Engine exceeds TBO

Steve Foley wrote:
With the information given, and the information requested, I feel my
response was appropriate.

No, an appropriate response would have been "I need more information in
order to comment", or "engine life is highly variable and there is no
way to tell if your engine will run 1 more hour or 1,000 more hours."

Your comment was almost certainly wrong, but may have been right in a
very small percentage of cases.


No statement was made regarding compression, making metal, or oil
consumption, how the engine was treated (taken care of or abused).

The OP said the compression was good. There was no comment about metal,
oil consumption, or maintenance though.


By "Run Out", I mean that the engine will not serve the owner for many years
to come.

We knew what you meant, and we know that you don't know what you are
talking about.

Matt

Sorry Mike, I was obviously wrong. Go ahead and buy this plane. TBO means
nothing.

"Michael Horowitz" wrote in message
...
I have a lead on a Tcraft with an A-65 engine that has exceeded
recommended TBO. It is my understanding the compression is still good.

How should I approach this engine ( i.e. just assume everything over
1800 hours was a freebee and there is no guarantee it's not about to
poop out)? - Mike

I have a lead on a Tcraft with an A-65 engine that has exceeded
recommended TBO. It is my understanding the compression is still good.

How should I approach this engine ( i.e. just assume everything over
1800 hours was a freebee and there is no guarantee it's not about to
poop out)? - Mike


A friend of mine at our local AP (3S8) has an Apache (twin O-320's).
After 3500 hours on the engines he decided they needed an overhaul (only
because he wants to give instruction in it).
So the actual number of hours on the engine means little. What really
matters is how it was taken care of / flown...

I'm not sure what you base your assumption that it will NEED
replacement/rebuilding shortly. My old Chief had 2400 hours on its
C-85. Compressions were well into the upper 70s. I have a friend who
flew Citabrias to 10000 hours between overhauls. The key to that long
of a life was useage. They used them for power line patrol and flew
10-12 hours daily. He believed the key to longevity was usage. Sitting
unused it what kills these engines...TBO is RECOMMENDED, unless it is
used in commercial operations, where it's required.

Scott


Steve Foley wrote:
Yup. It's run out, and will need replacement/rebuilding shortly. Like you
said, anything else is gravy.

Don't you have a T-Craft engine?

"Michael Horowitz" wrote in message
...

I have a lead on a Tcraft with an A-65 engine that has exceeded
recommended TBO. It is my understanding the compression is still good.

How should I approach this engine ( i.e. just assume everything over
1800 hours was a freebee and there is no guarantee it's not about to
poop out)? - Mike

The question to which I replied was "How should I approach this engine?"

The question was not "How long will this engine last?". The question was not
"How can I tell how long this engine will last?"

I believe that when purchasing a plane with an engine beyond TBO , expect
the worst. Expect to will need replacement shortly. I never said it WOULD
need replacement. I said to treat it as if it would need replacement, and
pay accordingly.

It appears everyone else thinks you should closely examine the logs to see
if it has been well cared for, and offer more for the plane as a result. I
disagree.


"Scott" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure what you base your assumption that it will NEED
replacement/rebuilding shortly. My old Chief had 2400 hours on its
C-85. Compressions were well into the upper 70s. I have a friend who
flew Citabrias to 10000 hours between overhauls. The key to that long
of a life was useage. They used them for power line patrol and flew
10-12 hours daily. He believed the key to longevity was usage. Sitting
unused it what kills these engines...TBO is RECOMMENDED, unless it is
used in commercial operations, where it's required.

Scott


Steve Foley wrote:
Yup. It's run out, and will need replacement/rebuilding shortly. Like
you
said, anything else is gravy.

Don't you have a T-Craft engine?

"Michael Horowitz" wrote in message
...

I have a lead on a Tcraft with an A-65 engine that has exceeded
recommended TBO. It is my understanding the compression is still good.

How should I approach this engine ( i.e. just assume everything over
1800 hours was a freebee and there is no guarantee it's not about to
poop out)? - Mike

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Lowe" wrote in message
...


Making Metal, means that particles of the metal lineing on the main
bearing
shells

Or the rod bearing inserts.



We may complain when an A&P grounds an aircraft

An A&P cannot ground an aircraft. An IA cannot ground an aircraft. There
is argument on both sides that an FAA inspector cannot ground an aircraft.
This is an unfortunate phrase left over from the military, where a
mechanic CAN ground an aircraft. Civilian life is a bit different.

He may not be able to "ground" an aircraft, but if an A&P decides that the
engine needs maint carried out, he, or she, aint gonna put it back together
and sign it off so it can be flown anywhere else for a second opinion. So
although technically speaking he can't ground an aircraft, in reality he
can.

Ric
Jim

TBO is a rather cupreous number. If you were in part 135 you can petition
the FAA for a 10% (IB) extension in the TBO hours if all the parameters are
good. That is how the manufacturers get longer recommended TBOs.

"Scott" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure what you base your assumption that it will NEED
replacement/rebuilding shortly. My old Chief had 2400 hours on its C-85.
Compressions were well into the upper 70s. I have a friend who flew
Citabrias to 10000 hours between overhauls. The key to that long of a
life was useage. They used them for power line patrol and flew 10-12
hours daily. He believed the key to longevity was usage. Sitting unused
it what kills these engines...TBO is RECOMMENDED, unless it is used in
commercial operations, where it's required.

Scott


Steve Foley wrote:
Yup. It's run out, and will need replacement/rebuilding shortly. Like you
said, anything else is gravy.

Don't you have a T-Craft engine?

"Michael Horowitz" wrote in message
...

I have a lead on a Tcraft with an A-65 engine that has exceeded
recommended TBO. It is my understanding the compression is still good.

How should I approach this engine ( i.e. just assume everything over
1800 hours was a freebee and there is no guarantee it's not about to
poop out)? - Mike

He may not be able to "ground" an aircraft, but if an A&P decides that the
engine needs maint carried out, he, or she, aint gonna put it back
together and sign it off so it can be flown anywhere else for a second
opinion. So although technically speaking he can't ground an aircraft, in
reality he can.


Bull****, and I'm not going to argue this point still a THIRD time in two
months with somebody that doesn't have a clue.


Jim
A&P, IA

RST Engineering wrote:
"Jonathan Lowe" wrote in message
...


Making Metal, means that particles of the metal lineing on the main
bearing
shells

Or the rod bearing inserts.

Another thing to consider since it is a Continental after all ;-),
is just how much oil it is drooling all over itself out of every seam,
gasket and seal, to help determine whether or not it's time to tear it
down for the inevitable rebuild. (Not that I'm insinuating old
Continentals are profuse oil leakers -- no nothing like that!)

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...

He may not be able to "ground" an aircraft, but if an A&P decides that
the
engine needs maint carried out, he, or she, aint gonna put it back
together and sign it off so it can be flown anywhere else for a second
opinion. So although technically speaking he can't ground an aircraft, in
reality he can.


Bull****, and I'm not going to argue this point still a THIRD time in two
months with somebody that doesn't have a clue.

Why does it have to be an argument, a disscusion would suffice and isnt that
what newsgroups are all about?

As for stating I don't have a clue.......well that shows more about you than
me :0)

My point stands, the fact you don't wish to "argue" the point, I think,
means you agree but don't wish to lose face. Don't sweat it mate.

Ric
LAME (A&P, IA)


Jim
A&P, IA