Search results

You specifically referred to doing a compression test and only borescoping if the test is bad. While I disagree that all poor borescope results would be accompanied by poor compression results, I'm only aware of anecdotes to support this. More importantly Continental has made it clear that...

Why do you only borescope if compressions are low? That is obsessing with compression readings. Plenty of examples of incipient valve failure that could be fixed (lapping, fix rotator, etc.) before compressions were affected if you’d borescoped the cylinder. I mostly just use mine to start...

Gotcha, so the question is about what happens during that climb? In that case you can prove to yourself that it’s all about the elevator using the following experiment: Durinf your climb, at some point pull the power back a bit. If it were just that the power reduction and drag cancel out...

“Pedants of America” Case in point, I guess.

There’s a sucker born every minute. :confused: The airplane was tough to price because it was 25 years newer than every other Arrow for sale at the time. I’d much rather deal with the risk of an overhaul (a known quantity) vs the insidious risk of corrosion. What’s more, many older planes had...

None, but I have been (unsuccessfully) pitched expensive maintenance that would not have improved safety or dispatch reliability. In some cases on the basis of compression test results. I completely agree on the value of borescoping. Obviously the compression test has value, but its relative...

:confused2::confused2::confused2: Maybe we should just call it "Checky McValveFace". :dunno:

Can't win!! Who soaked whom!? FWIW the seller was a branch of a major legacy US air carrier. I don't lose a lot of sleep over it either way.

Ahah! Now we're getting somewhere!

0. Zero. I'm also not saying anything that hasn't been said by very experienced mechanics. You don't need to trust me in the slightest because I'm not making any claims. That being said I don't really see what authority physically performing this test gives you. I've seen trivially disprovable...

More of nothing that hasn't been said before, I see. You and @455 Bravo Uniform will have to hash things out on what you want everyone to call this thing. :popcorn: FWIW there's a little-known organization called the FAA that calls it a compression test...

All the people can’t be all right all of the time. I think Abraham Lincoln said that…

No worries. This thread has no point but to start smart *** fights anyway! ;)

Don't tell the seller that! ;)

While you are correct (obviously), roaming around the aviation community correcting everyone on this is a fool's errand. Yes, plenty of people know you are right, but words and definitions are purely instrumental and in this case calling it a "compression test", while wrong, is what gets you the...

Not especially so (150h in the year before the test) but previous years it did 400 so relatively? It may have sat for a few months before. Since then I’ve done 100/yr though.

WOW, WHAT A NOVEL OBSERVATION!:eek::eek::eek:

Rant time. Nothing that hasn't been said before. About two years ago I bought my plane. I had a pretty thorough prebuy done, and as part of that the mechanic told me the compressions were: 74 68 72 75 with leakage past the rings. Oh no, better prepare to trash that cylinder! I took this info...

FWIW Here's a recent IO-360 overhaul quote I got: Penn Yan Aero Overhauled Lycoming IO-360-C1C6 with Penn Yan Aero Overhauled Steel Cylinders - $40,183* Penn Yan Aero Overhauled Lycoming IO-360-C1C6 with Penn Yan Aero Overhauled Nickel Cylinders - $42,298* Penn Yan Aero Overhauled Lycoming...

The irregular heating is definitely a big caveat. Glad to hear the cylinder lives to fly another day!