0-300 NEW STYLE Accessory Case

[voorheesh]

Back to the start of this thread, it deals with a recently overhauled O300 that has a tach drive and oil pressure (?) discrepancies. First question is were these problems ever corrected or are they outstanding? Second question is who overhauled this engine and have they acknowledged responsibility for the operating problems along with corrective action? Are they a certified overhauler of Continental engines (presumably somewhere in Europe but the thread doesn’t say). Do their overhaul records identify the accessory case so as to verify it is an approved and appropriate part? If not, this pilot/owner has a significant problem. I don’t see how you can get to an answer to the specific problems with this engine except going through the shop that overhauled it. Hopefully they will stand behind their work.

My comments assume that work under EASA regulations is similar to our US rules and protocols.

Regarding the more general question about approval status of the accessory case (or sump), is there not a part number or documentation from Continental indicating which engines it is applicable to? (Page 18?). Has anyone tried contacting Continental and making an inquiry. If I am completely missing something here, apologies in advance

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

The tach drive turning in reverse will be corrected 90° gear box adapter is installed. It is a PN on page 18 (and also for the IO-360 case). Oil pressure now matches that from the report from the overhauler. Probably had something to do with the fact the overhauler didn't have a filter adapter and an external oil cooler to fill with oil but the install on the airframe did and pressure was low till the oil cooler filled specially. They also checked cleaned and adjusted the relief valve. The owner is no satisfied those issues will be good.

Voorheesh, the airplane owner is blind, a result of an airplane accident. His company owns and operates 3 airplanes. He seems to feel his overhauler is very credible and would not experiment with his engine. He may have all the information he needs to answer questions he didn't even know he had till I impressed upon him installing an IO-360 ES case on an 0-300 is not an everyday occasion. He just can't sit down and read his paperwork. He just can't sit down and easily compose emails and read responses.

I have been advising him to talk with his overhauler and get the proof in hand this modification is safe and legal. I've suggested he call Continental.

Today I called Continental. The tech rep told me he had no documentation to support installing an IO-360 ES accessory case on an 0-300 engine. I asked him if a IO-360 ES case could bolted up to an 0-300 would it be legal. Again he said he had no documentation that would support that installation and it would not be legal. We didn't discuss operations outside the US or any other forms of approval such as an STC or one time approval.

Who knows. Maybe his overhauler has some form of approval suitable to EASA. Maybe the Continental tech rep doesn't know everything about interchangeability of the engines he represents?

[voorheesh]

This is an interesting story Bruce and you are to be commended for trying to help this owner, apparently in Croatia, a EU member. If the engine parts in question are OEM, then Continental is responsible for determining which engine products they are approved for use in. They should have documentation that is available and valid internationally. The EU has a bilateral safety agreement with the US and, as I recall, accepts/utilizes our certification criteria. We do the same when dealing with their products in our country. There should be information available from Continental to anyone purchasing their accessory cases or sumps that specify which engines they are certified for installation on. If Croatia is under EASA rules, approval for replacement parts that are outside of type certificate specifications would likely mirror our rules through some form of supplemental approval based on engineering data overseen by EASA as would happen by the FAA in our country. Certainly a responsible repair facility that overhauls engines should be able to comply with these basic requirements and explain them to their customers when necessary. I hope this owner is able to find a satisfactory answer and get his airplane back in service.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

It has been an adventure trying to help this individual through language barriers and his physical limit of blindness. Email is interpreted for us both ways but it certainly is far from perfect. We have often gone over the same info several times. And I can't just send a picture with an arrow pointing at something. I asked him at one point if the filter was mounted to the right or on the left of the bottom of the case as the picture he sent at the time the filter kind of looked like it was mounted in the center. His response was he had reached in and felt the filter with his hand and he thought the filter was mounted on the right. Felling it with his hand was not the response I expected but drove home a point.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

The owner says his maintenance co. says the part number was written inside and so there would be no way to identify it by outside marks. They say the cases are all the same until they are finished out. That I couldn't tell if the case was finished as a PN 641799 or the latest number PN 641800 for a 0-300 D or whether it was finished as a PN 642634 for a IO-360 ES. That any parts that need be such as the filler neck for example could be swapped in the field to create the version needed. This didn't come across as direct as I just wrote it but is the message they've sent several different times written differently and interpreted differently each time.

So I had a thought. I went to the Continental site and viewed several accessory cases part numbers and compared illustrations. I looked at the 0-300D, the IO-360 ES, and the IO-360 K1B.

0-300-D PN 641800

IO-360 ES PN 642636

IO-360 K1B PN 641801

You will notice each one uses the same illustration. Was Continental lazy or are they really the same? But wait notice there are no holes or studs shown on 641801 for a filter adapter so they aren't all the same illustration. I've already compared the individual part numbers for all the oil pump and relief valve parts listed for each of these 3 engines and they are all the same. What do you think the chance are the casting for each is the same and the basic finish of each is the same? I'm actually thinking its pretty pretty good. And that is exactly what this owners maintenance co. has been saying all along but interpretation has gotten in the way. The installed case has a mark of 641495, I've seem a picture of another IO-360 ES case with the same number molded in. Could the installed case have been finished out as a 0-300 case PN 641800 and the pictured one I have finished out as a IO-360 ES case PN 642634. But there is no difference in the actual case part unless you knew the intended end part.

I plan to call Continental and ask my questions a little differently. And I might call Divco which the Continental rep actually suggested last phone call and see if they can shed some light on this.

When is a bird that quacks like a duck, swims and flies like a duck, a duck? I'm thinking more and more the owner has a PN 641800 0-300-D accessory case that also by weird circumstance could also fit on and look like a IO-360 accessory case.

[GAHorn]

There’s been so many numbers and scenarios described in this thread that I’ve not been keeping up with it… But I can say that a “casting” number does not always (if ever) equate to a “part” number. Beware of that possibility.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

There’s been so many numbers and scenarios described in this thread that I’ve not been keeping up with it… But I can say that a “casting” number does not always (if ever) equate to a “part” number. Beware of that possibility.

I agree, but it's so easy to get caught and we did early on in this story. It looks like Continental made at least 3 different part numbers from a casting with the same number.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Just to wrap this up a bit.

There are several part numbers you might find for a 5 hole C-145/300 accessory case. 628240, 627881A1 and maybe 530007. 530007 is the casting number you might find on the first two PN cases and sometimes it is referred to as a part number. These are the old original cases and in the field. The relief valve is on the right and not adjustable. Oil pump us driven by the bottom gear though the center of the cam gear. You will find these on page 16 of the printed IPC dated as late as 8/2011.

The second version called the "New Style" with PN 641779 has a casting that looks like the 530007 casting according to the illustrations but the oil pump uses gears driven differently in that the other the early models The top pump gear is driven with another gear that runs on the inside teeth of the cam gear and the pump runs backwards. You must use a 90° geared adapter on the tach drive to correct direction for a tach. The relieve valve is on the left and is adjustable. You can find this in printed IPCs dated as late as 8/2011.

The last and Newest New Style case with PN 641800 uses a case with casting number 641495. It is meant for all models of 0-300. It uses different oil pump gears that the earlier 2 types of cases but the top gear is still driven through another gear on the inside teeth of the cam gear and it turns backwards requiring the 90° tack drive adapter to drive direction for the tack. The relief valve is on the left side and is adjustable. Its availability is "inactive according to Continentals Part or Engine Specification Supersedure page on its web site. You can only currently find this case by viewing the online version of Continentals IPC or a 0-300. All this has been confirmed with Continental tech support.

Here is the mysterious thing. The IO-360 accessory case also has a casting number of 641495. I've seen pictures. All the internal parts such as gear drive, oil pump gears and relief valve are the exact same part numbers as those found on the 0-300. All of the illustrations in the online PIC for the 0-300 and IO-360 look exactly the same though some IO-360 cases (all which have different part numbers BTW) have optional fill port tubes and some a filter adapter. I have confirmed with Continental that you could not buy any IO-360 version accessory case with all the exact same parts including the casting as a 0-300 model PN641800, as they are still available, because Continental has no documentation to substantiate that installation. It would not be legal as far as they are concerned

Did I mention there are no actual part numbers etched, stamped or otherwise permanently affixed to any of these parts.

So the owner and who's inquiry started this thread, actually has a legal accessory case PN 641800 installed on his 0-300-D.

[n2582d]

Bruce,
This accessory case part number rabbit hole makes my head spin. Based on pictures you've probably seen on FB, I was incorrect to assume the accessory case you initially pictured had to be an IO-360 accessory case. Here's a couple of screenshots of a NOS accessory case with casting # 641495, and a stamped p/n of 641799A7. This is the new style case with the crossover oil passages and machined suction and pressure screen surfaces.

Continental's website showing supersedure listings doesn't seem to be working this morning. Here's another listing which says it's an xls file but downloads as a pdf. Might be worth filing it in the Maintenance Library.

[mit]

Filed in the back of the head memory bank for future use.

[GAHorn]

Just one more reason to install a TCM IO-360 when my O-300 dies….