I got new IO-540 engine (actualy factory rebuilt) 3 years ago for 32k€.
My information is that Lyco declare it unairworthy if the 1 year storage limit is exceeded.
They don’t fill the engine with oil, or anything like that. It has some preserving oil sprayed inside, and silica gel plugs in the spark plug holes.
It is possible that such a limitation is invalid for Part 91 ops. It would depend on whether it appears in the Airworthiness section of the engine IM (which I may have somewhere…).
It may be a grey area – a bit like the SB569 (which is an AD so not optional) on which Lyco take a stricter position than certain others (who may include people trying to sell their plane 
) on when the 12 year deadline starts.
In practice, most people (Socata included) would take such an engine and screw it on the front of a plane, stick some oil in it, and fly with it. Except that one TB20GT owner I know had his engine almost seize in flight. He may drop in sometime 
And mine was corroded heavily at 800hrs despite being run highly frequently in a manner which made that impossible. Pics here
My information is that Lyco declare it unairworthy if the 1 year storage limit is exceeded.
I’m sure that’s true, but Lycoming has no authority. Their role was finished when they made the engine and certified it minus any requirement of that type. The A&P installing the engine has authority, and would make reference to Lycoming’s recommendation in making his determination of airworthiness.
I know a guy who has two 300 HP Lycomings (round engines) that live in a climate controlled environment, in a inflatable bubble purged with dried air. He bought them from the expert on overhauling that type, who was preparing to retire. I imagine it will be 10-15 years before either of them goes into service.
I’ve noticed you writing that (or similar) several times in the past, but it is incorrect under FAA rules that regulate most of the world’s light aircraft. Under FAA rules the engine manufacturer cannot write law and only the US government dictates legally required maintenance protocol. FAA regulations do not require overhaul at the manufacturer’s recommended TBO or any special protocol after that TBO. The basis for airworthiness under FAA rules is an annual condition inspection, and the manufacturer’s TBO recommendation, either in terms of operating hours or calendar time, is legally irrelevant.
Well, there must be something, or Superior would have set their TBO to at least 2000 hours a long time ago.
Well, there must be something, or Superior would have set their TBO to at least 2000 hours a long time ago.
The recommended TBO is set by FAA, as I understand it based on test results submitted by the manufacturer to FAA. Obviously a high TBO in FAA documents is a good thing for selling engines. However, that recommendation is not a legal requirement for the owner of privately operated, FAA certified light aircraft. The FAA legal requirement is an annual inspection, regardless of hours or years.
Obviously the FAA has a legal right to determine (in cooperation with the manufacturer) the amount of hours the engine can run before overhaul, or else they would not do it. They have probably no right (or interest) in specifying what the details of the overhaul, but I would think this is mostly due to the fact that those details are only known at overhaul anyway. This of course means that a overhaul at the prescribed hours is necessary to keep the engine airworthy, or else the whole exercise would be a farce with no legal basis. I mean, how would you even get an insurance if you have flown way past the TBO set by the engine manufacturer and the FAA?
Legally the overhaul cannot be described as anything but a thorough assessment for continuous airworthiness, or else it would not be an overhaul, but a replacement (a rebuilt). The reason being it is not known what is to be replaced, if anything at all. But then again, there is nothing preventing the authorities (in cooperation with the manufacturer) to specify a TBR instead of a TBO.
This of course means that a overhaul at the prescribed hours is necessary to keep the engine airworthy, or else the whole exercise would be a farce with no legal basis. I mean, how would you even get an insurance if you have flown way past the TBO set by the engine manufacturer and the FAA?
I have posted the official FAA guidance on what constitutes an overhaul and described the legal facts for N-registered aircraft operated under Part 91 as they actually are. There’s really not much more I can do. Airworthiness under those regulations requires an annual inspection by an A&P IA, and hours or years on the engine is legally irrelevant.
Insurance is available for FAA certified aircraft operated with a Certificate of Airworthiness in full force and effect, which means having a current annual inspection.
He’s trolling, Silvaire, we’ve had this so many times by now…
One does one’s best
Seriously Silvaire. Why should the FAA bother with overhaul and TBO if there is no legal attachment to it? for fun? The official FAA hobby?
I’m happy to learn, but you have to do better than “in the US we don’t care about governmental regulations” kind of explanations.
