What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Engine Propeller Phase 1

rvator10

Well Known Member
Patron
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
:confused:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Back
Top