Perhaps I’m being a bit irrational but as someone fairly new in aviation, the idea of using an engine beyond its official lifespan is disconcerting.
If you want to look at it in terms of an official regulatory framework and not based on the condition of the actual object in question, the FAA certified the engine without any limit on calendar life between overhauls, and in the country where the engine was built and is certified and operated under Part 91, ALL reciprocating engines are maintained on condition from Day 1 to the day they are someday overhauled at the discretion of the owner and his mechanic.
The Lycoming service bulletin that would have you overhaul your engine every 12 years regardless of hours has never had any regulatory standing for private operations in the US, where the engine is built and mostly operated, and is understood by almost all US consumers to be partly technical, partly a defense against lawsuits and partly marketing. Some other non-certifying countries to which the engines are exported apply the service bulletin as law despite that never being intended by FAA or Lycoming.
I’ve been ‘verbally quoted ’ £30K, twice for a GFC500 autopilot installation. It needs a driver such as G5 or GI275 once that’s done and everything else is finalised it all adds up.
If you buy the right aircraft, it doesn’t always have to be a complete money pit.
Some aircraft will swallow all expenditure without it affecting value, but others will realistically always reflect their current state.
For example my autopilot works, but if it failed and I dumped the 30k I feel confident that it would increase hull value by circa 20k. Not a full return for my money but if the timing was right, I’d get to enjoy my new autopilot for a bit before selling the aircraft and the 10k wouldn’t then feel too bad.
If I had an old 172 with naff interior, paint and old engine, the retun on the autopilot would be harder to achieve. Less people looking at that airframe would value the autopilot in the same way.
I think a clean TB 20 fits with what I’m saying, so you will never see ‘all your money’ for upgrades, but a chunk of it.
Peter wrote:
And Brussels had directed EU countries to prohibit UK issued papers from being valid on an EU-reg aircraft, as of 1st Jan 2021.
This implies that EU countries are not allowed to validate UK licenses. I don’t think that’s true. Do you have a reference?
The UK is a third country in relation to the EU so UK licenses are not EASA part-FCL and thus can’t automatically be used with EASA-reg aircraft. That is a given and in no way means any kind of “punishment” by Brussels. (Which is also implied by your comment.)
Rami1988 wrote:
Perhaps im being a bit irrational but as someone fairly new in aviation, the idea of using an engine beyond its official lifespan is disconcerting.
The official TBO is to a very large extent determined by legal considerations by the engine manufacturer and of course also by a desire to sell parts. If you have an owner-declared AMP and do the proper additional regular inspections you can run an engine on condition for a very long time. My club ran a Lyc. IO-360-L2A to 3400 hours. (Official TBO 2000 hrs.) When we finally did an overhaul it was not because of any indications of trouble but rather because a growing feeling of uneasiness by some club officials. On a direct question, the overhaul shop reported that the engine was “actually in good condition”.
Even with an approved AMP you may be able to run the engine on condition depending on your national CAA. Sweden gives a blanket approval of +20% on condition (max 2400 hrs) even for commercial ops and engines on privately operated aircraft (including non-commercial flight training) can go +50% on condition (max 3000 hrs).
johnh wrote:
Don’t waste time or money trying to fix an old, broken AP. I made that mistake with my 182, I spent maybe $10K trying to fix a 20+ year old Century 31, before finally giving up and replacing it.
I don’t think it is so clear cut. It all depends on what is broken. E.g. the analogue computers of old Century (Piper) A/Ps are very simple and there are shops that can fix them (e.g. Avionik Straubing).
This implies that EU countries are not allowed to validate UK licenses. I don’t think that’s true. Do you have a reference?
I don’t have a reference but don’t need one – it is obvious. The removal of UK papers’ validity for EU-regs was directed by Brussels. The EU member countries had to obey.** They all did this concurrently. You would have never got that level of solidarity otherwise. Look at the non-solidarity in the dual papers derogation implementation.
“Punishment” one could argue about but obviously it is a punishment, given that the UK recognised EU papers for a G-reg for two more years after that. If this wasn’t a “punishment” then Brussels could have done the obvious reciprocal thing of delaying it by two years also, which would have been eminently sensible since it would have enabled everyone to fly their planes back to the UK / out of the UK / whatever, and then you get the VAT cutoff too.
**Now, what happens under the table is a different thing… I can’t remember if this has been posted here (so I am not posting details) but I know it for 100% certain that one major EU country is allowing UK papers on its own reg. This kind of “regulatory leakage” has always gone on, all the way back to 2000 when I started and for 100% sure decades before that, despite JAA trying to implement FCL uniformity. For example around 2000 Ireland was converting FAA CPL/IRs and ATPs to JAA equivalents (without sitting the 14 exams, hey ho 
) until JAA found out after maybe 2 years and beat them up. Like the Hungarian medical route…
It all depends on what is broken
I agree, although as I said if the current owner didn’t get it fixed then IMHO he either doesn’t fly it much / doesn’t go very far / never goes into cloud / his name is Neil Armstrong / etc or the issue is not cheap to fix.
Admittedly you could probably fix these 1960s/1970s APs off the books by cleaning the various contacts and changing every electrolytic capacitor
The KFC225 and its smoking servos is a different issue. There are solutions but they cannot be discussed. It is otherwise an excellent autopilot, super accurate, all-digital control loops, and will accept ARINC429 roll steering directly. It has a bit of a funny buttonology when flying LPV but otherwise is OK.
the analogue computers of old Century (Piper) A/Ps are very simple
Good luck, don’t say I didn’t warn you. Like I said I spent $10K trying to fix mine, mainly corrosion issues from what the shop told me. They finally told me it was all fine, they’d checked everything. On a coupled approach at 400 feet it put me into a 1000 ft/min dive. That was when I realised it was hopeless. This was a really good shop who knew what they were doing. I think most shops would have told me upfront that it was unfixable.
Peter wrote:
TIO540 is virtually guaranteed to never make even 1000hrs
Yes, if used in the FL’s at >65%HP (otherwise the point is rather moot) all turbocharged pistons will need cyl work between 600-1000hrs.
But then, non turbocharged engines will also occasionally need cyl work before engine OH and it is not the end of the world.
I personally keep a spare cylinder, an exhaust valve and seat and valve guides on the shelf in case needed, in order to deal with the currently appalling industry leadtimes. THis, in my view is the biggest associated burden.
Yes, if used in the FL’s at >65%HP (otherwise the point is rather moot) all turbocharged pistons will need cyl work between 600-1000hrs.
My TR182 made it to just over 2000 hours, and then needed work because of an unrelated problem (some FOD had somehow got into the crankcase and done some damage). It depends what you mean by FLs. In the US, I only made it up there a couple of times (above 18000 feet). But I generally flew at around 8000 feet, which is in the FLs in Europe.
There’s a huge difference between “turbo” and turbo-normalised, which the TR182 is and also afaik the TB21. That means the turbo’s job is just to maintain 25" of MP, not to provide extra power by running at say 34" like a Turbo Arrow.
johnh wrote:
Like I said I spent $10K trying to fix mine, mainly corrosion issues from what the shop told me. They finally told me it was all fine, they’d checked everything. On a coupled approach at 400 feet it put me into a 1000 ft/min dive. That was when I realised it was hopeless. This was a really good shop who knew what they were doing. I think most shops would have told me upfront that it was unfixable.
YMMV. We have successfully had a 40 year old Century/Piper A/P repaired. With GPSS it works like a dream. As I wrote, it depends on what is broken. You can’t simply make a blanket statement that there is no point in trying, I agree that if there is corrosion then the prospect is not good.
