Rolls Royce TSIO-360

Dr.Dan · #1 03-24-21, 09:11 PM

Hi guys, I have a major paperwork problem with my newly acquired T337G. The front engine is a Rolls Royce TSIO-360-D. I was told that this was licensed by Continental and made by RR.
Now, according to Continental, they do not hold the type certificate for the Rolls Royce TSIO-360 and thus cannot determine equivalency.
So even though this engine has been installed and working for decades, Transport Canada says it needs to be replaced.

Do you guys have any information about the certification of these engines when they were installed? Based on a search of this forum it seems there are at least a few other P337's out there with the RR engines.

Thanks,
DD

mshac · #2 03-24-21, 10:08 PM

My understanding the RR motors were all installed in the French Reims built Skymasters, which were built under license from Cessna. How one ended up in Canada is a mystery!

If you have to replace it, I'll be happy to take it off your hands.

Does the RR version have its own service manual, or does it use the standard Continental manuals? Someone with half a brain at CAA should be able to figure this out.

california Sky · #3 03-25-21, 03:09 AM

I have the RR engines in my P model 1973...

I’ll look through my logs to see how they did it and report back.

It’s been awhile since I looked at how they did it for 58C.

Hopefully I have something that will help you.

Steven

Dr.Dan · #4 03-25-21, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by california Sky

I have the RR engines in my P model 1973...

I’ll look through my logs to see how they did it and report back.

It’s been awhile since I looked at how they did it for 58C.

Hopefully I have something that will help you.

Steven

That would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks
Dan

JAG · #5 03-25-21, 07:25 PM

Dan - FWIW, I think you need to have it in writing from them why they will not accept the engine. Check what your IPC says for P/N, then compare with the P/N on the engine. I know with my 337A it calls for an IO-360C, and that is the P/N on the motor. I would also call Cessna next - they may have a Service Letter or SB that allows for this engine (RR) on the aircraft. Don't remove based on some Transport Canada Weeny (I can call them that cause both my brothers are Transport Canada Weenies and they call themselves that!).

Don't worry about Continental - the TC holder of the airframe (Textron/Cessna) is the one you need to coordinate with.

Jeff

rrolland · #6 03-25-21, 08:02 PM

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.

mshac · #7 03-25-21, 09:26 PM

Register it in France? Find a French aviation atty.

Dr.Dan · #8 04-26-21, 12:20 AM

Status update: no real progress yet.

Continental has been worse than helpful. They basically sabotaged me by denying any knowledge of RR tsio-360’s even though there’s multiple service bulletins from the era.

I’m waiting to receive the records from the FAA.

I may pursue a limited stc.

I may need to buy a whole new engine and I won’t even get core credit for this.

DD

wslade2 · #9 04-26-21, 01:43 AM

Would overhaul (not by continental) “zero” this out? If so maybe you can find reasonable overhaul shop.

Ed Coffman · #10 05-03-21, 11:30 PM

Quote:

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 · #11 05-03-21, 11:35 PM

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

Ed Coffman · #12 05-03-21, 11:43 PM

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 · #13 05-04-21, 01:09 PM

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 · #14 05-04-21, 03:09 PM

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 · #15 05-04-21, 04:39 PM

Quote:

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?