulletin which was to remove the cranks from service.
    N1PA

  10. #10
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    7,560
    Post Thanks / Like
    I guess not everyone agrees. Bottom line, the AD does not apply to 470 series engines. A non-VAR crank can be removed from a 520 and installed in a 470.

    I have no skin in this game myself. My crank is a VAR 520 crank.

  11. #11
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    12,361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Look at this on page one stewart,

    http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/CSB96-8.pdf

    "DO NOT USE NON-VAR CRANKSHAFTS IN ANY ENGINE NOT AFFECTED BY THIS SERVICE BULLETIN UNLESS IT CAN BE SUBSTANTIATED THAT IT HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY OPERATED IN AN AFFECTED ENGINE."
    N1PA
    Likes hotrod180 liked this post

  12. #12
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    7,560
    Post Thanks / Like
    Are SBs regulatory?

  13. #13
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    12,361
    Post Thanks / Like
    When the AD specifies the following, yes.

    (f) The actions required by this AD shall be done in accordance with the following TCM service documents:
    Document No.
    Pages
    Date
    CSB96-8

    Link to AD: https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...25684800545EBB

    Shall be done means must be done.
    Last edited by skywagon8a; 05-18-2022 at 05:45 AM.
    N1PA
    Likes wireweinie, jrussl liked this post

  14. #14
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    7,560
    Post Thanks / Like
    There you go Tom. The high road has been defined. Still lots of those cranks out flying, though.

  15. #15
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    12,361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Stewart, If you ever get the opportunity you should attend an IA renewal meeting when the FAA lawyers give a talk.

    Tom can sign off the annual with a letter of non compliance describing the discrepancy. This will cover his a$$. I'm certain he will discuss this with the 180's owner first.

    Let us hope that none of those "lots of those cranks out flying, though." don't have a failure. Well we don't have to hope, the IAs who signed the annuals are the ones who need to hope.
    N1PA

  16. #16
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    7,560
    Post Thanks / Like
    You’re reading things not written. The AD is very specific. FAA regs are full of ambiguity. Many see that as opportunity. We all do it to some degree. Regs say what they say. They don’t say what they don’t say.

    The end.

  17. #17
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    12,361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not true stewart, I'm passing on the information I've learned from the FAA after attending their IA meetings for almost 60 years. When you have an FAA ticket with authorization to approve something, you tend to pay attention to protect your own rear end. What I've said above is correct. ADs are regulatory. When an AD specifies "in accordance with", what ever the "with" is, also becomes regulatory.
    N1PA
    Likes mixer liked this post

  18. #18
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    22,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the data tag says it is a 470 then my take is that it is a 470 and the AD does not apply to a 470.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  19. #19
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    12,361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Tom said it was a TSIO-520-P.
    N1PA

  20. #20
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    22,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    Some of the donor parts came from a 520. I converted a 520 to a 470-50 but luckily it had a VAR crank.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  21. #21
    Farmboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Glens Falls, NY & Middlebury, VT
    Posts
    2,940
    Post Thanks / Like
    Steve, based on your viewpoint, whats your stance with superseded data plates.... OEM plate showing TSI0-520, with "modified" stamped into it, and P.PONK's tag added showing 0-470 STC.

    Clearly it shows it was a 520 that was affected, so you know the history of the 470.
    Do you still consider it non-applicable or do you consider the 520?
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  22. #22
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    22,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    The data plate says it is a 470. I specifically found a 520 donor engine with a VAR crank so I didn't have to deal with a scenario like this. Pulled a jug on a factory new 520 back in the late 90s because Continental didn't know which engines they had put VAR cranks in and which ones they didn't. This same engine had the mags set at TDC when I did the first 100 hr after being a factory new engine. You can't make this stuff up.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  23. #23
    Farmboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Glens Falls, NY & Middlebury, VT
    Posts
    2,940
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    . This same engine had the mags set at TDC when I did the first 100 hr after being a factory new engine. You can't make this stuff up.
    Did you charge the owner for the power increase upgrade like CAT does?

  24. #24
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    22,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    SJ wines every time he talks about what his P-Ponk cost converting from a J engine.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	100_5334.JPG 
Views:	539 
Size:	195.0 KB 
ID:	61159
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Likes SJ, jrussl, soyAnarchisto liked this post

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think I am pretty liberal in general when it comes to my signatures in logbooks, but I dont know how you can ignore the published statement from Continental as shown in Post #11. It my mind that is extremely clear about this situation.
    Likes skywagon8a, hotrod180, ak49flyer liked this post

  26. #26
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    22,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    Is that statement in the AD or in a service document called out in the AD?
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  27. #27
    frequent_flyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    Is that statement in the AD or in a service document called out in the AD?
    I recently had a long discussion with my IA about the scope of an AD on PA-28 wing spar inspection (2020-24-05). The AD calls out specific paragraphs of the Piper SB but my IA insisted all the SB applied. I know he was wrong but I gave up the discussion when he found my aircraft met his interpretation of the AD requirements.
    Likes jrussl liked this post

  28. #28
    Farmboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Glens Falls, NY & Middlebury, VT
    Posts
    2,940
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    Is that statement in the AD or in a service document called out in the AD?
    Itís in the SB called out in the AD, not in the AD.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0014.JPG 
Views:	47 
Size:	335.1 KB 
ID:	61160

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0013.JPG 
Views:	44 
Size:	269.6 KB 
ID:	61161


    Transmitted from my FlightPhone on fingersÖ
    Likes soyAnarchisto liked this post

  29. #29
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    12,256
    Post Thanks / Like
    Having experienced a crankshaft failure in an IO 520, I can't even imagine why anyone would want to fly ANY airplane with one of "those" cranks.....regardless of who might be liable......seems to me that Continental is pretty specific as to their thoughts on the subject.

    MTV
    Likes Farmboy, skywagon8a, BC12D-4-85 liked this post

  30. #30
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    7,560
    Post Thanks / Like
    Keep in mind the vast majority of Pponk engines work fine using non-VAR 470 cranks. Just adding a dose of reality.

  31. #31
    SJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Northwest Arkansas
    Posts
    15,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    SJ wines every time he talks about what his P-Ponk cost converting from a J engine.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	100_5334.JPG 
Views:	539 
Size:	195.0 KB 
ID:	61159
    Not every time, but most timesÖ

    I remember discussing the var issue with you way back then!

    sj
    Last edited by SJ; 05-18-2022 at 11:21 AM.
    "Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
    ------------------------------------------
    Likes jrussl liked this post

  32. #32
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    12,361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    Keep in mind the vast majority of Pponk engines work fine using non-VAR 470 cranks. Just adding a dose of reality.
    That may be true. However it doesn't make them legal if the crank came from an engine as defined by the AD. Just because "everyone does it" doesn't make it legal. And as Mike points out, it can lead to a disaster. I think I saw a picture of his wreck in a BAS shoulder strap ad. He was lucky.
    N1PA

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Coleman,Tx
    Posts
    23
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is a grey area to many and both sides are pretty well covered here, however one thing not brought up is the compression. If it has high comp pistons (naturally aspirated 520) and a NON-VAR
    crank it's not per the STC. It takes a field approval to have the high comp pistons and the only guy I know of that's doing that requires a VAR crank.

  34. #34
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    7,560
    Post Thanks / Like
    Good point, but lots of guys have snuck 8.5-1 pistons in and there’s essentially no penalty for doing so. And lots of guys exceed the 2700 rpm redline, too.

  35. #35
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,813
    Post Thanks / Like
    Good news for the owner, I contacted the engine builder and he is pretty sure it has a VAR crank but is going to check tomorrow

  36. #36
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    7,560
    Post Thanks / Like
    A good few minute read. Especially the last part about cranks.

    https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...pilot/pe_savvy
    Thanks mixer thanked for this post

  37. #37
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,813
    Post Thanks / Like

    PPONK 470-50 Question

    Oh boy donít get started with mike Busch

    Fact is it doesnít matter that var has failed more. The faa said there is an AD and I have to comply with it as a mechanic. I donít want a grey area. Iím covering my behind.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Likes skywagon8a, supercrow, Farmboy, ak49flyer, 40m and 1 others liked this post

  38. #38
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,813
    Post Thanks / Like
    I was talking to a FAA friend (one of the good guys) and he said any time the AD calls out, or mentions a SB it becomes mandatory. He said you can't use a non VAR crank in an engine if it has been in an engine affected by the AD.

    Another interesting point, he said it is technically legal to sign off AD's on a 0-470-50, which there are no AD's for, but he said its fine until something happens and you're in front of a lawyer. He has done a lot of work, and crash investigations on the VAR AD. Learned a lot about it from talking to him.

    The more you know
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  39. #39
    180Marty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Paullina, Ia
    Posts
    2,124
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think Longsair is right. I just did a 470-50 that was converted from a 470U mfg'd about 1980 with non- VAR. It is good for the original low compression Pponk but would not qualify for the higher compression 8.5 pistons. What I think would be neat is to put a 550 crank with 7.5 pistons and get a few more ponies with car gas.

Similar Threads

  1. 185 Pponk Gear mod
    By Tom3holer in forum Cessna: C180/C182/C185
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-24-2020, 05:15 PM
  2. New PPONK
    By pokey in forum Cessna: C180/C182/C185
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 10-09-2020, 04:38 PM
  3. PPonk ID
    By Eddie Foy in forum Cessna: C180/C182/C185
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 08-18-2018, 12:48 PM
  4. Hand propping a PPonk 470-50
    By JohnnyR in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 01-14-2018, 04:53 AM
  5. PPonk-50 conversion
    By Tom3holer in forum Everything Else (formerly:My Other Plane Is A....)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-29-2015, 08:50 AM

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
  •