Antonio wrote:
I don’t think it works like that: engine production is one thing, aircraft production a different one.
I know that, I don’t understand what’s wrong with my post – I derived the numbers from Lycoming table within SB which should be pretty much correct. The affected engines were produced from March 1997 onwards so affected aircrafts are produced from 1997 onwards. In general, 1997 engines were put into 1997/1998 aircrafts, 1998 in 1998/1999 and so on – my engine was 1999, installed in February 2000 and, according to CAA, 12 years expired in February 2012.
Antonio wrote:
Can you figure it out by sn, or is it not easy to know which engine sn’s went on which TB airframe sn’s?
It’s not easy but luckily TB20/21 have distinct engine types, so you can easily get the numbers from Lycoming SB. In mandatory SB (SB569A) Lycoming listed all affected engines (by serial numbers, to their best knowledge) and all affected crankshafts (by serial numbers).
As I noted at the end of here there is a debate around when the 12 years starts. One view is that it starts when the engine is shipped by Lyco, while another is when it is installed in the airframe, while another is when the CofA was issued.
The same issue also had an impact on the way Socata wrote up the dates in the airframe logbooks, relative to the longest permitted engine storage time for the specific preservation method…
Emir wrote:
Lycoming engines produced after March 1997. So in total it was 141 TB20 and 35 TB21 that were affected with this AD.
I don’t think it works like that: engine production is one thing, aircraft production a different one. For relatively low cost piston engines it is customary to buy them in batches at a reduced price then install them in the next six-twelve month’s worth of production (so much for JIT production)
Can you figure it out by sn, or is it not easy to know which engine sn’s went on which TB airframe sn’s?
Peter wrote:
I don’t think any pre-GT TBs had the crankshaft AD. Maybe some late-model pre-GTs had the affected engines?
Yes they did. Actually many of them because AD was related to crankshafts installed in different Lycoming engines produced after March 1997. So in total it was 141 TB20 and 35 TB21 that were affected with this AD. Out of these 141, I can’t say how many were pre-GT but I was one of the unfortunate ones. However, you might be right if out of these 176 aircrafts the majority was produced after year 2000.
According to Lycoming table in bulletin, almost 5.000 engines were affected plus few thousand crankshafts delivered for overhauling various engines.
I don’t think any pre-GT TBs had the crankshaft AD. Maybe some late-model pre-GTs had the affected engines?
Previous owner of my TB20 also missed the opportunity to buy crankshaft at low price and consequently he agreed to lower the sales price for €20k.
Interesting; yes I am sure you are right. However, doing it in 2012 means you miss out on the Lyco heavily discounted crankshaft package (offer ended 2009) so you pay out something over 40k to comply with the AD. Only a very ignorant “maintenance arrangement”, possibly in conjunction with an owner with “interesting” motivations, would allow that to happen.
As stated, a good prebuy is a requirement, and with some special questions asked.
Otherwise, it is a good plane. The avionics are fine; I fly all over Europe IFR with the same kit 
Personally I look at it as a very valid airframe (prepurchase inspection has to confirm this). So it has it´s price. I suppose it would not hurt looking at it more closely if the OP is serious in buying a TB20.
Totally agree with you. And market perspective is valid as well.
Yes; I missed that. However, one then has to ask what the plane was doing flying 2009-2012 with a non complied with crank AD? It does happen but shows a stellar lack of competence by the maintenance outfit.
If it’s year 2001 aircraft than it was ok to be flown until 2013 without applying the AD (12 years, 2000 hours or first overhaul/opening crankcase – those were the AD conditions).
Emir,
5 years ago, the market was much lower than today as far as I can tell. Prices have rebounded after the rock bottom values in the 2008-12 crisis, where really good airframes could be had for almost nothing. It is still a buyers market but prices have gone up.
Certainly the price of this example is high and is asking for offers. But it is not so totally out of range as it may seem: Airplanes in this kind of shape are still sought after. This one is fly away, does not need any immediate upgrades and can fly VFR and IFR (less LPV/GNS) quite happily like Peter`s plane does. The engine has huge potential and it does look quite well. And it does have TKS.
One day, one will need to upgrade the GPS to WAAS if serious IFR is neded.
Personally I look at it as a very valid airframe (prepurchase inspection has to confirm this). So it has it´s price. I suppose it would not hurt looking at it more closely if the OP is serious in buying a TB20.
according to data at ad, the engine has been exchanged in 2012 which gives a little bit better (but not great) picture of 50 hrs/year
Yes; I missed that. However, one then has to ask what the plane was doing flying 2009-2012 with a non complied with crank AD? It does happen but shows a stellar lack of competence by the maintenance outfit.
