Home > VansAirForceForums

-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.

Go Back   VAF Forums > RV Firewall Forward Section > Traditional Aircraft Engines
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-16-2021, 08:15 PM
spatsch spatsch is offline
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Denison, TX
Posts: 301

Originally Posted by Bcone1381 View Post
1.5 million to avoid 77 potential liability claims seems like a good deal to me.

It seems to me like Superior would have a host of liability issues at hand if you flew and it broke. The 1.5 million would be money well spent. Business guys know this. I bet they don't have the money....or the Chinese who one Superior wont part with it....yet.
Liable for what? I have never heard of any manufacturer of EXPERIMENTAL airplane components being sued successfully. I thought that was the whole point from an experimental parts manufacturer perspective and why the experimental engines are much cheaper.

Oliver Spatscheck
RV-8 N-2EQ -- flying 500+ hours
Fokker DR-1 N-22EQ -- under construction
Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2021, 10:12 AM
NewbRVator NewbRVator is offline
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: CA
Posts: 279

So as an experimental can someone legally fly an AD tagged power plant? If so it’s up to the owner to determine if they want to entertain that risk and if it affects insurability. Obviously resale value is affected. Sorry for those impacted this sucks.
21 dues paid member since 2018
Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2021, 10:45 AM
Bcone1381 Bcone1381 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Chelsea, MI
Posts: 84

Originally Posted by spatsch View Post
Liable for what? I have never heard of any manufacturer of EXPERIMENTAL airplane components being sued successfully. I thought that was the whole point from an experimental parts manufacturer perspective and why the experimental engines are much cheaper.

I'm not the one claiming they manufactured bad cranks....its the FAA. Now they wont even communicate with you guys about it. Will your DAR deem your project as airworthy with a known AD on the crank? It just seems to me like a court of law with a jury of my peers would be sympathetic at some point in time. But I am sure your right....I seldom am.

Last edited by Bcone1381 : 04-17-2021 at 10:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2021, 12:26 PM
wilddog wilddog is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: va.
Posts: 653

If this went to court, wouldn’t their liability insurance company be defending them? And wouldn’t they rather settle out of court than risk losing a lot more in court or a whole lot more if one of these cranks causes a crash and injury or death? I don’t have one of these engines but am just wondering.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2021, 01:18 PM
Full Throttle Full Throttle is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Norwalk, CA
Posts: 60

This event somewhat parallels the XP-400 crank problem that Superior had a few years ago.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2021, 11:48 AM
Doug jackson Doug jackson is offline
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Decatur,tx
Posts: 3
Default update

I went by the Superior booth and talked to Bill Ross and the other guys from Superior. They once again assured me that they are just waiting on the FAA to approve the AMOC. Bill recommended that I remove my crank and he would send me a shipping box to get it to them. He said that would get me in line and I should get my crank back within two weeks after the AMOC is approved.
Thats not happening.
I told him I had no interest in tearing down my engine until they assured me the AMOC is approved.
Standing by to stand by....
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2021, 02:41 PM
Tankerpilot75's Avatar
Tankerpilot75 Tankerpilot75 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 675

Based on the below post, I withdraw my comment and await to see how this situation unfolds. Hopefully, Superior will do their best to make it right.
Jim Harris, ATP, T38, EC/KC-135A/E/R, 2008 RV7A, 2nd owner, N523RM (2015)
Superior XPIO-360, Hartzel CS prop, Dual GRT Horizon EX with ARINC, EIS, Garmin 340, 335 w/WAAS gps, Dual 430s (non-WAAS), TruTrak 385 A/P with auto-level & auto-trim, Tosten 6 button Military Grips, FlightBox wired to EX, Dynon D10A w/battery backup, 406 MHz ELT. Custom Interior, New TS Flightline hoses, Great POH!
Retired - Living the dream - going broke!

Last edited by Tankerpilot75 : 04-20-2021 at 03:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2021, 08:35 PM
goatflieg's Avatar
goatflieg goatflieg is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Clarkston, MI
Posts: 779

I delivered my engine to Tulsa last Thursday, discussed the issues with Rhonda, Monty and Allen and had lunch with Monty and Allen... good times.

First I want to say that there seems to be some erroneous information being spread in this thread. It has been stated that 77 experimental crankshafts were affected; this is somewhat misleading. There are 192 crankshafts affected; out of those, 77 are in experimental aircraft. Also, there is the opinion that the AMOC will render the crankshaft exempt from further refurbishment. I discussed that issue with Monty Barrett. He informed me that the AMOC removes the same amount of material as any other crank rebuild. Lycoming and Superior crankshafts can usually go through three stages of rebuilding before they can no longer be refurbished. He stated that after going through the AMOC, the crank could still be refurbished afterwards two more times before it was below tolerance. I can't quote specs here... but I do put my trust in my engine builder, especially if it's a Barrett engine. I have been informed that Superior has stated that they intend pay to refurbish the crankshafts and replace any parts required in the course of the rebuild; they have authorized the release of said parts to engine rebuilders. I've also been recently been informed by Rhonda that she has been in touch with Bill Ross recently. He was supposed to speak with SAP President Keith Chatten today to get an update on the situation. I'm told Keith is the person working with the FAA regarding the AMOC. None of this information can be considered ironclad until the FAA approves the AMOC; this may be why Superior has been tight-lipped about the situation. When I get further information I will share it here.
Martin J Filiatrault
Clarkston, MI
RV-8 #83507 - registered; final assembly started; still painting.
Builder websites:
YouTube Channel:
Dues paid for 2021... extra payment included for psychological therapeutic services rendered.


Have you ever gotten the feeling you were smarter than you could ever prove?

Last edited by goatflieg : 04-19-2021 at 08:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2021, 07:01 PM
Smilin' Jack Smilin' Jack is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Cumming, Georgia
Posts: 903

Thank you for your update from Barrett. The numbers were from the FAA
but the number of experimental engines remain the same at 77.

I also am waiting for the AMOC to be approved before I remove the engine. Great news on the rebuild tolerances of the crank..
Smilin' Jack & Anita Hunt
N507H RV7, KJZP Jasper, GA
Retired Corporate Pilot CFI-AI, MEL
CE500, LRJT, HS25, C650, SBJT, CL60
Hunt Aviation, LLC.
Pilot Service, IPC's Biennials.
Comm Glider
Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2021, 07:52 PM
mckes mckes is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brisabne Australia
Posts: 30

Any news out of superior?
Reply With Quote

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 11:28 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.