What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Lycoming SB 505B - O-320 Crank

KazooRV-9A

Well Known Member
Patron
Well the debate begins anew (for me), Lycoming SB 505B...

The (certified) Machine shop reviewed the O-320 crankshaft that I sent, and cannot yellow tag per the SB. They pulled the front plug, machined the paint off, and stated that there is pitting beyond acceptance criteria.

In discussions with them:

-I inquired as to whether they felt it was suitable for Experimental use. They replied that they thought that the SB was essentially over-cautious, and that it would be suitable for flight where certification to the SB, was not required

-They advised against machining the I.D., stating that even if machined, it would not clean up the pits. There would be .009" diametral available, to the max allowable O.D of 1.910", or .0045" radial that could be removed.

-They advised against repainting, stating that they felt the paint could be detrimental to further corrosion, or at lease didn't mitigate further corrosion, once evident.

So the question now becomes, what to do. The options seem to be:

1. Use the crankshaft as-is. Pull the Lycoming I.D. plate and build an engine with an uncertified crank. There are many opinions on this, I've read what I could find on this website, I'm open to a new discussion.
-The engine I have does not have logbooks, but the paperwork I did find showed 11K hours TT in 2001. It was an engine from a school plane, I don't know how much or if it flew after that before the builder purchased it. No bill of sale. Cylinders look OK, I think they'll be able to be overhauled. Cases look OK at Disassy, and I have the accessories. It came with the project I bought from another builder's estate, there was no more info about it,,,
2. Find a used yellow tag crank. Hard to do, very popular, what everyone else needs too. Every crank has a past.....
3. Buy a new crank. Expensive, and would you put one in an eleven thousand hour case?
4. Find another core engine. and hope its crank is certifiable....
5. Buy a new Lycoming engine from Van's. Money as always, is a factor.. I would assuredly have to check with the internal finance dept.
6. Find a used/mid-time engine deal.

The machine shop will finish NDT and dimensional inspections, polish the journals (all were serviceable at oem new dia's.), re-plug the front and return with inspection paperwork only. Cost was reasonable.

I'm evaluating what to do next.

Andy C.

IMG_2911_zpszb98l6xl.jpg


IMG_2810_zpsg9bdijoh.jpg


IMG_2825_zpsfqvcjlsw.jpg


IMG_2826_zpsjay8mxmq.jpg


IMG_2824_zpsy6l4xolw.jpg


IMG_2820_zpscrshriif.jpg
 
Run!

With 11,000 hours AND pitting in the crank that goes beyond the SB, my own opinion is that I'd stay as far away from that engine as I could.

Dave
 
I was doubting that it would be the original crank, with still having new spec (un-ground) main and rod bearing journal diameters. I was assuming it had been replaced, sometime during the engine's life.

AC
 
SB 505B says, "Crankshafts which exhibit the above described pitting on the I.D. may be exchanged for a new crankshaft at a special reduced rate. Contact a Textron Lycoming distributor for this price and to arrange the return of the unserviceable crankshaft."

I'd find out what this reduced rate is...
 
Crank

With all due respect the op asked for advice on crankshaft. What in the world does exhaust valves have to do with this?
Using a non 505 crank with a metal constant speed would cause me some concern. The non 505 causes me ZERO concern with a wood/composite fixed pitch or wood/composite blade constant speed. A metal fixed pitch probably not an issue. The type of blades make a HUGE difference in loads incurred by the crank.
Lycoming has a long history of engineering/manufacturing mistakes where they use questionable service bulletins to reduce their liability.
Lycoming has never solved the problem of crankshaft failures on aerobatic airplanes. The latest greatest special aerobatic cranks fail in as little as 100 hours when used with a metal blade constant speed.
The persistent industry rumor since the original issuance of 505 is there is exactly ONE crank failure world wide on applicable engines that could be blamed on pitting and that was an airplane that lived outside near the salt water.
 
With all due respect the op asked for advice on crankshaft. What in the world does exhaust valves have to do with this?
Using a non 505 crank with a metal constant speed would cause me some concern. The non 505 causes me ZERO concern with a wood/composite fixed pitch or wood/composite blade constant speed. A metal fixed pitch probably not an issue. The type of blades make a HUGE difference in loads incurred by the crank.
Lycoming has a long history of engineering/manufacturing mistakes where they use questionable service bulletins to reduce their liability.
Lycoming has never solved the problem of crankshaft failures on aerobatic airplanes. The latest greatest special aerobatic cranks fail in as little as 100 hours when used with a metal blade constant speed.
The persistent industry rumor since the original issuance of 505 is there is exactly ONE crank failure world wide on applicable engines that could be blamed on pitting and that was an airplane that lived outside near the salt water.

The FAA AD mentions quite a few more incidents that the famous UK Piper PA-28 with the O-320-D3G engine -

...In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has confirmed that four other failures in the United States and 10 in foreign countries were due to cracks initiating from corrosion pits in the crankshaft bore on certain Textron Lycoming 320 and 360 reciprocating engines with ratings of 160 horsepower or greater. Of the 10 failures in foreign countries, four resulted in the propeller separating from the aircraft inflight. Three of these four were from 1993 to 1996...

Full AD here -

http://yeeles.com/Reference/AD/Lycoming/98-02-08.pdf
 
I would scrap it for a new one. Like Kurt said, Lycoming may have reduced pricing for an AD replacement. When I researched this about 7 years ago for my IO-540, a replacement was $6000 for a new crankshaft if it was an AD replacement. I was able to check mine on their website with engine and crankshaft serial number. Mine had already been replaced.
 
....

5. Buy a new Lycoming engine from Van's. Money as always, is a factor.. I would assuredly have to check with the internal finance dept.

....

Andy check with the chief finance officer. Bribe her, brainwash her if needed. Cut elsewhere (glass, paint etc), delay first flight but get a healthy heart for your RV. You will save a lot of nerves down the road. :)

St.%20Pierre%20-%201.jpg
 
FWIW, I second Vlad's advice. A different engine with a known history (or zero time) will be a far better option in the long haul. :)
 
I just ran into this problem with my Grumman. Insurance paid for an engine teardown due to minor prop strike, crank wasn't bent, but crank was pitted beyond limits. Not covered.
By the way this crank WAS stamped "PID" meaning it was supposedly coated. Used certified crank ran me $3500. My engine shop says they are finding more bad cranks than good ones these days. Anyone looking to buy a used hollow crank O-320/O-360 whether flying or not, should inspect the crankshaft even if SB-505B does not apply. Be particularly wary of flying engines that have had a lot of inactivity.
Regarding removing the data plate to make your engine "experimental", as usual the FAA is all over the place on this one. At a recent IA seminar this question came up.
MY FSDO maintains that if it was born a "certified" engine then all applicable AD's must be complied with. This is why the experimental engines have become so popular, the FAA CANNOT and will not isue an AD on a non-certified engine. I spoke with the Lycoming folks at Sun n Fun and asked them what the difference was between the experimental and certified engines. They said absolutley nothing! They come right down the assembly line together. He did however say that at Van's request they run them longer in the test cell (3-4 hrs).

Food for thought.

Jake
 
Hi Andy, Sorry for your situations.

I sent you a PM which may give you some options (along the lines of what Vlad said and your "#6" option.
 
Andy,

Check with Western, they may have an option for you. Heck, beg them to rebuild the engine in one of their classes, that may save you some $$$.

As for the engine, check with Wentworth. You might be able to find a core engine with a good crank and case for less than the cost of a crank.
 
Sorry for the thread drift.....

MY FSDO maintains that if it was born a "certified" engine then all applicable AD's must be complied with.

But your local FSDO is wrong.

FAA legal has previously published an official position letter stating just the opposite.
Technically a certified engine becomes un-certified the moment any work (beyond what is allowed under owner maintenance for certificated aircraft) is done on it by a non certified mechanic.

It is pretty universally accepted that complying with A.D.'s is a good idea (the potential problem doesn't go away just because the engine is attached to an experimental).
Unfortunately I am unable to find my copy right now (maybe someone else will have it).

EDIT - Found a copy of the EAA's original article on a a different web site..... pasted below.

Airworthiness Directives & Amateur Built Aircraft
The applicability of Airworthiness Directives (AD's) to experimental amateur-built aircraft is an intensely contested subject. Regardless of what position one takes on this subject, many will take a personal affront to your position. It would be difficult to sum this topic up in a sentence. That said EAA does take the general position that:

Airworthiness Directives do not apply to experimental amateur-built aircraft or to any previously type certificated parts being operated on an experimental amateur-built aircraft.

That statement made, there are several things that need to be added. EAA is not saying AD's that directly relate to any component on your aircraft, need not be addressed. The owner of an experimental amateur-built aircraft should comply with, to the best of his or her ability, any AD that relates to a component installed on his or her aircraft. EAA is saying; there is no legal basis to apply an AD to an aircraft or component that is not required to be operated in compliance with a Type Certificate, or Type Design. There are some references in older outdated FAA guidance materials (e.g. Advisory Circulars) that indicate that AD's apply to experimental aircraft, and the FAA has held the position that AD's on type certificated parts, installed on experimental aircraft, should be complied with. However, despite what certain FAA field personnel have indicated in the past, the FAA Certification Office (AIR) has never produced a written position that states AD's are applicable to non-type certificated products. Further, there is no Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) requirement for AD's on experimental amateur-built aircraft.

Because of the lack of written policy from FAA headquarters, EAA formally asked for the certification offices written position on AD's, as they relate to experimental amateur-built aircraft. After much debate within the FAA, a written position is still not available at this time. However, in 1998 a FAA headquarters Aircraft Certification Management Team1 studying the issue of AD's, stated the following in a written report of their findings:

"1. FAA has authority to issue an AD against any aircraft operating in U.S. airspace except under Part 129. FAA's ability to issue AD's is limited by practical considerations. The FAR do not support AD's for non-TC'ed aircraft. If FAA issues an AD against a non-TC'ed aircraft, it could be challenged strongly in court for violating its own rules. AGC (FAA Legal Council) is adamant in this. FAA refrains from AD's for experimental amateur-builts and foreign manufactured non-TC'ed aircraft."

Further, the FAA specifically stated that, FAR 39.1 Applicability, does not include experimental aircraft because it requires that the aircraft, engine, propeller or appliances referred to, must have a "type design." No experimental amateur-built aircraft has a "type design" therefore no AD's can apply to them. The FAA said, "the wording of the rules shows clearly, that in writing the rules, FAA had no intention of issuing AD's for non-TC'ed aircraft. 39.1 requires that the aircraft have a type design as defined in 21.312." Experimental amateur-built aircraft do not have a TC.

The problem with applying an AD to an experimental amateur-built aircraft is:

The aircraft has no type design, nor do any of the design standards in the FAR's apply (e.g. Part 23)
FAR Part 43 Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding and Alteration does not apply.3
FAR 39 Airworthiness Directives, does not apply.4
The airworthiness standard for experimental aircraft is "safe to fly" not "Conformity to a type design5."
Does this mean you can ignore AD's?


No! There is an airworthiness standard for experimental amateur-built aircraft: "The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation6."

It is reasonable to make the judgment, if the owner of an experimental aircraft did not address an AD issued against a component installed on his aircraft, it could be considered unairworthy. A pilot who operated such an aircraft could be considered in violation of FAR's 91.13(a)7 and 91.319(b)8. Notice that the term "address" was used, not "complied with" when referring to an AD on a component used on an experimental amateur-built aircraft. As was stated previously, there is no type design to comply with on an experimental amateur-built aircraft, therefore one cannot "comply" with the type design.


How should one "address" the requirements of an AD?

To ensure that your experimental amateur-built aircraft is "safe to fly," the owner of the aircraft should, at a minimum, study for any AD's that have been issued to similar type certificated components that are installed on their aircraft. The owner and the person performing the annual condition inspection should evaluate any such AD's and make a determination as to what action, if any, should be taken to ensure the aircraft is safe to fly. EAA suggests that the owner of the aircraft make a logbook entry indicating how any ADs that applies to components installed on his or her aircraft have been addressed.


Example 1: The magnetos installed have an AD against them. The solution may be to replace one with an experimental electronic ignition system, thereby insuring a back up ignition system if the magneto in question fails. This insures that the aircraft is "safe to fly."


Example 2: Particular batches of accessory case gears have been found to be failing in engines, which resulted in loss of vacuum pump drive. The AD's background information states that the failures have been taking place on gears with 500 to 1000 hours of operation. The AD requires replacement at the next annual inspection, or 500 hours, whichever occurs first; the engine installed in a homebuilt has 300 hours on it and the particular gear was installed at the last overhaul; the builder could determine that his aircraft was currently safe to fly with a note in the logbook, indicating that the gear in question should be replaced within the next 200 hours of operation, or if not replaced, no IFR flight should be attempted until the gear was replaced.



 
Last edited:
The rest of the article.......

What about a type certificated engine installed on an experimental amateur-built aircraft?

Again legally, the AD will not apply for several reasons. One reason is that for the engine to comply with its type certificate it must be operated on an approved, type certificated aircraft. Since by definition no engines have been type certificated to operate on an experimental aircraft the engine is no longer in compliance with its type certificate once it is installed on an experimental aircraft. Further, the builder of an experimental aircraft may make any modification they wish to that "type certificated" engine. Once any change has been made to the engine, it is no longer a type-certificated engine. For example, if an AD is issued on a Bendix magneto the owner may remove the magneto and install an experimental electronic ignition system. The owner has still not complied with the AD, nor should he be required to. Further, the owner could simply remove the data plate from the magneto and replace it with one that says "no name magneto S/N 1". Because of this ability to modify any component on an experimental amateur-built aircraft, the fact that no certificated mechanic is required to approve maintenance or alterations (FAR 43.1(b)), and there is no "type design" for the aircraft, it is neither practical nor legal to require compliance with FAR 39 Airworthiness Directives.


This may lead you to the question, what does one have to do to install an engine previously used on a homebuilt on a type certificated aircraft?

The engine must have a conformity inspection performed were a certificated mechanic verifies that every component on the engine is one authorized on the TC for that particular make and model of engine and that all AD's have been complied with. Then the mechanic or repair station would make a log book entry attesting to the fact that the engine is in compliance with its TC. In many cases this would require the complete disassembly of the engine to verify the correct internal parts are in compliance with the TC for that engine. Disassembly could be avoided if the engine records confirm that the engine was in compliance when installed, e.g. factory new, no changes to the engine have been made and that a certificated mechanic performed all the maintenance since installation.


What about insurance?

While EAA cannot speak to every insurance policy issued, we can speak to the EAA Aircraft Insurance Plan by Falcon Insurance. This policy assumes that all components on an experimental amateur-built aircraft are experimental, and therefore compliance with an AD is not expected.

Non-compliance with an AD would not void the Falcon policy.


If AD's are not required, why do they have to be complied with to get a 25-hour instead of a 40-hour test period?

The FAA may impose any restriction they wish to protect the people and property on the ground from your "experiment". The 25-hour test period is given as a "reward" for showing that your engine and propeller combination meet a higher standard of safety than just "safe to fly." You are not required to comply with AD's to get your special airworthiness certificate. You must show the engine and propeller have complied with any applicable AD to qualify for the reduced test period9.


Can the FAA require AD's or the aircraft to be signed off by an A&P as a condition of certification?

No. Only the person who is applying for the certificate makes the determination of airworthiness and the FAA cannot require any other signatures or approvals in determining the airworthiness of a new experimental amateur-built aircraft.12


What about FAR 91.403 requirement to comply with Part 39?
FAR 91.403(a)11 requires the owner or operator of an aircraft to be responsible for compliance with FAR Part 39. As was explained earlier, FAA's legal office has stated that FAR Part 39 is not applicable to experimental amateur-built aircraft because they have no type design. Since FAR 39 is not applicable to experimental amateur-built aircraft - then the owner is always in compliance with the part 39 referred to in FAR 91.403(a).

FOOTNOTES

Report To The Aircraft Certification Management Team, Airworthiness Directive Application Team, April 28030, 1998 Washington, D.C. Team Membership included representatives from FAA offices AIR-200, AFS-610, AIR-200, AFS-300, ACE-100, ANE-100, ANM-100, ASW-100, and AGC-210.
Page 2, Summary of Conclusions.
Report To The Aircraft Certification Management Team, Airworthiness Directive Application Team, April 28030, 1998 Washington, D.C. Team Membership included representatives from FAA offices AIR-200, AFS-610, AIR-200, AFS-300, ACE-100, ANE-100, ANM-100, ASW-100, and AGC-210.
Appendix 1 Page 8, Aircraft with no U.S. TC.
FAR Part 43.1(b) "This part does not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental airworthiness certificate has been issued, unless a different kind of airworthiness certificate had previously been issued for that aircraft."
Report To The Aircraft Certification Management Team, Airworthiness Directive Application Team, April 28030, 1998 Washington, D.C. Team Membership included representatives from FAA offices AIR-200, AFS-610, AIR-200, AFS-300, ACE-100, ANE-100, ANM-100, ASW-100, and AGC-210.
Appendix 1 Page 8, Aircraft with no U.S. TC.
FAR Part 91.319(b) "No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate outside of an area assigned by the administrator until it is shown that- (1) The aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all the maneuvers to be executed; and (2) The aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features."
FAA Order 8130.2D, Chapter 1, page 4, paragraph 9 Interpretation of the Term Airworthy for U.S. Certificated Aircraft. For non-TC'ed aircraft paragraph 9(b) the airworthiness requirement as "The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation. This refers to the condition of the aircraft relative to wear and deterioration, e.g. skin corrosion, window delamination/crazing, fluid leaks, tire wear, etc."
FAR Part 91.319(b) "No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate outside of an area assigned by the administrator until it is shown that- (1) The aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all the maneuvers to be executed; and (2) The aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features."
FAA Order 8130.2D, Chapter 1, page 4, paragraph 9 Interpretation of the Term Airworthy for U.S. Certificated Aircraft. For non-TC'ed aircraft paragraph 9(b) the airworthiness requirement as "The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation. This refers to the condition of the aircraft relative to wear and deterioration, e.g. skin corrosion, window delamination/crazing, fluid leaks, tire wear, etc."
FAR Part 91.319(b) "No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate outside of an area assigned by the administrator until it is shown that- (1) The aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all the maneuvers to be executed; and (2) The aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features."
FAA Order 8130.2D, Chapter 1, page 4, paragraph 9 Interpretation of the Term Airworthy for U.S. Certificated Aircraft. For non-TC'ed aircraft paragraph 9(b) the airworthiness requirement as "The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation. This refers to the condition of the aircraft relative to wear and deterioration, e.g. skin corrosion, window delamination/crazing, fluid leaks, tire wear, etc."
FAR 91.13(a) "Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."
FAR Part 91.319(b) "No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate outside of an area assigned by the administrator until it is shown that- (1) The aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all the maneuvers to be executed; and (2) The aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features."
AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION INSPECTION GUIDE C\INSPGIDE.DOC:7/10/97 AIR220:GMCNEILL:78152 File Number: 8100-1A: Page 2. I. "Was the engine and propeller originally type designed for operation in a type certificated (TC) aircraft? Is the installed engine/prop a compatible combination? (This would be validated by the engine/prop combination being listed on a type certificate data sheet for a certificated aircraft). This information will dictate whether the Phase I test flight time is 25 or 40 hours. To be eligible for the 25 hours, the certificated engine and propeller combination when installed, must be "airworthy." This means, the engine and propeller must meet its type design and be in a condition for safe operation. All applicable Airworthiness Directives must be complied with at this time. If these conditions are not met, the aircraft limitations will mandate the 40 hour Phase I test-flight time requirement."
FAR 91.403(a) "The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter."
FAA Order 8130.2D Airworthiness Certification Of Aircraft and Related Products, Chapter 4, Section 7 Experimental Amateur-built Airworthiness Certifications, Paragraph 128(b)(7) Note: "There is NO requirement for Airframe and Powerplant mechanics to sign off amateur-built airworthiness inspection. The Aircraft builder's signature on Form 8130-6 Block III attest to the airworthiness of the amateur-built aircraft."
 
I agree with Scott's postings, however the Scottsdale MIDO required a check mark in Section III - Owner's Certification on the 8130-6 Airworthiness Application for this box -

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES (Check if all applicable ADs are complied with and give the number of the last AD SUPPLEMENT available in the biweekly series as of the date of application)
<Answer> SM 2017-07


The inspector liked my listing of Lycoming O-360 AD's and their applicability, which was easy since most were N/A by date of YT parts or listed a specific parts manufacturer or OH shop.

It didn't seem like something to argue technicalities over...:)
 
Last edited:
It didn't seem like something to argue technicalities over...:)

I agree, it is not. But I think it is worth spreading the correct information among the brotherhood so to speak.

In time, maybe we will get everyone on the same page (or not).
 
Gil,
I am curious what your Scottsdale FSDO would have done had you not checked the box certifying that all AD's had been complied with, or had they dug deeper into your logs for proof of compliance. I agree with Scott's conclusions, and despite the best efforts of the EAA, every FSDO plays to their OWN set off rules.

Jake
 
As it's true with police officers on the side of the road, so is it true with the FAA. You may win in court, but you will never, EVER win in the field.
 
Wow, I thought my thread had died awhile back.

Some interesting info since my original post:

The AD DOES NOT APPLY to my crank, period. It is stamped PID and that terminates all FAA AD action on it. I've read the AD 10 times, and that is what it says.

That said, the machine shop wouldn't issue an 8130 on it. I have the crank back now but they re-plugged it, so I am going to remove that and see what it looks like inside, and what the I.D. really is. The shop that I had work on it, said they couldn't/wouldn't certify it, but that it was "ok for experimental use". I didn't know enough at the time, to ask the right questions and get better answers. That it is PID stamped, means that the AD doesn't apply, it must be that the shop just won't issue an 8130.

SO I talked to another big repair shop. The internal paint was Lycoming's fix to whatever the metal problem was/is, and it was stated that arguably, the fix may be imperfect, meaning you still see some corrosion. This other machine shop essentially said that they see corrosion in these cranks often. There are subsequent Lycoming SB's that later sought to further affect or remove from service, cranks with corrosion, but they are not AD's. I asked if they had ever found an O320 crank that was cracked in this area? The answer was no! Their usual processing was to grind the I.D. to max allowable, and glass bead blast any remaining corrosion spots, and re-paint. I saw one that had been done in this manner.

I still need to look back inside the crank I have, and see what condition the first shop had been viewing and what the actual I.D. is. It passed all NDT and other dimensional inspections, and even the rod and main journals mic'd out OEM, still fully serviceable without any machining to first undersize. There's more to verify, but this crank should be able to be returned to service, and this engine is being built by a certified mechanic. I don't see why it can't remain a type certified engine?
 
What have others done?

Gil,
I am curious what your Scottsdale FSDO would have done had you not checked the box certifying that all AD's had been complied with, or had they dug deeper into your logs for proof of compliance. I agree with Scott's conclusions, and despite the best efforts of the EAA, every FSDO plays to their OWN set off rules.

Jake

As I said, it wasn't worth arguing over.

However as a question, what have other RV applicants put in that box in Section III - Owner's Certification on the 8130-6 Airworthiness Application?
 
i would put it in and go flying. that was a BS lawyer induced sb anyway in my option.
however, the airboat guys down here love the guys replacing them because it really increases the amount of used cranks for them. there are a boatload of those cranks running around the glades getting the snot run out of them. those guys run them hard in a very hostile environment and I have not seen any boats getting pulled back in without their props on them.

bob burns
RV-4 N82RB
 
Here's the Paragraph of the FAA AD, that states that PID stamping terminates the inspection requirements.

75fe0edf-2f57-4a56-8295-a12eb4eb8bb7_zpsie6iunfe.jpg
 
There's more to verify, but this crank should be able to be returned to service, and this engine is being built by a certified mechanic. I don't see why it can't remain a type certified engine?

That?s an interesting statement! :eek: Without an 8130 on the crank it can?t be a certified engine. Small correction to your statement. But you knew that already. What?s the latest?
 
New PRIME crankshafts by Continental Motors

You might consider a new FAA PMA approved replacement crankshaft.
You don't say which model 320 but these are available at competitive prices. I'll bet Jesse at Colorado Air Parts can supply what you need.

Part #
AEL32101-1 3/8-24 prop bushings
AEL32101-2 "
AEL32101-2 7/16-20 prop bushings
AEL32101-4 "
AEL32103-1 "
AEL32103-2 "

If you need a NEW 320 ENGINE, check out the Titans on the Continental web site
www.continental.aero
 
There's more to verify, but this crank should be able to be returned to service, and this engine is being built by a certified mechanic. I don't see why it can't remain a type certified engine?

That?s an interesting statement! :eek: Without an 8130 on the crank it can?t be a certified engine. Small correction to your statement. But you knew that already. What?s the latest?
 
Back
Top