On Condition

Wellllll..... we got it....!

A 1974-5 172 M...

Quite nice, got it after a student landed it on the
nosewheel...

Been repaired, flys great, tight & straight..

This Cessna is even WARM! Hadda turn the heat down in -10C
air! (usually I freeze my a-- off in Cessnas around here in the
winter... (!) )

Now.... The engine is "on condition". Starts on about 1/2
revolution of the prop, oil pressure is 1/2 in the green, smooth and
strong, consuming VERY little oil, nothing added (or needed) in the
last 8 hours.

It has 2600 hrs on it since OH, was in a flying training
business so was carefully maintained and flown a lot every week...

We have the $ in the budget for a new/reman/total overhaul,
but reluctant to do it until necessary, especially when it is running
and pulling like it is.....

It will get all the required "on condition" maintenance of
course, and flown by four careful pilots/partners who treat machinery
with the utmost respect and have an "ear" for engines etc., All snags
get immediate attention by a good AME no matter how minor.

Whaddu think?

How long would you run this engine if it is strong, performs
well and meets all the tests?

Dave

wrote in message
...
[...]
How long would you run this engine if it is strong, performs
well and meets all the tests?

Assuming a mechanic I knew and trusted was doing the inspections, I would
run the engine for as long as it had no significant problems and the
mechanic told me it was safe to do so.

Of course, you'd probably be better off asking the question over at
rec.aviation.owning.

Pete

wrote:
How long would you run this engine if it is strong, performs
well and meets all the tests?

Are you doing oil analysis at every oil change?

wrote:

How long would you run this engine if it is strong, performs
well and meets all the tests?

Forever.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

Yes, and at more regular intervals than required.. (oil/filter
changes)

Dave



On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 02:54:16 GMT, john smith
wrote:

wrote:
How long would you run this engine if it is strong, performs
well and meets all the tests?

Are you doing oil analysis at every oil change?

Right..

At the risk of being a "cross poster" , I did exactly that..


Dave


On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 17:48:06 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
[...]
How long would you run this engine if it is strong, performs
well and meets all the tests?

Assuming a mechanic I knew and trusted was doing the inspections, I would
run the engine for as long as it had no significant problems and the
mechanic told me it was safe to do so.

Of course, you'd probably be better off asking the question over at
rec.aviation.owning.

Pete

[top-posting fixed at no extra charge]

wrote:
Peter Duniho wrote:
wrote:

How long would you run this engine if it is strong, performs
well and meets all the tests?

Of course, you'd probably be better off asking the question over at
rec.aviation.owning.

Right..

At the risk of being a "cross poster" , I did exactly that..

That makes you a "multi-poster".

"Cross-posting" means posting a *single* article in more than one
newsgroup. The article's "Newsgroups:" header will include multiple
groups.

"Multi-posting" means posting *separate* articles in more than one
newsgroup. Each article's "Newsgroups:" header will (in the case of
simple multi-posting) specify just one NG.

When an article is on-topic in two NGs it is generally *preferable* to
cross-post (rather than to multi-post): many (most?) newsreaders will
show a cross-posted message as unread only in the first of the NGs in
which a user reads it, automagically marking it as read in the other
NG(s).

I say *generally* preferable because the charters of *some* groups (in
particular, some moderated ones) disallow cross-posting.

"Cross-posting" means posting a *single* article in more than one
newsgroup. The article's "Newsgroups:" header will include multiple
groups.

"Multi-posting" means posting *separate* articles in more than one
newsgroup. Each article's "Newsgroups:" header will (in the case of
simple multi-posting) specify just one NG.

When an article is on-topic in two NGs it is generally *preferable* to
cross-post (rather than to multi-post): many (most?) newsreaders will
show a cross-posted message as unread only in the first of the NGs in
which a user reads it, automagically marking it as read in the other
NG(s).

I say *generally* preferable because the charters of *some* groups (in
particular, some moderated ones) disallow cross-posting.


Thank you, thank you, thank you! Though it's OT here, I just wanted to lend my
support to anybody who still defends the original meanings of crosspost and
mult-post. It's beginning to seem that there are none of us left.

(btw, one reason to prefer mult-postings over cross-postings is that replies to
a multi-post will remain with the newsgroup the reply cropped up in, crosspost
replies (except on AOL) go everywhere. A good aviation joke might be
appropriate in an aviation and a jokes group, but I would mult-post rather than
cross post, because followups would be unlikely to be appropriate for both.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
Thank you, thank you, thank you! Though it's OT here, I just wanted to
lend my
support to anybody who still defends the original meanings of crosspost
and
mult-post. It's beginning to seem that there are none of us left.

We are here. However, I have mostly given up (and I guess most others have
too), since any attempt to educate regarding netiquette is typically met
with a response along the lines of "I'll post however I damn well please".

I agree with everything Robert wrote, and I suppose Dave might actually take
it to heart. But the odds are low, without knowing anything more about him
(i.e. if all you have to go on is that he's posting to the Usenet).

There's a lot I don't miss about the South, but one thing's for sure...it's
one of the few places left in the USA where manners mean anything. Used to
be, they meant something on Usenet too. But that just doesn't seem to be
the way any longer.

Pete

More info...

(digging into logs) ...

Looks like what ever this plane needed, it got, right away...
9700 hrs on airframe......

Snags jumped on, whatever replaced when needed..

Looks like the last 2600 hours were clocked in the last 4
years...it seems this bird flew every flyable day! We are going to
speak to the previous owners soon.. for their "sense" of the
engine...

We have been all over it, cleaning and touching up 100's of
paint chips & scratches..it looked tired, never washed, or paint
touched up...

Learning about our new toy...

Only thing now is a slight "slack" in the port landing gear
leg (fore/aft) . Anyone know the tolerence on this? (Mechanic is
replacing the bolts, but we suspect the LG holes may be the issue..)

Any suggestions?

Dave