IO 520 Mandatory Service Bulletin

MD11Pilot

MD11Pilot

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
569
Location
Broken Arrow OK
Display Name
Display name:
MD11Pilot
I am very close to purchase of of a plane that has this engine with 700 hours and over sixteen years old...I am hoping the FAA will show some sense and say at the next overhaul or case split, whenever that might be,

Continental Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 05-08B
 
"Within 100-hours of operation, at the next engine overhaul (not to exceed 12
years engine time in service), or whenever camshaft gear is accessible,
whichever occurs first."
 
Hey, building a new factory isn't cheap. They need to bump their income somehow. Better grab a gear while you can. There was only about 60 available when the SB came out.

Really, private owners don't have to follow SB's. But it looks likely that this one will eventually become an AD.
 
An aircraft in private operation does not have to comply with any SB, mandatory or not, unless referenced in an AD. If no AD exists for this issue, keep on truckin', as long as the engine remains airworthy. This mod is pretty intensive to perform just on its own. I would implement it during an OH or major shop visit, such as after a prop strike.
 
Thanks LetsGo Flying. Working with an IPad.

That is what I told the rude Continental Service Rep today on the phone. I will overhaul when the engine tells me and not a lawyer. I repeatedly said this is not an engine being used in commercial ops.

I just hope that the aviation alphabets and the owners go berserk on them and they reconsider the 100 hours TIS. They RECOMMEND a TBO and 12 years for overhaul and I am sure their lawyers are freaking over liability.
 
Communist China trying to stop Yankee pilots from flying!
 
Even if the FAA doesn't put out an AD there are authorities all over the world who require mandatory service bulletins be complied with.

I'm not sure I'd want to **** off all my big bore customers this way. Seriously, how many years have these gears been in service? Just now they want to AD them out?
 
Last edited:
Upper Management to General Counsel:
"So we've had two of these gears fail, the next one could be into a schoolyard - how can we mitigate our risk without accepting blame or incurring expense; no one here wants to pay to tear down all these engines."

GC to UM:
"gradually require 'phasing out' of the defective part by owners through the use of more & more restrictive SB's, culminating in a MSB -and request the FAA to make it an AD. This will show a jury you did everything in your power to avoid injury & property damage....and it has the side benefit of not only placing the financial burden on owners, but you get a parts-sale windfall. Win-Win, for you!!"
 
I'm probably in the minority of owners that considers the airframe an opportunity cost of choosing an engine, instead of the other way around. Dynamics such as this one play a large part in why. This is not a good situation for potential owners. Can't get miffed when this thing bites ya due to having to crack open the engine and it forces your hand, or the thing gets made into an AD. Caveat emptor and all that jazz.
 
There is some feeling this will not gain the needed traction and become an AD. We all need to keep an eye on this though...

Extremely small number of failures.
 
If you're going to buy an airplane with a potentially affected engine, I'd certainly make sure I had an extra $10k sitting around to comply in the event an AD comes out that has timeframes in-line with the service bulletin (100hrs/12 years in service). While that may not be how an eventual AD reads, it might be exactly how it reads. Replacing that gear requires removing the engine from the airframe ($$$ in labor), disassembling it ($$$ in labor), replacing the $1200 gear, potentially machining the case to make it fit ($$$), reassembling the engine (which will require quite a few $$ in consumable parts that can't be reused), and reinstalling the engine on the airplane.

I've seen shops quote ~$6,000 for a teardown inspection of an engine; that's probably the starting point for this + the cam gear. Combine that with the labor to remove and reinstall the engine, you're at $10k quickly. Making matters worse, some of the affected engines will ALSO have non-VAR cranks in them, meaning when the engine is split the crank has to be replaced (~$4-5k for a used one) per another AD. So all of a sudden, you're at $15k+ to comply. ****ty situation all around. Double ****ty for Baron owners.
 
I bet there are going to be a lot of sudden stop insurance claims going forward
 
Sad situation when insurance fraud is the only way to keep the fleet aloft.

Im telling you, if those traitors at the faa would have passed primary non commercial as was signed into law by potus 44, this wouldnt be a problem. as you could just take both the engine and airplane out of their respective tcds. but since the damn eab market scoffs at four seaters, well bohica for us non two seater mission participants. My way around it has been to pick engines over airframes, but like has been highlighted already, at the 285/300 hp rating all you have is conti grenades littering the offerings. Sucks all around. Good luck OP, i personally wouldnt touch it unless you could get a discount from the seller (you wont) or youre ready to accept the opportunity cost of a de facto overhaul on top of the purchase price, if having that particular make and model is that important to ya.
 
Tech question. My engine started as an 0-470 and got its Phase III case converted to fit a factory new 520 crank. The MSB is for IO engines only. What differentiates the IO from O-470 with respect to the cam and this MSB?
 
bradg33 said:
Double ****ty for Baron owners.
Click to expand...

Don't forget 414s that already need an engine beam. :(

I'm not worrying about this too much just yet. It's no an AD. I am expecting to overhaul one engine before too long, so I will just make sure this is complied with when I do that overhaul. If I get forced to do the other engine, I will be annoyed, but maybe I'll luck out and it won't be needed until closer to when I plan on doing an overhaul on it anyway.

If buying an aircraft, this is something to consider, just like the ECi cylinder issues of not too long ago.

Maybe it will drive up the prices of Aerostars and Navajos.
 
Wouldn't this type of failure first show itself as metal in the filter?
520s have been around for quite some time, not buying it.



hindsight2020 said:
I'm probably in the minority of owners that considers the airframe an opportunity cost of choosing an engine, instead of the other way around. Dynamics such as this one play a large part in why. This is not a good situation for potential owners. Can't get miffed when this thing bites ya due to having to crack open the engine and it forces your hand, or the thing gets made into an AD. Caveat emptor and all that jazz.
Click to expand...

Depends, on the higher end aircraft that have big bores, this isn't true, a 185, 206, etc is hardly a disposable airframe.
 
GLMS_NC said:
There is some feeling this will not gain the needed traction and become an AD. We all need to keep an eye on this though...

Extremely small number of failures.
Click to expand...

At a minimum this uncertainty is probably discounting the value of a significant part of the fleet. And therein may be opportunity for a buyer today.
 
yup....I hear buyers are lining up....just waiting for an opportunity. :D
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
yup....I hear buyers are lining up....just waiting for an opportunity. :D
Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct. To do really well one needs to be prepared to be a contrarian and go against the popular sentiment. ;)
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
this thread is worthless....without pitchers. :eek:
Click to expand...

Here ya go!

754854.jpg
 
James331 said:
Wouldn't this type of failure first show itself as metal in the filter?
520s have been around for quite some time, not buying it.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. As I understand it, it's not a slow erosion of the gear teeth, it's a catastrophic failure/separation of the teeth due to fatigue. That kind of thing wouldn't show up in an oil analysis because by the time the gear is "making metal," it's because the teeth have sheered off and the engine has failed.
 
should be easy enough to shove a borescope down there and have a look see at the teeth.....I've done that, looking for magneto rubbers (Shock isolators). ;)

I don't understand this knee jerk reaction.
 
I'm guessing these have been used since the 60s.

Also another guess, the failed articles were once involved in an engine sudden stoppage event and returned to service AFTER a magnetic particle inspection. Truth is we don't know service history but something stinks about the whole thing.
 
ktup-flyer said:
There's a pretty extensive thread on BT about this. ABS is working with AOPA to try to get CMI to pay up. I think hell will freeze over before that happens. https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=136515
Click to expand...

CMI will not pay for this, you can be sure of that.

While I don't have any problems with the SB provided it can be complied with whenever the owner chooses to split the case for whatever reason, I have a major problem with being forced into complying with it on engines that are otherwise running well.
 
bnt83 said:
I'm guessing these have been used since the 60s.

Also another guess, the failed articles were once involved in an engine sudden stoppage event and returned to service AFTER a magnetic particle inspection. Truth is we don't know service history but something stinks about the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Either that or a flaw in the original metallurgy. Expecting 100% perfection, 100% of the time in any manufacturing process is unrealistic. Condemning every part of this type out there because of a miniscule number of failures is unreasonable.
 
GRG55 said:
Either that or a flaw in the original metallurgy. Expecting 100% perfection, 100% of the time in any manufacturing process is unrealistic. Condemning every part of this type out there because of a miniscule number of failures is unreasonable.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with requiring certain parts be replaced at a reasonable time (in this case overhaul or case split) but not replacing them just for fun, which is effectively what the MSB requires.
 
I have one of my TSIO520NB engines being overhauled now, so this one can be taken care of without a lot of additional cost..just the gear and some minor machining. For the other engine I'm with a Ted. I don't want to be forced to do anything to an engine that's just running fine. The initial buzz is that all the owner associations of marques that use these engines intend to fight this quite hard along with AOPA. Hope so. This is what I pay the dues for. All we can do is hope common sense wins this one.
 
If this becomes an AD I will have a very expensive hangar ornament.
 
bradg33 said:
If you're going to buy an airplane with a potentially affected engine, I'd certainly make sure I had an extra $10k sitting around to comply in the event an AD comes out that has timeframes in-line with the service bulletin (100hrs/12 years in service). While that may not be how an eventual AD reads, it might be exactly how it reads. Replacing that gear requires removing the engine from the airframe ($$$ in labor), disassembling it ($$$ in labor), replacing the $1200 gear, potentially machining the case to make it fit ($$$), reassembling the engine (which will require quite a few $$ in consumable parts that can't be reused), and reinstalling the engine on the airplane.

I've seen shops quote ~$6,000 for a teardown inspection of an engine; that's probably the starting point for this + the cam gear. Combine that with the labor to remove and reinstall the engine, you're at $10k quickly. Making matters worse, some of the affected engines will ALSO have non-VAR cranks in them, meaning when the engine is split the crank has to be replaced (~$4-5k for a used one) per another AD. So all of a sudden, you're at $15k+ to comply. ****ty situation all around. Double ****ty for Baron owners.
Click to expand...

Replacing that gear shouldn't require splitting the case. It's right behind the accessory cover on the back of the case. Engine still has to come off in most cases.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Replacing that gear shouldn't require splitting the case. It's right behind the accessory cover on the back of the case. Engine still has to come off in most cases.
Click to expand...
Most of the crank cases will have to be machined to accept the new thicker gear which would require splitting the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top