SMOH=487, STOH=77???

[Michael Horowitz]

Subject is part of a description of an A-65 engine.

Am I reading this correctly: the engine had a major, then about 400
hours later required a top half overhaul?? Isn't a top included in a
major?

What likely happened? - MIke

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Michael Horowitz > wrote:

> Subject is part of a description of an A-65 engine.
>
> Am I reading this correctly: the engine had a major, then about 400
> hours later required a top half overhaul?? Isn't a top included in a
> major?
>
> What likely happened? - MIke


It could have had a jug go bad for any of a number of reasons --
sometimes the crack for no apparent reason. Other times it is due to
poor baffling or other mistreatment.

[UltraJohn]

Richard Riley wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:00:33 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote:
>
> :
> :It could have had a jug go bad for any of a number of reasons --
> :sometimes the crack for no apparent reason. Other times it is due to
> :poor baffling or other mistreatment.
>
> And that major overhaul may have used cylinders that were on their
> (you fill in the number) run. They might have met the overhaul spec
> but had 4000+ hours already.

Or even a typo (wich Is neva does) such that there might have been another
digit as in STOH 777 or 977 or who knows what!
John

[Scott]

The guy might have run 100LL and stuck a valve, prompting a top overhaul
and installation of 100 Octane valves. What year was the major done?
It might have been 1965 and only flown those 400 hours over the past 40
years. No use can be harder on the engine than abuse...

Scott


Michael Horowitz wrote:
> Subject is part of a description of an A-65 engine.
>
> Am I reading this correctly: the engine had a major, then about 400
> hours later required a top half overhaul?? Isn't a top included in a
> major?
>
> What likely happened? - MIke
>
>
>