To reiterate Peter’s points – because I consider them to be sound advice…
Find your own engine shop, don’t let the maintenance organisation do it. Ask other owners at the airfield where they would send their engine.
And secondly, buying another cheapie is a risky proposition. Get your aircraft fixed and then you know exactly what position you are in.
Nimbusgb wrote:
Maintenance organisation is saying the best thing to do is go for a full rebuild at around 24k as opposed to a shock load at around 1/2 that.
Unless they know a lot more about this engine than just the fact that it needs a shock load inspection that may be their opinion but I would be very careful thinking this is in your best interest.
Of course, with a totally overhauled engine the value of a plane will rise, you have a good chance that if you want to sell with new prop and newly overhauled engine you will most definitly get more than if you decide to sell out now in unairworthy condition, probably also a lot more than you paid for it. That however would be the ONLY reason to do a full rebuild unless the engine has other problems!
Other than that, if what you want to do is just fly privately, a shock load will do nicely and the price for that is quite steep. Do check different offers! Unless the insurance pais for it and then just get it done in the best shop you can find.
Nimbusgb wrote:
Saying that ‘there are always problems later’.
That, sorry, is total bull and puts a lot of doubt about that maintenance organisation who let’s out such garbage. The difference between a shock load inspection and a full rebuild is basically that with the shock load they give you back your old parts but the process is the same, they just will build it back together as what it was and not to new specs. Problems like yours are very common and shock load inspections are daily business to any reputable overhauler. I also think 12k is a lot for a shock load, I would have thought 8-10 k the maximum. Of course you still need a prop, but as I told you, contact the prop shops who assess your prop and ask, they might well have one lying around in their shop which they can sell you for less than a new one.
Nimbusgb wrote:
If I replace the pots, pistons and wrist pins during the stripdown, go up to the H/C mod and change to a senseneich prop would I still get those issues?
New cylinders is always a good idea in such a case, but again, it is nice to have, not must have. If you want to do the mod, it certainly is the moment, if you are happy to fly on as the plane was and is, forget it. However, 4 new cylinders even of the normal kind is not a very expensive thing to do comparatively, it may be a good in-between to a total overhaul. If the old cylinders are in good shape, they can also be honed and re-assembled. But with the time your engine has, new cylinders may well be a very good investment short of an overhaul.
Nimbusgb wrote:
Quite frankly I’m on the verge of writing the whole thing off, I can buy another cheapie for less than it’s going to cost me to fix this one or I could fly for years on rented aircraft and I really didn’t want to take on this sort of hassle.
You’ve had a very bad luck, that much is sure. But to give up is not going to help you. At least, if you want to get out of ownership again (which I would not do in any case) you better have the plane fixed up before you put it on the market again. As I told you earlier, i think you had a very good price for this plane which you will get back once the aircraft is repaired but rather you might get more than that. See to it that it gets done and then go fly it. You can still sell it in a while and I am almost sure you will get a fair price for it, particularly if you do the transponder upgrade. People want to buy planes to “fly away” that is without any maintenance or avionic issues to be fixed first. But then, I think your plane was quite undervalued when you bought it.
See what the insurance assessor comes up with and then go for it. The faster your plane is back airworthy the better, this way or the other.
Picking up another cheapo as you call it may be an option but I somehow doubt you find another one quite as good as this one.
Nimbusgb wrote:
Maintenance organisation is saying the best thing to do is go for a full rebuild at around 24k as opposed to a shock load at around 1/2 that. Saying that ‘there are always problems later’
Well they would say that, wouldn’t they, as they get you to spend more with them!
Several years ago one of the former owners of my aircraft taxied into a parked car and did a LOT of damage: car looked like sliced bread afterwards, propeller wrecked, engine mounts wrecked, crank was actually bent at the flange, engine mounting frame was tweaked etc.
The rebuild done on the engine was precisely a shock load rebuild, so only replacing the broken bits (the crank). The engine is a Lycoming O-320-B3B (so 10hp more than yours, but essentially very similar).
The engine has run fine ever since. I think we’re about 8 years on at this point and the engine runs just fine – and we thrash ours, towing gliders (lots of full throttle operation at low altitude and 10 minute long flights). The engine pulls well, compressions have remained excellent with the cylinders that were on it before the incident etc. etc. which is proof that there aren’t “always problems later”. And if there are problems, then you assess and fix, just like anything else. A full overhaul is no guarantee of not having problems later, either. If you do the shock load inspection you’ll still get to see things like the condition of the cam, cylinders, etc. so can make a decision on what needs to be done in addition — if anything!
they just will build it back together as what it was and not to new specs
I don’t think a reputable company will reassemble a certified engine which has certain issues. I don’t know what these are – no doubt there is a Lyco Service Letter on this – but a lot of things will make an engine unairworthy once they become known.
This is one reason why a lot of people want to avoid shock load inspections, sometimes to the point of forging the logbooks i.e. omitting any mention of the incident. Opening the engine can open a can of worms. However, the can of worms is generally limited to the cost of an overhaul. And as I said earlier, opening the engine is an opportunity for the owner to get confidence in it – if done by a reputable firm.
If the cylinders are almost new they won’t need to be re-honed. Mine weren’t in 2002.
As I said, I would collect the insurance money and get the engine inspected and rebuilt to either overhaul limits or (better still) to new limits.
Peter,
Peter wrote:
I don’t think a reputable company will reassemble a certified engine which has certain issues
I was not suggesting that. However, it is quite bad advice to someone who clearly does not want to spend more on an overhaul than what he bought the plane for to poh-poh a shock load with phoney arguments. Clearly if there are issues the engine shop will address them.
Peter wrote:
And as I said earlier, opening the engine is an opportunity for the owner to get confidence in it – if done by a reputable firm.
Yes. And if everything else is ok, new cylinders are not a bad investment on an engine which has 600 hrs to go to nominal TBO. If the old ones are ok, not even that.
Peter wrote:
If the cylinders are almost new they won’t need to be re-honed. Mine weren’t in 2002.
They have 1500 hrs and are over 20 years old…
Peter wrote:
As I said, I would collect the insurance money and get the engine inspected and rebuilt to either overhaul limits or (better still) to new limits.
It certainly is attractive to think about doing an overhaul with the insurance paying the cost of a shock load. You’ll never get one cheaper. Yet, the original poster never intended to fly this plane to overhaul time, he wanted it as a cheap hour builder and then sell it on and buy something more powerful. For that purpose, overhaul may be attractive to resell. He won’t loose any time doing a complete overhaul either.
In the end, it’s his decision based on what the final word is. But I don’t agree with the idea that a prop strike will mean an overhaul in any case as stipulated by that maintenance organisation.
Let’s see what Wednesday’s visit by the assessor brings! :)
Not looking good.
Aircraft could be an insurance write off! :( :(
Age of engine, hours and the cost of even just the shock load testing.
Will await next steps. Could cost 30k to put a new engine and prop in. Then there’s radios and transponder that need updating.
Nimbusgb wrote:
Aircraft could be an insurance write off! :( :(
These are incredibly simple, straightforward engines and the work could be done in a week or two. So very possibly a good money making project for somebody in the business especially if they can get it cheap, before it goes to auction, and if they can find a used prop. You might be surprised how inexpensively things get fixed once a retail customer or insurance company isn’t paying the bills.
Nimbusgb wrote:
Aircraft could be an insurance write off! :( :(
What? How high was your hull cover? This is totally ridiculous! A prop strike a write off?
I do remember a similar case where an inexperienced owner lost his airplane to the insurance because he had taken out a ridiculously small hull cover, which would not even cover a minor repair? 15 k or so? That is quite pointless, any hull cover which is not at least enough to cover a full engine replacement and new prop will result in such a madness. Any hull cover below £50 k is totally useless, never mind how much anyone pais for an airplane.
The kind of advice people are given occasionally when buying their first plane is beyond the pale. No wonder we have quite a few first time owners who will run away from any further ownership after such experiences, when all that would have been needed in the first place is good advice and at least a 2nd opinion.
Mooney, I think you hit the nail on the head. But there you go. I’m older and wiser. ( And soon to be much lighter in pocket by the look of things )
And you are right. First and last venture into GA ownership. After a lifetime of owning sailplanes ( 9 different ones and nary a claim in many many flight hours ) I doubt I’ll do it again.
