IPC question

[Jdm]

Something has always bugged me about Beech parts catalogs. They use that odd terminology about “spares.”
Example: “SPARES REPLACEMENT FOR”
Example: “FOR SPARES ORDER” when there’s multiple “spares.”

From the IPC introduction:
The following qualifiers are used in the nomenclature column:
1 Alternate - Identifies the part number of an interchangeable part.
2 Spare - A preferred replacement part.
3 True Part Number - Indentifies the part number listed in the correct format to be used for ordering the part.

So this is confusing. Sounds like I should normally order the “true part number” when available.
The “spare” should maybe be the 2nd option when there’s not a “true” part available?

In sampling I’ve found that “spare” numbers are considerably more expensive, at least with hardware for the stabilizers, which I’m ordering now.

What’s the deal here? Why not check True, Spare, and Alternate to see what’s cheapest!

Can someone clear this up please?

 

[Bell206]

Can someone clear this up please?

Every OEM has their own system and nomenclature. In some cases the different nomenclatures indicate part hierarchy and whether it is a procurable or non-procurable part. But without some actual examples I can't offer any input. For example, Bell Helicopters has a P/N listed in the IPC for an entire aircraft. Unfortunately it was an NP part and used only for detailing the type design. Perhaps look at some of the Cessna IPCs on line and compare nomenclatures? Then ask some more questions?

 

[Jdm]

Plenty of “spares” references in the beech IPC. Most every page!

An example that I copied from the A36 stabilizer section:

55-00-00-01. PAGE 4.Item 205. P/N 130909BH158 BOLT. SPARES REPLACEMENT FOR:130909B158.
In this case they list a true p/n of 130909BH158, followed by a spare p/n 130909B158 (preferred replacement part).
It’s not uncommon to have yet another additional spare p/n. In the case of a 3rd, the wording seems to commonly be “FOR SPARES ORDER XXXX.”

 

[Bell206]

Plenty of “spares” references in the beech IPC. Most every page!

Do you have a new IPC? I looked in the older Beech IPCs I have access to and did not see the defined terms you mention above: true part number, etc. Can you screen shoot your instruction page and post?

Why not check True, Spare, and Alternate to see what’s cheapest!

IPCs are not set up by cost. They're set up by an established format that starts at the installation to the assembly level to the sub-assembly level and so on. Included in most IPCs is the attaching hardware for those individual levels. Add in further details based on aircraft S/N or vendor code for the same assembly or sub-assembly and you have further options. So while it may appear some "spare" parts are more expensive the cost is not so much determined by the IPC but where you are purchasing the item.

 

[Jdm]

It’s the current IPC on Textron’s site that I’m using. I just checked an older IPC and you’re right. It seems to be a different format than what’s current. I know the parts manual isn’t configured according to price. The variation in cost is probably because the true number is more popular and therefore larger production.
I’ll post a screenshot of the new format.

 

[Bell206]

The variation in cost is probably because the true number is more popular and therefore larger production.

If I had to guess, the true number is the original certification number with the spare number being the next in line from a superseded/upgrade standpoint and the alternate being a different vendor or possibly from a bulletin, kit, or different model. One of the things to keep in mind when using new books on an old aircraft is the current listed parts may not be the only option available. For example, on some Cessna's the older IPC listed AN hardware for a lot of the attaching parts. But in the current IPC they only list NAS hardware instead. The funny thing is in some cases the AN hardware is more expensive than the NAS and in other cases the reverse. So to get your best bang you may want to compare new to old and see if there is a difference in both fit and cost.

 

[Jdm]

If I had to guess, the true number is the original certification number with the spare number being the next in line from a superseded/upgrade standpoint and the alternate being a different vendor or possibly from a bulletin, kit, or different model.

I wish this were the case! Unfortunately the true number is not necessarily the original certification number. I’m running into the same bolt P/N issue that you described with the Cessna. In the new Beech IPC the true number is the current part. The original bolt was a simple AN hex type. At some point they started using an allen headed bolt. The true number does not reflect the original hex type. I only know this because the new bolt is zero stock. We went back to a parts book from the 80’s and found the original, which is exactly what’s installed in the airplane currently. The original bolt is $2. The new allen headed (true) P/N is $18. The spare P/N is $36. Also different washer configuration currently shown in the IPC. All of which are true part numbers.

 

[Jdm]

Here’s a few screen shot examples of some of the bolts I’ve been studying.

 

[Bell206]

In the new Beech IPC the true number is the current part.

Okay. Made a phone call. The "true part number" is merely the correct format in which to order the listed part number. So the IPC still follows the same standard: part number, spare, alternate. What is the serial number of your aircraft and which bolt specifically do you want to order? With this information I can then show you how to read your options.

 

[Jdm]

Thanks for that! Seems that one should normally just order the true p/n if it’s indeed the correct format? Problem is there are options such as a spares, which may or may not be less expensive and therefore could become the logical choice. The new manual also doesn’t cover the original bolt numbers, which I assume are still a legal option? Originals can only be found in obsolete manuals apparently.
I’m ordering a lot of hardware for the tail section. Just to make sure the process is understood lets focus on a simple area, the elevator center hinge mounting hardware. There’s 4 identical bolts (item 205) and the associated washers/nuts. I think I have all my numbers for these items to order, so it’ll be good to go through the process just to make sense of things. The aircraft serial isn’t important in this case because the parts are covered under the usable code FE which applies to all E-numbers.

 

[Bell206]

Seems that one should normally just order the true p/n if it’s indeed the correct format?

This appears to be only a Beech feature as they seem to use modified P/Ns in their listings. Other OEMs I've dealt with simply use a "part number" in the correct format for all their parts. Go figure.

The new manual also doesn’t cover the original bolt numbers, which I assume are still a legal option? Originals can only be found in obsolete manuals apparently.

This is the slippery slope I've mentioned in your past threads when using new manuals on older aircraft. The original P/Ns are still valid and legal to use. The P/Ns found in your current manual are the ones the OEM offers in this manual revision. Nothing more. And no, the old manuals are not obsolete--just merely an earlier revision along with those older maintenance manuals and are still valid to use. The OEM does not have the authority to change how you as owner maintain and replace parts on your aircraft. Only the FAA can do that through a rule change like with an AD or FAR change via the APA. So when you use a new manual that only offers upgraded $50 hardware vs using a manual with the original $2 hardware listed, the added expense falls only to your decision to use it and not the OEM. And as an FYI, the reason for the washer stack up change is the new internal head bolts are shouldered and require a bevel washer under the head.

The aircraft serial isn’t important in this case because the parts are covered under the usable code FE which applies to all E-numbers.

FYI: the S/N is always important. That FE usable code was added by the OEM to make selling you the upgraded bolts easier.

 

[Jdm]

You should seriously write a book on maintenance legality. It would be a great retirement supplement!

FYI: the S/N is always important. That FE usable code was added by the OEM to make selling you the upgraded bolts easier.

The serial number in question here is E1880.
I understand in many cases the usable code requires a serial number but I don’t get how it’s “always” important. If the code is FE and the table at the end shows that FE covers all serial numbers then what’s the problem?
Back to the original concern regarding true, spare, and alternate numbers. If they are covered under the proper usable code then why not shop the price between them all and go with the cheaper. The spares concept is still a bit confusing.
I actually knew about the shouldered washer that goes under the allen bolt head but no idea why they like to stack washers under the nut??
Would it be correct to say that if the current IPC shows the new fancy bolts applicable to my aircraft (FE code) that I’m legal to use them or the spare p/n? My choice.

 

[Bell206]

You should seriously write a book on maintenance legality.

Ha. Not needed. Majority of what I know is accessible to anyone who wishes to search it out. And when it's not readily available you simply ask someone as I did with the "true P/N" thing. With today's internet it is much easier to look for info than when I manually researched everything years ago with trips to the library, ordering guidance through the GPO, spending my off time researching the technical docs at the old day job, trips to the GADO/FSDO, etc. It's all yours to learn should you want to.

I understand in many cases the usable code requires a serial number but I don’t get how it’s “always” important. If the code is FE and the table at the end shows that FE covers all serial numbers then what’s the problem?

The main issue is when an OEM develops a new usable code to cover 40 years of past model production the one thing they do not perform is a check to ensure those new parts properly fit on every previous model. Always knowing what part was installed at production by S/N will put you ahead of the game prior to blindly ordering that new "FE" part. For example, some issues could be a particular "FE" mount does not fit flat on a "usable C code aircraft" and requires trimming to something as simple as not having room to use an allen/hex key to secure your new "FE" bolts.

If they are covered under the proper usable code then why not shop the price between them all and go with the cheaper.

There is no problem to go cheaper. But in some cases which hardware used depends on procurement time and other scheduling issues.

The spares concept is still a bit confusing.

In general, look at it this way. The OEM designates a "primary" part number. Spare part numbers usually have some sort of technical connection to that part number which can be influenced by availability, engineering changes, what year it was produced, etc. An alternate part usually has no technical connection to the part number but shares the same fit and function of the part number. Also keep in mind your new manual covers 5 different 36 models built over 40 years so that can account for the multiple item 210 washers while providing you the user a link between those different NAS and MS P/Ns.

but no idea why they like to stack washers under the nut??

Usually for proper thread engagement of the nut. In some installations the bolt shank is required to protrude past the base material and the extra washer(s) are there to ensure the nut does not bottom out. In other cases the extra washers are used to obtain a 1-3 thread requirement on the nut depending on which standard used.

Would it be correct to say that if the current IPC shows the new fancy bolts applicable to my aircraft (FE code) that I’m legal to use them or the spare p/n? My choice.

Yes. It's definitely your choice as the installer to use any of the applicable hardware listed in your manual... which is just as legal using the original AN bolts from a past applicable IPC... which is just as legal to substitute those original AN bolts with NAS6600 series bolts that are not listed in any manual. The power of an A&P.

 

[Jdm]

I understand in many cases the usable code requires a serial number but I don’t get how it’s “always” important. If the code is FE and the table at the end shows that FE covers all serial numbers then what’s the problem?

The main issue is when an OEM develops a new usable code to cover 40 years of past model production the one thing they do not perform is a check to ensure those new parts properly fit on every previous model. Always knowing what part was installed at production by S/N will put you ahead of the game prior to blindly ordering that new "FE" part. For example, some issues could be a particular "FE" mount does not fit flat on a "usable C code aircraft" and requires trimming to something as simple as not having room to use an allen/hex key to secure your new "FE" bolts.

Would it be correct to say that if the current IPC shows the new fancy bolts applicable to my aircraft (FE code) that I’m legal to use them or the spare p/n? My choice.

Yes. It's definitely your choice as the installer to use any of the applicable hardware listed in your manual... which is just as legal using the original AN bolts from a past applicable IPC... which is just as legal to substitute those original AN bolts with NAS6600 series bolts that are not listed in any manual. The power of an A&P.

Sorry for all the pasting, but the two responses above seem to contradict just a bit. FE shows applicable to all S/N, including mine, then were good to order regardless it would seem. Most people don’t have access to the old manuals. Yes it’s nice to have but surely it’s not a requirement?

Usually for proper thread engagement of the nut. In some installations the bolt shank is required to protrude past the base material and the extra washer(s) are there to ensure the nut does not bottom out. In other cases the extra washers are used to obtain a 1-3 thread requirement on the nut depending on which standard used.

I should have been more specific. Of course, I get the the obvious about thread and shank requirements, but Beechcraft is stacking up two thin washers instead one thick under the nuts in some cases.

 

[Bell206]

but the two responses above seem to contradict just a bit.

Not really. I'm just giving both sides to the story. Yes, the FE parts are listed as applicable to all S/Ns. Full stop. But... the OEM does not physically check that all FE parts will in fact work with all S/Ns which can lead to installation issues. Comprende? I've had the customer return a number of "FE" type parts mainly due to excess cost and fit issues. That is the whole intent of my comments. Show you options. So to use your aircraft as an example, since it has AN bolts installed I would stick with ANs provided that is the correct bolt for that S/N aircraft unless perhaps there is a bulletin somewhere that recommends upgrading the hardware which could change my mind. But to simply change the hardware type because that is all the IPC offers is not a route I would take or recommend.

Most people don’t have access to the old manuals. Yes it’s nice to have but surely it’s not a requirement?

In Part 91 mx I think you'll find a majority still use the older manuals. However, some mx ops don't have that option like a CRS or 135 ops as they are required to follow the other side of the definition "current." Regardless, though it might not be a "requirement" as you believe, in my experience sticking to the original configuration and processes reduces the chance of tripping down a rabbit hole when sourcing parts for older aircraft. Unfortunately, one day this topic will be moot as either the old books and parts will completely disappear or, worse, nobody will look for them anymore. Make sense now?

but Beechcraft is stacking up two thin washers instead one thick under the nuts in some cases.

I'm not following. How do you know they are thin washers? The 215 in your diagram above has a Beech number so I can't determine whether it is thick or thin. What is the P/N of item 330 in your last diagram and items 370, 430, 410 in your previous diagram? Two thin washers usually consist of different P/Ns and provide a different function other than nut engagement.

 

[Jdm]

I'm not following. How do you know they are thin washers? The 215 in your diagram above has a Beech number so I can't determine whether it is thick or thin. What is the P/N of item 330 in your last diagram and items 370, 430, 410 in your previous diagram? Two thin washers usually consist of different P/Ns and provide a different function other than nut engagement.

Sorry. In this exact case I don’t know. In other cases I seem to remember them using extra thin washers with a p/n that ends in an L when a thick washer would have satisfied. I’ll check the part numbers associated with these but it’s not a big issue, just seemed odd if that actually do this.

In an attempt to better understand I called Textron today. Spoke with someone in the parts department. They recommended that I talk with someone in the tech department. The 1st guy was nice but extremely vague. He kept saying “it just depends”. I explained that the bolts are very important and asked to speak with someone who is thoroughly familiar with the parts manual process. He passed me over to a supervisor who told me to always order the Spares number when possible, as it is the “preferred” part! He said the True P/N is the older number which could be the original but not necessarily.
He also told me that if my S/N falls within the broad range FE usable code that it has been researched and will indeed be correct for my airplane. Not saying I agree, but it’s what they’re preaching.

Additionally, I was ordering from AirPower this afternoon and had them run the same bolt number we’ve been talking about. They told me that the True number appears to be the most recent which is the opposite of what Beechcraft is saying. He even went on to say that the spares number would not even be available again once the current stock is depleted.

 

[Jdm]

All the same.
Item 330. True NAS1149F0463P. Spares AN960-416
Item 370. True AN960-416. Spares NAS1149F0463
Item 430 and item 410 are the same with flip flopping of true and spares.

I believe these are all thick washers but it’s interesting how they swap the part number between true and spare qualifiers.

 

[Bell206]

Not saying I agree, but it’s what they’re preaching.

which is the opposite of what Beechcraft is saying.

Shame you can't get a more intelligent answer than that. Unfortunately that's the direction things are going from what I've seen. You should have asked him since the old IPC and your aircraft have AN bolts listed/installed why aren't the ANs listed in the new IPC. Such a missed opportunity.
All more the reason to find your own path through this BS and understand your options.

Item 330. True NAS1149F0463P. Spares AN960-416

Sounds like the guy who runs the tech side also runs the pubs side if they're using AN and NAS washers interchangeably as "true" part numbers. About 10-12 years ago, the industry... elected to drop the AN standard for the NAS standard for selecting hardware. The intent was to streamline hardware production as NAS offered more specifications than the AN standard. At the old day job, we went so far as to relabel all the hardware drawers, i.e., 416 to 463P, to help with the transition. It was also the reason Cessna updated their new IPCs and replaced AN bolts with NAS bolts in most installations. And so on. I guess Beech didn't get the memo.

I believe these are all thick washers

They are and would be used in that fashion to ensure the nut doesn't bottom out prior to torque.

 

[Jdm]

Additionally, I was ordering from AirPower this afternoon and had them run the same bolt number we’ve been talking about. They told me that the True number appears to be the most recent which is the opposite of what Beechcraft is saying. He even went on to say that the spares number would not even be available again once the current stock is depleted.

This airplane is a 1981 model. I’m looking back to an old parts catalog from 1995 which is the oldest I have. In the case of the bolt mentioned (item 205 in the current manual.) The current “spares” number is the exact same as the only P/N available back in 1995. Based on this, it appears that AirPower is correct in saying that the true P/N is the most current. Oddly enough, the 1995 manual doesn’t list this bolt or any other as matching my S/N usable on code. Crazy!

Again, from the current IPC intro:
The following qualifiers are used in the nomenclature column:
1 Alternate - Identifies the part number of an interchangeable part.
2 Spare - A preferred replacement part.
3 True Part Number - Indentifies the part number listed in the correct format to be used for ordering the part.

 

[Bell206]

Again, from the current IPC intro:

I'd simplify this and call the IPC item listed in the left column the primary P/N and any other P/N call it an alternate like most OEMs do. Perhaps get on a type club forum and find an IPC from 1981 that covers your S/N and see what it states. If it shows the AN bolts you have installed offer to buy that IPC or have a copy made. Same with the maintenance manual. I can't state this enough, new manuals on old aircraft cause more problems.

 

[Jdm]

See attached pic of the 1995 IPC. Item 33. Usable on code doesn't apply to my S/N but it does in the new IPC. P/N is the same as the current IPC spare P/N. Maybe I’m missing something but the old IPC doesn’t list any P/N applicable for my S/N. I thought there might be a second diagram in the old IPC that covers different effectively but no such luck.

 

[Jdm]

I'd simplify this and call the IPC item listed in the left column the primary P/N and any other P/N call it an alternate like most OEMs do

Yep. I’m just trying to use proper terminology per the book. They are definitely making it more confusing than necessary! I’m not even convinced that they know the difference in their own terminology being they are calling the spare the “preferred”, or “recommend” choice. Bunch of BS! Much easier with the old Cessna manuals!

Same with the maintenance manual. I can't state this enough, new manuals on old aircraft cause more problems.

I’m slowly becoming a believer. I’ve got new and old manuals now but the old ones are still a decade + newer than the airplane

 

[Bell206]

Maybe I’m missing something but the old IPC doesn’t list any P/N applicable for my S/N.

Take a pic of the lead pages of Figure 131 so I can see all the pages of this figure. Then read the intro on this specific manual and see how they explain the usable code. Sometimes there are general comments up front that affect your reading in the manual. And what is wrong with the current bolts show in the mount?

 

[Jdm]

Take a pic of the lead pages of Figure 131 so I can see all the pages of this figure. T

See pics of fig 131. Not much to it.

Then read the intro on this specific manual and see how they explain the usable code. Sometimes there are general comments up front that affect your reading in the manual.

Yep, I was thought about that already. Didn’t see anything. Included a pic of this as well.

And what is wrong with the current bolts show in the mount?

See the pic. Nothing terrible. The plating is worn off some. Probably original, 41 years old. They do go through the aft stabilizer spar. See the red lines I’ve drown to indicate how it mounts up. In addition to holding the inner portion of the elevators, the hinge bracket also serves as an outboard bolt spar strap. There’s also 4 more bolts (item 45) hidden behind the hinge bracket that that go through the spar as well. These are impossible to access without removing the elevators and hinge bracket. Figured It’d be prudent to replace them all while in there already.
The elevators got reskinned with aluminum, painted, and balanced with new static dischargers. They are going on with new hardware and static straps.

 

[Bell206]

See pics of fig 131. Not much to it.

Interesting. But I think we're either missing something or there is a typo in this manual. It's difficult for me work this out with only snapshots of pages but per the lead page for Fig 131 the entire empennage install is only applicable to code 1: E-2 to E-511. Same as your bolt reference. Just look at the first entry which is NP. You would need a code 5, 6, 8, or 13 to fit your S/N in this manual. What does Fig 133 show for the elevator install? Something is missing here. Regardless, I don't see any issue with your existing hardware but if you're set on replacing all of it you need to follow this through. But you really need a 1981 IPC to figure this out 100%. Or you can bite the bullet and order the upgraded hardware per your latest parts manual with the proper reference. Just imagine if you had to charge for this time.

 

[Jdm]

Interesting. But I think we're either missing something or there is a typo in this manual.

Totally agree. Right, it can’t only apply up through E511. Something is wrong. I’ve ordered a lot of hardware off the elevator diagram. Didn’t see any hinge bolts there but that was a different book. Will have to revisit this tomorrow if I have any energy left!

Or you can bite the bullet and order the upgraded hardware per your latest parts manual with the proper reference.

So you think that's definitely a legal option now? In regards to applicability that is, with the FE code. We’re only talking about biting $30 bullet here. Some of the newer style bolts have gone up astronomically but these ones aren’t too bad.

Just imagine if you had to charge for this time.

There’s no way! Can’t charge on this type of in-depth research. No owner would understand. Most mechanics wouldn’t have even yanked the hinge bracket in the first place. I only did it because I couldn’t properly check bolt torque on the aft spar because the hinge was covering the 4 inner bolts. The STC says to check bolt torque as part of continued airworthiness. Figure it’s probably a good idea to go ahead and check everything that i can get a wrench on while in there. STC also says to apply torque seal to make recurring inspections easier. Doing that as well.

 

[Bell206]

So you think that's definitely a legal option now? In regards to applicability that is, with the FE code. We’re only talking about biting $30 bullet here.

Always said it was an option just not your only legal option nor the cheaper option which you were asking about. And just to add, for the cost of one new bolt you can probably pick up a CD copy of a 1981 IPC.

There’s no way! Can’t charge on this type of in-depth research.

Unfortunately there are jobs that do require this type of in-depth research especially on older structural parts that are no longer procurable. It is what it is. In your case, just to hammer home the point, if you had a 1981 IPC that covered your aircraft you could have verified the proper P/N of the installed AN bolts and ordered new within 5 or 10 minutes tops. So join a Bonanza forum, find you a mx/parts manual of the correct vintage and enjoy working on your aircraft... and hope you never have to get into overhauling the landing gear.

Most mechanics wouldn’t have even yanked the hinge bracket in the first place. I only did it because I couldn’t properly check bolt torque on the aft spar because the hinge was covering the 4 inner bolts. The STC says to check bolt torque as part of continued airworthiness.

FYI: no need to explain your actions. If you think it needs to be done, then do it regardless what "most" mechanics do. However, always keep an open mind that there are many ways to skin the proverbial cat. But it's always your decision and certificate that counts.

 

[Jdm]

And just to add, for the cost of one new bolt you can probably pick up a CD copy of a 1981 IPC.

Point very well taken. I’ll definitely try to find a copy. I’m in the groups, should be able to snoop around and find something.

and hope you never have to get into overhauling the landing gear.

Ha, that’s kinda next. Not a full overhaul but a nice refresh. Purchased all the nifty tooling to do a proper rigging. Changing out a few of the common failure items, motor overhaul, etc. Got accepted to the Bonanza maintenance academy. The class will be going through a complete rigging and inspection. Really looking forward to this. It’ll be a great refresher! Haven’t done that type of gear work in many years.

 

[JAWS]

130909xxxxx is the beech preferred hardware. The bolts and nuts are all magnafluxed and are marked with ink or paint to denote that. There used to be specific spots that they used to want magnafluxed hardware, but they decided to go to the shotgun approach and use it for everything. I think it changed in the mid 2000's. There is a Communique on this.

There is a beech parts substitution list buried in the website that will show the original part number (ANxxxxx) and the preferred substitute (130909xxxx). It can be used to go both ways if that would help. Beech IPC's are free, you just need to sign up for them. There are also Communques, which are helpful hints and information aimed mainly at maintainers. I am not sure how to access them without 1view access. You can call tech support and enquire. 1 800 429 5372.

PS "FE" = Full Effectivity.

 

[Bell206]

There is a beech parts substitution list

Is this it?
https://www.csobeech.com/files/BeechcraftPartsSubstitutionList-090918.pdf

 

[Bell206]

There are also Communques, which are helpful hints and information aimed mainly at maintainer

Do you know if there is a Communique on the usable codes as well? For example in Post 24 his 1995 IPC usable code 1 shows only the 1st 500 S/Ns as effective for the entire empenage install to include the elevator hinge mount bolts the OP is looking for. There is no applicable code listed for other S/N aircraft to use those same bolts.

 

[Jdm]

There is a beech parts substitution list buried in the website that will show the original part number (ANxxxxx) and the preferred substitute (130909xxxx). It can be used to go both ways if that would help. Beech IPC's are free, you just need to sign up for them.

Excellent info! Definitely want to check into this. Thank you!
I’m signed up for the free IPC. It’s what I was referencing in the OP.

 

[Jdm]

Some interesting notes on the substitution list that Bell linked.

It appears that the “S” sub code is applicable to 130909xxxx type hardware..
S=Supersession (one-way replacement of a Current item with a Substitute Item is approved, but the Current Item is not approved to replace the Substitute Item).

Other notes are provided for NAS referencing..
Substitute Item is Preferred (Reference Note) A Current Item Number listed without its dash Numbers or attribute codes authorizes the use of the Substitute Item Number having the same dash Number or attribute code characteristics as the Item Number being replaced.

 

[Bell206]

the substitution list

The current Substitution List can be downloaded from your 1view acct under the Beech drop down menu "Part Substitution Listing."

S=Supersession (one-way replacement of a Current item with a Substitute Item is approved, but the Current Item is not approved to replace the Substitute Item).

FYI: this is common in part hierarchy. For example, you can substitute an AN bolt with a MS or NAS bolt then substitute the MS/NAS with a 20 series bolt. But you can't sub a lesser grade bolt for a higher grade. So in your aircraft with the original AN you are permitted to replace with the 130909 but if your aircraft was a 1995 model you couldn't use the AN bolt in place of the 130909 as it came with that bolt from the factory or by S/N. Hence the reason to always keep your S/N in consideration when researching parts.

@JAWS : appreciate the substitution reference.

 

[Jdm]

Makes sense. Great reference to have.

 

[JAWS]

Older Piper parts manuals had lots of vendor numbers. Pretty much gone now. Makes a big difference in sourcing parts for oldies.

Beech Communiques can be a life saver. Lots of information buried in there.