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 what I read in Aviation Consumer SAP have talked about an AMOC since Feb last year - surely it doesn’t take this long ?
Yeah, I called Justin (FAA) last week (4am in morning here) & got the same reply, they have NOT seen an AMOC yet. I’m guessing there may be deeper issues in the background.
We have to comply with the AD here so I’ve pulled & stripped down the engine ready for another crank - more later.:rolleyes:
 
I too have talked to Justin at the FAA, this was in July 12.
He has not seen the AMOC yet but he did state it has to be submitted first to the
Regional operations office.
We talked in detail about the failures of the 3 crankshafts. And yes as of today there are only 3 all in Cessna 172S all in 2 different training schools. Not one since 2017 well before we knew anything about this(coating problem)
He reiterated that although AD’s like this are not required for experimental aircraft it would be advisable to do. Which I do agree when there is an answer and we are not shouldering the cost. If there is no answer I too will be biting the bullet and buy a new crankshaft.

I said it is ironic that there has been no failures in a Superior Engine.

I asked him why if ECI did the finish work on these
Crankshafts what is not Continental involved in this also since they bought the assets of ECI.

He stated that Continental was very careful and did not take any of the Liability that ECI has acquired. They only bought the assets of the company. The rest was dissolved. (Basically, short answer)

I will seek out Bill Ross at Oshkosh. He is doing a couple seminars there.

Jack
 
I spoke to Rhonda at Barrett on July 12, but she had no new information. I'll keep checking this thread and post when and if I ever learn something new. Jack, thank you for your updates.
 
Superior AD AMOC

Someone at OSH should ask Superior where their AMOC is, as of yesterday the FAA has not seen it according the the letter I received.:(
 
I spoke to Bill Ross at Oshkosh on Monday. He said Superior has had continuing discussions with the FAA and is confident the AMOC will be approved within the next few weeks. At that point, Superior will contact all owners of record offering a postage paid crankshaft box. Bill says there will be a 2 week turnaround for the regrind/renitride to O/H limits at Aircraft Specialties. Cranks will be returned with all gaskets and new rod bolts, etc. He estimates owner's cost for teardown and rebuild to be $5000 to 7000. I checked with G&N and was quoted $4800. Nothing new really......I'm not pulling my engine out of the plane just yet!

Stewart Willoughby, 6
 
That would seem to be good news... but Bill has been making roughly the same statement for seven months. I'm just waiting for action, just like everyone else... except for those that bit the bullet, took action and bought a new crankshaft.
 
Tell him he’s dreaming - a suggestion was made to me to get another secondhand crank, pull mine & send it in for rework (where’s that elusive AMOC - still not in to the FAA as of yesterday) & when it comes back just sell it to offset the other purchase.
Yeah right :rolleyes: Any bids out there on what a ‘secondhand’ reworked Superior crank is worth? - probably zilch IMO.
 
45 day clock is ticking ?

Just got back from Oshkosh ... After some 'venting' to some poor sale guy. I finally was able to talked to Bill Ross in person. He says we are just "days away" from the FAA approving the AMOC that was submitted .
Then I talked to Aircraft Specialties... they told me they have seen the submitted AMOC and its pretty much their normal crankshaft rework process and its a 3 mil material removal with a 2 week turnaround.
Am I foolish to think this long nightmare is soon to be resolved ?
 
Just got back from Oshkosh ... After some 'venting' to some poor sale guy. I finally was able to talked to Bill Ross in person. He says we are just "days away" from the FAA approving the AMOC that was submitted .
Then I talked to Aircraft Specialties... they told me they have seen the submitted AMOC and its pretty much their normal crankshaft rework process and its a 3 mil material removal with a 2 week turnaround.
Am I foolish to think this long nightmare is soon to be resolved ?

Back in May (the last time I got my hopes up) Aircraft Specialties told Barrett that they had been briefed on the AMOC by Superior and queried by the FAA about it, which led us to believe that the AMOC had been submitted back then. I'll wait until mid-week before reaching out to Rhonda to see if she knows anything new after OSH.
 
Just got back from Oshkosh ... After some 'venting' to some poor sale guy. I finally was able to talked to Bill Ross in person. He says we are just "days away" from the FAA approving the AMOC that was submitted .
Then I talked to Aircraft Specialties... they told me they have seen the submitted AMOC and its pretty much their normal crankshaft rework process and its a 3 mil material removal with a 2 week turnaround.
Am I foolish to think this long nightmare is soon to be resolved ?

Just because Aircraft Specialities have seen the supposed “submitted” AMOC does not prove that the FAA has in fact actually received it. Then if it is there then it can be in their system for up to 45 days.
Why would anyone believe Superior given that they had 18months to draft & submit an AMOC to the FAA ?
If you want the truth then contact the FAA, like I did on the 28th July.
 
I spoke to Bill Ross at Oshkosh on Monday. He said Superior has had continuing discussions with the FAA and is confident the AMOC will be approved within the next few weeks. At that point, Superior will contact all owners of record offering a postage paid crankshaft box. Bill says there will be a 2 week turnaround for the regrind/renitride to O/H limits at Aircraft Specialties. Cranks will be returned with all gaskets and new rod bolts, etc. He estimates owner's cost for teardown and rebuild to be $5000 to 7000. I checked with G&N and was quoted $4800. Nothing new really......I'm not pulling my engine out of the plane just yet!

Stewart Willoughby, 6

So that's the extent that Superior is willing to "support" us? Utterly worthless IMHO.

This is not a case of "warranty" issues where something was in spec but failed or wore out early, this is a case of our original purchases not meeting the specification we paid for. (The FAA is the ultimate arbiter of whether or not it meets spec, they have made definitive statements on this)

Superior is not even willing to provide all the additional bits and bobs that are mandatory to replace at OH? They ought to be writing us a check to cover that teardown and re-assembly as well.
 
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
Rgarding your point 1, I don't think so. The FAA is the final arbiter on whether a part met spec or not, and they have definitively spoken. That is simply not in question. Its not even a warranty claim. It would be a warranty issue if it original met spec but failed early, this is a case of the part never being acceptable, but just finding out potentially a few years down the road.
 
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.

Jimmy put mine together. Didn't have any ameliorating affect to the AD.
 
Rgarding your point 1, I don't think so. The FAA is the final arbiter on whether a part met spec or not, and they have definitively spoken. That is simply not in question. Its not even a warranty claim. It would be a warranty issue if it original met spec but failed early, this is a case of the part never being acceptable, but just finding out potentially a few years down the road.

True - but "meeting spec" only applies to certificated aircraft flying with certificated engines. That doesn't exist in the experimental world.

I'm not picking sides, and I don't have a dog in this fight - just sayin'...
 
True - but "meeting spec" only applies to certificated aircraft flying with certificated engines. That doesn't exist in the experimental world.

I'm not picking sides, and I don't have a dog in this fight - just sayin'...

I disagree with your definition of "meeting spec". You are conflating certification with specification. Very different. The specification relates to dimensions, surface hardness, ductility and so on. These cranks did not meet the specifications, regardless of where they were installed.
 
I disagree with your definition of "meeting spec". You are conflating certification with specification. Very different. The specification relates to dimensions, surface hardness, ductility and so on. These cranks did not meet the specifications, regardless of where they were installed.

Did SAP ever claim that the experimental engine you bought for less money meets the specs of the certified engine? If not what makes you believe it should? If yes please proof. In fact didn’t you pay less which should be a strong indication to you that it doesn’t meet certified specs.

That’s the kind of questions you would get.

Oliver
 
Oliver - there is one detail you missed here, it just happens that some of the Superior cranks went into certified aircraft. ;)
 
Did SAP ever claim that the experimental engine you bought for less money meets the specs of the certified engine? If not what makes you believe it should? If yes please proof. In fact didn’t you pay less which should be a strong indication to you that it doesn’t meet certified specs.

That’s the kind of questions you would get.

Oliver

They claim to use FAA-PMA parts for the major components, wouldn't those parts be to certified spec?
 
Oliver - there is one detail you missed here, it just happens that some of the Superior cranks went into certified aircraft. ;)

In fact, the only failures documented to date have been in Lycoming certified engines in Cessna 172s.

The FAA says the remaining boundary layer formed in the nitriding process exceeds the manufacturer's specification in the PMA. However, Superior appears to have neither confirmed or denied this.
 
Oliver - there is one detail you missed here, it just happens that some of the Superior cranks went into certified aircraft. ;)

Just to be clear I was only talking about experimental engine in the US. What standards a certified engine has to meet is quite clear in the US and the FAA has spoken on that.

Experimental engines only have to meet the standard the manufacturer explicitly states they meet when sold. The fact that the parts are made by the same manufacturer or on the same assembly line as certified parts is not really relevant.

I have no idea what SAP stated to the experimental buyer. If you have a paper trail where they voluntarily claimed that there experimental parts meet certified standards that would be great.

Oliver
 
Just to be clear I was only talking about experimental engine in the US. What standards a certified engine has to meet is quite clear in the US and the FAA has spoken on that.

Experimental engines only have to meet the standard the manufacturer explicitly states they meet when sold. The fact that the parts are made by the same manufacturer or on the same assembly line as certified parts is not really relevant.

I have no idea what SAP stated to the experimental buyer. If you have a paper trail where they voluntarily claimed that there experimental parts meet certified standards that would be great.

Oliver

Superior make it very clear to the buyers and prospective customers of the XP series aircraft engines that they should feel no less confident about the product, by making the following statement on their website.

SAP direct quote:Standard XP-320 and XP-360 Engines are made with brand new parts. The same parts used to build our 180-horsepower FAA-certified Vantage Engine. When you choose an XP-Engine you are truly getting factory engine quality at a homebuilt price.

We are just about to re-fly our 50-hour old RV-8 after finishing up the engine removal/rebuild/refit works. Here in the UK (like JakeJ mentioned in post 153 about the Australian regulations) we would not have been able to get a renewed Permit to fly for the aircraft without complying with the AD, so a rebuild was necessary, and as there was no AMOC, that meant buying a new crankshaft.
 
Did SAP ever claim that the experimental engine you bought for less money meets the specs of the certified engine? If not what makes you believe it should? If yes please proof. In fact didn’t you pay less which should be a strong indication to you that it doesn’t meet certified specs.
Are you a lawyer for Superior? :)

Since we're going all legal and everything...

The only universal difference between an engine sold as "experimental" and one sold for a certified airplane is the absence of the Type Certificate data plate, which is the manufacturer's proof that the engine design has been certified by the FAA. Any replacement part for that engine has to meet the same standards as the original, which is why the FAA issues Parts Manufacturing Approval (PMA) and is how Superior makes a lot of their money - selling PMA'd replacement parts.

If these AD'd crankshafts have "FAA PMA" marked on them, and mine does (along with almost ever other part in the engine), that's Superior's legally-required statement that the part meets the specifications for a certified engine. There's your proof.

I don't know how Lycoming, ECi or Superior do the math that justifies lower prices for experimental engines, but it's hard to believe that it would be less expensive to create an entirely separate production and inspection process for non-PMA parts. Apparently it isn't, else these companies wouldn't be putting PMA'd parts in their experimental products.

ds
 
Last edited:
Its been 45 days since AMOC submission

Apparently the DER returned the AMOC submission to Superior for "editing" ... SAP STILL doesn't have their act together on this.
 
Last edited:
News from Rhonda Barrett: AMOC Submitted Today

I just heard from Rhonda, who just spoke to Bill Ross on the phone. Bill and the President of Superior met with the FAA Representative today; they made a couple changes to the AMOC and it was submitted today. They believe it is very close to being approved. Rhonda asked Bill if it was ok to share this information and he gave her the green light.
 
Gonna rant ...

I find it amazing that Superior Air Parts makes no effort to keep us informed on this AD and their proposed AMOC.
Not once have they took the initiative to contact me by phone , email, or letter, since this all began.
Its always me trying to contact them, often with no response.
What company operates like this?
January 15 was a long time ago .. and I'm starting to feel like we're all getting screwed...
 
absolutely getting the shaft

My engine has about 32 hrs on it. I've now paid for (in cash) a brand new engine, over $5k for a new crank and it will cost another $5k to install the new crank with needed seals and gaskets. This equals a premium price for an engine from a company that has offered no customer service what so ever. Oh, they did pocket my cash rather quickly. I really don't like bad mouthing a company BUT this lack of customer service should make the next guy think twice before doing business with them.
BTW, the way I read the AD it talks about a crankshaft with specific part numbers and within a specific serial number range. If yours is in that group then the AD is talking about your crank. I know it doesn't technically apply to our RVs but it does address the crankshaft which, to me, seems like some legal mumbo jumbo but that's not the point. It does address a specific crankshaft series.period.
Sorry for the rant...I tend to get long winded when trying to avoid potty mouth.
danny
 
I don't have a dog (crank) in this fight, but read about 15 documents in the FAA docket. This thing seems pretty clear up to lack of a final resolution.

Summary:
1. Met analysis says white layer can reduce fatigue life. And it is present.
2. SAP says that is ok. It meets the PMA spec.
3. FAA: BTW Lycoming specs don't allow white layer.
4. FAA says (to SAP) prove it is not a factor. Meaning (interpretation) fatigue test some cranks, show me the data.
5. SAP says ECi processed these cranks and they meet the PMA
6. FAA says, but ECI changed the processing, so again - show me it is OK.
7. There have been 3 failures (so far)in this batch of 200. Not acceptable to FAA. Cranks should not fail.


Opinion - -it seems if the cranks are ground another .001" (.002"diameter) then the white layer would be gone and there would be no question of the fatigue life, but then it would require under size bearings.

I expected to find some ambiguity in the docket group, but it did not seem to be there.

A Weibull projection of failures was not done (by me), but considering it unlikely that any of these 200 have reached TBO then it is highly likely that more would be failing - and appropriate to ground/replace any crank in this serial range. As an engineer, this would be standard practice.

It seems a very tough situation for SAP to find a path for the financial future of the company without compromising functional life of the parts (i.e. reliability/confidence).

END

If this is wrong, please correct it.
If it is inflammatory or breaks the rules, delete it.
 
It seems a very tough situation for SAP to find a path for the financial future of the company without compromising functional life of the parts (i.e. reliability/confidence).

It seems that most everyone was okay with the recommended fix. Even if Superior replaced the cranks I truly find it hard to believe that that would of wrecked them financially.

I can tell you that lack of future engine sales will hurt them more. I’m betting that I’m not the only one when I say “for my next/current build Superior is no longer even close to being on the engine menu!”

Long story short their handling of this has absolutely wrecked their reputation. At least in my eyes.
 
6. FAA says, but ECI changed the processing, so again - show me it is OK.

As far as I know, the OEM or PMA suppliers cannot change the process control spec on any part without first consulting the FAA.

On one of Lycoming's crank debacles in years past, they had changed the press used to install crank gears to one with about 10 times the pressure capability and the guy installing them used much higher force once the gear met the shoulder. Cracks resulted and I can't recall if the gears or cranks broke in service.

Seemingly insignificant changes to a vetted manufacturing or assembly process can have far reaching and expensive consequences sometimes.
 
Long story short their handling of this has absolutely wrecked their reputation. At least in my eyes.

Absolutely. They've lost hundreds of repeat and new customers with this action. Their cost might have been around $5-8K per customer (wholesale parts and labor) to get these fixed ASAP. They could have written off the expense to warranty replacement and moved on without losing many customers.

The dragged out saga will potentially cost them tens of millions in lost future revenues.

The folks in Texas are probably not calling the shots on this one IMO, more likely the owners in Beijing, given how this has played out.
 
Long story short their handling of this has absolutely wrecked their reputation. At least in my eyes.[/QUOTE]

I will never consider a Superior engine for any of my planes. This has also lowered the resale value of any plane with a Superior engine.
 
I honestly don’t think it has lowered the value of any plane with a Superior engine. I know this is frustrating but a few years back Lycoming had their own crank shaft problem. ECI had their cylinder problems. And throughout the history of planes there has been problems. Cessna seat latches, piper spars. Beech 18
Spar straps it goes on and on.
Cessna conquest trim tab failures that resulted in 3 aircraft going down no survivors.

If this and I am very hopeful gets resolved. We will be fine.

If there were more documented cases on file with the feds I would be worried.
I have heard and that is what it is,of a couple planes that had engine failures but they did not report them. One was supposedly one of the pilots with Falcon flight.
I know none of the details. What happen or what was found. But as far as the FAA rep who is reviewing the AMOC when he gets it,he has stated in July18th there are still only have 3 documented cases. All in Cessna 172S models and all in training environments. No injuries.

I am not going to rely on opinions that are not documented with out knowing facts. If folks want to hide the facts what else is being hidden on all model aircraft. Planes that get damaged and moved to the back of hangers to become dust collectors, accidents never reported because folks are afraid of what might happen. That is fact and it does happen a lot

A recent RV7 sold half for 70,000 making the aircraft retail at 140K. I know the owners and their happy campers. It is a good aircraft.

Saw an RV8 for sale for 130,000 in barnstormers. Prices like this were unheard of 5-7 years ago for an RV.

So enjoy flying. And let’s hope something gets resolved on this issue

Jack
 
Did SAP ever claim that the experimental engine you bought for less money meets the specs of the certified engine? If not what makes you believe it should? If yes please proof. In fact didn’t you pay less which should be a strong indication to you that it doesn’t meet certified specs.

That’s the kind of questions you would get.

Oliver

Late reply but, again you are conflating specification with certification. The cranks had exactly the same specification regardless of whether or not they were installed in a certified engine.

Specification != certification. Period. End of story.
 
The FAA says the remaining boundary layer formed in the nitriding process exceeds the manufacturer's specification in the PMA. However, Superior appears to have neither confirmed or denied this.

Which of course is neither here nor there...
 
Which of course is neither here nor there...

Like your quip?

SAP's official position seems to be to pretend it never happened. Compare that to the XP-400 buy back. ---> That's the point in case you needed it spelled out!
 
Thinking seriously of putting my Superior IO360 in storage until new crankshafts becomes available, or the AMOC is approved, and then sell it.
Bite the bullet now and buy an equivalent Lycoming. My only hesitation is that as soon as I spend the money, Superior will get their act together and the AMOC will be approved.
But the thought of wasting another year on this fiasco is unthinkable.
 
My latest news is no news. Emailed Rhonda at Barrett; she responded quickly saying she was going to email Bill Ross today and would get back to me when she heard something. Just checked; no response yet. By my count, the FAA response period expires next Monday.
To respond to BillL, "this crankshaft" is a bit of a misnomer. There were selected crankshafts in a production run that were affected. The affected crankshafts are supposedly the only ones; any crankshafts after that should not be affected.
Yeah... I said "should". Affected customers have earned the right to be cynical.
 
I was just wondering, the AD only affected a specific range but I assumed a single part number. Sometimes numbers are changed after something like this to prevent future confusion. So, if the cranks were still being produced it seems like a small investment to just make enough replacements. I guess there is $10M in grounded airplanes compared to $300k (retail) in cranks, at least for the experimental side, the totals would be larger for certified. It just seems wrong for that many people to be waiting for so long. It would seem a group buy from Lycoming for 77 crankshafts might be a good business for their supply chain. Surely they don't operate at capacity, therefore volume would help their costs as well. If not, incremental costs could be higher. Field parts are typically 7 times higher than production costs, so maybe $650-750 each production cost? I take it that no one has gotten a Lycoming brand crank as replacement?

Anyway, that was my question about "this crankshaft" 1. being the batch and 2. being the specific part number design.
 
I called Penn Yan aircraft a Lycoming distributor.
Cost in June was 7200.
Two years ago they said about 4000

It is amazing how the price gouging goes
Jack
 
Don't blame the distributors

I called Penn Yan aircraft a Lycoming distributor.
Cost in June was 7200.
Two years ago they said about 4000

It is amazing how the price gouging goes
Jack

I've worked with Penn Yan on both of my engines and a neighbor has done so on at least a dozen - and probably more than that.

Accusing them of price gouging is more than a bit unfair. I have found them to be completely transparent and extremely competent. They are the world's oldest independent overhaul facility. I doubt they attained that longevity by treating customers badly.

If you want to direct your displeasure at anyone, I suggest you do so at Lycoming and not Penn Yan.
 
Last edited:
By my count, the 45 day FAA response time has expired. Rhonda at Barrett has heard nothing from Superior except what we've already heard: "We're very close. The AMOC has been submitted." Rhonda has no information contacts with the FAA. We have been led to believe that the AMOC final revision was submitted on September 2. Can anyone else in the group confirm any of this with the FAA? Smilin' Jack, perhaps? This silence is deafening.
 
The situation now just confirms my opinion in previous posts & Superior Beijing/USA will not have their AMOC approved. Why ? After the FAA was petitioned by AOPA & Superior the FAA 'held off' with the AD & conducted extensive & a careful study of the crankshaft breaking & metallurgy issue.
Then the FINAL AD was issued on 15th January this year. Does anyone really think the AMOC was ever going to be approved after all the research the FAA did?
I suggest the whole exercise was just a stonewalling tactic & that many affected owners would move on and make other arrangements. Since the 15th January all we have heard is there is an AMOC in the works & apparently that was just more lies. Now we have a situation where , if you can buy a new Lycon crank, the price has increased significantly as well as all the other parts associated with the engine strip down/rebuild. I understand that a new Lycon crank will not be available until at least another 6 months from now - forget about a new Superior one as they are unable to supply & it isn't known if they can until some significant time into to future, if ever.
Like others have suggested - I will also never buy any Superior products againas the stalling, lies, refusal to answer emails & frustration caused by their inaction has just been too painful.
My engine is finally back together again (with a used Lyc crank) partly due to our consumer laws however I feel for those of you in the USA or others who imported direct from the States as you probably will not be recompensed.
What a mess this whole sad story has been & for what - only 215 affected engines. They did the 'right thing' with the XP400 engines but lost the plot this time IMO. Superior, I think your brand has been damaged beyond repair this time, but what would I know?
 
As to the 45 day thing mentioned above ...
I know for for certain, from Bill Ross at Superior, that the local DAR and Superior were still going back and forth with revisions to the AMOC submission on OCT. 6 ..That's the game Superior plays. Bill Ross told me to my face at Oshkosh that the AMOC submission was submitted then.
Maybe its finally submitted now, but who knows. I don't trust him, or anyone at Superior to tell me the truth anymore.
 
It is amazing how the price gouging goes

I've worked with Penn Yan on both of my engines and a neighbor has done so on at least a dozen - and probably more than that.

Accusing them of price gouging is more than a bit unfair. I have found them to be completely transparent and extremely competent. They are the world's oldest independent overhaul facility. I doubt they attained that longevity by treating customers badly.

If you want to direct your displeasure at anyone, I suggest you do so at Lycoming and not Penn Yan.
I concur with Krea about everything except blaming Lycoming. I bought a Lyc crank last June when the merde started flying on this AD/AMOC and if the price Jack quoted is correct, it's actually gone down a little over the last year.

This is a straight-up issue of supply and demand. From talking with my engine builder, with ECi out of the picture there's one maker of PMA'd -360 cranks and even Lycoming subs out to them - and we won't go into COVID-related supply chain disruptions. You do the math.

ds
 
Last edited:
Back
Top