Should I consider this plane - weird engine history

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?

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

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"

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.

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)

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"

" 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.

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


Any idea why this would be done?

"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

" 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.