If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
N. Shane wrote in message . ..
Caution to those pondering a zero-choke re-man by this company. My O-470J lasted 200 hours before four cylinders showed mid-fifties compression with Blackstone labs reporting symptoms of excessive ring wear. Even after admitting, view phone, that the test-stand results were abnormal, Ney himself refused to stand behind the engine, on the grounds that the plane's former owner -- his customer -- made him use reconditioned cylinders. That's one of the problems with buying a plane with a recent overhaul. There isn't much of a chance that the seller did a good job of overhauling the engine if he's just hours away from selling it. You'd probably be better off buying a run-out airplane and getting the overhaul done yourself. Also, you'd know that the engine was properly broken in. -Robert |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Robert M. Gary wrote:
That's one of the problems with buying a plane with a recent overhaul. There isn't much of a chance that the seller did a good job of overhauling the engine if he's just hours away from selling it. You'd probably be better off buying a run-out airplane and getting the overhaul done yourself. Also, you'd know that the engine was properly broken in. For purposes of avoiding one when buying, what's a "recent overhaul"? 100 hours? 200? 300? Put another way, after how many hours on an engine can you tell that it's properly overhauld and broken in? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
xyzzy wrote: Put another way, after how many hours on an engine can you tell that it's properly overhauld and broken in? It's not really hours so much as calendar time, IMO. If the engine was overhauled within about the last six months and there are no extenuating circumstances (such as lost medical or death of the owner) prior to that, I would be a little leery of the quality of the work. On the other hand, a "name" shop like Mattituck doesn't cut corners on request for anyone (though their engines *have* failed on occasion), so I would tend to assume the work was good if it came from one of those shops. There are other factors besides time. AFAIK, there's no way to really be sure that the engine was properly broken in, especially with chrome cylinders. George Patterson If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people he gives it to. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Gene Kearns wrote in
: Now their latest approach (almost certainly to stave off a class action suit) is just to continually lower the limits on an "airworthy" cylinder. It's now so low (26/80 with air leaking past the rings and valves, and a pressurized crankcase) that pretty much any piece of scrap iron is considered "good" by TCM. I'm not going to champion the quality of TCM cylinders.... but 28/80???? Where did that come from? AFAIK, they still require the calibrated orifice test (per SB03-3) to establish the minimum allowable pressure.... and I have *never* recorded a pressure *that* low... It's 26/80, not 28/80, so slightly worse than you thought. G Where does it come from? It comes straight from TCM. Used to be the requirement for airworthiness (according to TCM) was 40/80 with audible air leak only past the rings (anything past the valves was automatically failing). About 10 months ago, to head off numerous lawsuits, TCM issued an updated "standards" circular with the MUCH lower requirements for a "good" engine. As for the reading itself, the true reading on most of these engines is closer to 0/80. Once the problem starts to manifest they quickly wear a "step" near the upper part of the cylinder. Pressure is supposed to be tested at TDC. What you will find is that the reading is essentially 0/80 (I've seen 3/80 and 7/80) when the cylinder appears to be TDC by normal means (a dowel rod on the top of the cylinder). *BUT* you can wiggle the prop the most microscopic amount and sometimes hit a spot where it will suddenly jump to something more like 78/80. You've caught the rings right under the step. [All this assumes, of course, that there isn't too much air leaking around the valves.] The comment from the southern USA rep for TCM - "Hell, if it will pass the annual, why do you care?" jmk |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 10:47:11 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote: I think you have been grossly misinformed. I just spoke with the person at Teledyne Continental that writes the service publications and he was utterly unaware of your ""standards" circular" and emphasized the fact that SB03-3 is *still* the standard for checking cylinder leakage. Maybe just a little misinformed. The "low" reading (as you have indicated) is still determined by the orifice tool. I've never personally had a comp tester come in using this method under around 35. They have changed the verbosity to allow initial e&i valve leakage (originally, any valve leakage was verboten), but if the valve/s are still leaking on the "re-check", the cylinder gets yanked. TC |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Gene Kearns wrote in
: I think "grossly" fits.... bear in mind that the poster offered a statement, "About 10 months ago, to head off numerous lawsuits, TCM issued an updated "standards" circular with the MUCH lower requirements for a "good" engine. " And then backed the statement up with anecdotal evidence, "The comment from the southern USA rep for TCM - "Hell, if it will pass the annual, why do you care?" " I'd still like to know *which* document sets forth this "standard." And personally, I've never had a calibrated orifice test go as low as 35... usually it is around 43. Lower than Lycoming's suggestion, perhaps, but then they don't *require* a borescope at inspection... and their standard is: if the test is below 60/80 cylinder repair should be "considered." Been grossly misinformed about many things in life, including women. But I don't think so this time. First off, TCM has always allowed readings as low as 40/80 to be considered good - this change into the 20's just lowers it further. The exhaust valve leakage is new - used to be any valve leakage was failing. If you are getting 35/80, then you have a GREAT cylinder from TCM. I'll look for that TCM AC. Should have a copy back at the other office. jmk |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"James M. Knox" wrote in
2: If you are getting 35/80, then you have a GREAT cylinder from TCM. I'll look for that TCM AC. Should have a copy back at the other office. FWIW... tried the TCM site (which, as always, left me more frustrated than anything else). The primary item was SB03-3, which was revised last year to greatly reduce the requirements for a "airworthy" cylinder. I was wrong about one thing - I still thought that leakage past the intake valve wasn't permitted, but in fact audible leakage past all valves and rings is now considered normal. Unfortunately, the reference to the actual leakage limit is in another document, and (as usual) their links are broken. So I need to find a hard copy somewhere. jmk |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
fighter pilot hours? | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 26 | September 15th 05 02:39 AM |
D-DAY: START ENGINES 0412 HOURS | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 5 | June 7th 04 05:08 PM |
Looking for Cessna Caravan pilots | [email protected] | Owning | 9 | April 1st 04 02:54 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |