What's new
Van's Air Force

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

New (February 2020) FAA AD - Superior Air Parts Crank Shaft

From Penn Yan Aero

I reached out today to the owner of Penn Yan Aero to see if he wanted to respond to the accusation of price gouging on Lycoming crankshafts. Here is his response (posted with permission)

What many don’t know is that all suppliers raised their prices in July. Some 320 and 360 crankshaft prices went up 14-40%! And that’s IF you can get them. Penn Yan Aero’s margins have not gone up. Trust me when I tell you that no one is profiting from this situation.
We have hundreds of engines in process that can not be built because we are missing parts that can not be sourced.
And Yes ECi is gone but remember Continental purchased the company. Those PMA parts are still being built and advertised under the PRIME name albeit at a much higher price.
Our phones are ringing off the hook with aircraft owners and shops begging for parts. The GA folks need to understand the situation out there right now. It is no joke.
 
Well ...I've given up on this AMOC ever being approved.
Superior has been saying they" expected approval soon" (since before Jan.15)... and continues to say so now. Absolutely the worse customer experience I've ever had and I'm extremely disappointed.

Broke down and bought a new ECI/Continental crank from Aircraft Specialties yesterday.
Not going to waste another year because of this.
 
Well ...I've given up on this AMOC ever being approved. Superior has been saying they" expected approval soon" (since before Jan.15)... and continues to say so now. Absolutely the worse customer experience I've ever had and I'm extremely disappointed.

Broke down and bought a new ECI/Continental crank from Aircraft Specialties yesterday.
Not going to waste another year because of this.

I wish I had that option, but I don't have the spare funds right now to buy a crankshaft; I've just barely got enough set aside for the rebuild I have to pay for. Hopes are getting dashed. Even Rhonda can't get any answers for me from either Superior or the FAA. It's incredibly frustrating to have this situation forced upon us and then have no reliable sources of accurate and honest information. I can't afford to walk away from my engine, but can't afford to resolve it myself. I have SO MUCH invested in this build and I'm so close... but my completion is being denied by faceless, unreachable and unresponsive entities that have complete power over my airplane's very existence.

(I'm tempted to add a bunch of angry emojis... but that would just trivialize this post. This is NOT trivial to me. I'm mad as ****, and I'm being forced to take it some more.)
 
Checked in with Justin Carter at the Ft. Worth Aircraft Certification Office on this - I asked if he was able to confirm if the field office was, or had been in receipt of the final AMOC for this AD.

I can not confirm receipt, but did get an email from Bill Ross Thursday that the formal submission of an AMOC request is on the way.
 
Checked in with Justin Carter at the Ft. Worth Aircraft Certification Office on this - I asked if he was able to confirm if the field office was, or had been in receipt of the final AMOC for this AD.

I can not confirm receipt, but did get an email from Bill Ross Thursday that the formal submission of an AMOC request is on the way.

I reached out to the FAA Airworthiness Directive department today; they referred me to Justin; I sent an email and his response was very similar:
Martin,
I can not confirm that Superior has submitted an AMOC yet, but Bill Ross sent me an email Thursday indicating that a formal AMOC is in the mail.
Best,
Justin H. Carter
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion
Ft. Worth Aircraft Certification Office, AIR-7F1
I'll say one thing... I got prompt replies from both the AD office and Justin. All this proves is that Bill Ross' words cannot be trusted. I'm not sure I can believe anyone anymore. Looks like if I want my engine back, I'll have to buy a new crank. Working on it; wrote Rhonda at Barrett, shared all this info and proposed options. Anyone out there want to buy a share in my aircraft? Don't know how I'll afford to finish it otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I feel your pain ... This has been an expensive mistake buying our engines from these guys.
Poor excuse for an aircraft engine manufacturer. A more reputable company would have immediately started replacing these cranks to all of us affected by this AD. But this mickey mouse organization doesn't even have a supplier right now. It's unbelievable to think that an engine company has no supplier for this key component. There's no way that customers with new engines should have to settle for a reworked crankshaft after all of this
I blame their Chinese owners.
Bill Ross and Superior Air parts have lost all creditability with me.
Maybe someday they will get their act together and do right by us, but they show no signs of it now ...
 
I also think this situation is due to the new ownership. I think Bill is being kept on a very tight leash and he can't discuss it; probably has standing orders to say "we're very close" over and over like a trained parrot. His reputation used to be very good; this situation is probably tearing him up inside and he's just trying to keep his job. All speculation on my part... and none of this helps us in any way whatsoever. I also wonder if any lawsuits have been initiated. If so, we probably won't hear about them... on advice of their lawyers. I'm pondering it; don't want to go there at all... but I've no intention of 'absorbing this expense'.
 
I also think this situation is due to the new ownership.
I think you're right on target Martin. As frustrated as I am with Superior's response to this AD, they've been very helpful every time I've called with other issues/questions. Having said that, I'll pay extra for a Lycoming-made engine for my next project (if there is one!).

As far as legal action is concerned, any posts here on that topic are eventually deleted because they violate VAF rules; I don't agree with that but understand the rules are what they are. Before this post gets deleted, if any of you who read this are contemplating your options I'd like to get your thoughts outside this thread via PM or email - rv701ed (at) gma

Dave
 
Last edited:
As far as legal action is concerned, any posts here on that topic are eventually deleted because they violate VAF rules; I don't agree with that but understand the rules are what they are. Before this post gets deleted, if you read this and are contemplating your options I'd like to get your thoughts outside this thread via PM or email - rv701ed (at) gmail.

Dave

Yeah, I won't beat that drum here; I'm only pondering right now. I will contact you though, out of curiosity.
 
Paying Extra

To those who want to "pay extra" for your next Lycoming you already are thanks to the 2 price increases over the last year. More to come if no competition is available. That's the way supply and demand works. Superior was trying to buck the norm, compete and improve. Seems their engineering got in the way of a finished product. Some day we will know exactly what occurred. I am hearing rumors of using fuels and ignition systems outside the norm. It's no wonder some Continental engines will not allow their engines to be used in experimental set-ups, liability (or rumors) will kill them.
 
Would you mind indicating what the crankshaft and related parts cost you? Also, are you paying someone to install it? If so, what are you expecting that expense to be? thank you..
 
Would you mind indicating what the crankshaft and related parts cost you? Also, are you paying someone to install it? If so, what are you expecting that expense to be? thank you..
Here's one data point -

  • Lycoming OEM crank - $7400
  • Labor - $2400
With a couple of additional adds and tax, the price was just over $10k.

HTH

ds
 
Last edited:
Some day we will know exactly what occurred. I am hearing rumors of using fuels and ignition systems outside the norm. It's no wonder some Continental engines will not allow their engines to be used in experimental set-ups, liability (or rumors) will kill them.

I'm trying to figure out what your point is with this statement.

To begin with, we are discussing a manufacturing defect, or process defect, in the crankshaft - long before it became an assembled engine and even longer before it was exposed to fuel or spark of any sort, neither of which started or contributed to the problem.

Secondly, I notice that your signature line indicates you have already built one, and are in the process of building another, aircraft with that very same "outside the norm" fuel and ignition system that these supposed rumors are about.

Third, Continental piston engines certainly are used in experimentals - to my knowledge only the recently developed turbodiesels are currently restricted to the certified market.
 
My comment was not directed at Penn Yan. We used them for several aircraft engine purchases in the 70’s. It was a general comment.
I too like others here am disgusted by the situation.
I don’t have 10’s of thousands dollars laying around to reinvest in an engine.
I have spent like all here thousands of hours building a plane I have enjoyed for the last 9 years and have had friends tell me what are you doing now.
What I am doing is hoping that Superior comes through. But like all here I can see the dwindling light of the caboose.
Then it comes down to buying a crank. Overhauling my engine that has 709 trouble free hours and enjoying the process again.
I don’t look forward to the down time. But it is what it is. I will continue to help a friend build his 9 and continue a couple checkout I am doing on another RV7.

Sorry for any confusion on Penn Yan. They as you stated a long time outstanding engine company.
 
… Some day we will know exactly what occurred. I am hearing rumors of using fuels and ignition systems outside the norm. It's no wonder some Continental engines will not allow their engines to be used in experimental set-ups, liability (or rumors) will kill them.

What are you referring to? The only crank failures I’m aware of are the 3 documented in Cessna 172s, certified aircraft. Do you know something I don’t ?
 
Would you mind indicating what the crankshaft and related parts cost you? Also, are you paying someone to install it? If so, what are you expecting that expense to be? thank you..


engine teardown - $100 (A&P looked over my shoulder)
new ECI crank - $8760
engine rebuild - pending (estimate $2000)
 
Might as well get this off my chest and share my outcome...
After so many months of being baited by an AMOC that was/wasn't submitted I began to feel that there might never be a resolution. On November 1 I committed to having my engine rebuilt with a new crankshaft. Superior supplied the ancillary parts required for the rebuild and Barrett had one new crankshaft in stock. Once they got the green light, Barrett had my engine rebuilt very quickly. I did a marathon run to Tulsa on November 18; arrived at BPE that afternoon and loaded the engine into the Explorer. After an early night's sleep, I drove nonstop back home; 1920 miles in less than 44 hours. The engine is remounted and reinstalling accessories, probes and wires is in progress.
After several unanswered calls and emails, I was finally able to speak to Bill Ross on the phone on December 1 to discuss settlement options. This is what I learned:
1. According to Bill, the AMOC has been fully submitted to the FAA and approval is imminent. We've heard that before.
2. Superior will not pay for replacement crankshafts. They will pay to have the affected crankshafts reworked and supply the rebuild parts. That's it. They supplied the rebuild parts for my engine (which Bill claimed was worth about $1000) and I was given these options: I could take $750 in cash (the cost of the rework); they would take my bad crankshaft back and destroy it. Or I could wait until the FAA approved the AMOC, have the crankshaft reworked and sell it as an overhauled crankshaft. Barrett set the current market value of an overhauled crankshaft at $1500, but Rhonda advised me that the value could could appreciate significantly in the near future. So I opted to have Barrett hold on to my old crankshaft until the AMOC is approved, at which point it will be delivered next door to Aircraft Specialties Services, overhauled and resold by Barrett, who would reimburse me for the sale price.
I had to pay $5000 in labor for my engine to be rebuilt and tested, and another $7000 for the replacement crankshaft for a total of $12000. The only compensation I've received thus far is the value of the rebuild parts; I'll have to double check that value but for now I'll use Bill's valuation of $1000. If the AMOC is approved, Superior pays for my old crank overhaul and I wait long enough to be able to resell it for an optimistic $2000, that means this entire debacle has cost me $9000 out of pocket. Bill was apologetic but claims that "the powers that be" (i.e. corporate in Beijing) are only allowing him the current level of compensation. It seemed useless to try and argue the point, so I concluded the phone call. To say I feel badly burned would be an understatement. I am considering legal action, but on the surface it seems that any lawsuit against a parent company based in Beijing would be unlikely to succeed.
The good news is that I have my engine back and my airplane should fly within the next few months. But the sourness of this experience will probably linger for the rest of my life.
AM-JKLUSIOctvE_xlUUM8qkitGYVSuLIs4ubMyBeejd2zO6S1UVtRkGiTVKAz499N39MfVNKuUKaR68E6GEZhTB04y2PfYpqJ9GRrq4HWoz48Jka0spINdWyZHojStsZihTK7ha_-qE4pEUQflIz78-jqT75=w900-h600
 
Last edited:
I am considering legal action, but on the surface it seems that any lawsuit against a parent company based in Beijing would be unlikely to succeed.

Have done no research, but it is highly likely that superior is still a US corporation, wholly owned by the Chinese parent. That means any lawsuit would be dealt with in a US court. Not saying you have a winnable case, only that you won't have to deal with the limitations of the Chinese legal system. Your claim is one of a warranty variety. Do some research; If the warranty is no longer current, no real chance here. Even if still current, the warranty doesn't likely cover concerns generated by the FAA, though it is possible that the public FAA data could possibly be enough to prove the crank is defective, even though it is still working. Outside of automotive recalls (regulatory not legal), there is little precedence for forcing manufacturers to replace broken parts, outside of the warranty laws. Things like warranty of merchantability can be tough to prove in a case like this.

Remember, almost NO products made and sold have zero defects. Outside the warranty, the consumer has little recourse beyond the companies good will and desire to make things right. Some care about their reputation and others don't. Some also just accept some customer base reduction.

About the only time you see voluntary recalls or replacements are when the attorneys determine that that route will cost less than a potential class action settlement. Doesn't seem that superior sees it that way. And, of course, companies that are committed to long term customer satisfaction. The certified aviation world is different; The FAA holds ALL of the cards. If you upset them, they simply yank your certifications and it's game over. Instead of suing Superior, I would launch a lobbying campaign on the FAA. If they could be made to see this as an assualt against the GA community safety, even though EAB, possibly they would use their weight and might to force Superior to honor the replacement for all GA. The FAA is a scary beast for companies like superior. The FAA seems to be very hands off on EAB, but they would likely care a lot if they start seeing fatal accidents from failed cranks in EAB.

The fact that superior has warned everyone about the need for replacement should help them to mitigate a lot of future legal action from future failures, even if they aren't paying for it.

Long story short, once the AMOC is in place, superior IS doing everything it should - pay for rework on crank and replace all necessary parts to get it out of the engine. I would not fault them for not paying for labor, as this is pretty typical in cases like this.

Larry
 
Last edited:
New Crankshaft

Martin I am so sorry to hear what you guys have been going through and based on Superior’s stroker cranks that failed would have thought they would have been more generous on the rebuild allowance. Gives me pause when I buy any Superior engine parts.
I’m curious as you say Barret had one new crank in stock, who was the manufacturer of that crank ?
 
I committed to having my engine rebuilt with a new crankshaft. Superior supplied the ancillary parts required for the rebuild

I did exactly the same thing earlier this year. Superior also provided the rebuild parts, I bought a crank.

It's tempting to take the $750 and not be looking at the old crank in a bag on my workbench every day :)
 
Obviously Bill Ross is in a difficult position and his own credibility and reputation has been damaged by Superior’s corporate management decisions. Every year at AirVenture, Superior has its own tent and puts on a number of good presentations that I’ve found very informative.

That said, I believe it’s time the experimental world express its displeasure with Superior Air Products unwillingness to accept responsibility for this issue and boycott their AirVenture efforts and avoid their product line.

I have a Superior XPIO 360 in my RV7A. Thankfully it’s not affected by the AD. It’s been a great engine but frankly in lieu of a more responsible corporate position I honestly hope people will purchase their aircraft engines and cylinders elsewhere. I for one will not be visiting their tent next year nor do I care to listen to any future EAA/AOPA webinar presentations done by Mr. Ross.
 
I've used some Superior parts on previous engine overhauls, but never will again.

I've added Superior to my periodic calendar reminder of companies never to use. I didn't get burned by this particular crankshaft issue, but I've seen how they treated those of you who were impacted. Superior will get no future business from me or those I advise.

Others on my "bad actor" list include MT governors (MT governors destroyed multiple RV-10 engines, then MT issued a very misleading service bulletin in the aftermath).
 
I wonder what it is that we don't know. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in either Bill Ross's, or Justin Carter's office whenever this topic comes up.

I won't go as far as saying I'll never buy Superior again. But, Superior and the FAA have both really pissed me off over this stupid AD.
 
add 10 grand to my engine cost

I spoke to SAP and also a local engine shop. They have spoken to each other and my engine will come off Jan or Feb and go to the engine shop. They are supposed to be getting all the gaskets, seals and bearings together and I'll supply a new crankshaft which is in a box behind the chair I'm sitting in. I'm assuming (yeah, not a good word) SAP will then get the old crank to rework and send it back to me. At any rate, my new motor price will have skyrocketed and I will be very careful about who I and my customers purchase from.
Fool me once......
danny
 
So ... what if ?

Lets just say that this AMOC gets rejected. That the FAA decides their is no 'fix' for these crankshafts.

Then what? Would they be on the hook for the new crank I just bought?
 
Lets just say that this AMOC gets rejected. That the FAA decides their is no 'fix' for these crankshafts.

Then what? Would they be on the hook for the new crank I just bought?

At the very least, they should be on the hook to buy back the original bad cranks at the purchased price. I wish I could believe they'd be honorable enough to reimburse us for the cost of the replacements, but I don't believe they would. Since I have yet to hear of the approval of the latest tale of AMOC submission, it's easier to believe that they (SAP, FAA or both) will continue this stall tactic indefinitely. Corporate preservation at the cost of reputation doesn't make much sense to me... but common sense has caught the last train to Mars, and taken honor hostage.
 
Last edited:
Pardon my ignorance

I have no dog in this fight but have been watching it for a while. Question is for my benefit. Sorry.

Wouldn't a law suit make everything discoverable? There is a lot of contradictory info posted here stating responses from SAP. The associated timelines and related info seem to be full of paradoxal info. Would this infer fraud and some (additional?) level of criminality?

Opinions are welcome. Expert knowledge is really welcome. Sorry for the drift.

BTW. What are the odds SAP isn't monitoring this thread?
 
Most of the contradictory responses came from SAP; they've been contradicting themselves. I was tempted to bring up the adverse affect this situation has had on their reputation during my phone call with Bill, but it seemed to be a moot point and I did not want the conversation to become confrontational. I've also wondered if they've monitored this site; after all, they are an advertiser. I'm sure the rumors are getting back to them, but it is hard to gauge how much they are affected, just as it's hard to gauge what the actual corporate circumstances are. I wouldn't want to play poker with them, that's for sure. They hold their cards close, and I've already lost enough. On a side note, I appreciate that Doug has allowed this thread to continue. My intent has never been to bash Superior; I hope they can recover from this without burning any bridges... but the ball is in their court. I haven't made inquiries about a lawsuit yet because I'm not sure it's wise at this stage; my case would have to be based on a contingency fee because this has already set me back so far financially I couldn't even afford a consultation.
 
Last edited:
I have no dog in this fight but have been watching it for a while. Question is for my benefit. Sorry.

Wouldn't a law suit make everything discoverable? There is a lot of contradictory info posted here stating responses from SAP. The associated timelines and related info seem to be full of paradoxal info. Would this infer fraud and some (additional?) level of criminality?

Opinions are welcome. Expert knowledge is really welcome. Sorry for the drift.

BTW. What are the odds SAP isn't monitoring this thread?

You should read all the FAA documentation and correspondence on this subject, it is the only way you will get the full picture of the problem. The aftermath is fully laid out in the posts of the owners.
 
Hey Bill.

My thought centered around AMOC submittal dates, etc. claimed by SAP versus what appeared to be actual dates. In other experiences, such "terminological inexactitudes" had consequences; e.g. discovered docs supported such in the hopes of keeping clients from using competitors parts/services. etc. There could be consequences. The difference being bad at something versus being deceptive. That's why I'm asking. Again, it is solely for my benefit.
 
Swapped emails with Justin Carter yesterday, and he confirmed that… "A formal AMOC submission has been received and is currently under review."
 
Swapped emails with Justin Carter yesterday, and he confirmed that… "A formal AMOC submission has been received and is currently under review."
Thank you, Ed. Some good news at last... at least for some. And at least I can say that what Bill told me was true this time.
 
I’m curious as you say Barret had one new crank in stock, who was the manufacturer of that crank ?

Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this; power outage disrupted my life for a couple days. Barrett sourced my new crankshaft from Continental.
 
Bill Ross just replied to my inquiry about what he could do for me concerning spending 7000plus bucks for a new crankshaft (engine bought in 2015 for Rv 8). This past January we were within 1 month of getting rv8 finished and ready to test fly, when was made aware of AD.
Bill Ross had told me back in February about AMOC and that he was sending a team of experts to meet with FAA that month. Ended up calling the FAA in late March or April, talked to the engineer who worked on the AD at his home in Texas ( covid), he told me that there haven't been any AMOC submitted. When I asked him about "refurbished " concept of the AMOC that superior was suggesting, let's just say, he was pretty dubious about that as a solution.
Bill Ross reply to my email was my engine was out of warrenty, yea, death and destruction by a defective crankshaft falls outside of warrenty period, lol.
So still waiting for a reply to my reply of his reply.
I am welling to take this forward, so anybody with a defective crankshaft or know someone affected, be pm me, and we see about getting the ball rolling.

Tired of getting no replies, and a complete blackout on any updates

Thanks
 
Sad anniversary

It occurred to me that it has now been just over a year (Jan. 15) since the AD became official, and unfortunately still zero support from Superior. I'm way beyond disappointed. Has anyone heard anything lately?
 
With the state of the Chinese economy, I would doubt the Chinese owner of Superior will provide the additional fund to make this AMOC move any faster.
 
I contacted Rhonda at Barrett last week and she said Bill keeps saying the same thing he always has. I suggested at this point he probably has a string sticking out of his back and when you pull it he says "Next week or two... Next week or two..."
 
Just following up (belated) to what I said. First owe the group an apology I started communicating on a subject I had not done much background review and thought I knew what I was talking about. (Yes, my wife tells me the same thing weekly). My reference to experimental users is those of us who push the boundaries more than almost anyone can test to. Using nitrous would be an example. Using higher compression cylinders would be another. In this example that was not the case (3 certified engines in 172 trainers) but in others there has. Again I was ill informed and probably should have ended the reply after the second sentence. :confused:
 
Just following up (belated) to what I said. First owe the group an apology I started communicating on a subject I had not done much background review and thought I knew what I was talking about. (Yes, my wife tells me the same thing weekly). My reference to experimental users is those of us who push the boundaries more than almost anyone can test to. Using nitrous would be an example. Using higher compression cylinders would be another. In this example that was not the case (3 certified engines in 172 trainers) but in others there has. Again I was ill informed and probably should have ended the reply after the second sentence. :confused:

Not only that, but 1 was beyond TBO with questionable maintenance documentation. And, I believe 1 of the other 2 also had some questions about how it was maintained and operated.

All in all, I smell a rat in all this. And, because we are overall a very insignificant number of affected and disgruntled customers, its percentage-wise, not a huge payoff for SAP to do much other than they've done.

I can't help but think Lycoming and Continental do not like competition vis-a-vis the PMA engine parts market. And also, I suspect the FAA might be a willing participant in their anti-competitive tactics.
 
"huge sigh"

Just an FYI, I spoke with SAP and they are supposed to send a "kit" with seals, gaskets and bearings to Premier Aircraft Engines to assemble my motor. I supplied a new crankshaft. SAP also mentioned something about sending a check...$7??.00...to cover the cost of Aircraft Specialties rework of the crank. I will also ask for $120.00 in shipping costs. Also called Aircraft Specialties to get direction from them and was informed they have no idea as to what rework exactly SAP wants them to perform so I should hold onto the crank until further notice. I know this is kind of a rant but also to inform anyone caught up in this AD that this rodeo appears to be far from over.
Man, I really feel for everyone affected.
danny
 
I will say that Superior has been good about supplying the rebuild supply kits, which they claim is worth $1000; I have not confirmed that number with Barrett. Aside from that, they will send the equivalent cost of the Aircraft Specialties (approx. $750) to an affected engine owner, but the owner must surrender the crank. I'm having Barrett hold mine in hopes that the AMOC is eventually approved, thus increasing the value of my crankshaft. I'm still being badly burned, but... bla bla bla... (huge sigh is right)
 
Two updates from an email enquiry I sent to Justin Carter:

"The proposed AMOC is still in the review process."

And, his response to my follow-up question of "Any idea how long is left on the 45 day time window for a decision?"

"Their proposed process will require testing before it can be approved, which will extend the timeline."
 
Bill Ross reply to my email was my engine was out of warrenty,

Its not a warranty issue. A warranty claim would be if the part originally delivered met spec but later there was an issue.

this is about a part that never met the specification.
 
I wouldnt be surprised ...

My old crank been sitting on a shelf over at Aircraft Specialties for about year now.
Hope they don't charge me for storage .
. .
 
My old crank been sitting on a shelf over at Aircraft Specialties for about year now.
Hope they don't charge me for storage .
. .
Mine is in the building next door... Barrett Precision Engines. Can't think about that now... too close to flight.
 
I am hopeful this will get resolved that being said I am still flying as normal. Why not. I asked once if there has been any other failures
Since the original 3 and the FAA has no records of any.
I agree with Superior and the college assess of the crankshafts. They were abused perhaps mowing grass on grass runways. All training planes all Cessna 172S models.

Whether this gets approved or not. I will eventually replace the crankshaft when we’re not being surcharged for a crank
 
Back
Top