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

I also emailed Bill Ross 2/8 and received the same information within hours. It looks like parts are covered; labor is not. Glad the crank rework will happen in Tulsa, as that will be local to Barrett. I'll still have to wait to find out when, how... and how much.
 
Further news from Rhonda at Barrett; we're starting to put a plan together and I know roughly what it will cost me in labor... and it's not cheap. But the good news is that they'll strip it, rebuild it to new, run it on the dyno and then preserve it again. She gave me some ideas on the timetable once we get the green light. I won't be able to document the rebuild like I did the first build (thanks again, Covid-19) but I'm hoping they'll do some documentation for me. The crankshaft mod shop is right next door to Barrett, so that's a good thing. But the entire process might take several weeks, so I'll probably deliver the engine to them and have them ship it back to me. Yeah... I'm taking a hit... but the engine will be back to completely fresh and LEGAL.
 
Glad to hear that Martin! Now I am positive you can make Osh-22. Reserve me a parking spot next to you in Sea of RVs I will be a bit late :)
 
Hmmm...

I don't know 'bout you, but I'm at a loss on how this AMOC is a rational alternative. I have very little engineering background, but...

How can a part be milled to a smaller diameter and retain its original strength?
Why wasn't this heavy part made smaller and lighter to begin with?
Can you really determine if it's "crack-free"?

I'd rather have Superior give me a new crank.
Just sayin'.
 
How can a part be milled to a smaller diameter and retain its original strength?
Why wasn't this heavy part made smaller and lighter to begin with?
Can you really determine if it's "crack-free"?

I'd rather have Superior give me a new crank.
Just sayin'.

1. Cranks can be ground undersize in different journal diameters for overhaul. The smallest diameter permissible is the strength limit.
2. So you can overhaul them in the future.
3. Yes, by several means of inspection.
4. Good luck with that.
 
I don't know 'bout you, but I'm at a loss on how this AMOC is a rational alternative. I have very little engineering background, but...

How can a part be milled to a smaller diameter and retain its original strength?
Why wasn't this heavy part made smaller and lighter to begin with?
Can you really determine if it's "crack-free"?

I'd rather have Superior give me a new crank.
Just sayin'.

It's my understanding that it's not really milling; it's polishing off the white layer of iron nitride which is brittle and causing the potential stress cracks. Not sure how much material is being removed, but I'm sure the AMOC process results in a crank that meets specifications without the brittle layer that causes the problem. If it didn't result in a safe crankshaft with proper specs, they wouldn't be pursuing the option.
 
I'm smarter!

1. Cranks can be ground undersize in different journal diameters for overhaul. The smallest diameter permissible is the strength limit.
2. So you can overhaul them in the future.
3. Yes, by several means of inspection.
4. Good luck with that.

Well...thanks for educating me. Now I can say I learned something new, today. ;)
 
Hopefully this really solves the issue and is reliable. Nobody will know for sure until 100 cranks make it to 2000 hours though.
 
I'd really love to have a sit-down, off-line, discussion with an expert about the Baker-Risk reports and how this AMOC would solve the problems brought up there.
 
I'd really love to have a sit-down, off-line, discussion with an expert about the Baker-Risk reports and how this AMOC would solve the problems brought up there.

I was wondering the same thing. Is the AMOC addressing the issue or the AD or both? Seems to address the AD but after reading those reports I am not sure about addressing the issue ... . Might just be my ignorance... . Let us know if you learn anything off line.

Oliver
 
I've received no further news since my last post. I'm assuming that the AMOC has been submitted by now; they expected to submit it very soon after my last post.

I just checked in with Justin Carter at the FAA - he still hasn't seen a formal request for the 2020-25-12 AD AMOC from SAP.
 
I called Bill Ross and he stated his boss said the AMOC was a sure thing
Then Bill said to let him know when we would be ready to send the crankshaft
But I stated I wanted in writing that the AMIC has been approved and also a list of items is going to supply so we’re not duplicating them at the engine shop

We hung up and I stated I would contact him on Thursday Last week because I was really getting ready to do this
Called Thursday. No response
Called Friday left message no response
called Monday left message. No response.

I think your right it,the AMOC, has not been submitted yet.

Hoping for the best
 
I have a slightly different and somewhat more hopeful update.
I sent a short email this morning to Bill Ross and Rhonda at Barrett: "Any further updates? Still hoping to set up a timeline..." Later this afternoon I got a call from Rhonda; she gave me the impression that although the AMOC has not been officially approved by the FAA, it has been submitted by Superior. Bill told her that he was granted permission to begin supplying the replacement parts for the rebuilds in anticipation of the AMOC being approved. I was advised that it may be a good idea to get my engine to Barrett fairly soon so they can prepare for the rebuild. This was motivation enough for me to begin the journey...
ACtC-3emvj9ePg__5flGgNpgrDMj-wuIzDI9FUaVM_Rm_65YGTv7jMo_4LAvqf0wI9FbuwAUA5XGhgFgr0Qou-Sg9mR-CJdPCK6B0qJNucgLFp0qROgJ_AVp3w7qoc-hh9SmVjnt9cLYjEf0yIBzwCF-2b0q=w900-h600

... at least out of the shop and to a garage bay to facilitate loading. It will be a few more weeks until I can depart; my wife Amy is recovering from rotator cuff surgery and I shouldn't leave until she's able to drive and load her walker in and out of the car. Rhonda said that one customer that used a replacement crank already has his rebuilt engine back. Don't know all the details yet, but when I know, you'll know.
 
Personally, I'm not taking any steps fwd on this thing until I see something in writing. I have less than 4 hrs of ground operations on a new motor and haven't heard a thing from Superior. Just seems a little insulting to me
danny
with his "ticketed and ready to fly" paperweight.
but I do believe it's probably the most expensive paperweight ever!
 
Superior blues

Opened my XP 0630 case to replace the crankshaft - I was lucky enough to find one on my field - and found the front main bearing not properly nested. Probably why I had such a devil of a time splitting the case. Also lots of fretting in the saddle under the bearing. My confidence in Superior is seriously waning.

i-dWKBt7R-S.jpg
 
Talked to a knowledgeable crankcase guy and he said the hi-crush bearings used in the XP engines are better than the doweled bearings. So no issue there.
 
Photos of superior engine with 140 hours, for change crank shaft

Hello , that was we found .we opened it to change the crank shaft . the engine have only 140 hours. i really appreciatte your comments .
 

Attachments

  • foto moto 2.jpg
    foto moto 2.jpg
    84.2 KB · Views: 302
  • foto motor 3.jpg
    foto motor 3.jpg
    110.4 KB · Views: 307
  • foto motor 4.jpg
    foto motor 4.jpg
    59.7 KB · Views: 293
  • Foto motos.jpg
    Foto motos.jpg
    78.8 KB · Views: 273
AD 2020-25-12 Superior Crankshaft

My RV-7A has the Superior IO-360 and does have the crankshaft within the range included by the AD. I have already pulled the engine to begin the replacement. I purchased another (not Superior) crankshaft as all my phone messages and emails have gone unanswered by Superior. So far I am unaware that Superior is willing to take any responsibility or has any intention of compensating any of the affected customers. I am now thousands of dollars and many hours into this repair and haven't been able to fly for 3 months. Needless to say I am very unhappy with the response from Superior to make good on there lack of oversight and quality control of their engine parts. I can only warn the rest of you builders not to use their product.
 
Hello , that was we found .we opened it to change the crank shaft . the engine have only 140 hours. i really appreciatte your comments .

You're going to have to replace all of the bearings anyway with a replacement crankshaft. I wouldn't worry about it.
 
I am still waiting.
If I don’t hear something is a week it might be a good idea to consult an attorney
I am bothered by no response from Bill Ross.
 
Yea, something is not right . . .

True, but you don't expect to see bearings wiped on a fresh engine. Something wasn't right.

Yep - some dimensional issue. Worth checking the case bores as the wear areas are not all circumferential. Be sure to run a micrometer down the new cranks to ensure the bearing journals are concentric (no lobes) and no axial variance in diameter. Bolt/torque the case and measure the mains for concentricity too.

Bearings in aircraft engines look like crud anyway. I have seen dozens of 1000-10,000 hour bearings in class 8 truck engines look like new.

Once I replaced a Peugeot diesel car engine for a friend, it had 140k miles and broke a connecting rod. For grins we removed the pan and a couple of rod and main caps. It used aluminum bearings, no PbSn overlay, and they looked pristine. Best set of bearings I have ever seen.
 
Main bearings after running a brand new Superior engine for 55 minutes (less than one hour) on their dyno at Superior. The new engine was taken off the dyno and disassembled for inspection. Notice the burr on one of the front bearings half's after disassembly. It is in the middle of the bearing on the crush line. Both small main bearings had similar wear.
 

Attachments

  • IO-400 Main Bearing.jpg
    IO-400 Main Bearing.jpg
    194.9 KB · Views: 244
  • New IO-400 Main Bearing.jpg
    New IO-400 Main Bearing.jpg
    260.7 KB · Views: 227
I checked in with Justin Carter at the FAA yesterday - he still hasn't seen a formal AMOC submission for this.
 
I check with Aircraft Specialities and as of today 3/12 they have heard nothing and still can not accept and crankshafts until the AMOC is approved.
No return calls from Superior
Jack
 
This week I left both VM and email for Bill at Superior. I got back what seemed like a form email mid week with the same information we all already have. AMOC under way, reimbursement limited to cost of machine work and gaskets / bearings etc. I asked a follow-up question, with no response.

For myself, I'm moving on with a new crank. I'll keep perusing any compensation they may offer. I'm going to have an amazing "leg lamp" in my hangar with the old crank.
 
Cankshaft

Bill Ross got back to me finally to day and a policed for the delayed response.
He stated his boss said they feel no reason the AMOC will not be approve
I am to call him on a direct line Monday
They will send a crankshaft box to be shipped to Aircraft specialities

I will call him Monday and begin my tear down next week

His direct line is 12143959183

Depositing new message Mr. Hunt, this is Bill Ross. Superior Airparts Product support. Uh, my apologies for not calling you back, sir. sooner I'm sorry that I missed your call. we we are proceeding with the AMOC It has not been approved yet. My boss has been in touch with the powers that be, and they see no reason that it will not be approved. And I have been given the go ahead to start sending crankshaft boxes to customers.

Jack
 
For those of you with an affected crank, who is planning to go with the regrind option, and who is intending to fit a replacement?

Here in the UK there are six RV's (and a Fokker Triplane replica) that have Superior cranks in the affected serial number range. The general feeling is that a reground, reinstalled crankshaft will always carry a stigma that "it's one of those bad cranks." Come resale time, any prospective buyer that's diligent is will identify this, and they'd be crazy not to be deducting a chunk of value from the aeroplane to re-assure their purchase. That's if they don't just shake their head and walk away.

After how Superior handled their XP400/XP382 problem with the whole engine buy-back program, is it unreasonable to expect that affected owners are offered a buy-back option on the crankshafts that we do not wish to re-install?

After all, if Superior are confident in their AMOC, then surely their lawyers wouldn't have any issue in having a bunch of reground cranks with paperwork, returned to inventory that they can repurpose/resell?
 
For those of you with an affected crank, who is planning to go with the regrind option, and who is intending to fit a replacement?
I've already installed a replacement Lycoming crank and now that I understand Superior's plans for the proposed AMOC, I agree with the view across the pond that a reground crank would always be suspect. I don't know what if any financial relief I'll get from Superior, but for me peace of mind is worth the expense.

About selling the crank back to Superior...if I am unwilling to fly a crank reground per the AMOC, I'm not keen on passing my perceived risk to another person. I suppose someone could make the case that it's their choice to assess that risk as they see fit if they know the crank has been AMOC'd and yellow-tagged by Superior.

Dave
 
Last edited:
For those of you with an affected crank, who is planning to go with the regrind option, and who is intending to fit a replacement?

Here in the UK there are six RV's (and a Fokker Triplane replica) that have Superior cranks in the affected serial number range. The general feeling is that a reground, reinstalled crankshaft will always carry a stigma that "it's one of those bad cranks." Come resale time, any prospective buyer that's diligent is will identify this, and they'd be crazy not to be deducting a chunk of value from the aeroplane to re-assure their purchase. That's if they don't just shake their head and walk away.

After how Superior handled their XP400/XP382 problem with the whole engine buy-back program, is it unreasonable to expect that affected owners are offered a buy-back option on the crankshafts that we do not wish to re-install?

After all, if Superior are confident in their AMOC, then surely their lawyers wouldn't have any issue in having a bunch of reground cranks with paperwork, returned to inventory that they can repurpose/resell?

If Superior is confident in their AMOC and is willing to resell the reground cranks, then they should carry the same value as any other airworthy crank. I'm not thrilled with the line of thinking that "I don't care what Superior or anyone else says or does, those affected crankshafts are worthless" and that my aircraft will forever be devalued because of such an assumption. Right now I am planning to my crank redone per the AMOC; logistically it makes sense for me. If Superior says that the crank will be reliable, I will trust them based on the premise that they wouldn't put themselves at risk any more than they would put us at risk. I will follow the science rather than the stigma.
 
If I was shopping for a plane or engine I would pass on the Superior crank. That crank would have value in the airboat market.
 
I know that if I was going to pull an engine and suffer the down-time to pull the crank, that same crank isn't going back in my airplane! To heck with resale value, my family rides in my plane. That crank would have NO value.

-Marc
 
Unfortunately I also have a crankshaft in the affected range but don’t share the same opinion as others. I think a crank like mine with 500 hours of trouble free operation that is inspected and repaired is likely more reliable not less reliable than a brand new crankshaft. I imagine new crankshafts are subject to the bathtub curve that many products experience, some fail early but those that don’t fail usually live a long life.
 
Unfortunately I also have a crankshaft in the affected range but don’t share the same opinion as others. I think a crank like mine with 500 hours of trouble free operation that is inspected and repaired is likely more reliable not less reliable than a brand new crankshaft. I imagine new crankshafts are subject to the bathtub curve that many products experience, some fail early but those that don’t fail usually live a long life.


You're probably right. But, you don't know what you don't know. And, those pesky little Baker-Risk reports are out there, like a big old scarlet letter for anyone who operates one of those cranks, certified or experimental.
 
We’re only talking about 3 thousands of a grind to get rid of the coating and then a nitrate recoating
I really don’t think it is a problem.

1 the crank will be inspected for fatigue cracks
2 it will be ground down
3 it will be nitrated
4 it will be certified as overhauled by one of America’s best over haul shops

If you had no problems going in You should be great going out

Like anything a new crankshaft from Lycoming folks forget Lycoming had a crankshaft problem about 15 years ago. No company is perfect
 
I am curious
to date how many failure here and overseas have there been.
We only have heard about the 3
One in 2014 and two I believe in 2017
 
Just had the pleasure of talking to Justin Carter FAA engineering who would be one of the folks issuing the AMOC

He stated the AMOC request does not come directly to him first it goes to the district office for initial review.

He stated that his knowledge still only 3 engine failures all in training flight schools and all Cessna 172’s. (I would assume 172XP’s)

I stated did these aircraft mow grass and he stated there was no evidence but it would be hard to prove. Makes you wonder?

He stated the crankshafts were all Forged by the German company but the final work was done by ECI. Who as everyone know is out of business as they were bought by Continental Aircraft.

He stated it is a shame that this AD has caused a skyrocketing in prices on Cranshafts as a couple years ago a crank would have cost you around 4 thousand

I asked him is what was being proposed by Superior
Seemed logical and he said he had heard, but would wait for the AMOC and the only thing is to remove the present coating

He stated these crankshafts should be able to go a few thousand hours with never developing a problem.

He was extremely polite and sounded very encouraging
We wait
 
Last edited:
Just had the pleasure of talking to Justin Carter FAA engineering who would be one of the folks issuing the AMOC

He stated the AMOC request does not come directly to him first it goes to the district office for initial review.

I've always found Justin Carter to be very helpful, and very quick to respond. Looks like he's based in the office that has the authority to approve the AMOC.

FAA said:
(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD…

(j) Related Information
For more information about this AD, contact Justin Carter, Aviation Safety Engineer, Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; phone: (817) 222-5146; fax: (817) 222-5245; email: [email protected].
 
I have heard the proposed AMOC is a grind to 0.010" over which would make it a one-time use crank and unoverhaulable in the future. I just put an XP back together with a new Lycoming crank.
 
Superior silence is deafening!

The silence from Superior is really making me anxious. From what I have heard the response is more driven by $$$ than customer support. I started looking for a replacement to buy since a rebuilt crank in a motor with less than 4 hrs makes no sense to me. I just hope Superior will eventually come to their senses and give their customers the support we're due. In the meantime I'm spending $6k plus to safely fly my plane.
I have a lot more to say but I'm guessing you all have an idea what it is.
Thanks for the soapbox.
danny with the
$60,000.00 paperweight
 
I started looking for a replacement to buy since a rebuilt crank in a motor with less than 4 hrs makes no sense to me. I just hope Superior will eventually come to their senses and give their customers the support we're due.

But wouldn't the AMOC still leave you with a rebuilt crank in a motor with 4 hours on it?

-Marc
 
No rebuild for me!

And that's why I don't really want a rebuilt crank. I'll install a new one in my motor. The weight I lose from giving out all that extra money should translate into speed.
And just for the record...Bill Ross seems like a good guy who's stuck between a rock (us) and a hard place ( the decision makers at Superior). I don't want anyone to think I have bad feelings towards him.
danny
 
Photos of superior engine with 140 hours, for change crank shaft

My engine is in the mechanic . he said the block was wrong aligned .
 
Dont know if all these reported engine problems are on engines by superior or Lycoming with the German crankshafts.

I am waiting. The AD according to Justin does not effect experimental aircraft so there is no time limit on how many hours you can fly.

It is just that knowledge in the back of your brain


On the other hand Justin did say still there were only 3 failures and all on Cessna 172’s that would have been Lycoming engines.
 
I don’t feel compelled to do anything on my 500 hour crank right now. I believe the best approach is to take a wait and see attitude. I am flying and will continue to fly unless more evidence appears. Eventually I will fix or replace the crank but will let the dust settle first.
 
Back
Top