E/AB engines

[Tom-D]

Let's start a new thread because the Prop Repair thread is way off the rails.

FAR45
(b) Aircraft engines. A manufacturer of an aircraft engine produced under a type certificate or production certificate must mark each engine by attaching a fireproof identification plate. Such plate—

If it was NOT built under a TC or PC Does it really need a data tag?
Site your reference.

 

[Bell206]

If it was NOT built under a TC or PC Does it really need a data tag?

No. Part 45.1--not applicable to non-certified engines.

 

[Tom-D]

No. Part 45.1--not applicable to non-certified engines.

I agree, Then?
If you build a non certified engine, install it in a E/AB how does any AD apply?

 

[Tom-D]

No. Part 45.1--not applicable to non-certified engines.

The Ranger would be a non-certified engine with out a data tag.

 

[Tom-D]

Let us say that I use a Lycoming Case that no longer meets its requirements to be a Lycoming case
just to say it has been lapped and line bored too many time and no longer meets the deck hight requirement.
If I use that case in a non certified build. that I must maintain it under 43 rules?
I don't think so.
Just to confuse the issue, Lycomings data tags are on the sump.

 

[Bell206]

I agree, Then? If you build a non certified engine, install it in a E/AB how does any AD apply?

The subtle fact you miss and do not separate out is how a particular engine started life. That is the key. The FAA views things quite simply "from birth to death." In the case of your Ranger 440, it started its life as a certified engine under a TC. As long as there is a connected lineage back to that original certification that engine is still considered a Ranger with the tag or not. In your Ranger's case, replacing various parts with tractor parts doesn't quite break that link. This is not my opinion but the FAA's. The references are out there but are buried and only come out during enforcement or administrative matters. This is no different than the discussion we had on that Super Cub airframe/wing repair.

Now if you go to Bubba's Air boat service and run across a Ranger case here and a crank there and build a 440 from parts with no direct link to the original certification then it will not be considered a Ranger no more. It might seem like splitting hairs but it is how the system works. The FAA considers that aviation certification system as a closed system. For example, when an aircraft rolls off the line it receives its original AWC. By virtue of the limits and conditions of that AWC 60 years later that same aircraft is automatically considered to conform to its Type Design/TC because everyone who worked on it followed the prescribed FARs. Regardless of the reality of that statement that is the premise of how the system works. This is also why the FAA has the burden of proof to show if you broke that system. Hence, in the case of your tractor-part Ranger engine, if the Feds can link it back to its original certification then technically those ADs could apply.

But there is a gray and confusing side to the AD vs E/AB debate even with the latest updated guidance. Per part 39, ADs are issued when an unsafe condition exists AND that condition could develop in other products of the same type design. Problem is no E/AB aircraft fall under a type design. So technically no ADs are applicable to E/AB aircraft. However, where they get you is on the "unsafe condition side" which is part of every E/AB Operating Limitations under their AWC: it must be in a condition for safe flight, i.e., the purpose of the yearly condition inspection. So if an AD's app statement says all Ranger 440 crankshafts you as the E/AB owner need to look into (the term often used is "address") the unsafe condition side of the AD as part your AWC requirements. The big change now is it becomes the burden of the E/AB owner to show how they dealt with the "unsafe condition" and not the FAA's.

It's definitely a goat rope, but the best way to beat the system is use a non-TC engine, non-aviation engine, destroy all links back to any certifications, or build from scratch with no link to a certification like the Supe XP engines. Popping the data tag off doesn't always give that separation.

 

[Bell206]

The Ranger would be a non-certified engine with out a data tag.

No. It no longer conforms to its certification. It's all in the details.

 

[Bell206]

If I use that case in a non certified build. that I must maintain it under 43 rules?

No such regulatory term as "non-certified build." Part 43 is not applicable to a E/AB discussion??

 

[Tom-D]

No such regulatory term as "non-certified build." Part 43 is not applicable to a E/AB discussion??

Then what the heck is a Superior X engine?

With out a data to make a connection the FAA has no connection to any engine.
Just because its green doesn't make it a John Deer.

 

[Tom-D]

No such regulatory term as "non-certified build."

It may not be written in FAA scripture, but it is well known in this forum.

 

[Bell206]

If I use that case in a non certified build.

If by "build" you mean it's an engine assembled from random parts, I'll concede that.

With out a data to make a connection the FAA has no connection to any engine.

Unfortunately, you would be surprised what the FAA has used to connect the dots between aircraft, parts, and people. Data tags are the most obvious.

It may not be written in FAA scripture, but it is well known in this forum

Well, I haven't been around here as long as you. But in my diverse experience this is the only place I've heard that term.

 

[wanttaja]

I agree, Then?
If you build a non certified engine, install it in a E/AB how does any AD apply?

Won't you have to remove the data tags from the magnetos, starter, alternator, too.....?

Ron Wanttaja

 

[hindsight2020]

Aren't Superior Engines just Lycoming clones sold under the premise they don't conform to a TC? Same as Continental's own venture into the Lycoming-clone business, under the Titan X series experimental variant of their TC'd Titan series (previously ECi). Lyco-clones which btw do have TC applications, such as the new "Archer trainer redux" by Piper.

This is all confusing as heck. On the one hand people say there's no such thing as an experimental engine. But then you look at Superior's XP engines and Contintenal's Titan X series engines, and they sure aren't TC, but not amateur built either.

I understand technically since they never got built by the factory from birth to conform to any TC, then it makes it technically exempt from ADs the same way a Subaru engine is exempt from ADs. But man, that's a really interesting hair-split, when it's pretty well advertised those engines cater almost exclusively to aviation applications and are nothing more than TC engines that get built at the factory with the wink and nod paperwork disclaimer they are not to be installed in TC airplanes.

And yet, didn't Superior enacted a mandatory recall of their XP-382 and XP-400 cu-in engines this year? So perhaps this whole "AD compliance" hairsplitting business is a distinction without difference after all.

And if the FAA can nail you for failure to "address" to their satisfaction (the experimental speak for "comply" in the AD ecosystem) these de-facto-AD, so-called non-TC components "service bulletins", then what the heck is the difference then? Advisory circulars not binding... but they de facto are. SB not ADs... but they de facto are. What a joke. I should have been a lawyer. Enough counter-interpretations to fund my own turbine flying .

 

[mondtster]

Aren't Superior Engines just Lycoming clones sold under the premise they don't conform to a TC? Same as Continental's own venture into the Lycoming-clone business, under the Titan X series experimental variant of their TC'd Titan series (previously ECi). Lyco-clones which btw do have TC applications, such as the new "Archer trainer redux" by Piper.

This is all confusing as heck. On the one hand people say there's no such thing as an experimental engine. But then you look at Superior's XP engines and Contintenal's Titan X series engines, and they sure aren't TC, but not amateur built either.

I understand technically since they never got built by the factory from birth to conform to any TC, then it makes it technically exempt from ADs the same way a Subaru engine is exempt from ADs. But man, that's a really interesting hair-split, when it's pretty well advertised those engines cater almost exclusively to aviation applications and are nothing more than TC engines that get built at the factory with the wink and nod paperwork disclaimer they are not to be installed in TC airplanes.

And yet, didn't Superior enacted a mandatory recall of their XP-382 and XP-400 cu-in engines this year? So perhaps this whole "AD compliance" hairsplitting business is a distinction without difference after all.

And if the FAA can nail you for failure to "address" to their satisfaction (the experimental speak for "comply" in the AD ecosystem) these de-facto-AD, so-called non-TC components "service bulletins", then what the heck is the difference then? Advisory circulars not binding... but they de facto are. SB not ADs... but they de facto are. What a joke. I should have been a lawyer. Enough counter-interpretations to fund my own turbine flying .

It’s only as confusing as you want to make it. Part 39 does not exempt E/AB aircraft or their components from having an AD against it. According to the local PMI, the FAA could issue an AD on anything if they wanted to. The FAA has simply elected to let the E/AB community police itself with service bulletins issued by the kit manufacturers.

As far as the engines go, removing the data tag from an engine may only make things harder for the owner and/or mechanic to determine what ADs apply and what doesn’t. Hopefully there is a good list of all the components used so it can be figured out with minimal work.

As Bell mentioned, the only way to completely free yourself of FAA/government telling you you must comply with an AD is to build an experimental and use an engine with no roots in aviation.

I did a lot of research on this subject prior to performing the first E/AB condition inspection I did. To me the requirements are relatively clear, but for many they are not, which I believe is partially due to misleading information from the EAA on the subject and because the actual answer isn’t what people really want to hear.

Edit: As far as I’m concerned, I think the S-LSA industry is far more of a mess when it comes to maintenance and inspections required, and determining the proper way to get things done. I think it will only get worse if/when the manufacturers quit supporting them or go out of business. At least there is an option to go to E-LSA.

 

[hindsight2020]

@mondtster What is the litmus test in order to determine to the FAAs satisfaction that the engine "had no roots in aviation"? honest question, that seems to me too vague to have any regulatory weight. At least it appears ripe for subjective interpretation by the many inconsistent FDSO critters that litter this land. It's not like we aren't aware of copious examples of FDSOs routinely contradicting each other.

At any rate. It seems clear to me that Superior and Continental both make Lycoming knock-offs that they specifically sell the experimental crowd under the auspices of "no TC conformity". But by my read of your regulatory description, the FAA could slap ADs against those engines because they are in fact being manufactured by aviation companies holding themselves out to the aviation market. Yet as you suggest, by the EAA critters interpretation, you're as good as home free by slapping one of these "never TC by birth" knock-offs into your RV or whatever. I'm not trying to be purposely obtuse, but it truly is confusing when the difference by your own admission, is some rando FAA employee interpretation of, by your own words, "no roots in aviation".

The last thing I saw relating to this that had any semblance of regulatory uniformity was AC 39-7D, and that itself is "just a circular". I'm not doubting your reasoning, matter of fact I happen to be more in the camp that suggests EAB is a lot less flexible than previously being given credit, especially when metal is bent. But you're ultimately just another SGOTI like me. What is the regulatory basis you cite in order to form your opinion, and where does one find the criteria of an engine that wouldn't be subject to the whims of the FAA. I'm not challenging you, I'm just asking.

 

[Bell206]

Aren't Superior Engines just Lycoming clones sold under the premise they don't conform to a TC?

No. That's only how they are marketed. Along with the comparison to the Vantage(?) series and the use of PMA parts. Make it what you want, but it's not that confusing as mentioned above. Unfortunately, a number of E/AB kits designs revolve around aviation-based engine designs, i.e., Lycoming/Continental. But in all fairness these were the only options available when most of these designs were first concocted many years ago. And if one tries to change out a "recommended" engine for one of these legacy kits you now run into the possibility you're Phase 1 or 2 time frame increases to 40 hours.

But man, that's a really interesting hair-split,

Exactly.

that get built at the factory with the wink and nod paperwork disclaimer they are not to be installed in TC airplanes.

But it's more than a "wink or nod." Part 3 was specifically created to define that "wink and nod" across the board in 2006.

 

[mondtster]

@mondtster What is the litmus test in order to determine to the FAAs satisfaction that the engine "had no roots in aviation"? honest question, that seems to me too vague to have any regulatory weight. At least it appears ripe for subjective interpretation by the many inconsistent FDSO critters that litter this land. It's not like we aren't aware of copious examples of FDSOs routinely contradicting each other.

At any rate. It seems clear to me that Superior and Continental both make Lycoming knock-offs that they specifically sell the experimental crowd under the auspices of "no TC conformity". But by my read of your regulatory description, the FAA could slap ADs against those engines because they are in fact being manufactured by aviation companies holding themselves out to the aviation market. Yet as you suggest, by the EAA critters interpretation, you're as good as home free by slapping one of these "never TC by birth" knock-offs into your RV or whatever. I'm not trying to be purposely obtuse, but it truly is confusing when the difference by your own admission, is some rando FAA employee interpretation of, by your own words, "no roots in aviation".

What you are asking for is the exact premise behind this thread. As far as I know, there is not an absolute answer. But what I am referring to with my “no roots in aviation” statement is something along the lines of a VW, Corvair, Subaru, GM V8, etc. The FAA could still issue an AD on one of those engines too if they wanted to, as it does not appear that a TC is a requirement to create an AD. As I mentioned before, the FAA has simply elected to stay out of that area of aviation.

Regarding the aftermarket Lycoming clones, as Bell pointed out there are PMA parts in them. When you and I discussed this last time, one of the ADs I pointed you toward was an aftermarket cylinder AD (I believe for Superior cylinders). That AD applies to that cylinder regardless of what it is installed on.

So with all these engines, you need to know what components are in them because you’re going to need to search to determine if each component is ok or not. This does not stop at engines and components either. There are popular avionics used in both TCd and E/AB airplanes that have had ADs against them. You’d need to comply with those ADs as well, if they apply.

 

[hindsight2020]

What you are asking for is the exact premise behind this thread. As far as I know, there is not an absolute answer. But what I am referring to with my “no roots in aviation” statement is something along the lines of a VW, Corvair, Subaru, GM V8, etc. The FAA could still issue an AD on one of those engines too if they wanted to, as it does not appear that a TC is a requirement to create an AD. As I mentioned before, the FAA has simply elected to stay out of that area of aviation.

Regarding the aftermarket Lycoming clones, as Bell pointed out there are PMA parts in them. When you and I discussed this last time, one of the ADs I pointed you toward was an aftermarket cylinder AD (I believe for Superior cylinders). That AD applies to that cylinder regardless of what it is installed on.

So with all these engines, you need to know what components are in them because you’re going to need to search to determine if each component is ok or not. This does not stop at engines and components either. There are popular avionics used in both TCd and E/AB airplanes that have had ADs against them. You’d need to comply with those ADs as well, if they apply.

Thank you for the clarification. It is now clear to me EAB has a lot less operational flexibility than I previously understood. The "savings" now seem specious to me. Essentially we're being allowed to hang ourselves with one's own lack of paperwork, whenever the FAA decides to go "gun cross on" and make an example out of an EABer. Yikes.

I will say, the price differential on these aftermarket engines are still of consequence, and may just pay for the extra mx of keeping things de facto "certified" on the paperwork and AP labor cost front. Lord knows Lycoming is not selling 360s for what Superior is.

Good info all around. At least I think I figured out the answer based on your post. That certainly is an answer many EABers wouldn't particularly like for the obvious reasons. Thanks again!

 

[kyleb]

Thank you for the clarification. It is now clear to me EAB has a lot less operational flexibility than I previously understood. The "savings" now seem specious to me.

The savings are real. In EAB, you may do your own work. You may use non-certified parts - homebrew ignitions, auto plugs, aftermarket fuel injection, turbocharging, alternators, starters, exhausts, etc. Inside the engine, you're welcome to use con rods you machined yourself. You can ceramic coat your pistons. You can do a gazillion other things.

Whether you are legally required to comply with an AD on an engine in an experimental is a different kettle of fish. However, if the AD is viable, wouldn't you want to comply anyway? Let's say Lycoming shipped a bad bunch of cranks. I know, I know, that would never happen. ;-) But if you had one, wouldn't you want to fix the situation regardless of the legalities?

 

[mondtster]

Thank you for the clarification. It is now clear to me EAB has a lot less operational flexibility than I previously understood. The "savings" now seem specious to me. Essentially we're being allowed to hang ourselves with one's own lack of paperwork, whenever the FAA decides to go "gun cross on" and make an example out of an EABer. Yikes.

I will say, the price differential on these aftermarket engines are still of consequence, and may just pay for the extra mx of keeping things de facto "certified" on the paperwork and AP labor cost front. Lord knows Lycoming is not selling 360s for what Superior is.

Good info all around. At least I think I figured out the answer based on your post. That certainly is an answer many EABers wouldn't particularly like for the obvious reasons. Thanks again!

I wouldn’t let these discussions deter you from being interested in an E/AB. My personal observation has been that AD compliance is a very small cost in the overall cost of ownership, regardless of how the airplane is certified.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I take a pretty liberal approach when it comes to E/AB aircraft and what I think needs to be complied with. The neat thing is that we can really do most anything we want, without having to ask permission or pay a large fee to prove that the airplane is safe in that configuration. Don’t want magnetos? Great! That’s two fewer components we need to worry about researching and servicing. Ditto for custom exhaust, aftermarket fuel injection, experimental avionics, etc. Things become much easier, and the primary concern becomes if it is safe for continued operation.

 

[unsafervguy]

look at AD2012-03-06 here is what it says:

This AD applies to all Superior Air Parts, Lycoming Engines, and Continental Motors, Inc., fuel injected reciprocating engine models with an AVStar Fuel Systems, Inc. (AFS) fuel servo diaphragm, part number (P/N) AV2541801 or P/N AV2541803, installed.

notice it says ALL engines. TC or not, so the xp series falls under this AD. the fine line is assembling a frankesein engine is not manufacturing, its assembling. as bell206 points out, its who made the part in the first place that counts to the FAA. if you build a engine using a lycoming crank in a franklin case and the FAA issues a AD on lycoming cranks, they will say it applies to your engine because it s a lycoming crank and the ad says all lycoming cranks. if it says all lycoming cranks in cessna airplane then it would not apply, but if all it says is all lycoming cranks with part number xxx then you deal with it.

 

[Tom-D]

Won't you have to remove the data tags from the magnetos, starter, alternator, too.....?

Ron Wanttaja

Good question but no, they are appliances not engines.

Same as the continental cylinder AD, it was not issued to an engine, but to an appliance.
it applies to any adaption it was used.

 

[Tom-D]

As to the Superior X engines
Superior has PMA authority to Make many engine parts both Lycoming and Continental They have been making cylinders and other parts the early 90s
Under standing agreements superior can not market these parts as Lycoming or Continental.
So, they market their parts as their own after market parts
When they market an X engine they can't call it a Lycoming/Continental because of copy rites, pattens, and other laws. They can't obtain a Type Certificate because there already is one for the design.

 

[hindsight2020]

Whether you are legally required to comply with an AD on an engine in an experimental is a different kettle of fish. However, if the AD is viable, wouldn't you want to comply anyway? Let's say Lycoming shipped a bad bunch of cranks. I know, I know, that would never happen. ;-) But if you had one, wouldn't you want to fix the situation regardless of the legalities?

Of course. I'm not advocating not addressing hyperbolic examples like a recalled crankshaft. That's not what this is about for me. It's the insufferable gratuitous recurring inspection ADs that make me want to quit owning on the certified side. That's what I'm trying to run away from. If it gets me there, cool. If it doesn't, I really don't see the point.

 

[mondtster]

When they market an X engine they can't call it a Lycoming/Continental because of copy rites, pattens, and other laws. They can't obtain a Type Certificate because there already is one for the design.

I wouldn’t have thought Continental could have gotten a type certificate for the io-370 then, since it is obviously of Lycoming lineage. Where does the FAA draw the line?

 

[Tom-D]

Of course. I'm not advocating not addressing hyperbolic examples like a recalled crankshaft. That's not what this is about for me. It's the insufferable gratuitous recurring inspection ADs that make me want to quit owning on the certified side. That's what I'm trying to run away from. If it gets me there, cool. If it doesn't, I really don't see the point.

I believe what many here have forgotten what Part 39 really says.
39.1 Purpose of this regulation.
The regulations in this part provide a legal framework for FAA's system of Airworthiness Directives.

Back to Top

§39.5 When does FAA issue airworthiness directives?
FAA issues an airworthiness directive addressing a product when we find that:

(a) An unsafe condition exists in the product; and

(b) The condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.


See any thing there that separates the E/AB from ADs?

the main reason the E/AB types not getting ADs is simple, Every data tag issued to E/AB is different by the name attached. There are no two the same.
So what they do is simple, leave it to the kit builder to police their product.

 

[Tom-D]

I wouldn’t have thought Continental could have gotten a type certificate for the io-370 then, since it is obviously of Lycoming lineage. Where does the FAA draw the line?

It's not up to the FAA, it is up to the patent law. Lycoming holds the patents on every part they Make.
Superior can only operate under FAA-PMA rules.

 

[mondtster]

Of course. I'm not advocating not addressing hyperbolic examples like a recalled crankshaft. That's not what this is about for me. It's the insufferable gratuitous recurring inspection ADs that make me want to quit owning on the certified side. That's what I'm trying to run away from. If it gets me there, cool. If it doesn't, I really don't see the point.

How much are you really spending on recurring AD inspections?

Reality is, many of the ADs requiring repetitive inspections could be eliminated if owners and/or mechanics would do their job and actually look at the airplane. Since that’s too much to expect the government forces us to do what we should be doing anyway.

 

[hindsight2020]

How much are you really spending on recurring AD inspections?

Reality is, many of the ADs requiring repetitive inspections could be eliminated if owners and/or mechanics would do their job and actually look at the airplane. Since that’s too much to expect the government forces us to do what we should be doing anyway.

I dunno, 400 dollars per 100 hours plus a day's worth of leave to schlep the airplane around to the testing location? The rest get lumped on annual day, and don't fall in the same year so I don't have an exact amount off the top of my head.

But that's not the point. My objection is one of principle. The terminating action is expensive and the FAA was pointed in specifically driving at the heavily recurring nature of it, which drives sales of new props for Hartzell in my estimation. I don't appreciate the hostage dynamics imparted by many of these recurring ADs is all. There's nothing "safety" about them when you look at the supporting data of supposed incidents. It would be a nice fantasy if EAB would allow me the discretion of dispensing with that graft. It's not about the money, it's the principle for me.

 

[Tom-D]

How much are you really spending on recurring AD inspections?

Reality is, many of the ADs requiring repetitive inspections could be eliminated if owners and/or mechanics would do their job and actually look at the airplane. Since that’s too much to expect the government forces us to do what we should be doing anyway.

That's not always the case, both crankshaft ADs that have been issued could never be seen by anyone.

 

[mondtster]

That's not always the case, both crankshaft ADs that have been issued could never be seen by anyone.

I know that’s not always the case, hence the use of the word many instead of all.

 

[mondtster]

I dunno, 400 dollars per 100 hours plus a day's worth of leave to schlep the airplane around to the testing location? The rest get lumped on annual day, and don't fall in the same year so I don't have an exact amount off the top of my head.

But that's not the point. My objection is one of principle. The terminating action is expensive and the FAA was pointed in specifically driving at the heavily recurring nature of it, which drives sales of new props for Hartzell in my estimation. I don't appreciate the hostage dynamics imparted by many of these recurring ADs is all. There's nothing "safety" about them when you look at the supporting data of supposed incidents. It would be a nice fantasy if EAB would allow me the discretion of dispensing with that graft. It's not about the money, it's the principle for me.

Considering the Hartzell AD you speak of only applies to props on certain applications and not others, it would seem at least somewhat valid to me. But the AD could possibly have been written differently to provide owners with some relief.

As far as the principle of things goes, I totally get it. There’s nothing that annoys me more than having my hands tied when there is another reasonable method of insuring safety.

 

[Bell206]

It is now clear to me EAB has a lot less operational flexibility than I previously understood.

But it still has way more flexibility than the TC side. To add to the above comments, while ADs can be applicable to E/ABs they are few and far between. While I don't recommend it, there is even no requirement to log/sign off the ADs on a E/AB as Part 43 is not applicable. E/ABs are also a lot more flexible than LSAs which limit the scope and acceptance of what you can personally do to the aircraft outside the consensus standard. Outside the Operating Limitations of a E/AB very few FARs apply, which in itself can be a huge plus. So I believe it's not a case of an E/AB being any less operationally flexible, but more on knowing the specifics of where that flexibility exists vs a TCd aircraft.

 

[Bell206]

There’s nothing that annoys me more than having my hands tied when there is another reasonable method of insuring safety.

If talking about ADs, there is the option of pursuing an AMOC which can free up things and make it more in line with your views.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

And yet, didn't Superior enacted a mandatory recall of their XP-382 and XP-400 cu-in engines this year? So perhaps this whole "AD compliance" hairsplitting business is a distinction without difference after all.
.

And I heard that even Rotax engines (915 I believe) had a mandatory grounding AD-thingy recently. Trent Palmer (YouTube guy) said that Rotax “grounded” the fleet. Was the “grounding” “mandatory” or just highly suggested because of eminent failure?

 

[mondtster]

If talking about ADs, there is the option of pursuing an AMOC which can free up things and make it more in line with your views.

Indeed an AMOC may be a good option. And since we’re discussing engines on E/AB aircraft, I can’t help but wonder if the FAA would be more open to approving one under those circumstances.

 

[Bell206]

And I heard that even Rotax engines

FYI: Rotax also produces a certified version as well.

 

[Tom-D]

If talking about ADs, there is the option of pursuing an AMOC which can free up things and make it more in line with your views.

most ADs do not have alternate methods of compliance, and in most cases it is more expensive to gain approval than to simply comply.

 

[Clip4]

Let us say that I use a Lycoming Case that no longer meets its requirements to be a Lycoming case
just to say it has been lapped and line bored too many time and no longer meets the deck hight requirement.
If I use that case in a non certified build. that I must maintain it under 43 rules?
I don't think so.
Just to confuse the issue, Lycomings data tags are on the sump.

A few weeks ago it was a red tagged crank, now it is a condemned case.

 

[Tom-D]

A few weeks ago it was a red tagged crank, now it is a condemned case.

If I mention a scenario, Am I doing it ?