VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #1  
Old 06-20-2018, 11:03 AM
rvator10's Avatar
rvator10 rvator10 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fountain Hills, arizona
Posts: 80
Default Engine Propeller Phase 1

Hello quick question, using the IO-390 210HP Part Number = EA XIO-390-A3B6 RT with the Compact hub Constant-speed prop for (I)O-360 (180/200hp) 74"
Part Number = PROP C2YR-1BFP/F7497 that Vans sells, does this combination comply with the 25 hours of phase 1 testing or will it require the 40 hours?
thx
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-20-2018, 11:19 AM
BobTurner BobTurner is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 5,268
Default

If your engine starts with an ‘X’ (XIO-390...) that signifies that Lycoming is not including any paperwork; technically it’s not certified, 40 hours is the correct answer. But whoever does your airworthiness inspection will give you the answer that matters.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-20-2018, 11:38 AM
Raymo's Avatar
Raymo Raymo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Richmond Hill, GA (KLHW)
Posts: 1,710
Default

And if any non-certified equipment is installed (e.g. electronic ignition) on your engine that could be certified, you will do 40 hrs of phase 1.
__________________
Ray
RV-7A - Slider - N495KL - First flt 27 Jan 17
O-360-A4M w/ Catto 3 blade NLE, AFP FM-150 FI, 1 PMag, Vetterman Trombone Exh, SkyTech starter,
PlanePower Alt, FlightLines Interior, James cowl & plenum
All lines by TSFlightLines
NSDQ

"The object of the game, gentlemen, is not to cheat death: the object is not to let him play."
Patrick Poteen, Sgt. U.S. Army
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-20-2018, 12:07 PM
jnorris's Avatar
jnorris jnorris is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oshkosh
Posts: 131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvator10 View Post
Hello quick question, using the IO-390 210HP Part Number = EA XIO-390-A3B6 RT with the Compact hub Constant-speed prop for (I)O-360 (180/200hp) 74"
Part Number = PROP C2YR-1BFP/F7497 that Vans sells, does this combination comply with the 25 hours of phase 1 testing or will it require the 40 hours?
It's really not all that confusing. The APPLICANT (not the FAA, DAR, or anyone else) must be able to show that the EXACT engine make/model AND the exact propeller make/model, in combination, appear somewhere on a type certificate. Then, and only then, will the FAA issue a 25 hour phase one period. Unless the applicant can provide the documented proof that they have installed an engine/prop combination that appears on a type certificate, a 40 hour phase 1 will be issued.

Further, even if the engine/prop combination appears on a TC, if either the engine or propeller has been modified from its type-certificated condition (eg. different ignition, different induction, different prop diameter, etc.) you will get 40 hours.

So if you want the 25 hour phase 1, be prepared with the proper type certificate documentation. Get this info to your DAR or FAA inspector when you send in your application, so they can construct the operating limitations properly.
__________________
Cheers!

Joe
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-21-2018, 07:39 AM
N941WR's Avatar
N941WR N941WR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 11,450
Default

Well, yes and no.

I know of an RV that is flying with the engine and prop out of one of the storm damaged RV's from SnF.

The FSDO said the engine and prop came from a "certified" plane and gave him a 25 hour test period, much to the builder's surprise.

Note, 25 hours really isn't enough time to complete the full series of flight tests.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-21-2018, 09:05 AM
vic syracuse vic syracuse is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Locust Grove, GA
Posts: 2,313
Default Not exactly correct

With regards to Bill's comment, we probably need to assume (without having all of the facts) that the engine that came out of the RV was originally a certified engine/prop combination and had continued to be maintained as a certified engine/prop combination.
If it was assumed to be certified because it came out of a flying RV, that was an erroneous assumption and the 25 hour Phase I was not correct.

Vic
__________________
Vic Syracuse

Built RV-4, RV-6, 2-RV-10's, RV-7A, RV-8, Prescott Pusher, Kitfox Model II, Kitfox Speedster, Kitfox 7 Super Sport, Just Superstol, DAR, A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor, CFII-ASMEL/ASES
EAA Homebuilt Council Chair/member EAA BOD
Van's East Coast Representative
www.Baselegaviation.com
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-21-2018, 09:16 AM
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 7,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vic syracuse View Post
With regards to Bill's comment, we probably need to assume (without having all of the facts) that the engine that came out of the RV was originally a certified engine/prop combination and had continued to be maintained as a certified engine/prop combination.
If it was assumed to be certified because it came out of a flying RV, that was an erroneous assumption and the 25 hour Phase I was not correct.

Vic
Vic beat me to it..... and to add a bit more.....

I think we do the readers on VAF a dis-service when we provide info of a specific case to justify that something is acceptable, even though it is against FAA regulations or policies.
This happens again and again here in the forums.
Sure, we can all site cases we know of where an FAA ASI or a DAR did something regarding certification that was in conflict with the FAA's rules or policies, but it doesn't work like our (broken) court system, and mean that it sets a precedent for everyone else to be able to expect the same.
Regardless of what any of us mere mortals think the meaning of a particular regulation is, the only thing that matters is what the FAA says it means.

In most cases where someone posts "but I know of an instance".... the official view of the FAA regarding the subject is easily accessible.
__________________
Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:16 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.