---------------------------------------------------------- Engines-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 07/16/03: 3 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 08:21 AM - Mandatory Service Bulletin 505... (scott fifield) 2. 09:20 AM - Re: Mandatory Service Bulletin 505... (Guy) 3. 03:00 PM - Re: Mandatory Service Bulletin 505... (Archie) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 08:21:49 AM PST US From: "scott fifield" Subject: Engines-List: Mandatory Service Bulletin 505... --> Engines-List message posted by: "scott fifield" Here's one for you experts out there... My Lycoming O-320-D3G crankshaft failed compliance with S.B. 505, but not until $600 of other work had been accomplished. My question is: Since the application will be in an experimental aircraft (a Glastar), is this crank viable? I ask this because, the shop rep stated the crankshaft could be yellow tagged for a 150 hp application, but not for the 160 hp that is the engine's current configuration. Also, (off the record) he stated that he would have no qualms running this crank indefinitely and that his shop had routinely passed cranks in this condition (prior to the A.D. coming out in 1997). BTW, this is a huge shop with an excellent reputation. The crank is serviceable in every other way except failing the S.B. 505 criteria. Is the 10 hp difference justification for buying a new crank? Am I nuts for considering its continuing service? What is the history of S.B. 505, i.e. what prompted its implementation? Wanting to be safe- Scott in Colorado ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 09:20:33 AM PST US From: Guy Subject: Re: Engines-List: Mandatory Service Bulletin 505... --> Engines-List message posted by: Guy Well I'm not a "expert" but I have researched and talked to a few concerning this. SB-505 came out due to someone finding corrosion (pitting) inside the hollow section of a crank on fixed pitch cranks. Seems to be a magnet for dirt. The inspection calls for checking the area just aft of front pilot ( to 3.50 inches back ) with light and 4x magnifying glass. No corrison found your all done..if pitting is found you can clean/ polish to remove corrosion but must continue to inspect every 100 hrs and pass FPI (dye) test. To fail SB-505 means corrosion was found and removal left I.D of bore less than 1 910 inches. So... we have perfect cranks. Cranks that pass but with exceptions (100 hr inspections) And cranks that fail 505. Most shops feel save flying on a NON 505 depending on how bad the corrosion was. The newer SB-505 (1997) make NO distinction between 150-160 HP for 320 motors. I'll have one in mine :>) guy From: engines-list@matronics.com Subject: Engines-List: Mandatory Service Bulletin 505... --> Engines-List message posted by: "scott fifield" Here's one for you experts out there... My Lycoming O-320-D3G crankshaft failed compliance with S.B. 505, but not until $600 of other work had been accomplished. My question is: Since the application will be in an experimental aircraft (a Glastar), is this crank viable? I ask this because, the shop rep stated the crankshaft could be yellow tagged for a 150 hp application, but not for the 160 hp that is the engine's current configuration. Also, (off the record) he stated that he would have no qualms running this crank indefinitely and that his shop had routinely passed cranks in this condition (prior to the A.D. coming out in 1997). BTW, this is a huge shop with an excellent reputation. The crank is serviceable in every other way except failing the S.B. 505 criteria. Is the 10 hp difference justification for buying a new crank? Am I nuts for considering its continuing service? What is the history of S.B. 505, i.e. what prompted its implementation? Wanting to be safe- Scott in Colorado . ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 03:00:57 PM PST US From: "Archie" Subject: Re: Engines-List: Mandatory Service Bulletin 505... --> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie" As I understand it, there was only one failure. (in England) of an aircraft that sat for long periods of time. This is the only filed report that I am aware of. Is/Are there more? Archie