Engine exceeds TBO

Well dang Jim!
There would only be two or three folks on here that can win!!!!

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

By the way, condescending loses every time.
--
Jim in NC

"Ric" wrote

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.

Hmm, ric spouts off, new on the scene. Jim spouts off, been around since
dirt was invented (sorry, Jim) and now I have to make a choice.

Not a hard decision, mate.

By the way, condescending loses every time.
--
Jim in NC

An aside, most of these airplanes that had 65 horse Continentals
originally were upgraded to 75, 85 or bigger engines with starter and
generator pads and electrics. It added a little weight but power went
up and the airplane flew better. Then they ripped the electrics out and
went back to the 65s for authenticity, I guess.

If you want to fly NORDO, buy an ultralight, is my philosophy. I want
lights and radios.

RST Engineering wrote:
snip

The other side of that coin is that bearing/crankshaft wear tends to become
exponential after a point in time when it departs from linear. That is, for
a long time (extrapolated by the manufacturer to be "TBO") the wear on the
bearings and the crank is linear. At some point when the bearings get to be
sloppy on the crank, the wear accelerates, and the faster it accelerates,
the faster it accelerates. If you want to play the crankshaft roulette
game, you extend TBO until the bearings start to make metal. Then you pull
the engine down, and if you are lucky, the bearings (the cheap part) took
the hit and left the crank journals intact. If you lose, you grind the
crank UNLESS somebody else played crankshaft roulette before you and the
crank had already been ground to minimums. Now you REALLY have a rough row
to hoe, in that you get to find a replacement crank ... which ain't cheap by
anybody's standards.


As Smokey Yunick said, the more often you rebuild, the cheaper it is.
Going much beyond TBO on an aircraft engine-or beyond what the
consensus says is the usual life on other engines, be they car or
boat-is fool's coinage. Dismantle, clean, mike and magnaflux.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Ric" wrote

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.

Hmm, ric spouts off, new on the scene. Jim spouts off, been around since
dirt was invented (sorry, Jim) and now I have to make a choice.

Why do you feel you have to make a choice? How about you actually contribute
something to the discussion rather than just jumping wildly to someone's
defence purely on the grounds they have been posting here the longest? FWIW,
I have been posting, lurking since 1999. I just don't feel that every post
requires addressing, like some, and so I don't post often.


Not a hard decision, mate.

Lucky eh!


By the way, condescending loses every time.

Loses what?? Are we in a competition of some sort?

Fairdinkum, I posted my view point, politely, and the only replies I
receive are hostile and don't address any of the topic. Good work guys.

Ric

--
Jim in NC

Bret Ludwig wrote:
RST Engineering wrote:
snip

The other side of that coin is that bearing/crankshaft wear tends to become
exponential after a point in time when it departs from linear. That is, for
a long time (extrapolated by the manufacturer to be "TBO") the wear on the
bearings and the crank is linear. At some point when the bearings get to be
sloppy on the crank, the wear accelerates, and the faster it accelerates,
the faster it accelerates. If you want to play the crankshaft roulette
game, you extend TBO until the bearings start to make metal. Then you pull
the engine down, and if you are lucky, the bearings (the cheap part) took
the hit and left the crank journals intact. If you lose, you grind the
crank UNLESS somebody else played crankshaft roulette before you and the
crank had already been ground to minimums. Now you REALLY have a rough row
to hoe, in that you get to find a replacement crank ... which ain't cheap by
anybody's standards.



As Smokey Yunick said, the more often you rebuild, the cheaper it is.
Going much beyond TBO on an aircraft engine-or beyond what the
consensus says is the usual life on other engines, be they car or
boat-is fool's coinage. Dismantle, clean, mike and magnaflux.


Smokey was talking car engines, more specifically race car engines. Do
you rebuild your car engine every 100,000 miles as preventive maintenance?

Matt

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:27:11 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote:


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


trouble is jim you are both correct.
you write from the american perspective.
ric writes from an australian perspective.

the laws in each country are different.

Stealth Pilot
Australia

Yes, you DID say it would NEED replacement/rebuilding.

Scott

Steve Foley wrote:
I never said it WOULD
need replacement. I said to treat it as if it would need replacement, and
pay accordingly.

The original message said:

Steve Foley wrote:

Yup. It's run out, and will need replacement/rebuilding shortly.

My Continentals have never had a leakage issue...even my old C-85 that
had 2400 hours on it and had never been majored It was over TBO,
however, and needed to be replaced/overhauled

Scott


wrote:

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!)

On 13 Oct 2005 00:02:59 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

As Smokey Yunick said, the more often you rebuild, the cheaper it is.
Going much beyond TBO on an aircraft engine-or beyond what the
consensus says is the usual life on other engines, be they car or
boat-is fool's coinage. Dismantle, clean, mike and magnaflux.

Cheaper for whom? How is it cheaper to rebuild frequently than to run
an engine for it's normal life?

Was Smokey a pilot? Was this comment directed at aviation engines? Is
it relevant?

Corky Scott