Continental Camshaft Gear - Critical Service Bulletin 05-8D

[Mooney 217RN]

My annual inspection was just completed, and on the squawk list is CSB05-8D.  This requires the inspection of the camshaft gear on a multitude of TCM engines, including mine, an IO-550G.  In my case, the engine just missed the cutoff date by a few months on the manufacturing line.  Total bummer.

I did some research on this and there was a thread here 5 years ago about this Service Bulletin.  Haven't seen anything more recent.

Does anyone have any feedback or opinion on this matter?  I am surprised it was never an issue on prior inspections, because the plane is affected based on the manufacture date of the engine.  It's never come up before, hence my curiosity.  

As there's no lack of opinions here on MooneySpace, I am seeking the same 

CSB05-8D.pdf

[carusoam]

When it was a hot topic years ago…

Everyone checked their engine details…. Based on serial numbers and date of manufacture…

Since then… this only comes up during PPIs…

If your engine has a bad cam…

Its not a Lycoming… so it’s case doesn’t need to come apart…

So…

If you are just finding out about this now…

Expect a hassle, part acquisition and cost….

Getting installed….

 

If you have only owned this plane for a few years, you probably missed the hubbub…

If your PPI missed the AD search… who did the search, and how did they miss it?

 

Expensive miss, but not lethal…

Things like this make the PPI worth the price!  

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic…

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Mooney 217RN]

5 minutes ago, carusoam said:

When it was a hot topic years ago…

Everyone checked their engine details…. Based on serial numbers and date of manufacture…

Since then… this only comes up during PPIs…

If your engine has a bad cam…

Its not a Lycoming… so it’s case doesn’t need to come apart…

So…

If you are just finding out about this now…

Expect a hassle, part acquisition and cost….

Getting installed….

 

If you have only owned this plane for a few years, you probably missed the hubbub…

If your PPI missed the AD search… who did the search, and how did they miss it?

 

Expensive miss, but not lethal…

Things like this make the PPI worth the price!  

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic…

Best regards,

-a-

 

My date of manufacture on the engine is April of 2005.  That really, truly sucks.  The PPI did not note this in the AD's, I didn't own the plane when this topic was hotly discussed, I purchased it less than a year later (May 2018).  Very low time on aircraft/engine.  This is the first time this matter came up.  And this is not an AD, which is probably why it didn't come up in the PPI.  I am thinking inspect it, but don't just replace it, which requires pulling the engine AND machining/modifying the case.

[carusoam]

13 hours ago, Mooney 217RN said:

And this is not an AD,

which is probably why it didn't come up in the PPI.  I am thinking inspect it, but don't just replace it, which requires pulling the engine AND machining/modifying the case.

I remember checking the numbers as it was a proposed AD… I don’t recall anything further… it was one and done… my engine was outside the proposed set of serial numbers…

If it isn’t an AD…. Or It didn’t become an AD?

Why would anyone follow something that turned into a nothing burger…?

In the modern world… of serial number traceability… which Continental is really good at…

When The AD is real… and your S/N is in the family… you get to follow the rules of that AD… or the rules that allow you a different route of escape…

I don’t think anyone decides to perform this AD solution when it doesn’t pertain specifically to their engine…  that would be too many methods of inviting maintenance induced goofiness…  without any benefit to the engine…

I know a few people that have strong memories and know the IO550 really well…

Let’s ask @M20Doc his thoughts and memories of what happened to the IO550 cam AD… (IO550 Cam gear AD from a few years ago… is that still live, or did it go away?)

If you inspect the cam gear and you find Continental failed at finishing the AD… that would be a whole new can of worms… wouldn’t it?

The proposed (?) AD had clear pics of what the casting issue was… and what was needed to not be a problem…

If your PPI did the proper AD search… expect that you are in good shape…

If concerned… if the AD is real, it will still be easy to look up…   May be easier for somebody else to look that up for you… 

 

Its highly likely that the casting problem wasn’t known about during certification… this gets people heated…

Once the casting problem is identified and determined to not be an issue… things may have settled out…

This would technically be a loss of manufacturing control…. Which is a different form of quality problem…
 

PP thoughts only… not a mechanic…

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Guest]

Most are being replaced during overhaul or when the engine is out for any other major repair.

Clarence

[Mooney 217RN]

Caruso, this is not an AD.  it was never an AD.  It was about to become an AD, but TCM and the FAA were talked down from it.  it is a "Critical Service Bulletin"

Edited March 21, 2022 by Mooney 217RN