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

"Only 3 Failures"?

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.

Per AvWeb:

Some 257 four-cylinder Superior and Lycoming engines are now subject to a new airworthiness directive requiring crankshaft replacement within 25 hours.​

3 failures of 257 in service seems like quite a high number to me.

Skylor
 
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)

Not quite sure where this is coming from. Cessna 172XP's, or more accurately the "Hawk XP", use a 6 cylinder, derated Continental IO-360.

Unless you are thinking to the C-172SP, which does use a Lycoming IO-360.
 
Last edited:
...

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 think "172's" was actually "172S".

But, I went back to the reports, and this was all the pertinent info I could gleen from there:

Ser No SP14-0101
Part No SL36500-A1
Type Aircraft Cessna 172S
C/S Hours in service 626.7

Ser No SP14-0194
Part No SL36500-A1
Type Aircraft Cessna 172 (no model year/series given)
C/S Hours in service 1,400


Ser No SP13-0150
Part No (conforms to SL36500)
Type Aircraft Cessna 172 (no model year/series given)
C/Hours in Service (engine documentation suggests that engine and crankshaft total time was in excess of 2,100 hours).
 
Last edited:
Yep your correct Mel. I really don’t keep up with all the models. I knew the 172 xp had bigger engines.

But the sum of the findings. All were in training environments. All were Lycoming
Engines.
I am starting to wonder if Superior might be trying to drag Continental since they did buy ECI who machined all those craKshafts. According to Justin at the FAA
 
New crank advice

I've been waffling about how to handle this problem; I am a first-time a/c builder/owner, and thought my (then) new engine would be my last...
I now need some advice from the A & Ps, and AIs on the world of crankshafts.

Who makes them? Are there several sources, or have the manufacturers merged into a concentrated few? Which is better?
What's so "superior" about the one in my engine? If a replace it with a non-Superior shaft, will all the other moving parts 'play well together'?
Why does a crankshaft ever need to be overhauled, and what is done to them to make them "good as new"?
How long are overhauled crankshafts expected to last, when compared to a new one?


OK...thats enough for now.
Thanks in advance for your help. :confused:
 
Empty Box

Just got my empty crankshaft box from Aircraft Specialty Services today. I'll be sending them my bad crankshaft shortly. They'll prolly just put it into the pile of other bad Superior cranks while we all wait for AMOC approval.
Superior's earlier statements that an AMOC would be approved by Jan.15 appears to have been wildly optimistic .
Not Happy.:mad:
 
I look forward to

seeing who, if anyone, from Superior shows up at Sun n Fun. I’ve been told by the company that assembled my engine that the AD doesn’t apply since the engine is experimental. I’m guessing they won’t be at Sun n Fun, either. So much for a three year from first start warranty. You can bet my future engines will be purchased from Jimmy Brod.
 
I've been waffling about how to handle this problem; I am a first-time a/c builder/owner, and thought my (then) new engine would be my last...
I now need some advice from the A & Ps, and AIs on the world of crankshafts.

Who makes them? Are there several sources, or have the manufacturers merged into a concentrated few? Which is better?
What's so "superior" about the one in my engine? If a replace it with a non-Superior shaft, will all the other moving parts 'play well together'?
Why does a crankshaft ever need to be overhauled, and what is done to them to make them "good as new"?
How long are overhauled crankshafts expected to last, when compared to a new one?


OK...thats enough for now.
Thanks in advance for your help. :confused:
While you are waiting on the answer from someone with a lot if endorsements . . . cranks can have many vendors involved depending on the process.

Material supply - some foundry that makes the raw billet
Forger - the company that pounds the billet into a rough forging ready for machining
Rough machining -the first step in machining getting the machined surfaces cut and ready for grinding
heat treatment - the company that does all the heat treatment - what ever is specified by the end company.
Final straightening, grinding and inspection - the company who usually puts their name on the product.

There are probably few that regularly do aviation cranks and likely a couple of suppliers for billet, forging, and heat treat. I would guess the final name does all the machining.

If someone who knows the companies in this supply chain, please add them and correct my assumptions.
 
Last edited:
New Crankshaft.

I’m also pretty disappointed in the response or lack of response from Superior. They need to step up to the plate and cover some of the expenses that their customers are going to have to endure.
I’m back in the air as of yesterday after replacing the crankshaft with a new one. I feel bad for the people that got hit with this and haven’t even started their engine yet.
Not sure if Superior will be at Oshkosh but I’m willing to bring my old crankshaft if they are taking returns.
 
I'm hoping someone drops by the Superior booth at Sun n' Fun and gets the latest info on the crank situation.
Stewart Willoughby, 6 painting.
 
I'm hoping someone drops by the Superior booth at Sun n' Fun and gets the latest info on the crank situation.
Stewart Willoughby, 6 painting.

Don't hold your breath. No "official" word since their response to the NPRM over a year ago. Everything else has been unofficial rumor and supposition. I suspect we're on our own.

Every day Google sends me updates about aerospace industry news, and specifically market forecasts for aircraft parts manufacturers. SAP gets mentioned almost every day. Probably just rehashing an old report. But still, they have not issued any kind of press release about how they're gonna help their certified "end-user" customers mitigate the costs of complying with the AD, let alone any support to the EAB community.

I've pretty much had it. Its seems to me like Lycoming and Continental have successfully squashed the competition's PMA business with the help of the FAA, and no one really gives a flip about a few homebuilders.
 
What Superior booth?

They must be in hiding. The cylinder guys are here. Absolutely no help apparent from Superior. I’ve arranged for a new crank to be installed. My wife is going to kill me but it’s better than staring at a $35,000 paperweight.
 
How is that not a warranty replacement? And if it's not been run what is there return policy? I was going to put superior cylinders on my engine, now rethinking
 
I'm not a fan of lawsuits, but like many of you I'm out a fair chunk of money for a new non-Superior crankshaft and installation, and it looks like Superior has gone NORDO again on this one.

Does anyone have experience with pursuing legal action in a case like this?

Dave
 
I'm not a fan of lawsuits, but like many of you I'm out a fair chunk of money for a new non-Superior crankshaft and installation, and it looks like Superior has gone NORDO again on this one.

Does anyone have experience with pursuing legal action in a case like this?

Dave

I think you would have a costly up hill battle.

1. If you read through the comment section of the AD

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...es-and-lycoming-engines-reciprocating-engines

you will realize that SAP never admitted that there is ANY problem. The FAA did. As experimental engines are not affected by the AD itself that means you would have to proof in court that there actually is a defect caused by SAP.

2. There are only 77 experimental crankshafts affected (https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...aa-finalizes-superior-air-parts-crankshaft-ad) . Let's say 20k per engine makes 1.5mil$

So you would have to pay for expensive lawyers, expert witnesses (to proof that there is something wrong) without access to the broken engines with a chance of loosing to gain at most 1.5mil$.

The economics don't look good.

Oliver
 
I think you would have a costly up hill battle.

1. If you read through the comment section of the AD

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...es-and-lycoming-engines-reciprocating-engines

you will realize that SAP never admitted that there is ANY problem. The FAA did. As experimental engines are not affected by the AD itself that means you would have to proof in court that there actually is a defect caused by SAP.

2. There are only 77 experimental crankshafts affected (https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...aa-finalizes-superior-air-parts-crankshaft-ad) . Let's say 20k per engine makes 1.5mil$

So you would have to pay for expensive lawyers, expert witnesses (to proof that there is something wrong) without access to the broken engines with a chance of loosing to gain at most 1.5mil$.

The economics don't look good.

Oliver


It's funny they won't admit a problem but gladly sell you a new crank.

I've heard complaints about manufacturers pushing ads to sell more parts
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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

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:
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.
 
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....
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
ACtC-3f6ZTlX2efrFyBXHhPirtSBGx7GpC1XG8HhXHS3tSGzG0Nw3sLSbC_fyi4W8B1Ip1Vthle9O1ynco832frN8uyQiTpeA1cIqhP3hq0-KXcFutDX4V9S6aC2TGovtFtJiVUUni3O4md2qw05JkcNkVwE=w1118-h789

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.
 
Last edited:
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..
 
Crickets ...

Yeah... pretty much. My engine sits at Barrett, awaiting word from on high. Been in touch with Rhonda weekly. We were given the impression initially that the AMOC had been submitted a while back, but apparently it hadn't. Last I heard, it should have been submitted yesterday... but I won't believe anything I hear anymore until it can be proven unequivocally. Sigh...
 
The latest news from Barrett this morning: Superior submitted the finalized AMOC last week. The FAA is required to respond within 45 days; approval is expected. Barrett is beginning to get the pipeline moving with disassembly and prep. FWIW
 
That will be great if it goes through. I’m hoping it’s M003 and renitride as originally discussed and not the m010 that someone said previously.
 
Still quiet on the southwest front?

We have a few more days until the 45 day response period runs out. That got me wondering if its based on calendar days or work days... calendar days - end of this month; work days - mid-July. My hunch is calendar days; makes the most sense... but lately the FAA doesn't seem too invested in making sense.
 
I was thinking calendar days as well ... have July 5 as being the date IF (big IF) the AMOC was submitted the week of May 10 per the notes above
.
 
Is anyone here able to give me details on who I should contact in the FAA re this AD please? You can PM me if you prefer - TIA
 
I'm lead to believe the so called AMOC has not been received by the FAA - the AMOC has been mooted since early last year so why the extraordinary long gestation ?:mad:
 
I'm lead to believe the so called AMOC has not been received by the FAA - the AMOC has been mooted since early last year so why the extraordinary long gestation ?:mad:

When you say "lead to believe", are you saying that you called the FAA point-of-contact and they told you it had not been recieved? Why such an oblique statement?

Did you get to talk to Justin Carter (he's listed as POC)?
 
6/28/21 - AMOC hasnt been submitted yet ?????

June 28, 2021 9:16AM
Just received this morning from the FAA point of contact listed on the AD ...

"There were some preliminary discussions with SAP regarding an AMOC. I have not seen a formal AMOC submission yet."

Best,

Justin H. Carter
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion
Ft. Worth Aircraft Certification Office, AIR-7F1
Phone: 817-222-5146
 
Last edited:
Tuesday, June 29 2021

Per Bill Ross at Superior...
the AMOC is being submitted to the FAA this week
 
Per Bill Ross at Superior...
the AMOC is being submitted to the FAA this week

Wow. I've been fooled by that statement three times so far by my count. I've tried hard to be positive about this for a long time. But to find out now that I was fooled a month ago, well... I dare not type any more here.
Actually, I'd like to ask: Larry, is this Bill Ross speaking to you directly, or to someone else? Just trying to get as much detail as possible.
 
Last edited:
Direct contact

I've been before "fooled" as well on this.
I got a follow up e-mail response from Bill Ross the same day I talk to Justin Carter at the FAA and learned that the AMOC had yet to be submitted ... At first Bill said the AMOC is being submitted "now" ... I pressed him as to when "now" actually was ... and he said "this week" .
so .. I'll be sending Justin Carter a note on Monday asking if they received it.
 
SAP loyalty?

Don't know about the rest of you but SAP will have a very difficult time getting me or any of my customers to do business with them in the future.
I've already purchased a new crankshaft and will do the swap with or without them this winter. 15 hrs since new means very little to them.
 
I'd love to be a fly on the wall of the SAP tent at AirVenture this year. Anyone who's going wanna bring back the scuttle butt for the rest of us?
 
Back
Top