Rolls Royce TSIO-360

[Ed Coffman]

Originally Posted by rrolland

This not a new issue unfortunately. In the 70's a number of RR TSIO 360 engines were installed on T337G's (P337's) by various entities (engine shops, MRO's etc.). In a number of cases, the FAA became aware and forced the removal of the RR engines as they were never certified in the US in the first place.

I owned N78C a while back and the log books contained several entries including paperwork from the FAA forcing the removal of the RR engines shortly after installation. The FAA had been notified by a shop doing maintenance on the airplane...

It would be interesting to find out how some owners overcame that hurdle.

Do you have any evidence the FAA forced an owner to remove one of those engines. I would love to see it. Otherwise I find your hearsay specious. See attachment from FAA registry.

[Ed Coffman]

It might not be airworthy due to the VAR crankshaft AD that hit all the old TCM 360 models.

[Ed Coffman]

From the FAA. " One commenter states that the AD should be withdrawn, since the FAA
has not substantiated the inclusion of the Rolls-Royce, plc engines
which are not US type certificated. The FAA does not concur. The FAA
stated in the second SNPRM that the Rolls-Royce, plc engines are
identical in design and manufacturing process, which substantiates
their inclusion. It is true that there is no US type certificate for
these engines; however, these engines are accepted for use on US type
certificated airplanes, and several are installed on US registered
aircraft. Therefore, TCM service information and FAA ADs apply to these
engines."

[mshac]

I believe Mr. Coffman has hit the nail on the head! The FAA's response to the AD comment clearly states that RR IO-360's are flying on FAA-certified aircraft, and with the FAA's implied blessing!

If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, the issue the FAA has is NOT that the engines are RR, but that they have not had the VAR crank AD applied? So it would follow logically that if a RR IO-360 had the VAR crank AD complied (and any other that is applicable), it would be acceptable to the Administrator???

[wslade2]

VAR crank issue doesn’t apply unless the case halves are opened.

The way I read it, basically same rules apply to the RR engines as domestic continentals.

Also interesting sentence “accepted for use on US type certificated airplanes”.

Question would be if you can twist that into FAA acknowledgment of treatment of them same as others gets you over the hump. And transfer that over to CAA. How about a call to AOPA legal services?

[mshac]

Originally Posted by wslade2

VAR crank issue doesn’t apply unless the case halves are opened.

True, but for brevity I assumed most of these cases have been split by now.

So the FAA is saying that for regulatory purposes, a RR IO360 is the same as a Cont IO360, that they us the same manufacturing methods, maintenance manuals, SBs, parts manuals, etc.

If the FAA claims they have regulatory authority over the RR IO360's, and insists they must comply with the ADs for the Cont IO360, how can they then turn around and say one engine may not be swapped for another in a USA certified aircraft? It makes no sense. By claiming the authority over the engine, they've just defacto approved it, as long as all ADs are complied with.

Am I missing anything?