IO550 Camshaft Gear SB - If becomes AD, Then Costly

[gsengle]

Great thanks for the update...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kortopates]

All of you should have gotten this by now, but here is Mike's update:

update-for-continental-520550-owners

[Simon]

" It is actually not necessary to split the case in order to replace the camshaft gear. It is necessary to pull the engine from the aircraft, mount it on a stand, and remove the oil sump, starter adapter and fuel pump. But the gear replacement can be accomplished without disassembling the engine further. In the case of Permold-style engines, some minor machining of the crankcase is required to accommodate the new-style thicker gear, but that can also be accomplished without major engine disassembly."

Any guesses to how much this work would cost?  It sure helps to know the case doesn't need to be split.

-s

 

[peevee]

1 hour ago, Simon said:

" It is actually not necessary to split the case in order to replace the camshaft gear. It is necessary to pull the engine from the aircraft, mount it on a stand, and remove the oil sump, starter adapter and fuel pump. But the gear replacement can be accomplished without disassembling the engine further. In the case of Permold-style engines, some minor machining of the crankcase is required to accommodate the new-style thicker gear, but that can also be accomplished without major engine disassembly."

Any guesses to how much this work would cost?  It sure helps to know the case doesn't need to be split.

-s

 

I have been quoted 17k to remove the engine and overhaul a mount on a 231, the mount was only about 2k, the rest was labor.

[Simon]

31 minutes ago, peevee said:

I have been quoted 17k to remove the engine and overhaul a mount on a 232, the mount was only about 2k, the rest was labor.

Holey Moley.  Thanks a lot more than I expected.

 

[DonMuncy]

40 minutes ago, peevee said:

I have been quoted 17k to remove the engine and overhaul a mount on a 232, the mount was only about 2k, the rest was labor.

For easy figuring, assume $100 per hour. 150 hours to remove and rehang an engine. That is almost 4 guys working full time for a week.

[kortopates]

15 hours ago, peevee said:

I have been quoted 17k to remove the engine and overhaul a mount on a 231, the mount was only about 2k, the rest was labor.

It shouldn't take anywhere near that. I am about the slowest mechanic there is and it took me a about a week to re-hang the engine with a full engine analyzer to reconnect. 1/3 to half that to pull it. The shop that quoted you that much obviously didn't want the work.

 

[peevee]

29 minutes ago, kortopates said:

It shouldn't take anywhere near that. I am about the slowest mechanic there is and it took me a about a week to re-hang the engine with a full engine analyzer to reconnect. 1/3 to half that to pull it. The shop that quoted you that much obviously didn't want the work.

 

We'll bring our plane to you to get the cam done

They did want the work. That was the problem. Took the plane to Maxwell and he said they were crazy, mount was fine.

[kortopates]

We'll bring our plane to you to get the cam done

I'd suggest checking with Western Skyways for your area. Ask for Ryan Dickerson.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[peevee]

28 minutes ago, kortopates said:

I'd suggest checking with Western Skyways for your area. Ask for Ryan Dickerson.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wouldn't take a plane to Western. Locally their reputation is terrible.

[kortopates]

I wouldn't take a plane to Western. Locally their reputation is terrible.

I don't have any direct personal experience but as one of the largest, if not biggest, economical engine rebuilders I have heard lots of happy customers and suspect some of negativity you hear comes with the territory. But anyone that does lots of work like that is going to give you a much better estimate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Simon]

This morning I emailed Mike Busch of Savvy Aviation directly with a couple of questions related to this issue.

Here is his reply verbatim:

Simon, I would not let this MSB deter you from purchasing the Eagle. For one thing, after the teleconference we had with the FAA last Friday, I'm cautiously optimistic that they will issue an AD we can live with, hopefully mandating gear replacement only at overhaul or when the case is split for some other reason. Worst case, the AD will mandate replacing the gear without splitting the case, estimated cost perhaps $5,000. The FAA was quite clear that they have no intention of mandating MSB05-8B as currently written, and indicated that they actually expect Continental to revise the MSB to make it less onerous. Personally, I do not believe that an AD is warranted, as we've been living with these camshaft gears for four decades or more and nothing has changed to cause them suddenly to be a serious safety issue. These engines can fail in lots of ways, and it looks to me as if camshaft gear failure is one of the rarest. We will be making that case strongly to the FAA before they convene their CARB and decide what to do. --Mike

 

[carusoam]

Who is going to represent the Mooney owners?

Best regards,

-a-

[peevee]

5 hours ago, carusoam said:

Who is going to represent the Mooney owners?

Best regards,

-a-

Sounds like Mike is doing a fine job of it. I should really join savvy MX.

[flight2000]

6 hours ago, carusoam said:

Who is going to represent the Mooney owners?

Best regards,

-a-

You'd think MAPA would have jumped on board with AOPA, American Bonanza Society, Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association, Saavy MX, and the Twin Cessna Association when they had a conference call with the FAA last week.  Little disappointed to hear they weren't there since a fair number of Mooney owners may be effected by this. 

At least there is enough horsepower in the groups listed above to be able to represent the rest.

Brian

[M20S Driver]

Looks like Savvy is leading the pack to challenge Continental's opportunistic move

Thanks Mike

Latest AVWEB Article on This Issue

[M20S Driver]

Here are two interesting posts from Beech talk by Karl Beutner:

==============================================================================================================

I have an IO-550 built in 1993 with its original cam gear. I recently found out that my cam gear is P/N 631845. I am not certain but I think that this is the predominant PN for cam gears prior to 1999. In at least one of the cam gear related threads at this site it is claimed that this PN gear has “never failed”, with no mention of the basis for this claim? I went to the FAA site and searched for SDRs with PN 631845 and the search yielded only one cracked gear report:
http://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/Query.aspx
In search of more data I Googled SDR and found this database site:
http://www.aviationdb.com/index.shtm
I did a search of SDRs with PN 631845 which yielded 14 SDRs which by my tally included 8 reports of broken teeth and 6 engine failures. So unless I am missing something it appears that this gear has failed and has resulted in engine failures?

============================================================================================================ 

I went back and looked at some details it looks like 8 or 9 of the reports were from twins and none in Bonanzas? Could just be small sample size but the high proportion in twins is at least interesting?

Also 14 events in over 40 year does make it a rare event

Only 2 in the past 17 years

And 10 of the 14 were prior to 1994

Date Of Report Operator Control Number Date Of Occurrence Aircraft Manufacturer Aircraft Group Code Aircraft Registration
1 Details 1975-06-05 Z197515600059 BEECH 55 69SF
2 Details 1977-03-09 Z197706800069 CESSNA 340 7622Q
3 Details 1977-05-18 Z197713800089 CESSNA 206 86642
4 Details 1978-09-21 Z197826400077 CESSNA 210 732BP
5 Details 1980-09-29 CE65198079337 BEECH 58 444SB
6 Details 1980-12-02 CE65198082489 BEECH 58 444SB
7 Details 1987-03-17 WP138773458 1987-01-27 CESSNA 402 44402
8 Details 1988-02-24 NE638874375 1988-01-21 CESSNA 210 7326A
9 Details 1989-02-23 WP258975440 1989-01-31 CESSNA 210 3599P
10 Details 1992-11-04 92ZZZX10210 1992-10-12
11 Details 1994-05-23 94ZZZW1891 1994-04-11 CESSNA 402 4055Q
12 Details 2000-11-29 20000831SH017 2000-08-10 BEECH 95 22EW
13 Details 2000-12-07 AU000756 2000-08-29 CESSNA 206  
14 Details 2010-12-15 2010FA0001173 2010-10-11 BEECH 55 9580Q

[kortopates]

Its truly amazing how fast paced this issue has been. The above AVWEB article, just out, is already old news. The gossip part about CMI's reaction is still relevant, but the meat of the issue is even more improved by the letter that CMI just published and Mike forwarded to all our Savvy clients and subscribers. Its pretty clear Mike B is getting everything he asked for and CMI is doing damage control, see the numbered bullets 1-3 for what CMI says they are updating the MSB too. Although this isn't entirely over, the battle is and GA won this one.

Most of you probably received this from Continental, but I wanted to make sure you all saw it. It's pretty clear that Continental is going to be walking back the compliance requirements of MSB05-8B. Apparently they underestimated the reaction to their MSB. Encouraging. --Mike 

Begin forwarded message:

From: Continental Motors Group <edavidson@cmg.aero>
Date: April 20, 2017 at 3:02:16 PM PDT
To: Michael Busch <mike.busch@savvyaviation.com>
Subject: Important Communication from Continental Motors regarding MSB05-8B
Reply-To: Continental Motors Group <edavidson@cmg.aero>

View this email in your browser

Important Communication from Continental Motors® regarding MSB05-8B  Press Release Mobile (AL, USA), April 20, 2017—Continental Motors Group, an AVIC International Holding Corporation company, made the following announcement today: The publication of MSB05-8B has caused much speculation in the last few days. Some communications sent to the General Aviation Media community or directly to owners may have caused some confusion. Continental Motors® and the FAA are working as fast as possible to make sure that, while ensuring the highest levels of safety, owners and operators of aircraft equipped with Continental engines will not be burdened with unnecessary costs. In 2005, Continental Motors® superseded Cam Gears P/N’s 631845, 655430, 655516, or 656031 with a new part, P/N 656818. Continental Motors® issued Service Bulletin SB05-8 recommending the replacement of the older design parts at the next overhaul or when the gear is accessible. Production of parts P/N 631845, 655430, 655516, or 656031 was discontinued in August 2005, and since then, only the P/N 656818 was produced and installed in factory new or factory rebuilt engines manufactured by the Continental Motors® factory and sold as spares. In July 2009, SB97-6 (Mandatory Parts Replacement at Overhaul) reiterated the need to change the parts mentioned above with the new design parts. In late 2016 and early 2017, as part of the ongoing FAA Continued Operational Safety program, reports of camshaft gear fractures were provided to the FAA. A statistical assessment was accomplished by the FAA, and the initial data indicated an AD was merited. The FAA then asked CMG to reformat the current bulletin into a format compatible with FAA AC 20-176 to facilitate an AD. Continental Motors® subsequently superseded SB05-8A by MSB05-8B at the FAA request. Continental Motors® is working diligently with the FAA to make significant amendments to MSB05-8B. We expect this to happen in the next 15 days. Our team is working on three main issues to alleviate the burden potentially imposed on aircraft owners and operators: Change the mandatory replacement of the camshaft gear to a visual inspection procedure allowing “on condition” operation until the engine is overhauled, replaced, or the gear is accessible. Change the time limit imposed by MSB05-8B, to values that still ensure that the appropriate level of safety is attained, but does not dictate a mandatory overhaul time limit. Publish alternative means of compliance, to allow camshaft gear replacement without complete engine disassembly.  Background information Which engines are affected?  The following engine models are potentially affected: IO-470-U, V IO-520-A, B, BA, BB, C, CB, D, E, F, J, K, L, M, MB, N, NB, P, R L/TSIO-520-ALL LIO-520-P IO-550-A, B, C, D, E, F, G, L, N, P, R IOF-550-B, C, D, E, F, L, N, P, R TSIO-550-A, B, C, E TSIOL-550-A, B, C Engines manufactured or rebuilt at the Continental Motors factory after August 9, 2005, are not affected as the new design part was installed since that date, unless the cam gear in the engine has been replaced during a maintenance event with an earlier, superseded gear. How do I know if my engine is affected? After checking the list of models potentially affected, please verify the following: My engine was manufactured or rebuilt by the Continental Motors®factory after August 9, 2005. Your engine is not affected, if the cam gear was not replaced during other maintenance since the engine left the factory. My engine was manufactured or rebuilt by the Continental Motors®factory before August 9, 2005. Only engines manufactured or rebuilt at the Continental Motors® Factory before August 9, 2005, are potentially impacted by MSB05-8B. Inspect logbook or other paperwork for indication of replacement of part numbers 631845, 655430, 655516, or 656031 by P/N 656818. If evidence is found that the original gear (P/N 631845, 655430, 655516, or 656031) was replaced by P/N 656818, follow instructions in MSB-05-8B. If no evidence of parts 655430, 655516, or 656031 replacement is found: Use inspection instructions of MSB05-8B to determine the part number of the camshaft gear installed. Use the part number found to determine if replacement is necessary or not and follow instructions in MSB-05-8. My engine was manufactured or rebuilt by the Continental Motors® factory before August 9, 2005, and has been field overhauled since that date, or the case has been disassembled for any reason for a field repair. Inspect logbook or other paperwork for indication of replacement of part numbers 631845, 655430, 655516, or 656031 by P/N 656818. If evidence is found that the original gear (P/N 631845, 655430, 655516, or 656031) was replaced by P/N 656818, document in logbook, no further action required. If no evidence of parts 655430, 655516, or 656031 replacement is found: Use inspection instructions of MSB05-8B to determine the part number of the camshaft gear installed. Use the part number found todetermineif replacement is necessary or not and follow instructions in MSB-05-8. Why issue an MSB mandating compliance within 12 years of manufacturing date? Continental Motors® has always indicated that engines should be overhauled when reaching 12 years after manufacturing, factory rebuild or field overhaul or after reaching the TBO set for the engine. Although many owners operating under PART 91 choose not to observe this, we stand behind this recommendation. There are many parts, metallic or not (gaskets, O-rings etc.) that age with the engine. These parts need replacement after time in service or because age can modify their structure. The certification process ensures that an engine reaching TBO will not be adversely affected by engine run time or because of the aging of some materials. The fact that many planes are not hangared and are parked on a ramp, some in hot and humid or maritime climates, is also a factor to consider in the aging of airframes and engines. Has Continental Motors® requested the FAA to issue an AD on this subject? No. The FAA COS team reviewed the data related to these gear reports and performed statistical analysis. Their analysis showed that an AD was warranted and the FAA requested that CMG rewrite the related service bulletin in a format corresponding to FAA AC 20-176 to support the pending AD activity. Continental Motors® never requested the FAA to issue an AD. Is it by design that Continental Motors® issued MSB05-8B twelve years after issuing SB05-8? No. The fact that twelve years have passed between the original issuance of SB05-8 and MSB05-8B is purely coincidental.    # # # AVIC International Holding Corporation was set up in 1979, with majority shares owned by Aviation Industries of China (AVIC). Headquartered in Beijing, the assets of AVIC International represent up to 280 billion RMB. The company has over 100,000 employees across 400 subsidiaries, is located in over 60 countries, and possesses eight publicly listed companies. AVIC International is a well-diversified company, with holdings in International Civil Aviation, Trade & Logistics, Retail & High-end Consumables, Real Estate and Hotel Management, Electronics Manufacturing, and Natural Resource Development. More information can be found at www.avic-intl.cn. Continental Motors Group ™, Ltd. of Hong Kong, China is a subsidiary of AVIC International Holding Corporation of Beijing, China. Its mission is to provide advanced gasoline and Jet-A piston engine products, spare parts, engine and aircraft services, avionics equipment and repairs as well as pilot training for the general aviation marketplace. Continental is an international operation employing approximately 460 team members in Mobile, Fairhope and Miami, USA; 200 team members in St. Egidien, Germany; and 8 team members in Beijing, China. More information can be found at www.continentalmotors.aero.       Contacts:       Emmanuel Davidson   +1-251-436-8623   +336-4823-5559   edavidson@cmg.aero       Video : Continental Motors, a century of innovation   Video : The Aviators : How does Continental Motors manufactures engines?   Video : Avweb "How does Continental Motors manufactures Diesel Engines?"   Follow us on Facebook Continental Motors Web Site

Copyright © 2017 Continental Motors Group, All rights reserved. You are registered as aviation media in our media listing. You can choose to opt-out of this listing at any moment. Our mailing address is: Continental Motors Group 2039 broad street Mobile, Al 36615 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences

Edited April 21, 2017 by kortopates

[carusoam]

Paul,

Thank you for posting the details.

My connection to the CMI factory seems to have come loose. I have not received the emails or snail mails regarding this.

I get all kinds of junk mail with my tail number and M20R on it...

Best regards,

-a-

[flight2000]

I find this part especially troublesome and funny at the same time:

""""My engine was manufactured or rebuilt by the Continental Motors^®factory before August 9, 2005.

Only engines manufactured or rebuilt at the Continental Motors® Factory before August 9, 2005, are potentially impacted by MSB05-8B.

Inspect logbook or other paperwork for indication of replacement of part numbers 631845, 655430, 655516, or 656031 by P/N 656818. If evidence is found that the original gear (P/N 631845, 655430, 655516, or 656031) was replaced by P/N 656818, document in logbook, no further action required.

If no evidence of parts 655430, 655516, or 656031 replacement is found: Use inspection instructions of MSB05-8B to determine the part number of the camshaft gear installed. Use the part number found to determine if replacement is necessary or not and follow instructions in MSB-05-8.""""

Their own customer service reps have been horrible on the phone when trying to reach out for assistance to find this exact information for my engine.  I had an unpleasant exchange with a rep as I was trying to simply figure out what was included in my 1994 Factory Engine since my logbook does not include a comprehensive list of everything.  The only thing the grumpy dude on the other end of the phone could spout out was I was over the 12 year overhaul limit and needed a complete overhaul done.  Wouldn't help me at all...  

CMI is doing nothing but back pedaling at this point in my eyes.  If the FAA was truly driving this AD, don't you think they would have included CMI in the discussion with the other organizations?  If they have limited failures on two specific part numbers produced between 1999-2005, why are they recalling all parts that are not the latest version and why wait 12 years to make it a MSB?  Even in their press release above, it identifies and then leaves out part 631845 in the part I quoted and placed in bold...???  They are not doing a good job of supplying the entire picture and their technical writers are not doing themselves any favors. 

This whole thing just stinks....Maybe their CEO should run for United's opening next year since he is following their playbook for PR disasters...

Cheers,

Brian

Edited April 22, 2017 by flight2000

[Seth]

On 4/19/2017 at 8:55 AM, peevee said:

Sounds like Mike is doing a fine job of it. I should really join savvy MX.

Me too

[Seth]

My IO550A installed in the Missile in 1997 or 1998 was field overhauled in 2011.  I will check with Bolduc in MN to see if that part was reused or if it was replaced with the newer thicker part as it should have been as part of a factory overhaul.

Are field overhauls required to replace the parts as well?

 

-Seth

[Jeff_S]

I know the airworthiness date for my plane is August 2006, but there's nothing in my engine logs which states the date of engine manufacture. Is there an automated way to check that with CMI, or do I just have to call them? 

[Simon]

1 hour ago, Jeff_S said:

I know the airworthiness date for my plane is August 2006, but there's nothing in my engine logs which states the date of engine manufacture. Is there an automated way to check that with CMI, or do I just have to call them? 

You can get the customer service number off their website.

[Seth]

Any updates on this SB potentially becoming an AD?