V35B upgrade from IO-520-BA to IO-520-BB

[Allen]

Can anybody give me an idea what is involved in doing this? I believe the
engine is approved for the airplane if you follow some Beech drawing. No
info on how to get the drawing.

TIA,

Allen

[Stu Gotts]

Ask the ABS. If you're not a member, join.

On Mon, 17 May 2004 16:47:05 GMT, "Allen" >
wrote:

>Can anybody give me an idea what is involved in doing this? I believe the
>engine is approved for the airplane if you follow some Beech drawing. No
>info on how to get the drawing.
>
>TIA,
>
>Allen
>

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 17 May 2004 16:47:05 GMT, "Allen" >
wrote:

>Can anybody give me an idea what is involved in doing this? I believe the
>engine is approved for the airplane if you follow some Beech drawing. No
>info on how to get the drawing.
>
>TIA,
>
>Allen
>

Found this, not sure if its applicable to your particular aircraft.

Model:
STC: SA2200SW
Status: Amended
Date: 05/31/2001
TCDS: 3A15
ACO: CE-C
D’Shannon Products
13610 Glader Lane
Lindstrom, MN 55045
UNITED STATES
Installation of Teledyne Continental IO-520-B,
-BA, - BB or IO-550-B engine and applicable
McCauley Propeller only as listed on STC.
V35B

http://www.beryldshannon.com/indexb.htm

Did you call Raytheon and ask them about the drawing?

http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/service_support/technical_support/technical_support_contacts.asp

Regards;

TC

[Allen]

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 17 May 2004 16:47:05 GMT, "Allen" >
> wrote:
>
> >Can anybody give me an idea what is involved in doing this? I believe
the
> >engine is approved for the airplane if you follow some Beech drawing. No
> >info on how to get the drawing.
> >
> >TIA,
> >
> >Allen
> >
>
> Found this, not sure if its applicable to your particular aircraft.
>
> Model:
> STC: SA2200SW
> Status: Amended
> Date: 05/31/2001
> TCDS: 3A15
> ACO: CE-C
> D'Shannon Products
> 13610 Glader Lane
> Lindstrom, MN 55045
> UNITED STATES
> Installation of Teledyne Continental IO-520-B,
> -BA, - BB or IO-550-B engine and applicable
> McCauley Propeller only as listed on STC.
> V35B
>
> http://www.beryldshannon.com/indexb.htm
>
> Did you call Raytheon and ask them about the drawing?
>
>
http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/service_support/technical_support/technical_support_contacts.asp
>
> Regards;
>
> TC

Thanks for the links, I have already spoken with Raytheon, the drawing is
proprietary and they will not release it. They did say I could ask my FSDO
to request it for me.

[Bill Hale]

"Allen" > wrote in message >...

Actually, you need to do almost nothing. This is pretty easy.

If you check the TCM Type Certificate Data Sheet, you will discover
that it specifically authorizes substitution of -BB for -B in all
applications. TC E5CE Note 11.

If you check the TC data sheet for the V35B, 3A15, you find that
it is approved for -B, -BA and specifically for -BB for sn > 10179.

The venn intersection solves the problem for you. It's a minor
mod, no 337 required.

Install it and be happy. It's a lot safer engine than the -BA.

Bill Hale

BPPP Instructor

[[email protected]]

On 18 May 2004 12:47:13 -0700, (Bill Hale)
wrote:

>"Allen" > wrote in message >...
>
>Actually, you need to do almost nothing. This is pretty easy.
>
>If you check the TCM Type Certificate Data Sheet, you will discover
>that it specifically authorizes substitution of -BB for -B in all
>applications. TC E5CE Note 11.
>
>If you check the TC data sheet for the V35B, 3A15, you find that
>it is approved for -B, -BA and specifically for -BB for sn > 10179.
>
>The venn intersection solves the problem for you. It's a minor
>mod, no 337 required.
>
>Install it and be happy. It's a lot safer engine than the -BA.
>
>Bill Hale
>
>BPPP Instructor

As long as the Bananer in question is >10179 I agree with what you are
saying 100%. Bolt the sucker on and go flying.

However, if it is <10180, I'm afraid I would have to respectfully
disagree.

The information provided in the TCM TCDS is good stuff, but the
specific reference to a s/n in regard to the BB install in the V35B
TCDS would IMHO take precedence in the eyes of the Federales-barring
any other pertinent approved supporting documentation from the folks
at Raytheon. I sure as heck wouldn't give anyone a deposit check
without discussing it with someone a little more "official" than a NFI
on Usenet.

If the "drawings" and additional required equipment (specific fuel
pump?) referred to in the V35B TCDS were followed explicitly, again, I
agree that it would be minor mod, with no STC/337 required.

I have absolutely no idea what years correspond to what engine
model/s/n range on the V35B, have had to deal with way too many
different makes/models. The only Beech "bible" I currently possess is
for the 18's.

Would there be some mechanical reason you would recommend a 520-BB
retrofit over a 550? Aside from growing pains with the "auto" mixture
control, I've had good luck with the 550's, and have flown a couple
V35/550 conversions. Worst part was breaking in the engines at 75%
power and keeping the durn thing under the yellow arc airspeed-wise.

TC

NFI (Nobody Freaking Important)

[Tom Sixkiller]

> wrote in message
...
> On 18 May 2004 12:47:13 -0700, (Bill Hale)
> wrote:
>
> Would there be some mechanical reason you would recommend a 520-BB
> retrofit over a 550? Aside from growing pains with the "auto" mixture
> control, I've had good luck with the 550's, and have flown a couple
> V35/550 conversions.

That was the question I was going to ask.

I'm trying to close a deal on an F33A that's 40 hours from TBO and was
thinking of replacing the 520-BB with a Millennium 550.

Yea or nay?

[Stu Gotts]

On Tue, 18 May 2004 22:03:26 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On 18 May 2004 12:47:13 -0700, (Bill Hale)
>> wrote:
>>
>> Would there be some mechanical reason you would recommend a 520-BB
>> retrofit over a 550? Aside from growing pains with the "auto" mixture
>> control, I've had good luck with the 550's, and have flown a couple
>> V35/550 conversions.
>
>That was the question I was going to ask.
>
>I'm trying to close a deal on an F33A that's 40 hours from TBO and was
>thinking of replacing the 520-BB with a Millennium 550.
>
>Yea or nay?

Yea! STC (probably from D'Shannon), prop change and go. You may even
find that you lose a few pounds with the 550. Incidentally this is
about a $40K conversion. You'll probably spend about $30K on a new
boutique engine.

[markjen]

> I'm trying to close a deal on an F33A that's 40 hours from TBO and was
> thinking of replacing the 520-BB with a Millennium 550.
>
> Yea or nay?

I think the 550 conversion is well worth it. A lot better engine and
noticeably improved performance, especially in climb.

- Mark

[Tom Sixkiller]

"markjen" > wrote in message
news:I7Mqc.6639$zw.5088@attbi_s01...
> > I'm trying to close a deal on an F33A that's 40 hours from TBO and was
> > thinking of replacing the 520-BB with a Millennium 550.
> >
> > Yea or nay?
>
> I think the 550 conversion is well worth it. A lot better engine and
> noticeably improved performance, especially in climb.
>
So far I've not heard any negatives, even though the price is going to be
about $27K installed.

After that, I'd like to hang a turbonormalizer on it and no one seems to
recommend putting TN on the 520.

[markjen]

> After that, I'd like to hang a turbonormalizer on it and no one seems to
> recommend putting TN on the 520.

I agree, although TN on a 550 isn't necessarily a cake walk either. The big
Lyc seems to take to turbos better, prehaps because of the sodium valves.
In any event, you may find that 550 performs enough better at altitude that
the need for the turbo will be marginalized.

- Mark

[Peter R.]

Tom Sixkiller ) wrote:

> After that, I'd like to hang a turbonormalizer on it and no one seems to
> recommend putting TN on the 520.

Really? The Bonanza V35B I am now flying is equipped with the Tornado
Alley TN on an IO-520 engine. The previous owner had it installed about
600 hours ago and, based on last week's annual inspection, the engine is
still in excellent shape.

With the TN, this aircraft cruises around 190 kts true airspeed at about
19,000 feet MSL, all while burning about 15.5 gallons per hour during the
summer months.



--
Peter

[Tom Sixkiller]

"markjen" > wrote in message
news:6EXqc.81041$536.13507539@attbi_s03...
> > After that, I'd like to hang a turbonormalizer on it and no one seems to
> > recommend putting TN on the 520.
>
> I agree, although TN on a 550 isn't necessarily a cake walk either. The
big
> Lyc seems to take to turbos better, prehaps because of the sodium valves.
> In any event, you may find that 550 performs enough better at altitude
that
> the need for the turbo will be marginalized.
>
The airport I'll be operating out of, after May or June, is 6900 feet in
elevation.

Not quite marginal! :~)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Tom Sixkiller ) wrote:
>
> > After that, I'd like to hang a turbonormalizer on it and no one seems to
> > recommend putting TN on the 520.
>
> Really? The Bonanza V35B I am now flying is equipped with the Tornado
> Alley TN on an IO-520 engine. The previous owner had it installed about
> 600 hours ago and, based on last week's annual inspection, the engine is
> still in excellent shape.
>
> With the TN, this aircraft cruises around 190 kts true airspeed at about
> 19,000 feet MSL, all while burning about 15.5 gallons per hour during the
> summer months.

I should clarify my misstatement: It's not that they don't recommend TN for
the 520, but given the cost of a Millennium overhaul of the 520 or
replacement with M's 550 reman ($27K vs. $23K +/-), for an F33A, they
(TATurbo) said the difference was like night and day.

[markjen]

> Really? The Bonanza V35B I am now flying is equipped with the Tornado
> Alley TN on an IO-520 engine. The previous owner had it installed about
> 600 hours ago and, based on last week's annual inspection, the engine is
> still in excellent shape.

Great. Most are getting excellent service. But there have been quite a few
owners with problems too.

- Mark

[Peter R.]

markjen ) wrote:

> Great. Most are getting excellent service. But there have been quite a few
> owners with problems too.

Ok, you hooked me. :) What type of problems?

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[markjen]

Well, a friend had a complete and total TN IO-520BB engine failure in Texas,
fortunately able to glide to an airport from altitude. Lost all engine
oil - something to do with the turbo system install. I also flew with him
several times at altitude and he was always jugggling CHTs, TITs, and EGTs
to stay within limits.

Lots and lots of folks have reported premature barrel wear and cylinder head
issues leading to early top overhauls. The 520 factory turbos in a variety
of airplanes (e.g., 425s) are considered relatively problematic and
tempermental. On the early A36TCs, there were some gruesome engine fires,
although I realize this installation is different from the TN systems. (The
550s in the B36TCs are noticeably more reliable.)

I'm not saying that a TN'd 520 or 550 can't be a fine airplane. But I think
you're kidding yourself if you don't accept some reduction in reliability
and much reduced expectation of making normal TBO. It's simple physics -
you're force-feeding the engine to a much higher level of engine power than
it normally makes in normally aspirated form, and you're doing it at high
altitudes when cooling is at its worst. Good instrumentation, careful
operation, and keeping the cooling system in tip-top shape mitigates, but
does not eliminate the factors here.

- Mark