This video is most interesting in order to make sure we use correct terminology:
Repair, Overhaul, Rebuild, New
Peter wrote:
Anybody offering you something with new pots is trying to make money out of you.
It depends. Looking at the age of the engine and the hours (1500 since overhaul) it may well be worthwile to look at. The term rebuild usually does not zero time the engine. If that is the case, I would go for the 8k shock load inspection and only replace the cylinders if they really need replacing. With this time since the last overhaul however, I could imagine that from a technical point of view it might be a good thing to do, particularly if Ian wants to fly the airplane for a good while.
Putting on new cylinders on an engine which is not overhauled at the time is quite popular in the US, where TBO is meaningless anyway. I believe some people call this a top overhaul. Technically, it will make the engine better and from that standpoint on exchanging the cylinders is not the worst idea. It is not a necessity for a shock load however.
Nimbusgb wrote:
Prop is McCauley IC172/BTM7359
I believe there is a Sensenich replacement (STC details unknown at the moment ) that is a little better, a little cheaper and that would take the 160 hp upgrade it it were done. That would need a new backing plate and spinner.
Right. So that is what you need to look for. I saw some 2nd hand ones in the US yesterday, but as we said before, fixed pitch props are not the most expensive. There is one other thing, a new prop will with large likelyhood be nice to run if it is properly balanced. I did a full overhaul of my prop in 2016 and it runs much nicer than before.
Nimbusgb wrote:
Does a full rebuild effectively 0 time the engine? Is it going to add say 15k to the value of my collection of parts?
A full overhaul will add at least 15k to the value of your plane, certainly with a new prop. A rebuild, which is to my understanding from the technical side pretty much the same thing but reuses more of the original parts will not give you the zero time claim, but will for practical purposes give you an engine which can pretty much run another full TBO cycle. A rebuild that does not zero-time the engine makes sense in low time engines but not necessarily with a 1500 hr engine from a resale point of view, but it can very well be a sound technical decision from the pure health of the engine point of view.
IF the engine is otherwise ok, the cylinders in a good shape and all that, then a shock load is going to be the most economical thing to do. If you want to rise the value of the plane, a full overhaul is going to do that more effectively.
Once you know what exactly your insurance will cover, you can take it from there. If they say, ok, we cover the shock load with all associated costs, you might want to pay the difference to a full overhaul in order to get the higher value out of it. You likely never will get the chance to get a fully overhauled engine with half of the overhaul paid by someone else.
You have a few options which all make sense in one way or the other.
Peter wrote:
Anybody offering you something with new pots is trying to make money out of you.
Well yes. They are businesses. Everyone quoting on engine repairs is trying to do the same. It is all about reputation and quality.
Aviathor wrote:
This video is most interesting in order to make sure we use correct terminology
The Mike Busch video reminds me of one (more) reason why I chose a Lycoming engine for my ‘real’ plane, versus a Continental. 
Here is the Lycoming overhaul service bulletin that dictates those parts to be replaced at overhaul regardless of condition. Its is a short list, and mainly common sense items when compared with the corresponding service bulletin for Continentals as described in the video by Mike Busch, who seems to specialize in planes powered by Continentals. As I described in my post #80 above, by FAR regulatory definition all other parts replacement at overhaul is subject to (1) remaining at minimum within service limits (not new limits) and (2) your choice, agreed upon between you and your mechanic/shop. The service limits for the OP’s Lycoming O-320 are BTW in the Lycoming overhaul manual which he may find useful and which provides a lot of data intended to allow any FAA A&P mechanic to overhaul the engine.
In the case of my Continental, it’s a little A-series engine easily field overhauled and with the exception of magnetos doesn’t have most of the accessory parts that Continental, unlike Lycoming, lists as being addressed at overhaul regardless of condition or when they were last individually overhauled or replaced. Also, given the value, limited purpose and easy serviceability of that engine I couldn’t care less whether the logbook entry was written up as IRAN or overhaul, as long as I knew the engine was put together properly. Guess what, IRAN is what it says 
The reason to replace cylinders when the engine is apart is because they are relatively cheap (about $1000 each) and get you most of the way to an engine that will run for many more hours.
Thanks for that. Some good pointers in there!
The limits and fits section at the back of Lycoming direct drive manual is now obsolete and was superceded last year with an updated version that now includes data for roller tappet engines.
An alternative thought could be that the someone has sneakily swapped the prop. Maybe worth taking the spinner off checking if there is evidence of recent work.i.e fresh or no lockwire lockwire on the prop bolts. Also check that the serial number on the prop is the same as the serial number in the logbook?
alanr wrote:
An alternative thought could be that the someone has sneakily swapped the prop. Maybe worth taking the spinner off checking if there is evidence of recent work.i.e fresh or no lockwire lockwire on the prop bolts. Also check that the serial number on the prop is the same as the serial number in the logbook?
Been suggested at least twice before your posting Alan :)
Already had the spinner off ( with witnesses ) but no such luck. That prop has been there for a long, long while.
Not amused.
This is turning into a ‘he said she said’ between the ground organisation, the delivery crew and the sales agent.
A third, mutually acceptable engineer is being called in to pronounce on who is responsible for the damage.
My insurers assessor is saying that the delivery pilot may not be covered under my policy.
In the meantime I am paying hangarage and sitting looking at lovely clear skies on the weekends! :(
Anyone got a box of matches?
I have a lot of sympathy for you, this is a crap position to be in. I have also been in a bad spot here and there over my time as an aircraft owner. Usually there is no use crying over spilt milk. The best plan is to get it sorted ASAP, fly a bunch of hours and the pain will recede with time.
It could be months or years (or never) before various parties own or don’t own up, or for insurer’s to make up their mind. My advice is to take the bull by the horns, get the engine inspected (or swapped or whatever you plan to do), install a new/used/overhauled prop and move on. This is hardly the first time a prop has been dinged and is not particularly a big deal in the greater picture. Just wait until you find airframe corrosion! Or your floats need re-skinning!!
By now you could have had the engine out, inspected and a new or used prop installed and could be flying…. I know it is harsh reality, but there it is. I would be more irritated if I also missed the summer’s worth of flying in addition to the financial loss.
