[MikeR]

I have an IO-360 that was a certified engine in a Mooney that was then installed in an RV-6. The engine has not been modified in any way from it's certified state. My question is "Can the engine be put back into a certified airframe or not, since it was used in an experimental?" I've heard both pros and cons and the reasons supporting each.

 

[Mel]

To place the engine back into a certified airframe, you would have to be able to show proof that the engine has been operated and maintained to it's original type certificate. I believe that installing and running it on an experimental airframe would not be within it's type certificate.
Not saying it can't be done. But I wouldn't get my hopes up.

 

[rvbuilder2002]

I have heard that if the installation and all maint. and condition inspections of the RV were done by an A&P, that it might be possible.

 

[dhammer]

Probably OK

Just to get the thought process running, the old A&P/IA in me says I don't see why not IF - - - the engine meets its type certificate or properly altered condition. That incidentally is the definition of airworthy. I know of nothing in the regulations that prohibit any certified component that meet those standards, including engines, from being installed on the aircraft it was designed for. It has nothing to do with the previous operation or its maintainer. As an example, most components don't have logs and the engine OEM's throw any they get away when they "0" time an engine. Now if you get real stupid and do something like drilling a carb jet, that carb will be unairworthy and have to be returned to its properly altered condition to go back on a certified aircraft because as soon as you improperly alter the jet, the carb is no longer airworthy - period.

Now if I were the buyer of that engine it might be another story. Without a proper paper trail and a history of certified maintainers and their attestations in the log, how can I be assured what someone without proper certification or training did or didn't do to that component? For my own peace of mind I would have to have it overhauled to set a baseline for my airworthiness determination when I install it.

My whole livlihood and the lives of everyone that gets into that airplane are tied to my signature that attests to the airworthiness of that component and the aircraft I stick it on. Would you risk everything and take on that responsibility with a component that may or may not be unairworthy junk like a drilled carb? What that means to me is the value of a component coming off of an experimental aircraft is the same as core value, no matter how many hours it has on it. There are good reasons the FAA requires that passenger warning on the panel.

Of course, to meet it's type certificate all AD's will have to be complied with and have no unapproved repairs or mods. Per the FAR's all experimental operators have complied with all applicable AD's such as the Lyc crankshaft ones anyway haven't they?

Don

 

[rvbuilder2002]

Just to get the thought process running, the old A&P/IA in me says I don't see why not IF - - - the engine meets its type certificate or properly altered condition. That incidentally is the definition of airworthy. I know of nothing in the regulations that prohibit any certified component that meet those standards, including engines, from being installed on the aircraft it was designed for. It has nothing to do with the previous operation or its maintainer.
Of course, to meet it's type certificate all AD's will have to be complied with and have no unapproved repairs or mods. Per the FAR's all experimental operators have complied with all applicable AD's such as the Lyc crankshaft ones anyway haven't they?

Don

I mostly agree with you Don, but the burden is on the mech. reinstalling the engine on a certificated aircraft, to prove that it meets its original type certificate. This is easier to substantiate if no none certificated mechanics ever put a tool to the engine.
As for the AD compliance requirement...there is a lot of old discussion in the archives about that. Bottom line is that it is somewhat a gray area, experimentals are not regulated by the typical FAR's that require compliance with AD's. If a repairman feelsd that his airplane is "in a condition for safe operation" without complying with an AD, and he signs of the condition inspection without it, the burden will be uppon him to justify it if an accident happens (but he is not technically by teh FAR's required to comply).
Just for the record, I think it is a good idea to comply with AD on experimentals.

Scott

 

[dhammer]

AD Applicability

Scott is correct. It is very much debated. The operator, not necessarilly a trained and certified person, determines if the aircraft is "safe to fly". Technically that is not an airworthiness determination hence the warning placard. I based what I said on AC39-7C and was technically wrong. I know that Advisory Circulars are advisory in nature and not regulatory, but they carry a bunch of weight on a witness stand. Who do you think the jury believes, some alphabet group like the EAA or an FAA document? It has been my experience that it will be the FAA every time. Been there done that several times. Does the FAA run around checking experimental aircraft for safety issues - No. They figure that if you want to go kill yourself and the general public is not at risk, then have at it as they have better things to do. FAA AC39-7C says in part -

8. APPLICABILITY OF AD's. Each AD contains an applicability statement specifying the product (aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance) to which it applies. Some aircraft owners and operators mistakenly assume that AD's do not apply to aircraft with other than standard airworthiness certificates, i.e., special airworthiness certificates in the restricted, limited, or experimental category. Unless specifically stated, AD's apply to the make and model set forth in the applicability statement regardless of the classification or category of the airworthiness certificate issued for the aircraft. Type certificate and airworthiness certification information are used to identify the product affected. Limitations may be placed on applicability by specifying the serial number or number series to which the AD is applicable. When there is no reference to serial numbers, all serial numbers are affected.

All that said and to answer the original question the answer is in some cases - yes you can do it. Would I risk everything and do it myself - No way. If it comes off of an experimental aircraft to me it is nothing but a core and needs to be overhauled. There is a big line between certified and expermental that I couldn't ethlically bridge. Would I love to build and own an RV-7 - You bet, that's why I'm here, but its parts would stay in the experimental world and all applicable appliance AD's would be accomplished.

Good conversations!! It makes us all think and learn a bit more. I learn something new every time I visit this site. Thanks to all that make it happen.

Don

 

[Jeff R]

If it comes off of an experimental aircraft to me it is nothing but a core and needs to be overhauled.

Well, if anyone has an engine that was maintained as if it were installed on a production aircraft and wants to sell it for core value, give me a call!

 

[gmcjetpilot]

THE WHOLE IDEA ABOUT RETURNING AN ENGINE BACK TO A CERTIFIED PLAN IS A NICE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT BUT A WASTE OF TIME, WORRY ABOUT IT IF THAT BRIDGE COMES UP. I DOUBT IT HAPPENS MUCH IF AT ALL.

SCOTT IS RIGHT: We do NOT have to worry about AD's, legally and that is not even debatable. The EAA has a position paper on it that the FAA agrees with. IT DOES STATE THE OBVIOUS > Safety first.

In regards to Lycoming Clones, not alternative automotive engines:

There is no such thing as a Certified engine in an experimental plane. Once in an experimental plane the engine is experimental.

All the clones are made with the same quality and certified parts.

Clones have more flexibility being assembled with "experimental" parts out the box, ignition or some new sump plenum for example.

There is no advantage of using a certified engine model over a clone and may be a hurdle in getting your RV kit plane cert. Some FAA reps will tell you to pull the plate off the engine, which I think is chicken $%@#. Having the same engine model number corresponding to a certified plane, is moot point.

Why not just offer the same model engines that goes in say a Mooney? I suspect it is to protect the engine shops and there may be less paper work? Why is a clone cheaper, I'd be gussing but lets not look a gift horse in the mouth.

I did not read the details but "return to service" of an engine back into a certified plane is up to the people signing off the log books and yellow tags (A&P, AI, Repair Station). WHY worry about it. Once you get your RV engine installed you are not going to take it to put in a Cessna.

As far as resale or value I would probably put a NEW Superior or ECI as valuable as some older A1A out of a certified plane, overhauled with the same hours. There are some long detailed threads if you do a search on VAF.

 

[az_gila]

Data plates

[......
There is no advantage of using a certified engine model over a clone and may be a hurdle in getting your RV kit plane cert. Some FAA reps will tell you to pull the plate off the engine, which I think is chicken $%@#. Having the same engine model number corresponding to a certified plane, is moot point.
.....

Well... if you pull the data plate off the engine, the previous discussion about AD applicability definitely should not apply.

No data plate = no model # and no serial # ......


As far as ECI kit engines being used in certified planes, I know of at least one example having occured.

Since the ECI web site states that all parts are FAA/PMA parts, it would be legal to rebuild an existing worn-out (or blown up) engine with the ECI kit parts, while retaining the original data plate.... sort of like the vintage restorers do...

http://www.eci2fly.com/pages/products_kitfeatures.aspx

Mels' quote is a little confusing....

To place the engine back into a certified airframe, you would have to be able to show proof that the engine has been operated and maintained to it's original type certificate. I believe that installing and running it on an experimental airframe would not be within it's type certificate.

...since an engine TCDS has no reference to the airframe it's installed on (obviously not true the other way around).

The TCDS for the O-360 family is here...

link to TCDS