Do brand new big bore Continentals require top end overhaul at 400 hours?

None of the replies indicate any reference to time in service. It's well
known that a well used engine will last a lot
longer than a seldom used engine. 400 hrs in 4 years or 400 hrs in 4 months?
Example: A T210J flown by me needed a top overhaul after 200 hrs because it
had done these 200 hrs in 4 years,
where a TU206G also flown by me went to TBO with no top overhaul because it
did it's 1400 hrs in 2 years.




"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:25:48 -0700, "Tom S." wrote:

So you recall which article stated this? I recall Deakin talking about
all
the Trade-a-Plane copies that had STOH numbers at 800-1200 hrs. The
context
about that was running ROP.

The F33 I'm trying to buy (IO-520) has 3500 hours and never had a TOH
and
was replaced with a REMAN at 1800 hrs the first go round.

If I recall correctly, it was in one of his mixture series of
articles. That at least narrows it down to five.

He did say in a couple of articles (okay...in a LOT oaf articles) that TCM
and Lycoming have sucked at QC over the past 15-20( ?? ) years, but I
can't
remember that 400 hour bit. I do remember the 800-1200 TOH bit, though
that
was more to improper mixture, not QC. I do recall something about their
not
making something or other, and the neither company was worth a damn about
honoring their warranty, but again, IIRC that was to do with ROP AND their
crappy QC.

In article ,
"Nigel T Peart" wrote:

None of the replies indicate any reference to time in service. It's well
known that a well used engine will last a lot
longer than a seldom used engine. 400 hrs in 4 years or 400 hrs in 4 months?
Example: A T210J flown by me needed a top overhaul after 200 hrs because it
had done these 200 hrs in 4 years,
where a TU206G also flown by me went to TBO with no top overhaul because it
did it's 1400 hrs in 2 years.


200 hours in 4 years is still unacceptable! 200 hours in 10 or 20 years
would be more likely to die due to disuse, but 4 years? POOR!

"Tom S." wrote in
:


He did say in a couple of articles (okay...in a LOT oaf articles) that
TCM and Lycoming have sucked at QC over the past 15-20( ?? ) years,
but I can't remember that 400 hour bit. I do remember the 800-1200 TOH
bit,

This has not only come from Deakin, but also from LPM and Av Consumer
(same group) and others. I've been trying for three years to get them
to look at an engine of mine - rep won't even bother to return my phone
calls. I've sent registered letters, unanswered. The only thing TCM
has done so far is to continually lower the definition of "acceptable"
leakage. I believe the current numbers are 26/80, with leakage allowed
past the rings and the exhaust valves. I believe they have raised the
allowable crankcase pressurization also.

The one time I did manage to get a TCM rep on the phone he promised to
come down and look at the three aircraft on our small field, all with
the same identical problem. [He never did.] When he found you could
"jiggle" the engine enough to get it to pass annual his comment was
"Well, hell. If it passes annual, why do you care?"

The saving grace is that this is not a catastrophic failure. Starting
about 400 hours the engine just goes through more and more oil, while
putting out less and less power. When it finally gets to quarts per
hour, you have it topped.

Remember also, not EVERY new TCM engine is going to do this, but an
inordinate number of them do.

jmk