Superior cylinders

How to keep the Cessna 170 flying and airworthy.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

Post Reply
User avatar
cpolsley
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 4:37 pm

Superior cylinders

Post by cpolsley »

Anybody know if AD 95-05-05 (Continental cylinder rocker boss) inspection at cylinder removal also apply to the Superior cylinders if installed on the C-145 :?:
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
Posts: 10303
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am

Re: Superior cylinders

Post by Bruce Fenstermacher »

When I first read your question my response was "of course it doesn't". But before answering I thought I ought read the AD again.

First it is AD 94-05-05 R1. Actually the FAA AD site was not available and I'm assuming the first revision has not been superseded. That is dangerous sometimes but I will live dangerously tonight.

Anyway after reading the AD at least the version I found, yes it does apply to ALL cylinders found on any of the applicable engines. Having said that here is a good possibility Superior has gotten approval under section 4 of the AD to have their cylinders exempted from the AD which is obviously written for Continental cylinders.

So first find and read the latest version of the AD. Contact Superior and if all else fails contact the FAA at the number at the bottom of the AD and ask them if an AD written for Continental cylinders covers Superior design and manufactured cylinders.

Attached is AD 94-05-05 R1 that I found which might not be the current AD.
AD 94-05-05 R1.pdf
(32.23 KiB) Downloaded 384 times
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
Posts: 10303
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am

Re: Superior cylinders

Post by Bruce Fenstermacher »

Well it is a slow morning for email and forum post so I did a bit more searching on the Internet and found the following from ECI and Superior regarding the applicability of AD 94-05-05 to their cylinders. In short they are not subject to AD 94-05-05.

Interesting the 5th page of the Superior PDF is a letter they received from the FAA regarding this. It is obvious to me the FAA person writing this letter didn't read AD 94-05-05. Because no were in the AD does it mention the manufacturer of the cylinders or identify effected parts by the cylinder manufacturer. Only the manufacturer of the engine and engine models is identified. It seems this FAA employee must not know that Superior (and ECI) cylinders are approved and can be found on Continental engines listed by the AD.
L93-02.pdf
(182.29 KiB) Downloaded 391 times
98-2.pdf
(112.11 KiB) Downloaded 352 times
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
User avatar
N171TD
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:05 pm

Re: Superior cylinders

Post by N171TD »

I am not surprised the least little bit that someone at the FAA would not know about airplane engines or airplanes for that matter...
Our 172/170 or a 171 is known as tweener
ronjenx
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:57 am

Re: Superior cylinders

Post by ronjenx »

Bruce,

Thanks for posting all that information.
My brother's 170 has the Superior cylinders. I recalled that the AD didn't apply, but I couldn't post without data to back it up.
My efforts to find it were not paying off.
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20921
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: Superior cylinders

Post by GAHorn »

Ordinarily one would expect any cylinders other than the mfr mentioned in the AD would not be subject, but the wording of this AD is indeed sufficiently vague as to cause confusion.

Not to mention the fact the AD note provides guidance instructions which are incomplete, incorrect, and/or inapplicable. (They indicate that GO-300 engines should be inspected according to a document that does not apply to those engines.)

"(ii) For TCM C125, C145, O-300, and GO-300 and R-R O-300 series engines, in
accordance with paragraphs 5(b)(1), 5(b)(2), and 5(b)(3) of TCM Overhaul Manual Form
X-30013, dated June 1982."

(X-30013, dated June 1982 only applies to C125, C145 & O-300 engines. )

To top the entire matter, this AD applies to engines undergoing overhaul. The Overhaul Manual (X-30013X) already specifies the cylinders should be so inspected. (Those are the paragraphs the FAA is quoting above.) The only thing this AD appears to do is include cylinders removed for other...or the same... problems...in which case the inspection procedure already requires accomplishment of the work specified.) :roll:
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
cpolsley
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 4:37 pm

Re: Superior cylinders

Post by cpolsley »

Bruce and George,

Thanks for the data from superior and timely feedback. :D
User avatar
Brad Brady
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:54 am

Re: Superior cylinders

Post by Brad Brady »

gahorn wrote:Ordinarily one would expect any cylinders other than the mfr mentioned in the AD would not be subject, but the wording of this AD is indeed sufficiently vague as to cause confusion.

Not to mention the fact the AD note provides guidance instructions which are incomplete, incorrect, and/or inapplicable. (They indicate that GO-300 engines should be inspected according to a document that does not apply to those engines.)

"(ii) For TCM C125, C145, O-300, and GO-300 and R-R O-300 series engines, in
accordance with paragraphs 5(b)(1), 5(b)(2), and 5(b)(3) of TCM Overhaul Manual Form
X-30013, dated June 1982."

(X-30013, dated June 1982 only applies to C125, C145 & O-300 engines. )

To top the entire matter, this AD applies to engines undergoing overhaul. The Overhaul Manual (X-30013X) already specifies the cylinders should be so inspected. (Those are the paragraphs the FAA is quoting above.) The only thing this AD appears to do is include cylinders removed for other...or the same... problems...in which case the inspection procedure already requires accomplishment of the work specified.) :roll:
Bruce and George are Correct!,
I work on the premise, that if the cyl is removed, no matter who owners the cyl, the AD has to be met. That makes the "rope trick", and "dropping a valve into the cyl".and cleaning the guide a real option before removing a cyl. If these two options won't work then you have no option but to remove the cyl. Then the AD has to be met......Brad
hungstart
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:41 pm

Re: Superior cylinders

Post by hungstart »

Brad Brady wrote: I work on the premise, that if the cyl is removed, no matter who owners the cyl, the AD has to be met. That makes the "rope trick", and "dropping a valve into the cyl".and cleaning the guide a real option before removing a cyl. If these two options won't work then you have no option but to remove the cyl. Then the AD has to be met......Brad
[/quote]

Reading the AD it appears to be a one time inspection, not every time the cylinder comes off the engine. I base this on the compliance statement, "Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously."
It also says, "At the next cylinder removal from the engine, or engine overhaul, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, inspect the cylinder rocker shaft bosses for cracks using one of the following methods, and if cracked replace with a serviceable cylinder:" It doesn't say at every cylinder removal, it says, "at next or overhaul, whichever occurs first. Therefore, if you have pulled the cylinder off and have previously performed the inspection called for by this AD you do not have to do it again!

R1 is the latest revision.

Rick
N170MB
Rick
N170MB
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
Posts: 10303
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am

Re: Superior cylinders

Post by Bruce Fenstermacher »

Rick,

You missed this paragraph:
  • (c) Thereafter, at each subsequent cylinder or engine overhaul, reinspect cylinder rocker bosses
    and rocker shafts in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD.
I suppose you could remove a cylinder and NOT do any inspection or repair (overhaul), then reinstall it and not call it a cylinder overhaul and therefor not be covered by this AD. I can't think of why you might do that except maybe replacing a base gasket on a just overhauled or very short time in service cylinder.

I know that anytime I might remove a cylinder I wouldn't be able to resist inspecting and touching up the valves, valve set and other various parts. Perhaps this isn't an overhaul either but if I'm putting the work in a log book (which I would) then I would also do the inspection to cover my butt. This is one reason I'm a BIG fan of touching up the valves and set when required and NOT removing the cylinder to do so. Besides of course the added hassle of actually removing/reinstalling the cylinder.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
hungstart
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:41 pm

Re: Superior cylinders

Post by hungstart »

Yes I did miss that, but it prescribes removal for overhaul. If I pull the cylinder for a stuck valve and ream the carbon out of the guide I would not be required to perform the inspections per the AD. Yes I am just like you and every other competent mechanic, I am going to perform a DVI (detailed visual inspection) of the entire cylinder assy. and check the valves and seats for damage and leakage. If everything looks good I will lap the valves and clean all the carbon from the cylinder head and piston and reinstall just as I did a couple of months ago for a stuck exhaust valve on #2 cylinder.

Rick
Rick
N170MB
User avatar
Brad Brady
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:54 am

Re: Superior cylinders

Post by Brad Brady »

Rick,
I guess it is up to interpretation.The way I read the AD is that the AD has to be met at next cly. removal OR overhaul (redundant).....Brad
User avatar
n2582d
Posts: 2798
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 4:58 am

Re: Superior cylinders

Post by n2582d »

Bruce Fenstermacher wrote:Well it is a slow morning for email and forum post so I did a bit more searching on the Internet and found the following from ECI and Superior regarding the applicability of AD 94-05-05 to their cylinders. In short they are not subject to AD 94-05-05.

Interesting the 5th page of the Superior PDF is a letter they received from the FAA regarding this. It is obvious to me the FAA person writing this letter didn't read AD 94-05-05. Because no were in the AD does it mention the manufacturer of the cylinders or identify effected parts by the cylinder manufacturer. Only the manufacturer of the engine and engine models is identified. It seems this FAA employee must not know that Superior (and ECI) cylinders are approved and can be found on Continental engines listed by the AD.
L93-02.pdf
98-2.pdf
SAIB NE-18-27 nullifies these manufacturers bulletins and says that the AD does apply to aftermarket cylinders.
Gary
Post Reply