PDA

View Full Version : AD 96-09-10 Lycoming Oil Pump



Steve Pierce
07-13-2009, 06:12 PM
AD 96-09-10 on aluminum and sintered iron oil pumps in Lycoming engines should have been complied with by 2001 but many mechanics got hung on the phrase "Replace at next engine overhaul" and put that in their Airworthiness Directive Compliance Report instead of reading the entire statement: Replace at next engine overhaul (not to exceed the hours specified, for the particular engine model, in Textron Lycoming Service Instruction 1009AJ, dated July 1, 1992), at next oil pump removal, or 5 years after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. which became effective July 15,1996. Also there is a big misconception that all aluminum oil pumps have to be replaced which is not true either. I have attached a statement from the FAA on this misconception. Just a FYI since this one still comes up from time to time.

Textron Lycoming; Oil Pump Airworthiness Directive Update; ATA 8550
The FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ANE-170) requested publication of the following
article. The article and supporting information is offered as it was received. Also, this subject was
covered in an article in the March 2001, edition of this publication.
Clarification of AD 96-09-10
In order to determine if an engine is affected by AD 96-09-10, an owner/operator must know the oil
pump configuration currently in the engine. The original factory shipped configuration with sintered
iron impellers can be determined from Lycoming SB 524, List I. Contact Lycoming for the original
factory shipped configuration with aluminum impellers. If repairs, and/or overhauls have been
accomplished, the engine records must be reviewed to determine the oil pump impeller configuration
currently in the engine. Some engines, regardless of the engine serial number, may still be affected by
the AD because of overhauls, including Lycoming overhauled and remanufactured engines, field
repairs, compliance with AD 81-18-04R2 and other Lycoming SB’s.
If the oil pump impeller configuration cannot be determined by the engine records, the inspection,
described in Lycoming SB 385C can be performed to determine if the original configuration, a fixed
shaft retained by a cotter pin, is still in place. If a fixed shaft retained by a cotter pin is still in place,
the engine is not affected by this AD. If a fixed shaft retained by a cotter pin is not present, the oil
pump cover must be removed and the gears compared to the figure on page 2 of SB 524 in order to
determine if hardened steel gears are installed and the engine is in compliance with the AD. (A set of
hardened steel impellers can be identified by the letter “N” on one impeller and the letter “C” on the
other impeller. Lycoming only sells these parts in sets. However, they may be available individually in
the after-market.) These letters have been mechanically marked on the face of the impeller. A copy
of Lycoming SB 524 can be obtained from the Lycoming website at: http://www.lycoming.textron.com.
AD 96-09-10 applies to all sintered iron impellers and aluminum oil pump impeller and shaft
assemblies P/N LW-13775. This is confirmed in the AD SUMMARY that proceeds the AD. This
statement appears in paragraph (c) of the AD as, “… replace any aluminum oil pump impeller and
shaft assembly with a ….” , however, P/N LW-13775 does not appear in this sentence.
P/N LW-13775 is an aluminum impeller attached to a shaft and the assembly of these two parts
(impeller and shaft) rotate together. This P/N LW-13775, aluminum oil pump impeller and shaft
assembly is the only aluminum impeller that is required to be replaced by AD 96-09-10.
P/N 60747, aluminum oil pump impeller is NOT an impeller and shaft assembly. It is an impeller that
rotates on a fixed, non-rotating shaft. This shaft is retained by a cotter pin passing through the oil
pump housing and shaft. This configuration is not effected by this AD. Lycoming SB 524 requires
P/N 60747 aluminum oil pump impeller to be replaced, however, AD 96-09-10 (written after the
release of SB 524) does not require its replacement – the SUMMARY that precedes the AD
explains that, “… only aluminum impellers, P/N LW 13775, are affected.” Therefore a visual
19
June 2001 FAA AC 43-16A
inspection of the oil pump, as described in Lycoming SB 385C, can be made and if the original
configuration, a fixed shaft retained by a cotter pin, is still in place, the engine is not affected by
AD 96-09-10 or by AD 81-18-04 R2.
Compliance with AD 81-18-04 R2 cannot by itself indicate that hardened steel impellers are installed
and terminate the requirement to comply with AD 96-09-10. The impeller configuration must be
known, by knowing the actual impeller part numbers installed, kit number installed, which paragraph
of AD 81-18-04 R2 was accomplished, by visual inspection or by some other means.
Compliance with AD 81-18-04 R2, paragraph (a) (1) states to, “Replace the oil pump driven impeller
and shaft with hardened steel impeller and shaft P/N LW-18110 and replace the driving impeller with
impeller P/N LW-18109…” per Lycoming SB 454. This is also terminating action for AD 96-09-10 as
stated in paragraph (a) (2) of AD 96-09-10.
Compliance with AD 81-18-04 R2, paragraph (b) (1), installs aluminum oil pump impeller and shaft
assembly P/N LW-13775, per Lycoming SB 455A. P/N LW-13775 is one of the subjects of
AD 96-09-10 and it must be removed.
Compliance with AD 81-18-04 R2, paragraph (c), installs aluminum oil pump impeller and shaft
assembly P/N LW-13775, per Lycoming SB 456. P/N LW-13775 is one of the subjects of
AD 96-09-10 and it must be removed.
Sintered iron impellers and aluminum impeller and shaft assemblies, manufactured under an FAA
Parts Manufacturing Authority, are also affected by AD 96-09-10.
Reference Service Bulletins and Service Instructions (SI)
AD 81-18-04 R2, SB 454, SB 455A, SB 456 AD 96-09-10 SB 454B, SB 455D, SB 456F, 524,
(inspection only 381C and 385C)
SB 381, SB 381A & SB 381 B
Introduces P/N LW-14038 (sintered Iron) which is installed with P/N LW-13775 (aluminum) AND
Provides for the continued use of P/N 78532 (sintered iron) which is used with P/N 77313 (sintered
iron) or P/N LW-12897(sintered iron) AD 96-09-10 removes the sintered iron impeller and the
P/N LW-13775 aluminum impeller.
SB 381C
Introduces the use of either of two impeller configurations: P/N LW-14038 (sintered Iron) which is
installed with P/N LW-13775 (aluminum) OR P/N 60746 (steel) which is installed with
P/N LW-14711 (sintered iron) AND Provides for the continued use of P/N 78532 (sintered iron)
which is used with P/N 77313 (sintered iron) or P/N LW-12897(sintered iron) AD 96-09-10 removes
the sintered iron impeller and the P/N LW-13775 aluminum impeller.
SB 385, SB 385A & SB 385B
Introduces P/N LW-14038 (sintered Iron) which is installed with P/N LW-13775 (aluminum) AND
Provides for the continued use of P/N 78532 (sintered iron) which is used with P/N 77313 (sintered
iron) or P/N LW-12897 (sintered iron) AD 96-09-10 removes the sintered iron impeller and the
P/N LW-13775 aluminum impeller.
SB 385 C
Introduces the installation of either of two impeller configurations: P/N LW-14038 (sintered Iron)
which is installed with P/N LW-13775 (aluminum) OR P/N 60746 (steel) which is installed with
20
FAA AC 43-16A June 2001
P/N LW-14711 (sintered iron) AND Provides for the continued use of P/N 78532 (sintered iron)
which is used with P/N 77313 (sintered iron) or P/N LW-12897 (sintered iron) AD 96-09-10 removes
the sintered iron impeller and the P/N LW-13775 aluminum impeller.
SB 454, SB 454A & SB 454B
Introduces hardened steel impellers, PN LW-18109 and LW-18110. Accomplishment of SB 454 is
terminating action for AD 81-18-04 R2. Accomplishment of SB 454B is terminating action for
AD 96-09-10.
SB 455, SB 455A & SB 455B
Introduces impeller P/N LW-13775 (aluminum) and impeller P/N 60746 (steel). AD 96-09-10
removes the P/N LW-13775 aluminum impeller. Accomplishment of SB 455A is terminating action
for AD 81-18-04 R2.
SB 455C & SB 455D
Introduces hardened steel impellers, PN LW-18109 and LW-18110. Accomplishment of SB 455D is
terminating action for AD 96-09-10.
SB 456 & SB 456A
Replaces sintered impellers with impeller P/N LW-13775 (aluminum) and impeller P/N 60746 (steel).
Accomplishment of SB 456 is terminating action for AD 81-18-04 R2.
SB 456B, SB 456B Supplement No. 1, SB 456C, SB 456D, SB 456D Suplement No. 1,
SB 456E & SB 456F
Replaces prior configurations with hardened steel impellers, PN LW-18109 and LW-18110.
Accomplishment of SB 456F is terminating action for AD 96-09-10.
SB 524
Replaces impeller P/N LW-13775 (aluminum) and impeller P/N 60747 (aluminum) with hardened
steel impellers, PN LW-18109 and LW-18110. Aluminum impeller P/N 60747 is not required to be
replaced by AD 96-09-10 when used in the original configuration of a stationary shaft retained with
a cotter pin and steel impeller P/N 60746. Accomplishment of SB 524 is terminating action for
AD 96-09-10.
Service Instruction (SI) 1009AJ
Lists the Lycoming Recommended Time Between Overhauls for various engine models.

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/aler ... _Alert.pdf (http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/alerts/aviation_maintenance/media/2001/2001_06_Alert.pdf)

Vagabondblues
07-13-2009, 10:21 PM
Steve,

While it is true that the AD does not affect all aluminum gears there still is a Lycoming Service bulletin that require they be changed at overhaul. These gears are the ones used with the stationary shaft (cotter pin) used in the two peice oil pump body? Correct? Service bulletin No. 240 requires the oil pump bodies (two-peice) and oil pump gears to be changed at overhaul. So, should one keep the old two peice pump and gears which are not affected by the AD or modify the accessory case per SI 1341 and install the new style one peice pump body, shaft and new gears?

Steve Pierce
07-14-2009, 06:44 AM
I would not tear into my engine to replace the gears. Service bulletins are not mandatory. I would change the gears, housing and drill the lubricating hole at overhaul though.

jdebbins
05-27-2011, 10:34 PM
Got the case cracked this week (May 2011), ready to ship off to various folk for O/H, and this AD 96-09-10 has been on my mind... my engine is a Lycoming 0320-B2B shipped with 1960 Tri Pacer... everything about the engine is in great shape except cam and 4 lifter followers, these will have to be replaced. Crank and case look really good, will have them checked next week.

Anyway, my oil pump HAS the cotter pin, which means original, factor aluminum impeller and 2 piece case. Oil pressure has been fine. I am reluctant to spend $500 just to satisfy this AD... (cheapskate) where it is clear that I am in the EXCEPTION of the AD according to various authors/bloggers, whereas clearly the SB 524 from Lycoming calls out the replacement of ALL aluminum impellers, while AD does not. I mean why fix it if it ain't broke? To me, drilling a oil galley to lubricate a (now rotating) shaft seem counter to the original design, and like I said, she has been running fine pressure-wise and oil-analysis-wise.

At a minimum I will open the oil pump and take a look. Oil analysis was all green, sump had just some hardened oil flakes around the screen. Although I found a loose 1/4-20 NUT a the bottom of the sump (scary), it might have fallen through one of the cylinder openings....

Interested opinions welcome!

best, GMR

Bob Mac
05-28-2011, 04:41 PM
Somewhere in my tall stack of papers there is a reference to pre-1970 engines being not included in the AD unless they had been
"fixed" in accordance with the earlier AD and SB's. I'll look for it. I recently opened up my engine (370 SMOH) because there was nothing in the logbooks about the oil pump. I found a steel drive shaft, steel (not sintered) impellers with slight evidence of wear on the teeth.
The last time I did one of these when I removed the impellers they fell apart in my hands. The engine was in a 172 and it had 2700 hours since new and never overhauled. The guy who owned the airplane tried to blame me for carelessness!!

Bob Mac
05-28-2011, 05:57 PM
The reference to 1970 is in the AD. So if you don't have a logbook entry that says otherwise you may be home free.. Specifically it is stated that engines manufactuired before 1970 did not contain sintered impellers. In my engine that was delivered with the airplane in 1958 there is a hardened steel shaft for each impeller. You'll probably fine the same thing.

jdebbins
05-28-2011, 06:49 PM
Thanks Bob! clearly the AD exempts the pre-1970 engines that used factory steel drive impeller and factory aluminum driven impeller. Thus my old 0320 B2B falls in this category. The history on this is fascinating, they went to sintered iron for the driven impeller, this failed, first AD was 81-18-04 and called for replacing sintered iron impeller with aluminum, part number LW-13775, which Lycoming had re-introduced into production engines. Trouble was, these started failing too (low grade aluminum?).... then came amendment to AD 81-18-04 to replace (new) aluminum impeller with steel, but then FAA came out with AD 96-09-10 calling for replacement of LW13775.
But the AD deliberately only calls for replacement of sintered iron and LW13775 (newer) aluminum driven impellers.

Lycoming jumped on this with their service bulletin 525 calling for replacement of sintered iron impellers and ALL aluminum impellers, regardless of origin. This is beyond what the AD called for. In fact, I have a copy of letter from FAA NY region to mechanics specifying that the AD does NOT require replacement of pre-1970 factory aluminum impellers. Lycoming took it to the next level, I suppose they figure new steel is better than old or new aluminum.

Anyway, my question is should I blow the $500 for the kit with steel impellers and new one piece case, includes drilling accessory case for oil to shaft of steel driven impeller, on which now the impeller rotates, or should I keep what I have assuming it has worked fine for 50 years and exempt from AD....?

thanks, Joe

Bob Mac
05-28-2011, 07:28 PM
there's a lot pf "comic strip" stuff here relative to the way all of these SB's and AD rvisions have . My bottom line is that:
1. I have a pre-1970 engine that hasn't been modified and has Steel impellers
2. Both impeller drive shafts are hardened steel
3. My impeller teeth show a tiny bit of wear which I think is pretty good for the age of the engine
4. The shafts show no wear at all nor does the housing. My impellers don't rotate on the shafts. They rotate with the shafts
5. I can't tell you what to do but mine is going back onto the engine "as is" with my complete confidence that I am legal and, more importantly, more likely to get into trouble from pilot incompetence than from mechanical failure :-)
6. My engine is only 370 SMOH and I did this because the logbooks were silent on the subject. At my age it is a sure bet that someone else will worry about this at overhaul time. $500 will buy me new wing strut forks with a little left over.

jdebbins
05-29-2011, 12:08 AM
....and not 525 as incorrectly stated in my previous post.

JohnW
05-29-2011, 09:06 AM
Okay...my understanding is that this engine is removed, disassembled and undergoing overhaul. I dunno what particular "Approved Data" this engine is being overhauled "in accordance with" if it ISN'T being overhauled iaw the Lycoming Direct Drive Engine Overhaul Manual.

Now, that Overhaul Manual REQUIRES that all current and effective Lycoming S.B.s S.L.s and S.I.s (which ARE approved data) to be "complied with" at time of overhaul. That makes such TechPubs PART OF the Overhaul Manual by "inclusion". Hoo, boy...there's gonna be some argument about this, but I know first-hand what MY FSDO says this means!

I call your attention to [and you are are your own as far as acquiring or making Legal Signoffs regarding the overhaul of a Lycoming engine(s)] Service Bulletin SB240V, which specifies WHAT PIECE/PARTS MUST BE replaced at time of overhaul. Here is the link to Lycoming's online posting of this SB: http://www.lycoming.com/support/publications/service-bulletins/pdfs/SB240V.pdf

Read down to where it says that AT TIME OF OVERHAUL, thou shalt replace "Oil pump bodies (two piece)" AND "Oil pump gears" and (it then tells you) to "reference latest revisions of..."! Now, it doesn't SAY "...IF AFFECTED BY..." so and so, it says "[replace] Oil pump gears", and then it references Approved Data where you will find WHICH GEARS you are supposed to install. It doesn't NEED to tell you which gears to REMOVE, it tells you which gears to INSTALL when you are replacing "oil pump gears", it has already told you to replace two-part bodies AND to replace oil pump gears.

I cannot see a valid argument for retaining the "existing parts" no matter HOW GOOD they look, how FEW hours they have on them, or anything else...if the final signoff says that the engine was Overhauled IAW the Lycoming overhaul manual, the person signing it off is SAYING that ALL the work was done that was required when using the Approved TechPubs. Sorry, guys...using the old oil pump is NOT AN OPTION (at least in an engine logbook signoff that has MY NAME on the bottom line. That signature may darn well be making me the owner of a fraudulent signoff for many. many years to come).

Anyone with a dissenting opinion is more than welcome to raise exception...I'll provide them with the telephone number for my FSDO and THEY can hash it out. My A&P License says I gotta be able to Read, Write and Understand the English language, and that is a scary thing to have certified, in writing, in order to get the approval to sign for things like this. I would WELCOME "relief" from such a hand-tying requirement, but the way it is explained to me (and I surely see it for myself, the way it is worded) you HAVE TO comply with SB240V (at this time) if you are signing off that the work was performed in accordance with the Lycoming Overhaul Manual.

I reference the Manual, and direct interested individuals to the FIRST PAGE after the Title page in the Manual; that would be Page i (Rev January 2007), NOT Page 1 of that Manual.

Again: The AD did not require the replacement of "ALL" impellers (gears). But the Overhaul Manual does require replacement of all two-piece pump bodies "at overhaul", and then it goes one step farther (and it is Clear as Mud, unless you read it as simply as it is written).

P.o.P.
05-29-2011, 10:48 AM
It looks like John W. has it.

My thoughts:

You CAN continue continue the engine in service with the ORIGINAL pump.

You CAN tear the engine down & reassemble with the original pump.

You can call the disassembly/reassembly process some type of repair.

HOWEVER; you may NOT call it a MAJOR OVERHAUL when you do so.

There are some things in the latest Overhaul Manual most people really don't want to know about.

Use of a test cell, club prop, COMPLETE instrumentation , etc fall in this category.

There are a couple engines out there with "Cam Replacements" that I would have called a "MOH" per OLD rules.


As JW stated; a "fraudulent" MOH entry has serious consequences for the owner & A & P (P)?)

The new type of impellers seem to have few problems.

Resale & insurance issues alone make the decision easy.

pa20
05-29-2011, 01:31 PM
It looks like John W. has it.
My thoughts:
You CAN continue continue the engine in service with the ORIGINAL pump.
You CAN tear the engine down & reassemble with the original pump.
You can call the disassembly/reassembly process some type of repair.
HOWEVER; you may NOT call it a MAJOR OVERHAUL when you do so.
There are some things in the latest Overhaul Manual most people really don't want to know about.
Use of a test cell, club prop, COMPLETE instrumentation , etc fall in this category.
There are a couple engines out there with "Cam Replacements" that I would have called a "MOH" per OLD rules.
As JW stated; a "fraudulent" MOH entry has serious consequences for the owner & A & P (P)?)
The new type of impellers seem to have few problems.
Resale & insurance issues alone make the decision easy.

With strict regard to the oil pump, if it meets service limits...why can you not call it a MOH? Is this because the AD states that irrespective of the pump, it must be replaced?
Years ago, I had a Bellanca 17-31A (Lyc IO-540) and I had to replace the gears. My PA-20 had the newer gears installed IAW with the AD before I got it, so I am not intimately familiar with the AD.
Thanks>

Steve Pierce
05-29-2011, 09:41 PM
There are aftermarket oil pump kits and I was thinking they were less than $500.

P.o.P.
05-30-2011, 07:33 AM
The non-applicable AD is not an issue @ MOH.

The MOH must conform to Lycoming "Approved Data" is the issue.

The point is there is no "Approved Data" from Lycoming to authorize installing the pump @ MOH.

There are components ; ie Exhaust Valves, that are required to be changed @MOH.

Procedures such as the "Oil Consumption Run" are also in the picture.

If ALL of the tasks are not accomplished you cannot call it an " Overhaul per CURRENT Lycoming Overhaul Manual".

Then what have you got?

If I was doing a Pre-buy it would be like seeing " replaced 3 Exhaust Valves".

Lycoming had problems with the pump for many years.

It appears they have it right now.

pa20
05-31-2011, 01:48 AM
P.o.P,
OK...It took me a few times reading your response, but I believe I understand what you are stating in your "approved data" comment above If I read your statement correctly, we are in agreement that irrespective of the condition of the gears, they must be replaced as part of an overhaul . Here is the text from SB 240 under the heading of parts that are mandated to be replaced at overhaul (of course I have clipped only the text on oil pump gears)

● Oil pump gears (Reference latest revisions of Service Bulletin No. 524 and Service
Instruction No. 1164)

Here is the link to Lyc. SB 240 for some light reading. http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/publications/service-bulletins/pdfs/SB240U.pdf

Your comments about engine run in led me to do the research on Textron Lycoming's approved run in procedures. This data is contained in SI 1427C. http://www.lycoming.com/support/publications/service-instructions/pdfs/SI1427C.pdf
You will note that while preferred, a test cell, test stand, or test club is NOT mandatory to be in compliance with the approved procedure. I would also question if a MAP gauge is required, as with a FP prop power settings are based on altitude and RPM. This SI is written to cover the run in of all Textron Lycoming recip engines, and obviously those engines with a CS prop require a MAP gauge to set proper power.
The oil consumption limits I believe are applicable to any engine irrespective of TSOH. Would it not be expected that the engine may exceed these limits until the rings are seated? I believe that could be why there is a fair amount of ground run time required prior to flight.
Thanks for your time on this, and the clarification on the requirements for new pump gears.

JohnW
05-31-2011, 11:06 AM
It is always required that you use the LATEST Revision of Lycoming Service Bulletins. I appreciate that the only difference between PA-20's link to SB240U and my previous link in this thread to SB240V isn't relevant to THIS particular discussion about oil pump parts. Nonetheless, be careful to ALWAYS get possibly "revised" materials from a perfectly up-to-date source. A lot of people make the [otherwise innocent] mistake of making lists and/or link compilations of "Stuff like this" when they are researching and storing them conveniently in their computer so they can find them more easily in the future...this is akin to "saving" hard copies of TechPubs "in your toolbox", and can get you into serious trouble in the aviation World. You must always use the LATEST materials for referencing. Mistakes could have been corrected, or requirements may have changed!

Lycoming often "retains" older revisions on their site for the purposes of Inspectors looking to find out what exactly the "work performed" was as specified by revised pubs (and referred to in a signoff). You need to always ascertain that the day you sign something off, that your info was in fact "the latest available at that time". This can be done by perusing the "updated in real time" Index of [pick yer TechPub] on Lycoming's Web Site. Furthermore, NEVER search for SBs, et c on "third party Web Sites". They very rarely "update regularly" and while you MAY find the document you are looking for by "major ID number", you have no way of determining that the Revision you are getting hasn't been superceded 62 times SINCE IT WAS POSTED! Once something is "on the Internet", it NEVER "comes down". People think that they can get their Manuals "free" by searching the internet. That only works for stuff like Eisemann Mags, where there hasn't been Manual Revision since Christ was a child! "How do you know?". If a Mechanic subscribes to Lycoming SBs, SIs and/or SL (or Overhaul Manual subscriptions), he CAN "assume" the latest copy he has is "the latest available". Even so, a new Revision may very well be "in the mail" that predates his signoff. REASONABLE "mistakes like that" would almost garanteed to be "forgiven" if there was an important "correction" to info in the "second newest" Revision...common sense prevails...but believe me, it is TOUGH to do the paperwork on important jobs; if everybody COULD do it, everybody WOULD do it. Repair Stations have one person (or persons) assigned to maintaing Manual Revision, and in cases of busy businesses doing work "all the time", it's pretty much a FULL TIME position! Unfortunately, a lot of people don't know or understand (and WORSE, don't CARE!) the "difference". Not saying PA-20 fits into any of these categories... just making the point that you should take advantage of ALL the information available to you at any given time (and...sorry, PA-20...you could have noticed that not only had I POSTED the link, it was a later revision than in your subsequent Post.)

I'm sayin'... it's a Jungle out there! The best of us can make a simple little mistake. Not a one of us is immune (Present Company INCLUDED).

By the way, PA-20... SI 1009 is almost TWO ALPHABETS beyond Rev "A"... the current one (found at http://www.lycoming.com/support/publications/service-instructions/index.html ) is Rev AU !!! Five more Revisions and it will be Rev B (or AAA?). Yes, Virginia, it makes a difference. (...and again, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ME that made the same "detail mistake". This is what "we are up against" and every one of us should be aware that we COULD BE MAKING this same "mistake"! All we can do is "our best to insure" that we do not do it regularly)

pa20
05-31-2011, 04:03 PM
So, John....It appears that with respect the topic at hand, there are no changes between revisions U & V, but thanks for the lecture about using the most current stuff. I am sure that in the course of your business, you own a subscription to all these pubs. I tried to get the most accurate info, but I all I can do is use the sources that I can find on the net.
What is the comment on SI 1009 in reference to? I don't believe that I made any reference to TBO. As I recall, I quoted SI 1427C, which is relevant to run in of an field overhauled engine.
Thanks again,

JohnW
05-31-2011, 05:44 PM
So, John....It appears that with respect the topic at hand, there are no changes between revisions U & V, but thanks for the lecture about using the most current stuff.

I wonder if that WASN'T meant to be specifically irritating? So, Mark...it appears you make it a habit of repeating what other people just said. I find it odd that you read my last Post closely enough to find that I quoted "a wrong" TechPub. That makes me wonder why you missed that I had Posted the link to the current Service Bulletin and then you took it unto yourself to Post basically the same information. Gosh, if nobody actually USES the info I provide in my Posts, then I must be wasting my time going to that trouble! Geez, I hope that Steve doesn't get mad at me for "picking off" that wrong Document Number from his INITIAL Post that started this topic! We ALL make mistakes (wasn't I humble enough in pointing it out that that very shoe has fit MY foot many a time?). [I think Steve would have recognized the "jab" instantly (if it were "intentional"...I'm not going to confirm OR deny whether it was or wasn't. Go Fish), and figured out very shortly afterwards that it was meant as "private humor"] The fact remains that what you call a "lecture" may or may not be about something that YOU PERSONALLY might not at the time have known (so it would seem), but when you [I] make a statement like "it is very important to use the latest revision blahblahblah" that you [I] address your[my]self to the least knowledgeable person that MIGHT BE reading it (and THAT could happen years from now, when someone searches for something and finds it in THIS Thread. You can take it personally if you WANT TO believe that I [was, am, did, or meant to] talk down to you and.or though you wuz stupit. But I made the point. I made the WHOLE point. Never said you wuz stupit. All that, and it still remains...I SAID that. Why did you?

Now moving on, how is it you were fully aware of the existence of Lycoming S.B. 240(xxx), yet you ask a question like "With strict regard to the oil pump, if it meets service limits...why can you not call it a MOH?"? Maybe what you wound up "doing here" was actually "learning something" that you may have "missed"? It would appear that you were unaware of the statement in the Lycoming Direct Drive Overhaul Manual that you are know awakening to...that you MUST use ALL the TechPubs available from the Manufacturer. That pleases me, and it makes the slight of your not recognizing MY contribution of having said it "first" AND your seemingly impertinent attitude in addressing me "this" way (don't you worry one bit 'bout dat...I'm as thick skinned as ANYBODY around here, and thickerer than most -in more ways that two!) merely something to be put behind me. No matter how snotty I might "come off", I aims to please (and enlighten; educate, if you will), and apparently it's "working" on you, in the matter of re-installing your "wrong" oil pump in your engine. Again, I'm pleased I have been successful (and that's about all there IS as far as "arguments" about this while subject, as far as I am concerned. I regret any bad feelings (if there are any).

Now I'm gonna belabor the point about this being a "lecture". Call it so if you feel like it...this sort of "fact" needs to be explained AT LENGTH to anybody that doesn't understand it already. Too damn many people walk around asking "WHY [something] in direct argument to those that many times don't want the crapola that will no doubt ensue when trying to explain it to some Hardhead that refuses (or is -worse yet- unable to) realize that he doesn't KNOT IT ALL as much as he might think he does. This falls into the "If I have to explain, then ['you'] can't understand" category (but there I go again...). When I explain something like this, it answers all the dumb questions from someone that "never thought about it" will likely have (its very frustrating when you say something as plainly as you can and you get the same "but, are you saying I can't...?". Do I actually HAVE TO explain that if you KNOW something already, that what I wrote isn't meant to be a personal attack on somebody as smart as you? Laugh, if you want to...consider it a "review" of info you already have committed to memory, if you are so inclined. Call me a blowhard, if it pleases you. But someone somewhere is either gonna learn something NEW from a "long winded Post", or maybe remember something he knew a long, long time ago, and flat forgot. Both those things happen to me EVERY DAY of my life. I recommend you be a little more magnanimous and appreciative of my efforts. Hey, if you can't live with that, maybe you could figure out how to block my Posts so you don't have to see them. Most of us (yeah...even me) will engage in "discussion" about the "finer details" of something somebody just doesn't "get". Hey, P.o.P. made the extra effort, and YOU apparently thanked him for it. (is this all about you?)(enough about you, let's talk about ME for a minute...) MY forehead is flatter'n a pancake! Ya know WHY? It's from SLAPPIN' it, myself. I hope slapping myself has made me a better person in SOME way. Call me whatever you want, jus' don't call me Late for Dinner.

Did you ever get the "tone" that "me" was talking about "PA20's link" in the Third Person in all but the last of that Post? Doesn't that say TO YOU that I wasn't addressing myself to YOU, alone? How could you actually think I was picking on you? Can you not see how that last paragraph (that IS directed to YOU), was MEANT to be "out of context"? [If not, I don't care...I'm not gonna explain that part, if you can't understand it. If you DO understand it, I don't need to explain it] Have a good one! Keep up the Good Work.

Steve Pierce
05-31-2011, 05:55 PM
I'm gonna monkey up the works and ask a question. What FAR requires you use all the applicable manufacturer's service bulletins? The oil pump is a great example especially since the approved overhaul manual calls out an obsolete oil pump. My personal opinion would be that they should provide an up to date manual instead of having to look at this service instruction and that service bulletin. A good example to really blow this out of the water is the fact that I can still legally cover an airplane in Poly-Fiber and paint it with any top coat I want if I quote the old procedure manual. John Goldenbaum himself told me this when I asked him how a certain shop was able to do this and document it. He said they would have to issue an AD against the older manual to make it unapproved. :new_Eyecrazy:

Jim
05-31-2011, 06:26 PM
I'll try the question again elsewhere.

Avalancheman
06-01-2011, 12:23 AM
I too have been just as confused of the application of the AD and needed more clarification......and wanted to ask apparently even "DUMBER" questions. After that last rant, glad I didnt....

Steve Pierce
06-01-2011, 06:53 AM
My opinion, regulations aside, spend the extra few bucks on the new oil pump. If you are overhauling the engine it is small $ compared to everythjing else and then there is no question. I am sure there is a reason they changed the design.

As far as the the uncalled for drama. I have no use for it. Treat others as you would if you were standing in front of them. A little humility goes a long way. This is supposed to be a place where people feel comfortable asking questions and learning.

pa20
06-01-2011, 10:55 AM
John,
Your post does not deserve a public reply, and I would recommend that not use the public forum for your personal attacks. I am sending my reply via PM.
My apologies to the OP for the thread drift caused by John's little hissy fit, and my subsequent replies.
Back to any further discussion about oil pumps.

JohnW
06-01-2011, 04:23 PM
Message received, Steve.

jdebbins
06-02-2011, 11:08 PM
OK, I took another close look at SB 524, and guess what, it does NOT include my vintage engine on the LIST 2, which is a narrow deck (without "A" at end of S/N) and not in the LIST 2 serial numbers for replacement of aluminum impellers.

So I was wrong when I said that the AD exempted earlier engines with aluminum driven impellers and the SB 524 did not.... it is now clear to me that SB 524 AGREES with AD 96-09-10 in exempting older engines with original steel driving aluminum impeller on fixed shaft.

Thus, in referencing SB524 from SB240V, I find that SB 524 exempts my engine, as does the AD. Not sure about the housing thing, of course I have two-piece.

I am not sure how to take the SB240V. Lycoming would have all parts replaced as a general principle... SB240 is a list that keeps growing.

In all likelyhood I will modify my oil pump to the newer steel-steel single housing config, per SB240V, but not SB524 which clearly exempts my engine. Seems like a bunch of jumping up and down when the original parts worked fine for 40 years.

jdebbins
06-03-2011, 10:29 AM
This is supposed to be a place where people feel comfortable asking questions and learning.

Thanks Steve! One of the reasons I am into airplanes is that there is A LOT TO LEARN!!! I enjoy the challenge of continue learning, and from flying proficiency to mechanical to regulations, it never ends with these little airplanes.

cheers all, Joe

jdebbins
06-03-2011, 10:33 AM
OK, new topic: at the last overhaul of this Lycoming 0320-B2B on PA22-160, which was in 1970 (BTW the oil gears WERE replaced, but in the original configuration, namely steel P/N60746 driving aluminum P/N60747, not to continue that controversy!), the other thing that happened was that the 160HP high compression 8.50:1 pistons were replaced by smaller lower compression 7.00:1 pistons which derated the engine to 150HP. I am not sure why this was done... other than mogas STC which this aircraft obtained some years later it seems. Was there a "reason" folks did this to their narrow deck engines, other than mogas? The good news is that I have the original "thick wall" pins still (P/N 69650 I think)... and now I am very tempted to get my 10HP back by going back to high compression pistons... damn the mogas (even in this day of expensive 100LL).....my logic is that with a "cruise" fixed prop, 10HP will give me better climb out performance, this is what I have been told by the guys at propeller shop.... plus, one day she is going to be on floats (dream on!).

Thoughts everyone??? best, Joe

jdebbins
06-03-2011, 12:49 PM
OK, I took another close look at SB 524, and guess what, it does NOT include my vintage engine on the LIST 2, which is a narrow deck (without "A" at end of S/N) and not in the LIST 2 serial numbers for replacement of aluminum impellers.


On this note, I called Lycoming (use the number up on top left of SB) and spoke with technical person (name witheld) and he admitted that SB 524 does not apply to my engine serial number.

He did point out that at overhaul, I am subject to SB240 and SI1009, the latest versions.
The former calls out for replacement of oil pump gears and two-piece housings, and the latter is the TBO schedule for their engines, i.e. when overhaul is "mandatory".

BUT: it is also well understood that under FAR Part 91, SB are not "mandatory" unless called out by the AD itself.

end of controversy

JBUZBY
05-22-2012, 04:27 AM
I read through all three pages of this thread and just encountered varying degrees of confusion, what I do know is I had the two piece housing with cotter pin in the driven shaft, one steel and one aluminum impeller. I decided to just get the new one piece housing with both steel gears. My question is are the drive shafts interchangeable between the two units and what is the oil galley drilling business about? I've still yet to install the new pump but need more info on what to do about that? Any info is appreciated, and I realize in advance that most of my posts are most likely seen as ignorant questions but like alot of guys just want to learn more and appreciate the knowledge base that is shared here.

Steve Pierce
05-22-2012, 07:02 AM
The shaft for the the impeller shaft that was cotter pinned now spins in the accessory housing thus the holes is drilled to allow lubrication of the spinning shaft. I thought the shaft was different in the new oil pumps but I might be wrong. Most I have installed were bought as a kit with both impellers and the shaft. I will post the service instructions when I get a chance.

jdebbins
05-22-2012, 09:07 PM
I read through all three pages of this thread and just encountered varying degrees of confusion, what I do know is I had the two piece housing with cotter pin in the driven shaft, one steel and one aluminum impeller. I decided to just get the new one piece housing with both steel gears. My question is are the drive shafts interchangeable between the two units and what is the oil galley drilling business about? I've still yet to install the new pump but need more info on what to do about that? Any info is appreciated, and I realize in advance that most of my posts are most likely seen as ignorant questions but like alot of guys just want to learn more and appreciate the knowledge base that is shared here.

OK, read my previous posts marked "jdebbins". I consider myself the defacto authority on this subject, having called Lycoming on the phone and squeezing the truth out of them! Your vintage (what year?) 2 piece oil pump with steel and aluminum Lycoming is EXEMPT from this AD, as I described. I had the exact same set up as you on my 1960 vintage narrow deck. The only reason I did this an spent the coin was to avoid any "AD" issues down the road, but in truth, Lycoming got it right in the original engines, then they got cheap and tried sintered iron, then bad aluminum, then back to steel per the AD.

YES, the DRIVE SHAFT is interchangeable, so you don't need that. Colorado Airparts got me a good deal on a serviced one-piece housing and the two steel gears.

You don't actually drill the oil galley, rather you drill a small hole into the driven impeller well (in accessory case) from the pressure side of the pump (behind top gear) to provide direct lubrication of the shaft that now spins on the new steel lower gear. Easy to do, just follow SB instructions.

I'll try to post some pictures of my setup, before and after.

Steve Pierce
05-22-2012, 09:17 PM
Shafts are the same between the old and new impellers. Here is Lycoming Service Instruction 1341 on idler shaft lubrication. http://www.lycoming.com/support/publications/service-instructions/pdfs/SI1341.pdf

JBUZBY
05-23-2012, 02:22 AM
Thanks Steve, much appreciated. How are you guys going about getting the right angle? seems tricky to get it precise. Jdebbins pictures are worth a thousand words!

jdebbins
05-23-2012, 02:15 PM
Thanks Steve, much appreciated. How are you guys going about getting the right angle? seems tricky to get it precise. Jdebbins pictures are worth a thousand words!

OK, I can't seem to get the web uploader to take my photos, I guess I can't figure that out even with my "instrument" rating! :)

As for the oil hole, I don't think the exact angle is critical, just do your best. The goal is to hit the "well" about half way down, mine came out pretty well, go slow. Use a good strong drill bit.


you can send me email I can send you photos, but I don't think I have any of the actually hole (should have taken one), but of the gears, housing and installation.

JBUZBY
06-11-2012, 01:48 PM
The service bulletin makes it look like your supposed to drill through both sides of idler shaft hole? Is that right? Seems like if you drilled from the pressure side thru the shaft housing that would be good. I can't see the benefit of drilling into the other side of the driven shaft hole. Am I missing something

JBUZBY
06-15-2012, 12:12 AM
I drilled mine today, started from the driven shaft and drilled into the pressure side "well" I ended up left of my mark but I think it will work. I think it would have been better to drill from the "well" into the shaft but I couldn't get a shallow enough angle from that direction. Debuted it with a small round file. I think the hardest part is getting all the cuttings cleaned up

Steve Pierce
06-15-2012, 06:31 AM
I drill from pump side into the shaft bore.