Engine exceeds TBO

[Michael Horowitz]

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

[Steve Foley]

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]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...

> Yup. It's run out,

No, it is not "run out" whatever you mean by that statement. It is still
holding compression, not making metal, and does not have excessive oil
consumption.


and will need replacement/rebuilding shortly.

Really? And what diameter was the crystal ball that you used to make this
determination? I've seen engines that have been taken care of go DOUBLE
TBO. I've seen abused engines go HALF TBO. It is strictly a function of
the care and feeding of the engine.



>> 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

Engines don't "poop out". Engines have a slow, steady slide into required
serious maintenance. Every now and again, one will have an unforeseen
catastrophic failure, but those are few and far between.

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.

Jim

[Steve Foley]

With the information given, and the information requested, I feel my
response was appropriate.

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

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

While we are nit-picking, What do you mean by "Making Metal"? I always
thought matter could not be created or destroyed.

(This is a rhetorical question. I know what you mean by making metal, just
as I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant by run out)

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Yup. It's run out,
>
> No, it is not "run out" whatever you mean by that statement. It is still
> holding compression, not making metal, and does not have excessive oil
> consumption.
>
>
> and will need replacement/rebuilding shortly.
>
> Really? And what diameter was the crystal ball that you used to make this
> determination? I've seen engines that have been taken care of go DOUBLE
> TBO. I've seen abused engines go HALF TBO. It is strictly a function of
> the care and feeding of the engine.
>
>
>
> >> 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
>
> Engines don't "poop out". Engines have a slow, steady slide into required
> serious maintenance. Every now and again, one will have an unforeseen
> catastrophic failure, but those are few and far between.
>
> 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.
>
> Jim
>
>

[Jean-Paul Roy]

Thanks Jim for making it so clear and understandable.

Jean-Paul
Quebec, Canada
"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Yup. It's run out,
>
> No, it is not "run out" whatever you mean by that statement. It is still
> holding compression, not making metal, and does not have excessive oil
> consumption.
>
>
> and will need replacement/rebuilding shortly.
>
> Really? And what diameter was the crystal ball that you used to make this
> determination? I've seen engines that have been taken care of go DOUBLE
> TBO. I've seen abused engines go HALF TBO. It is strictly a function of
> the care and feeding of the engine.
>
>
>
> >> 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
>
> Engines don't "poop out". Engines have a slow, steady slide into required
> serious maintenance. Every now and again, one will have an unforeseen
> catastrophic failure, but those are few and far between.
>
> 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.
>
> Jim
>
>

[Jonathan Lowe]

> By "Run Out", I mean that the engine will not serve the owner for many
years
> to come.
>
> While we are nit-picking, What do you mean by "Making Metal"? I always
> thought matter could not be created or destroyed.
>
Making Metal, means that particles of the metal lineing on the main bearing
shells is peeling off and showing up in the oil filter and in the oil when
you drain the sump / oil tank. That's a sure indication that the engine
should not be run a minute longer as failure is very near and unpredictible.
We may complain when an A&P grounds an aircraft with metal in the oil
strainer but should be mighty glad when we consider that he's just saved a
falure in the air.
--
..
..
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe,
Rallye 100
EI-BFR


> (This is a rhetorical question. I know what you mean by making metal, just
> as I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant by run out)
>
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Yup. It's run out,
> >
> > No, it is not "run out" whatever you mean by that statement. It is
still
> > holding compression, not making metal, and does not have excessive oil
> > consumption.
> >
> >
> > and will need replacement/rebuilding shortly.
> >
> > Really? And what diameter was the crystal ball that you used to make
this
> > determination? I've seen engines that have been taken care of go DOUBLE
> > TBO. I've seen abused engines go HALF TBO. It is strictly a function
of
> > the care and feeding of the engine.
> >
> >
> >
> > >> 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
> >
> > Engines don't "poop out". Engines have a slow, steady slide into
required
> > serious maintenance. Every now and again, one will have an unforeseen
> > catastrophic failure, but those are few and far between.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
>
>

[RST Engineering]

"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.

Jim

[RST Engineering]

Then you and Einstein disagree. I know who I believe ...

Jim


"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:hiQ2f.9552$tU1.1516@trndny07...


>
> While we are nit-picking, What do you mean by "Making Metal"? I always
> thought matter could not be created or destroyed.

[Steve Foley]

Touché!



- Steve

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Then you and Einstein disagree. I know who I believe ...
>
> Jim
>
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:hiQ2f.9552$tU1.1516@trndny07...
>
>
> >
> > While we are nit-picking, What do you mean by "Making Metal"? I always
> > thought matter could not be created or destroyed.
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

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
>
>
>

Baloney. Engine life is highly variable depending on usage, care in
maintenance, etc. An engine run infrequently and not maintained well
might not make it to 500 hours. An engine run every day and maintained
well might run to 3,000 hours.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

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

[Steve Foley]

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

[rocky]

>>> 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...

[Scott]

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
>
>
>

[Steve Foley]

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
> >
> >
> >

[Ric]

"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
>

[Cy Galley]

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
>>
>>

[RST Engineering]

> 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

[[email protected]]

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!)

[Ric]

"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
>

[W P Dixon]

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
>

[Morgans]

"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

[Bret Ludwig]

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.

[Bret Ludwig]

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.

[Ric]

"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
>

[Matt Whiting]

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

[Stealth Pilot]

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

[Scott]

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.

[Scott]

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!)
>

[[email protected]]

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

[Steve Foley]

Again, the question I replied to was:

"How should I approach this engine"

My reply was to that EXACT question, not to some other question you may have
imagined. Implied in my response (because it was a direct response to the
question) was that it should be APPROACHED as if it's run out.

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

[Montblack]

("Ric" wrote)
[snip]
> 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.


fair dinkum:

<http://www.australianbeers.com/culture/fairdinkum.htm>

<http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-fai3.htm>

<http://www.stonedcrow.com/stonedzone/ZONE3level/FAIR%20DINKUM.htm>

Uff Da, I still don't get it??


Montblack

[Ric]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Ric" wrote)
> [snip]
>> 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.
>
>
> fair dinkum:
>
> <http://www.australianbeers.com/culture/fairdinkum.htm>
>
> <http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-fai3.htm>
>
> <http://www.stonedcrow.com/stonedzone/ZONE3level/FAIR%20DINKUM.htm>
>
> Uff Da, I still don't get it??
>
>
> Montblack

Bit hard to translate, can be used in a variety of circumstances. ie-

Seriously, I posted my ............

Well **** me, I posted my ...........

Jesus christ, I posted my ............

Geez I'm ****ed, I posted my ...........

Or, for instance, someone cuts you of in traffic...You shake your head and
mumble to yourself "fairdinkum"

Jump in anytime Stealth!!

Ric

[Capt.Doug]

> wrote in message
> Was Smokey a pilot? Was this comment directed at aviation engines? Is
> it relevant?

Smokey was a pilot. Parked a Bell 206 on the property.

D.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Cy Galley" wrote in message
> 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.

You don't need to petition the FAA. Meet the manufacturer's parameters and
the approval is automatic. I went through this recently.

D.

[Stealth Pilot]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:46:07 +0930, "Ric" >
wrote:

>
>"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>> ("Ric" wrote)
>> [snip]
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> fair dinkum:
>>
>> <http://www.australianbeers.com/culture/fairdinkum.htm>
>>
>> <http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-fai3.htm>
>>
>> <http://www.stonedcrow.com/stonedzone/ZONE3level/FAIR%20DINKUM.htm>
>>
>> Uff Da, I still don't get it??
>>
>>
>> Montblack
>
>Bit hard to translate, can be used in a variety of circumstances. ie-
>
>Seriously, I posted my ............
>
>Well **** me, I posted my ...........
>
>Jesus christ, I posted my ............
>
>Geez I'm ****ed, I posted my ...........
>
>Or, for instance, someone cuts you of in traffic...You shake your head and
>mumble to yourself "fairdinkum"
>
>Jump in anytime Stealth!!
>
>Ric
>
you're looking at words from a guy who didnt realise that "strine
language" was phonetically writing "australian language" for most of
his life. :-)

I think the second one above was going a bit far.
streuth, I posted my.....
blimey they still dont understand so I posted my....
would be better.

the traffic one seems melbourne greek to me. the rest would say
"would you have a schufti at that idiot!"
or "if he had another brain it'd be lonely"

we really are separated by a common language. :-)
Stealth (and a sense of humour) Pilot

[Steve Foley]

Sounds like the first line of a song....


"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...

> Smokey was a pilot. Parked a Bell 206 on the property.