CONTINENTAL IO-360 AD…
AD 97-26-17, (replace airmelt crank with vacuum arc remelt {VAC} crank), has been mailed to all those concerned and includes the straight IO-360s (not just the turbos). Apparently, FAA data showed that 5 of the 8 airmelt crankshaft failures occurred on IO-360 (non-turbo) engines and of the five, two had more than 1,200 hours total time. The FAA’s position is that the failures are random and time in service is not the determining factor. So, how to tell which crank is which? Swifter Jim Montague has the following advice:
“As you probably know by now, AD 97-26-17 is out; making replacement of Continental IO-360 crankshafts mandatory at overhaul. FYI – A VAR crank may be identified by removing the propeller. A 6 digit serial number will be visible on the crankshaft flange. From memory, an airmelt crank might have a part number, 639200, in ink on the flange (or 639786), this is not a serial number. Otherwise, when #6 cylinder is removed, VAR should be visible cast on the crank cheek.”
WOW! THE ANWSER MAN HAS A QUESTION !!!
From Jim Montague…(posted on the Yahoo! Globe Temco Swift Club page)
I maintain a Swift with an IO-360 Cont. engine. When it sits for over a month it idles very rough and will hardly run at less than full throttle. At idle, the mixture control needs to be backed out considerably, just to run. After a hour or so of running, it seems ok. If the airplane is flown at least every week, this problem never shows up. The fuel injection components were sent in to a repair station – no trouble was found. I suspect something with the fuel pump. Any ideas?
Answer from Tony Jolly (agjolly@netdoor.com)
With the symptoms you gave there are a couple of things that might be a problem.
1. I understand this is a fuel Injected engine – If this is true, there should be some sort of fuel regulation to the injection system. If this is sticking open and allowing to much fuel pressure it could cause the symptoms.
2. As fuel sits for extended periods, some contaminates or additives of the fuel could fall out or make deposits in the fuel system. You might try turning off your fuel – when you know it will be down for a while – and starve the engine of fuel for final shutdown.
3. It could be something in the Air components of the fuel system because it sounds as if it is running very rich.
WOW! THE ANSWER MAN HAS A QUESTION !!! PART TWO…
We ran the following question from Jim Montague last month:
From Jim Montague…(posted on the Yahoo! Globe Temco Swift Club page)
I maintain a Swift with an IO-360 Cont. engine. When it sits for over a month it idles very rough and will hardly run at less than full throttle. At idle, the mixture control needs to be backed out considerably, just to run. After a hour or so of running, it seems ok. If the airplane is flown at least every week, this problem never shows up. The fuel injection components were sent in to a repair station – no trouble was found. I suspect something with the fuel pump. Any ideas?
Here is a reply from Michael Kennedy of the Swift Magic Aerobatic Team (SMAT3@aol.com)…
Jim:
I have had this problem a few times with my Swift after long period of not running — mainly when I was still in the AF flying fighters and away on overseas duties. The problem is the O-ring in the fuel controller at the throttle butterfly valve. It has a tendency to shrink up when not in contact with fuel. This causes the rough running with too much fuel by passing to the injection manifold valve. After the O-ring has been in contact with fuel it gets back to normal size and the problem goes away. Lowell and I took awhile figuring this out when we were both in the Miami area. Instead of running the engine to clear this up, you can try running your boost pump the day before you are going to fly. This will get fuel through the system and the O-ring should be back to normal the next day. — Michael Kennedy
PS. You are not supposed to open the fuel metering housing to change the O-ring. But there is nothing in there but the metering ring with the O-ring around it.
LYCOMING VS CONTINENTAL AIRSTARTS… From Swifter Madison Jones…
On the Cont. IO-360 fuel starvation issue, I can certainly attest to how difficult it is to get them going again compared to the Lycoming IO-360. After having run the aux tanks empty rountinely to the point of engine stoppage (on the Lycoming), and then having the fire light right off, no problemo, I was not concerned when, flying a friend’s Continental IO-360, the engine quit due to having the aux tank run dry over the mountains one nice day when I was at 9,500’ msl. By the time it started running again, I had descended to BELOW the level of the adjacent ground level, and was in the Spokane River cut through the mountains, approximately 4000’ msl. Not only must you use the fuel boost, you must be careful about it lest you flood the system (or whatever I did for over 5000’). For those who have not totally lost an engine before, be aware that even at reasonable glide speeds of about 85 mph, in flat pitch a Swift drops like a piano tossed out the 10th story window. The whole adventure didn’t take more than a couple of minutes, but I did appreciate the difference between Lycoming and Continental injection systems. Needless to say, I like the Lycoming much better. —-Madison Jones
SMAT 3 CHECKS IN…
News from Swift Magic Aerobatic Team member Michael Kennedy (smat3@aol.com) and his opinion on the Continental IO-360 airstart problem related by Swifter Madison Jones (ab5tv@ix.netcom.com) in last month’s Swiftweb:
Note on Continental airstart. The altitude was the problem. At 9500 ft you can only use low boost when the engine stops. High boost will flood it out until you get to lower altitude. We run our tanks dry all the time to insure they are empty before performing for a show. I have never had more than a few seconds of silence and not lost any altitude. This is why the Continental IO-360 STC has a two position fuel boost switch included. High boost is only to prime for start. It can be used to catch a empty tank, but even at lower altitudes it could be too much. I have a two light warning system for my boost switch – Yellow, low boost on, RED high boost on. You need to know which boost position is selected, especially if you loose the engine pump at low altitude. High boost could keep you from getting your engine restarted. — Michael Kennedy
CONTINENTAL IO-360 OIL CAPACITY… (7399)
Subject: Re: Oil capacity
From: Pete King <peetking@earthlink.net>
Hi, Jim,
The Continental IO360 has a 10 quart sump. However they won’t operate at that capacity — since it seems to throw out anything over 6 quarts. The engine would run cooler with 10. Do you know of a FIX ? Regards, Pete King
Pete:
We have several IO-360’s here locally and none seem to have that problem. On my O-300 I run 6 or 7 quarts to avoid throwing out the last quart. I will ask some of the IO-360 guys about this, but I don’t believe anyone has to run over a quart low. — Jim
CONTINENTAL IO-360s THROWING OUT OIL… (7499)
Subject: Re: Oil capacity
From: Pete King <peetking@earthlink.net>
Hi, Jim,
The Continental IO360 has a 10 quart sump. However they won’t operate at that capacity — since it seems to throw out anything over 6 quarts. The engine would run cooler with 10. Do you know of a FIX ? Regards, Pete King
Pete:
I polled the local IO-360 owners. Doc Goodlad has no problem with throwing oil out. (IO-360C) Daryl Dressler has no problem. (IO-360D) Harry Lyon uses hardly any oil. (IO-360D) Mark Holliday uses no oil with his IO-360A but says their Skyhawk XP with the IO-360K threw out anything over 6 quarts. That sump was meant to hold 8 quarts. I guess thats all I know. — Jim
CONTINENTAL IO-360 STUFF… (7499)
From: Sandb12345@aol.com
Subject: N80776 update
Again thanks for the updates! Lots of good information. Something to think about! N80776 has a Cont.I0-360-C. Ran fine at sea level but above five thousand feet on take off would surge and quit. Some use of the boost pump kept the engine running out of Clayton NM. Then in the air the air pressure on the vent kept it running. But no way out of Durango NM. almost seven thousand feet. Left it there. (the company I flew for had a citation that flew in to Durango twice a week) Went back four times taking off fuel pumps, injection system ect. All rebuilt still wouldn’t run. Checked the fitting on the Dukes pump found a loose fitting from the tank to the pump, tightened it and Wa-La it ran. I flew it home after 20 days on the ramp! It still has a problem with cutting out when it’s hot, but I plan on tracing the fuel line from the tank up. Any body have any ideas?
The STC for the 210 installation details how the resistors are wired in to make a high and low speed pump. It involves 2ea. 2 ohm resistors in the “hi boost” and one 2 ohm resistor in the “lo boost” side of the switch. Did not whoever did your engine installation do that? Did they not place a copy of the STC in the aircraft records? I would double check everything. But I think you have found the main culprit. Did whoever who did your conversion route the vapor return line per the STC? It’s important! I have seen several that are not per the STC! — Jim
From: Don Bartholomew <spectro@nanosecond.com>
Organization: The Aeroplane Factory
Subject: Re: N80776 update
Check the fuel lines for the old style stainless braid Aeroquip hose. These had a nasty problem of developing small holes that would suck air in, but would not leak air out. If you have this type of line, replace all of them with either a rubber outer braid Aeroquip or Stratoflex stainless.
Another item to check is where the return line from the injector pump is going. It should go the the top of the fuel neck, just under the gauge. If it goes to any place that has fuel standing, like the sump, there is to much back pressure, and this can cause a problem of running rich. You stated you changed the pump and injection, but was the injection set up per Continental Service Bulletin SID97-3? Just because the pressures were set when the pump/injection was rebuilt, doesn’t mean that it is correct for the installation. By setting the system per the SB, you can get an idea if you are sucking air from the pressure gauge readings.
The pump called for in the STC is a single speed pump that runs through resistors both for high and low speed. If you don’t have ALL the paperwork for the STC, contact Suzanne Evans at Merlyn Products and get the paperwork then check what is supposed to be against what is there. — Good luck — Don Bartholomew
From: SMAT3@aol.com
Subject: IO-360 reply
Sheridan:
The Dukes boost pump for the IO-360 has two speeds through resistors. The High setting is for priming the engine for start and the low speed to back up the engine driven pump. The high speed side can flood the engine if used in flight — there is a noticeable increase in fuel pressure if you turn it on in flight and it will change your mixture considerably. It is not recommended to turn the boost pump on during take off or landing except if your engine driven quits — i.e., the engine stops and you don’t know why — boost on and switch tanks!(assuming you have long range tanks too) Many of us have placed the boost pump switch near the throttle so it is easy to reach in an emergency. Interestingly enough, Beechcraft also states that the boost pump should not be used except in an emergency for my Bonanza too.
As for the IO-360 problem, I would ask if you have the proper mixture set at the throttle body. This mixture is set with a screw head in a sleeve on the side of the throttle body where the hose goes to the injector spider and must be adjusted for each individual aircraft. A simple check is to run the engine at 1000 rpm and slowly pull out the mixture. The rpm should rise about 50 rpm just before the engine quits. If it does not rise but just quits suddenly, the mixture is too lean. This would be very noticeable when the engine is hot and you push the throttle in — it would also be cured by turning on the boost pump which makes the mixture run rich. If the rpm gains much over 150 rpm before stopping, it is too rich. This should not cause cutting out unless it is really rich which would be very noticeable on the above check. If you have checked this and the fuel lines, I do not have any other ideas right now. — Michael Kennedy
(Editor’s note… Got this reply from Sheridan: “Didn’t think I would have all this expert advice! This is a neat group! Thanks for your speedy reply!!! Sheridan”)
CONT 210 “BLOW-OUT”… (8399)
From: “Allen E. Andersen” <72032.237@compuserve.com>
Subject: August #1 GTS Internet Update
Concerning the 210 Continetal oil story about “blowing out” excess oil. I would check the condition of the rings in the engine. Here is why I suggest that, and I hope that my explanation is neither too complex or overly simplifies the problem.
The internal parts of all aircraft engines are lubricated with “splash oil” (except the bearings and pressurized oil areas) which is just another way of saying that the cam faces and cam follower are enveloped in an oil “mist” during operation. Since this oil mist is all over the inside of the crankcase, and the crankcase is vented to the outside air via the breather, ideally the flow between the inside and outside of the crankcase is minimal, only enough to equalize the pressure.
This does not happen if you are leaking an excessive amount past your rings however. Most of the “blowing oil problems” I’ve seen are a result of this phenomina. The “blowby” past the rings produces higher pressure inside the crankcase, (from the compression stroke) and creates a continuous flow of air out the breather tube to equalize the pressure, taking the oil mist with it. This will be noticed by the “oil belly” on your airplane, and dripping an excessive amount out of your breather tube after you shut down. Some engines, which have a history of blowby , have an air/ oil separator installed to recapture some of the oil which otherwise would blow overboard with the flow of the air out of the crankcase. Most newer styles of pistons and rings alleviate the problem and very few modern engines even bother having an air /oil separator installed, since a properly seated rings all but eliminate blowby.
Another clue for diagnosing blowby is the color of the oil on the dipstick. If it turns black within 10 hours of an oil change, you probably have a ring problem and blowby (screen type engines). Filter type engines you’ll probably seen some evidence within 15 hours of a change. The premature blackness of the oil is caused by carbon contaminates, which are products of the combustion in the upper cylinder, leaking past the rings and collecting in the oil.
Many of the new cylinder/ piston/ring sets which are being sold now have done a much better job of sealing the upper cylinder from the crankcase to prevent blowby. My 0300-D used to consume about a quart every 4 hours or so, but when I overhauled it and put new Millenium cylinders on it, it dropped to a quart every 8-10 hours, and the oil stays pretty clear even after 20 hours of use.
One more thing I have noticed. If you do a compression check and everything checks out within limits, you may have an excessive amount of oil in the cylinder, which will have the effect of sealing the rings and making them look better than they are during normal operation. You can minimize this effect by doing a compression check when the engine is still hot, as the oil will not seal the rings quite as well as cold viscous oil will.
IO-360 OIL LOSS… (9199)
From: peetking@earthlink.net (Pete King)
Hi, Jim,
Reading responses to my problem of rapid oil loss tells me some clarification may be needed. My engine has 1430scmoh and has always acted exactly the same way. As long as no more than 6 qts are put in oil usage is “normal”. If I put in more than 6 qts, the excess will disappear in an hour or so. Compression has ranged from 76+ down to the present 70 — belly normally dry except after being upside down a bit — I wonder if all the oil pans are the same? Mark(?) mentioned a similar problem in a different model IO-360 at higher quantities. I’ve learned to live with 6 qts but would improve it if I could.
Pete,
I don’t have much operating experience with the 210. 50 hours at most, mostly in Doc Goodlads Swift which I converted in 1977. I never had that problem. Mark had that with an IO-360K in a Cessna XP. Maybe others with more experience will write. — Jim
PETE KING GETS CONTINENTAL IO-360 BEYOND OVERHAUL ADVICE… (10299)
In the last update Swifter Pete King, <peetking@earthlink.net>, wrote:
Subject: It’s gone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My IO- 360D is approaching it’s 1500 hour TBO — but still has 70+ on all cyl. and good oil consumption. Since both my crank and case are junk at overhaul, I’m in no hurry to do it. Does anyone have any suggestions about things to watch as the time builds?
Pete;
The IO-360 is not considered a good engine for TBO busting, but local Bob and Deb Bailey have something like 2300 hours on theirs and it still runs fine, although it leaks a lot of oil. They have delayed overhaul for the same reason as you, buying that VAR crank. As long as yours runs good and has good compression, I would just keep. running it. “Doc” Goodlad has one I overhauled about 25 years ago and it’s starting to use oil, but it still runs good, “Doc” is 70 some years old and has no plans to overhaul the engine. That stupid AD note is why. When we overhauled it 25 years ago we installed a brand new crank, but of course, not a VAR. On yours, I would change oil regularly, and check the screen or filter carefully, and run it. — Jim
PUMP MAKES NOISE… (10499)
From: Pete King <peetking@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel and air
My Dukes pump has a hum when running – Is this symptomatic of eminent rebuild? Seems to me I had to do some fix to it once before. Regards, Pete
Pete:
I’m not sure what you consider a hum, all Dukes pumps make noticeable sound in hi boost and somewhat less sound in lo boost. Perhaps more experienced 210 pilots will comment. — Jim
180 NOSE CAP FOR 210HP CONT MOD… (10499)
I’m looking for a Cessna 180 cowling nose cap to make the proper modification to my cowling for the Cont IO360 STC. The drawing calls for part number 0752011-4. Does anyone know what year and model Cessna 180 this is from, and does anyone know where I can find one? — Jon Ewing <jonwewing@cs.com>
Jon:
I’ve done 2, the first one I ordered right from Cessna, this was 20 years ago and I thought the price was high then. The other I got from a Cessna dealer that was selling excess inventory. It turned out not to be the exact p/n (it was an earlier model) but it worked out great. — Jim
BIG MOTOR SWIFT IN SOUTH AFRICA…,,(11299)
Subj: SWIFT 210 CONVERSION
From: Gary Williams <garyjw@Intekom.co.za>
Jim,
I am nearing completion of a 210HP conversion into my Globe Swift GC1B. I have some queries regarding the fuel supply system, please can you help: 1. Does the fuel supply line to the engine have to be increased in diameter to deliver the increased fuel supply. 2. The IO360 D engine originally comes off a high wing Cessna 337, would there be a substantial change in fuel pressure adjustment on the injector pump. 3. The fuel return line is connected to the fuel gauge neck without a check valve, is this sufficient. 4. Are there any special fuel supply requirements that need to be considered. I am a licensed AP mechanic, and the aircraft is registered in the LS1 category in South Africa which permits me to carry out the necessary modifications. I would appreciate some assistance in this regard, or please forward me to someone who has carried out this conversion. Thank-you. Regards, Gary Williams – South Africa
Gary,
While a few US Swifters have done their own 210 conversions, most are in accordance with the Merlyn Products STC. (Supplemental Type Certificate) The 3/8″ lines are adequate. (AN6) The fact the 337 has a high wing doesn’t affect the fuel flow. The return line should preferably go to near the top of the standpipe, no check valve is needed, I have seen airplanes where the mechanic who did the work “cheated” and used the old 1/8″ pipe primer port at the lower forward corner of the sump (trap, I think its called in the Parts Catalog). I think this is a bad idea and air bubbles might make their way to the engine and cause problems. There is a Cessna screen which replaces the Swift gascolator screen perfectly. I’m not sure of the part number, but I think it’s used on all the fuel injected IO-360’s thru IO-520’s. Some Swifts with the stock Swift screen have had injector problems. I did Bill Goodlads 210 conversion about 25 years ago and used that screen and he has never had any problem. I have quite a bit of data on the IO-360 here, if I can be of further assistance let me know. — Jim
IO-360 CONTINENTAL FUEL PUMP/PRESSURE QUESTIONS… (11499)
Subject: Re: 210 cont conversion
From: Gary Williams <garyjw@intekom.co.za>
Thank-you for your response to my question regarding the 210 HP Continental conversion. I still have some queries regarding the fuel pressure adjustment on the engine driven fuel pump, and was wondering if you would be able to offer some advice:
1. What is the recommended pressure adjustment at full power setting.
2. What is the normal fuel consumption in gph indicated on the fuel flow gauge on the panel at full power setting.
3. Is there a quick check method using the gph gauge on the panel to ensure that the fuel pressure (and hence quantity) is sufficient.
4. What pressure can one expect to read on the instrument panel using the original fuel pressure gauge( as per the C125 installation, in psi) connected at the outlet of the fuel divider unit, where the fuel consumption gauge in gph would normally be connected on the IO-360 Continental motor.
Gary,
To start with #4. Forget the original fuel pressure ga. It doesn’t read high enough. Try to get a fuel flow/manifold pressure gauge, possibly from a 337 Cessna. These gauges are really fuel pressure gauges, but the psi and gph are approximately the same. The gauge you want has a scale up to 20 pounds or so. Max pressure in hi boost is 18 psi. Normal range is 4 1/2 – 11 gph (green arc) Min. is 3 psi. You know you have to wire in resistors to obtain a high and low boost from the Dukes pump right? You need high boost for engine starting and low boost for emergency use if the engine pump fails, also once in a while you need low boost with a cold engine to keep it running until it starts hitting on all 6 cylinders and reaches 1000 rpm or so on start up. You can’t tell anything about fuel quantity from fuel pressure! Except, of course, if you run out, the pressure goes to zero! I have a complete manual here someplace on the TCM fuel injection system, but I couldn’t locate it today when I looked for it. You probably don’t need to worry about making any fine adjustments, just start it up and see how it runs. I will look again for that manual if you have further questions. — Jim
DUKES OF NORTHRIDGE??? (060100)
Subject: Dukes boost pump
From: Snaglefraz@aol.com
Jim, can you tell me what city in Calif. the Dukes, Inc. business is in. They recondition the IO360 cont. boost pump.Thanks, Mike
Mike,
I looked on a Dukes Pump and all it said was Dukes Inc. Northridge, CA so I looked it up in www.switchboard.com and it came up: Dukes Inc. 9060 Winetka Ave. Northridge, CA 91924 (818) 998-9811
IO-360 OPERATION AND FUEL PRESSURES… (070500)
From: Perry Sisson <Diamond2055@aol.com>
Hello Jim, My question for the month is, can fuel totalizer transducers be rebuilt? I have the Swiftronics RT-100. It seems to have fuel stains on the top where the wires come out. I happened to find this while removing the complete fuel injection system from my engine. If they cannot be rebuilt is there a replacement for it? Also, I removed the fuel injection system for overhaul because I had the following things happening. 1) When I would hit the fuel boost switch, the pump would run like it should to a certain point , building pressure and then would go to a high rev and build no more pressure. The last few starts, the pressure built less than before, but the engine still started on the first blade or two. The Dukes pump was overhauled in 1992. I am planning on sending it in for overhaul at this time. 2) In the last month of flying I have noticed white exhaust stains on the belly, they used to be gray. I understand this is a sign of a lean running engine. I usually lean to 11.6 GPH at two thousand feet and above. Below two thousand feet I run full rich. So I think I am not starving it for fuel. 3) When I top off the tanks it always takes less than the fuel totalizer says it will take. 4) This is the big one, I have seen higher cylinder Temp. than normal and running full rich at even 6,000 feet does not bring the Temp. down. I am planning on sending the fuel injection system to a company in MI. called Approved Aircraft Accessories. Or do you know of a better shop? I cannot find the yellow tag from when I had the Duke’s pump rebuilt. So do you know where I could send it for overhaul? I guess I am asking more than one question here, sorry about that. Hope you are doing well. — Perry Sisson
Perry,
Most of what you ask is beyond my experience. I have built up a couple 210 Swifts and even flown them a few hours but you certainly have more operating experience with them. To start, I don’t know much about fuel totalizers but I would suggest you contact the manufacturer with your question. If you can’t figure out how to do that, I would suggest you call Ron Williamson from the number in the Swift membership book. For questions about a Dukes pump call Dukes themselves. Get in <www.switchboard.com> and click on “find a business” and enter “Dukes” and “Northridge, CA” this will get you their phone number and address. I’m not sure what to tell you about the way your injection system is acting, it doesn’t sound to me like a problem with the pump. Perhaps another 210 operator will answer you. Do you have an EGT guage? It sounds like you need one. Several guys I know have sent their fuel injection system to that outfit in MI and as far as I know they are good. — Jim
CABIN HEAT MUFF FOR CONTINENTAL IO-360… (100100)
From: Phil Howell <POPPAPOU@aol.com>
As a relative new Swift owner (N3313K) , living in an area that has some snow each winter, I was wondering if any one out there has an approved heat muff instillation for the 210 Cont. Mine has a heat control, but nothing else. I can fabricate a muff if someone has an approval document and/or drawings. Many thanks, Phil
Phil,
I feel that is a minor alteration, because the muff is for cabin heat. Several of the local 210 Swift owners here in the frozen north have fabricated muffs for picking up heat for the heater. I don’t know of a stock muff (Piper or Cessna etc.) that will work with the Swift cowl. — Jim
CG ON 210 CONVERSION… (100400)
Subj: Swift Likes to Dive too Much…
From: Bill Jacobs <wjacobs@sybase.com>
I’ve nearly finished a Cont. IO360 conversion with a McCauley “late style” prop. All approved. The heavy engine and prop have resulted in a nicely noseheavy beast. Looking at extra lead for the tail and a lightweight starter doesn’t quite get me where I need to be. That leaves the battery, right? Have you ever seen or heard of approvals via STC or 337 to move the battery further back in the tail than the bulkhead behind the baggage compartment? I ran the numbers, and moving the battery 30 inches back (2 bulkheads) puts my numbers in the money – 2 people, full fuel and 100 # of baggage and I’m still well fwd of the rearward limit. Any other thoughts? Bill
Bill,
As you know the STC for the IO-360 includes moving the battery to aft of the baggage compartment. Some Swifters have moved it further aft on a field approval. I don’t know of a multiple use STC to move the battery further aft. I have used AC 43.13-2A Chapter 10 as a reference for relocating a battery. I moved the battery forward almost 10 feet in a Cessna UC-78 to correct an aft CG problem. I called my FAA inspector and asked if I could send over a 337 form for field approval and he said, “Just sign it and send it through”. I don’t think the young FAA guys would be that easy to get along with, but a field approval shouldn’t be too hard. — Jim
TIME FOR THE IO-360… (100301)
Subj: IO 360
From: Ed Lloyd <edlloydaustin@juno.com>
Hi Jim. Hope you had a good day. The time is nearing when I pull the C-145 and start the task of mounting the Continental IO 360. I intend to keep the original cowling and baffle for downflow cooling. Chatted with Claude Morgan and got some pointers from him since he did the same thing. I have belly tanks giving me all the fuel I want initially. Maybe later I’ll add the wing tanks and remove the belly tanks. Question is, do I have to do a gross weight increase without the wing tanks?
Ed
You don’t have to have the gross wt. increase technically. As a matter of real world operations, you might be over 1710 lb. with yourself and maybe 10 gallons of gas. If you want to be completely legal, you will need the GW increase if you ever want to carry a passenger and full fuel. Think about it, if the EW is 1400 (not uncommon for a 210 Swift) plus 19 lb of oil, plus 222 lb of fuel, plus 340 lb for pilot and passenger = 1981 lb. So at that load you are even over the 1970 lb GW. Of course, if you can keep the EW down to 1300 lb, you will even be able to carry some baggage! I didn’t know you had picked up a 210 engine, I knew you were looking for one. I haven’t heard from you in a while, keep in touch. — Jim
CONTINENTAL IO-360-D OIL PUMP…(120401)
Subj: Re: IO 360 D
From: Ed Lloyd <edlloydaustin@juno.com>
Jim, there’s something that has me puzzled. When I pulled the plate that covers the oil pump gears, I removed the drive gear that has the shaft on it, part # 634010. The oil pump drive gear that it turns, part #633602, did not have a woodruff key in there. There is a woodruff slot in the shaft and a woodruff key way in the driven gear and the only thing that was holding it tight was the tach drive connector! Looking in the illustrated parts book, they don’t show a key in the parts breakdown. Is that the way it should be? I’m going to remove the tach drive adapter, part #641531, when I go back together with the engine. I will use a cover, part #632475, and part #642121-1RH must be removed to allow the cover plate to fit. Will use Electronics International Digital tach which gets it’s signal from the mags. Would there be anything wrong with leaving the angle tach drive on the engine? Who knows there may be a need for it some day. Would you happen to have any push rod housing tubes, part #632141, around the hangar? I have a few that have gotten corroded and I want to replace them. Cheers……..Ed
Ed
Check your AD notes. AD 81-13-10 calls for removal of that key. That one puzzled me at first, until you think about it. If the pump gets stalled, from a foreign object or just thick oil, that key would shear. If the proper torque is on the nut, it might slip, but not disengage the oil pump completely. With the proper torque on the nut and the designed taper on the gear, it will never slip ordinarily. If you cap that tach drive, leaving it on the engine would be Ok. I don’t have any push rod tubes. Dennis Gehring has a source of discounted TCM IO-360 parts. He gave me a sales flyer, but I misplaced it. Contact him at <Swift1946@aol.com> — Jim
TACHOMETER…(020402)
Subj: N3313K Tachometer
From: Dick Wilfong <dwilfong@hinklelawfirm.com>
Monty, I am the new owner of N3313K. When I bought the airplane a couple of months ago the electronic tachometer was only working off of one Mag. When doing a runup check the indicator needle just falls to zero when switched to the left mag. the engine is a Cont. IO-360G1 with Bendix mags. The prior owner said that the transducer? that sends the signal from that mag had gone bad, therefore the connection had been switched to the P-lead. Whatever, I want to fix the problem. I have access to the drive mechanism that attaches to the back of the engine for a mechanical tach (not much room) so I could install it and a mechanical tach, or I could install another type of electronic tach that receives its signals differently that the tach that I now have. If there is an electronic tach that would work that would seem to be the easier route to take. I would certainly appreciate your helpful advise on this. Thanks, Dick Wilfong
Dick
That is a characteristic of a cheap non-TSO’ed tachometer, they just hook into the “P” lead circuit. (not legal on a certified airplane) (think about it, if the tach grounds out, you lose the mag!) If it was formerly wired up in a manner that worked, the setup might be ok, in which case you should contact the tach manufacturer and find out what you need. To install a mechanical tach on an IO-360 you need some scarce and high priced parts parts off an airplane like a Cessna XP. (unless you have an IO-360A) If you can’t determine what kind of electrical tach you have, I would suggest you buy a whole new tach setup for the TCM IO-360. I believe the Bendix mags for many airplanes have senders for an electric tach. — Jim
ED ANSWERS HIS OWN QUESTION…050102)
To: Swift31B@aol.com
Subject: Oil Cooler
Mornin Jim. Question on oil coolers. The Cont 210 engine I bought came off a Maule. It is a IO 360 D-33A. Picture atch. The oil cooler on the engine is not exactly like the coolers normally seen on the IO 360 D engines. Specifically, the # two cylinder does not have a ‘cast’ intake valve cover with the helicoil for the carriage bolt and shoe installation. You will notice in the picture that the oil cooler installed on my engine has a diagonal bar across the top. There is a similar bar across the bottom in the opposite direction. Can’t find a part # on the cooler. Various ones have told me it’s the wrong oil cooler for the engine. My judgment is that if it worked on the Maule installation, it will work on the Swift. What are your thoughts? I will contact Continental Tech Services and see what they say. Cheers…………..Ed
Time passes…
Jim, Well I answered my own question on the cooler. What I have is the ‘short’ oil cooler that was put on the IO 360A. It is part # 627392. The later model IO 360s had the ‘long’ cooler, part # 646880. Continental said it is ok to use the short cooler if I don’t have an oil temp problem. I called Vaughn at Swift Works and he says he has seen both on the IO 360s. Sooooo, I’m going to see if’n I got a oil temp problem, and if not, I’ll run the short cooler. Cheers…………..Ed
CONTINENTAL IO-360 CRANKSHAFT STUFF…(050302)
Subj: RE: Swift
From: Angon Barnes-Webb <a.barnes-webb@bowman.co.za>
Thanks Jim, I guess my first question was something akin to asking “how long is a piece of string” and hence pretty much unfieldable! One immediate question tho’ : my aircraft is in the SA equivalent of your experimental category, and hence doesn’t have to comply with all mandatory engine modifications. The one I am concerned about (all others are being done) is wether I should replace my crankshaft with the VAR crank, at a landed cost in SA of USD 4000 ;advice from my AMO is that the existing crank is comfortably within spec.,and the problems Continental experienced on the IO360 crank were so few that unless I wanted to return the aircraft to full commercial category, it wasn’t justified by the cost. I’ve agreed with him, but an independent view (which I won’t hold you to) would be insightful. Many thanks Anton
Anton
I have never believed in that VAR crank AD note. The first VAR cranks had a lot more problems than the Airmelt cranks. The service history of the IO-360 showed a few failures of the Airmelt cranks, but my personal theory is that most of those were due to unlogged prop strikes. Regardless, we are stuck with that AD note here in the US. With your “experimental” category you don’t have to replace the crank, and I wouldn’t. — Jim
ED NEEDS MONTY’S WISDOM ON THE CONTINENTAL IO-360 INSTALLATION…(090402)
Subj: Cont. IO360 installation
From: Ed Robertson <swiftr1@aol.com>
Hi Jim,
I’m putting a factory reman engine in ’42B & am having some challenges. When the induction tubes are reversed for the original cowling, the oil filler tube is in the way. On the old engine I was able to work the filler tube out of the accessory case & cut it down. I hate to mutilate this engine if I can avoid it! If I could rotate the tube about 45 degrees I think it would fit. How have you tackled this problem? Is there any way the original cowling will fit without reversing the induction? I need your wisdom! Best Regards, Ed Robertson
Ed
The 210 installations I have done used a modified original cowl without reversing the induction system. To do this it is necessary to tilt the cowl up a little to provide clearance with the induction system. Many guys don’t want to do that because it involves adding some doublers to the bottom cowl and trimming off the upper cowl, and doesn’t look quite as good. There are also different engine mounts which permit the use of the stock cowl without modifications. I haven’t done an IO-360 conversion for many years, so I forwarded your note to Dennis Ghering, who is in the middle of one right now. I still haven’t heard from him. I will send you a reply soon. Jim
DENNIS GHERING REPLIES RE: THE IO-360 DEAL…(090402)
From: Dennis Ghering <swift1946@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Cont. IO360 installation
Jim:
I had to cut and weld my oil filler tube to fit. He should be able to heat the area on the case around the filler tube and remove it without damaging anything and swap it with the old one or modify the new one, same goes with the oil dipstick. Use a heat gun, The tuble will come out easy. We made Harry’s original cowling fit without reversing the induction system. It tells how to do it on the stc.plans. — Dennis
SUCCESS FOR ED ON THE IO-360 DEAL…(090402)
From: SWIFTR1@aol.com
Subject: Re: Cont. IO360 installation
Jim,
Thanks for the help. I was able to turn the filler tube 90 degrees by putting torque on it with a strap wrench & applying some percussive persuasion with a dead-blow hammer. Had sprayed some PB-Blaster (great stuff!!) on the joint before. I think that the bend in the tube will now make it clear the induction tube. Hope you’re doing well, Ed.
CONTINENTAL IO-0360 INFO… (OCT 02)
From: Larry.Owen@Tenethealth.com (Owen, Larry)
Hi Monty
I have an option to purchase an IO-360-H , 1100 hours, running when stored/sealed in 1997, for under $7500. I would be upgrading from an O-300. Is there anything about the 360-H that I should be concerned about? I assume the VAR crank mess still applies but I might easily take ten years to put another 400 hours on an engine. Just your thoughts, Thanks ! Larry Owen N78287 El Paso, Texas 915-577-6832
Larry
I don’t know much about IO-360-H. I do know there are two types of crankshafts (not related to the VAR factor) that require different props to be compatible. For example, the IO-360A-C and D require the Maule type prop which was on the original STC. I don’t know if the later crankshaft and prop are approved. Call Merlyn and ask. Their contact information is on the Swift site. What year was that engine manufactured? They started installing VAR cranks in the 80s I believe. Jim
CONTINENTAL IO-360 OIL PRESSURE QUESTION…(NOV 02)
From: William Roberson <attywfr@yahoo.com>
Subject: Oil Pressure Questions
I’d like to hear from Continental IO-360 owners what kinds of oil pressures they see. Although I see 50-60 pounds at startup and for about 10 minutes thereafter on a 50 degree day, mine drops to 30 pounds in cruise (23 inches and 2400 rpm) after the oil temp gets up into the green arc. The Continental book says anything below thirty is unnacceptable. Wondering what other Continental IO-360 owners are seeing. Anyone with input please respond to attywfr@yahoo.com or to the newsletter. Thanks, Will
Swifter Mike Kennedy replies to Will’s question…
Will, If you have 30psi you are good and you can run forever without a problem, but a little more makes me feel better. There are two factors I have found, other than a tired engine/oil pump, that can effect your hot oil psi. One is the gage itself. I have found gages that are reading up to 10 psi off on the low side — i.e., reading 30 psi but checking with another gage reads 40 psi. The second is the relief valve spring pressure is low. Depending on the engine model/age you have either an adjustable relief valve or a set (spring in housing) valve. The relief valve is near the oil cooler. The adjustable is just that and the pressure can be bumped up by turning in the adjustment screw. With the spring only valve you can put a washer or two under the spring to get the pressure up. I show about 35-40 psi hot. Be careful to not over due it as if you show much over 60psi during a cold start you can blow the oil cooler gasket with to high a pressure. Of course, only make these adjustments after making sure your gage is showing the right psi. You can swap gages or put a gage on a temporary T-fitting to check the readings. — Michael Kennedy
CG QUESTION FOR 210HP SWIFT… (JAN 03)
Subj: Re: Swift Landing Gear
From: joem@totalseal.com (Joe Moriarty)
Dear Monty; Our Swift is now a 210 hp version (Merlin STC) We have 150 seats in the A/C. Can you suggest any optimum CG for empty weight conditions? By the way empty weight is 1416. We carry the stock fuel at this point. As is now CG is 28.19. Battery is directly behind the baggage compartment. Hate to move the battery box, but that is an option I suppose. We have been told that the A/C is faster with aft C/G, but how far aft should we go? Much obliged. Joe Moriarty and Mike Handshew.
Joe & Mike
The aft limit for the 210 STC is 33.0. By restricting the aft limit Hugh Evans was able to avoid spin resting. A Swift, like most airplanes is faster with an aft CG. The stock aft limit is 34.7 and the Swift is fastest at that number. You must weigh the pros and cons (excuse the pun) of any CG beyond 33.0. 33.0 is the legal limit but 34.7 is probably safe enough. 28.19 is out of the foreward limit, work out some sample loadings and see where the loaded CG falls. If a typical load is foreward of the 33.0 limit you probably won’t get optimum speed. The airplane is much easier to land with an aft CG also. Try throwing some ballast in the baggage compartment and see how you like the flight characteristics. — Jim
ED IS STRUGGLING WITH HIS IO-360… (JAN03)
Subj: IO360 EGT problem
From: Ed Robertson <swiftr1@aol.com>
Hi Jim,
Here is what I’m struggling with. The EGT on #2 cylinder increases as I reduce MP from about 20″hg down to under 15″. This is with full rich mixture. It increases to about mid range on the Alcor gage. It is normal (comparable with the others) at higher power levels. I reversed the induction system for the original cowl installation, so #’s 1 & 2 are closest to the throttle body. Here’s what I’ve done to date:
(1) I cleaned the injector with no change, then I swapped that injector with cyl #6 after cleaning both. No Joy! (2) Pulled that portion of the induction tube. Found a burr on the flange & filed it down. I added some Loctite gasket maker to the gasket when I mounted it back on. Figured I had the problem licked. Not so! Symptom remained. (3) Plugged the intake at the filter port & applied pressure thru the spark plug hole with intake valve open. Looked for leaks with soapy water. Found bubbles at rubber connection between #’s 2 & 4. Tightened & eliminated bubbles – no other leaks found, but the pressure was very low. Figured I surely had it now. Nope! The symptom was unchanged on the test flight.
I tried a better plug on the intake but was unable to get more pressure for a better leak test. The cylinder is a couple of psi lower than the others on the compression test. No static leak is evident. Any ideas??? Best Regards, Ed Robertson
Ed
It seems you have tried all the things I might suggest. Maybe someone will read this and come up with an explanation and solution. It seems like the #2 cylinder gets a lean mixture when throttleing back. If it only happens below 20″ maybe it doesn’t make any difference! — Jim
ED LLOYS HAS SOME HELP FOR ED ROBERTSON’S FUEL INJECTION PROBLEMS… (JAN 03)
From: “Ed Lloyd” <swift3856k@austin.rr.com>
Subject: Fuel Injection Problems
Morning Ed. Read your dilema with manifold pressure on Denis web page. I have a contact for you to try at Aircraft Fuel Injection Service, Inc. in Dallas. I had my entire fuel injection system overhauled by them a couple months ago. David Hilliard was the technician that did the work and I had occasion to talk with him about the fuel injection system on the IO360D, very knowlegable guy. His phone # 214 358-2377. You might try describing your problem with David. He told me he has overhauled / worked on fuel injection systems for 20+ years. If that doesn’t work let me know, I have another contact that works for ECI in San Antonio and he runs their test cell at New Braunfels, TX. Cheers………Ed Lloyd
Ed,
Thanks for the contact. I called David Hilliard & he gave me some ideas. He thinks I may have an obstruction in the line between the fuel manifold and the injector. I’ll check it out the next time I have the hangar warmed up. I’m also going to do the “coke bottle test” to check for any big differences in the amount of fuel the different injectors are delivering. Unfortunately, I have preserved the engine for a couple of months of down time while winter does it’s thing, so it will be a while before I fly to test any “fixes.” Continental requires this to keep the cylinder warranty in effect. If anyone wants some of the MIL Spec preservative oil, I had to buy 5 gallons, so we could probably work out a deal for a quart or two (or 3). Best Regards, Ed Robertson
TWELVE YEARS OF TROUBLE FREE SERVICE AND IT’S NOT THE RIGHT PROP??? (JULY 03)
Subj: Prop for IO-360
From: Dick Wilfong <dwilfong@hinklelawfirm.com>
Jim, Many years ago (long before I bought the airplane a couple of years ago) the engine was converted to a Cont. IO-360 and a new McCauley C203 was supplied by a prop shop as an equivalent substitute for the C67 prop specified in the STC for the conversion. Now after more than a dozen years of trouble free use and the same number of annual inspections by at least 6 or 7 different IAs, the IA currently doing my annual inspection is questioning whether the C203 prop is appropriate for this application. Is the C203 prop an acceptable equivalent substitute? If not, are you aware of any instances where a field approval has been obtained to use the C203 prop? Thanks in advance for help on this issue. If after all of these years it is determined that the C203 can not legally be used, then I guess I am in the market for an approved prop and would appreciate your thoughts if you know of one that is available……..Thanks Dick Wilfong N3313K
Dick
The short answer is I don’t know. Several guys have asked me about using the 209 prop. I have referred them to Hugh Evans at Merlyn. He’s supposedly working on it but I haven’t heard anything for sure. I don’t know who might have a C67 prop for sale. — Jim
CONTINENTAL IO-360 STC PROP CHANGE…(JAN 04)
Subj: C209 McCauley Prop
From: Dennis Mee <meetwo@comcast.net>
Hi Jim, I hope your staying warm, this wx hurts! The STC for the McCauley 2A34C209/78CCA-2 has been issued and transferred to The Swift Museum Foundation, Charley has put a note in Jan the news letter. Here’s the rest of the story I promised you, sorry it took so long.
My Swift had been modified per STC SA53NW with the installation of a Continental IO-360-C engine and a McCauley D2A34C67N/S76C-2 propeller. This spring I found it necessary to replace the propeller. The McCauley C67 propeller is an older “threaded” design model, and the repair, overhaul or replacement of these propellers is extremely difficult because the blades and parts are no longer available. McCauley manufactures a newer and safer “threadless” design model, the 2A34C209 which is commonly used as a replacement for the C67. The problem is that even though the McCauley C209 propeller is approved on the TCM IO-360 engine there was not any “approved data” to allow that propeller engine combination to be installed on the Swift airframe. I contacted the owner of SA53NW and was told that they did not have approval for any propeller other than the C67. McCauley Propeller Type Certificate P3EA, note number 9, “The Table of Propeller-Engine Combinations Approved Vibrationwise for Use on Normal Category Single-Engine Tractor Aircraft”, applies to the C67, C209 and C210 model propellers. This TC allows either propeller to be installed on the Continental IO-360 series engine. The interchangeability of the C67 and C209 propeller has been approved by application per Cessna Type Certificate Data Sheet number 3A17 on the R172G model aircraft, and Cessna Type Certificate Data Sheet number A18EU on the FR172H model aircraft which allow either propeller to be installed on the Continental IO-360 engine on these aircraft. Both applications are approved without restriction to aircraft operating limits or performance. The Hartzell BHC-C2YF-1BF / F7663DR propeller has also been approved vibration wise for installation on the Continental IO-360 engine per Type Certificate P920.
I am aware of the note at the bottom of the parts list in SA53NW which states that “Equivalent parts of alternate manufactures than those listed above may be substituted”. I also know that the airworthiness of an installation is determined by the mechanic who does the installation and the IA who signs the annual attesting that the airplane conforms to its Type Certificate and amendments. I am not an engineer and I did not feel as though I had the data or qualification to determine if these propellers could be considered equivalent. Although the design is vastly different I felt that the performance could be considered comparable. I contacted the engineers at McCauley and Hartzell to see if they would give me a statement attesting to the equivalent performance of these propellers. While Hartzell was much more helpful than McCauley neither company would supply the data or make a statement saying the propellers were equivalent and they made it clear that the FAA must approve the airframe installation. Without the support of the manufactures I elected not to rely on the equivalent parts note as my installation data. Incidentally my local FSDO does not consider the propeller or engine to be a “part” so they would not support the equivalent parts note either.
I submitted a form 337 for a field approval which quickly turned into an application for a “one time” STC to allow the installation of a McCauley 2A34C209/78CCA-2 propeller with a maximum diameter of 76″ and min diameter of 74″ on my Swift only. I have completed the required flight testing and paper work and now there is a good possibility that the FAA will issue this as a multiple use STC to the Swift Museum Foundation. The STC has been approved and the FAA will issue it as a multiple use STC to the Swift Museum Foundation. Sincerely, Dennis Mee
RUSSIAN ROULETTE…(APRIL 04)
From: Ed Lloyd <swift3856k@austin.rr.com>
Subject: Continental Fuel Injection
Mornin Jim. I read the articles on fuel injection and vapor return on a Continental installation in the latest newsletter. For someone without an electronic fuel totalizer, such as Electronics International FP-5 or FP-5L, they’re playing “Russian roulette’ as far as fuel quantity. The FP-5 provides a pilot programmable K Factor to correct for fuel returned to the tanks through the vapor return line. Each installation is slightly different so the K Factor must be calculated over a number of flights to verify you have it right. I installed a Electronics International FP-5 when I converted to the 210 engine. I have the K Factor programmed so that when I refuel, I put in within a tenth of a gallon or so of what the FP-5 says the aircraft should hold. This has been verified and proven with over 51 flight hours on the system now. I would highly recommend the E.I. FP-5 to anyone out there driving a 210 Swift and desiring not to play “Russian roulette”. Cheers…………..Ed Lloyd
N2377B TEST FLIGHT… (JUNE 04)
Subj: N2377B – 210 Conversion Test Flight
From: Richard Tanner <rmtan@tds.net>
Jim,
This evening I made the first test flight of N2377B after a 210 conversion and “down to the metal” airframe overhaul including new panel with all new avionics and engine instrumentation. It took a couple of days of ground tests, adjustments, and taxi tests, but for some reason she wanted to fly this evening! I took off with partial throttle setting of approximately 2400-2500 RPM. Just as I lifted off I applied full throttle, and felt instant acceleration and then a slight “hiccup” or burp from the engine, then back to smooth power after only a split second. I decreased the power setting on climb out back to 2400-2500 RPM, and circled the pattern to land immediately! My mechanic was on the runway (with fire extinguishers!!), but said the engine sounded great and that he did not hear anything. We adjusted the mixture so that we have approx. 50RPM increase before killing the engine with mixture control at 900RPM idle setting. The fuel pressure is 7PSI at 575-600RPM lowest Idle setting. 2000RPM run-up yields approx. 18PSI un-metered fuel pressure, and 7-8PSI Metered fuel pressure. CHT has averaged 320 degrees, and EGT 750 to 1000 degrees (during full power ground run with cowling). She sounds great on the ground, but I have noticed a slight pause sometimes when I accelerate from Idle quickly during ground run-ups. Does anything here sound abnormal? Is this sputter during acceleration my imagination, or is there something we could be missing. I heard another 210 Swift at Nationals take off and make the same noise during climb out – It scared me then too, but no one else noticed. I guess if there is one place I am scared to death to lose power is on take-off, and I am probably listening more so then than ever! If you have any recommendations, I sure would appreciate it. Thanks much, Richard Tanner
Richard
It sounds like it may be a little lean, although 50 rpm increase sounds about right. Try smoothly going to full power in one throttle movement. Maybe some of our 210 owners will comment. — Jim
—210HP SWIFT PROP…(JULY 04)
Subj: Re; Swift props
From: Ed Benguiat <Ebenguiat1@aol.com>
I am involved in purchasing a swift. It had a recent gear up landing and during the repair a new prop is in order. Now then …. What is the most efficient prop to purchase (210 hp engine ).
Thank you, Ed
Ed
Probably the Hartzell. The BHC-C2YK/7666DF has been added to the original type certificate, so it is a logbook entry only to install. They are available from Swift Parts in Athens, TN — Jim
Jim, Thank you for the prop info. A Hartzell BHC-C2YF-1BF/F766DR. was installed Is that a good match for the 210 HP Swift? I am considering the purchase of this plane……………Ed
Ed
I don’t know — I don’t know the difference between those props. Is that prop legal? Maybe someone who knows Hartzell props will comment. — Jim
DON SHARES SOME RESEARCH HE DID ON THE HARTZELL PROP 210HP CONTINENTAL
COMBINATION FOR CHARLIE NELSON … (JULY 04)
From: Don Bartholomew <diamondswift@earthlink.net>
Subject: Hartzell Prop
Hi Charlie,
I have done some research on the Hartzell prop for the TCM IO-360 per item 10 on the type certificate. This is what I have found. The Swift type certificate states the Hartzell BHC-C2YF-1BF/7663DR prop can be used if STC SA53NW is used. The engine STC allows for “IO-360 series” engines. Some engines (A, B, C, D, etc) have two 6th order counterweights on the crankshaft. Other engines (AB, BB, CB, DB, etc) have one 4.5th and one 6th order counterweight. The propeller type certificate, P-920, note 9, allows the prop to be installed on A, B, C, D, & E engines. It does not specify any of the (x)B series. Another listing on the prop TC allows the prop to be installed on an HB engine (which has the 4.5th and 6th order weights) but again nothing on the AB, BB, CB, DB, etc engine. On 7-8-04 I called Hartzell and asked if the prop was approved on the (x)B configuration engines, specifically a DB. I was informed the prop would work from a vibration standpoint on the engines with the 4.5 & 6th order counterweights. I asked if they would send a letter to me stating the installation would be acceptable, but they would not. My conclusion is if one looks at the Type Certificates for the Swift (A-766), the prop (P-920) and the engine STC (SA53NW) there is technically no approval to install this prop on a TCM IO-360 engine with one 4.5th and one 6th order counterweight.
Don Bartholomew
Aeroplane Factory
885 Taildragger Road
Gardnerville, NV 89410
v: 775-782-2992
f: 775-782-7568
email: diamondswift@earthlink.net