Should I consider this plane - weird engine history

[[email protected]]

Looking at a '73 Cherokee 180 that had an overshoot incident about 300
hours ago. At that time the owner had to do a bottom overhaul I think
because of engine stoppage and at the same time did a top overhaul -
but not a major. So basically it's been 1600 smoh, but only 300 since
bottom and top. He said it saved him about $6,000 at the time to do it
this way, but he also said that according to the FAA, this is definetly
not considered a major overhaul.

The plane is in great shape, repair after the incident professionally
done, is nicely equiped and the price reflects the 1600 smoh time and
the damage history. It's not a screaming deal but I guess it's a fair
deal.

If I buy it and fly it for say 2-4 years, then on paper it's
approaching tbo, but in reality the engine is probably good for awhile.
Would this be a fair statement? What's holding me back is that I'm
thinking it's one of those situations where it is going to lose alot of
value in the next couple of years,ie it's not going to appreciate like
most of the fleet.

Should I pass?

[James M. Knox]

wrote in news:1107349329.752390.71020
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> Looking at a '73 Cherokee 180 that had an overshoot incident about 300
> hours ago. At that time the owner had to do a bottom overhaul I think
> because of engine stoppage and at the same time did a top overhaul -
> but not a major. So basically it's been 1600 smoh, but only 300 since
> bottom and top. He said it saved him about $6,000 at the time to do it
> this way, but he also said that according to the FAA, this is definetly
> not considered a major overhaul.
>
> Should I pass?

Don't know if you should pass or not, but what he told you is correct.

My suggestion on the engine - treat it as 1600 SMOH. Then there is good
possibility that you will get many hours of free (engine) flying time.

jmk

[Jay Honeck]

> Don't know if you should pass or not, but what he told you is correct.

If you do a top and bottom overhaul, what has been eliminated that would
save $6000 versus doing a major?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

The previous owner mentioned a few things but I don't have the info in
front of me now (He's a mechanic and not the current owner). He talked
about how the FAA requires an engine to be bench tested and calibrated
(or some such thing) now after an overhaul that they didn't years ago.


Also, the current owner says that the crank was 'scalloped' at that
time. Any ideas what that means? He didn't know.

Compressions and oil consumption are good. It's been trouble free for
the last 300 hours.

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> If you do a top and bottom overhaul, what has been eliminated that
would
> save $6000 versus doing a major?

That was my question exactly. I get suspicious when I hear claims
like that.

For the OP, I'd price the airplane according to it's last major and
forget about this pseudo overhaul. Maybe add a litte value for the
recent top overhaul, assuming the compressions are still looking good.
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Jay Honeck]

>> If you do a top and bottom overhaul, what has been eliminated that
> would
>> save $6000 versus doing a major?
>
> That was my question exactly. I get suspicious when I hear claims
> like that.

The only thing I can think of is that he maybe didn't send the crank out to
be checked? Or he is counting the fact that he didn't work on any
accessories?

Something doesn't smell right here.

I agree with John -- don't give this plane any credit for this faux
overhaul. And then, if you get lucky and it lasts another 1400 hours,
take it to the bank!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

" wrote:
>
> Also, the current owner says that the crank was 'scalloped' at that
> time. Any ideas what that means? He didn't know.

Usually this means that metal was removed from the sides of the counterweights.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

[[email protected]]

>"Usually this means that metal was removed from the sides of =ADthe
counterweights. "


Any idea why this would be done?

[kage]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:iN5Md.44373$eT5.25095@attbi_s51...
>> Don't know if you should pass or not, but what he told you is correct.
>
> If you do a top and bottom overhaul, what has been eliminated that would
> save $6000 versus doing a major?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
It wasn't a "Bottom overhaul." It was a prop strike inspection. The case
would need to be overhauled along with at least the oil pump, plus other
stuff they don't touch.

Karl

[George Patterson]

" wrote:
>
> Any idea why this would be done?

It reduces the weight of the crank, for one thing. Dunno what they do to keep it
balanced. It's usually done as part of hopping up an engine in racing
applications.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

[Jay Masino]

kage > wrote:
> It wasn't a "Bottom overhaul." It was a prop strike inspection. The case
> would need to be overhauled along with at least the oil pump, plus other
> stuff they don't touch.

That's what I was thinking. Actually, I think a prop strike inspection
on a Lycoming mostly consists of inspecting the gears inside the accessory
case, but they may have magafluxed the crank, too. Otherwise, they just
reassembled it with the same parts they disassembled it with.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[[email protected]]

Jay Masino > wrote:
: case, but they may have magafluxed the crank, too. Otherwise, they just
: reassembled it with the same parts they disassembled it with.

Except some things which must be replaced... like connecting rod bolts.
Main bearings?

Seems pretty silly to me to not do the slight bit more work to get an
overhaul... basically just some magnafluxing of the steel parts is all.

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[nuke]

Count it as a near runout, value the plane and engine accordingly.

Been there, done that. Bought a plane with 1500 SMOH and way too many years,
had a prop strike teardown 500 hours and 4 years before I bought it. Ran
strong, had a couple of fresh overhauled cylinders, clean oil screens and oil
analysis came back great. Engine didn't leak and was clean enough to eat off of
and had flown about 300 hours in the last 1.25 years.

Less than a hundred hours into my ownership, I found bearing material in the
sump screen. Off to the overhaul shop.

The teardown revealed a bearing failure as the source of the metal. Cylinders
and cam, lifters and so on looked pretty good, which means all my inspections
were fine. Case needed a minor re-work, probably the source of misalignment of
the bearing that caused it to fail in about 600 hrs of flying time.

Just because it has been apart doesn't make it as good as an overhaul.



If you count it as a
--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.