Anyone ever hear of an O-320 going 4700 SMOH???

Popcorn

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
aftCG said:
Past 4000 hours is not unheard of for an O-320 that gets used often.

Not sure what you mean by "not a good idea". The longevity would seem to be encouraging to me.

More Lycomings die of corrosion than use.
Click to expand...
What I mean is, I'm thinking (and this is from farm tractor engine experience, not aircraft engine), that going that much past recommended TBO might present problems you can't readily see that might cause that engine to self destruct. And yes, I'm aware ANY engine is capable of self destructing at ANY time...just thinking it would be more likely at 4000 SMOH. Maybe I'm just thinking I wouldn't enjoy flying behind that engine anymore with that many hours.
 
tawood said:
What I mean is, I'm thinking (and this is from farm tractor engine experience, not aircraft engine), that going that much past recommended TBO might present problems you can't readily see that might cause that engine to self destruct. And yes, I'm aware ANY engine is capable of self destructing at ANY time...just thinking it would be more likely at 4000 SMOH. Maybe I'm just thinking I wouldn't enjoy flying behind that engine anymore with that many hours.
Click to expand...

The cylinders are much newer. So it's really the bottom end that's run so long. I'd guess (not an A&P, didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express) that you'd be looking at new parts for the bottom end when overhauling this one. But run this long? Yes.
 
So basically a 1966 Cherokee 140 for $36,000 that is out of annual and with dated radios. What's not to like. :rolleyes:
 
I'm betting that 4700 number is Total Time not Since major.. but this could be an engine that has been repaired and kept in service by repairing what failed and never signed off as a major overhaul.
 
For a minute, let's pretend that it's a 4000+ hour since major overhaul, and you buy the bird with a barely airworthy engine. You have excess capitol to upgrade the plane and you decide to buy a fresh engine, prop, avionics, and seats

What do you install and what's your target cruising speed, ceiling, and seat color?

Sent from my cheap plastic brick using Tapatalk
 
The key to OP's question is that a major overhaul is only a major overhaul if it's done all at the same time.
 
dmspilot said:
The key to OP's question is that a major overhaul is only a major overhaul if it's done all at the same time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can see that now.

But as an aircraft owner, I can't see doing it that way as making much sense...unless your plan is to never, ever, sell. You would spend the money for various fixes: lower bearings, cam, etc, but never get the benefit of being able to start at 0 smoh...unless I'm missing something (?). I guess it would spread out costs...
 
Daniel L said:
For a minute, let's pretend that it's a 4000+ hour since major overhaul, and you buy the bird with a barely airworthy engine. You have excess capitol to upgrade the plane and you decide to buy a fresh engine, prop, avionics, and seats

What do you install and what's your target cruising speed, ceiling, and seat color?

Sent from my cheap plastic brick using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Let's do the flip flop on that, let's say it was a 4700+ engine that has been repaired many times and there is all new parts except the data tag. but it simply didn't comply with 43.2. what then?
That engine could have had the crank, cases, cam and lifters all replaced with new, and the old cylinders that were OK put back on.
Then after a bit the old cylinders replaced with new.
Doesn't it really matter what was done to the engine? more so than some phony number we don't care about anyway?
 
When I got my Cherokee it had gone 3750 hours without an overhaul. I got another 40 hours before I replaced it. So not completely unheard of.
 
I regularly fly a Duchess with 2 O-360s which are past 4000 hours. Frequent use is good for engines and keep in mind that prop speed keeps these engines absolutely loafing well below the power they are capable of. Modern bearings and oils are amazingly good. Statistically, a 4000-hour engine is orders of magnitude safer than a 400-hour engine, which is again much safer than a 40-hour engine.
 
JScarry said:
When I got my Cherokee it had gone 3750 hours without an overhaul. I got another 40 hours before I replaced it. So not completely unheard of.
Click to expand...
So I'm wondering...if it had been good to fly at 3000, or 3750 (or even 3790) why not beyond that? What made you decide to replace it?
 
Recommended overhaul is not a f*king limitation.

1801 will not kill you. Id trust a high-time engine before I trusted anything with less than 500 hours.
 
I would prefer not to buy a plane with 4000+ SMOH

I would have no problem flying my engines till past 4000+ hours if they never show me a reason to O/H them. Fingers crossed!
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
Recommended overhaul is not a f*king limitation.

1801 will not kill you. Id trust a high-time engine before I trusted anything with less than 500 hours.
Click to expand...
True but do you have an upper limit to your trust? Or just a lower one?
 
Radar Contact said:
I would prefer not to buy a plane with 4000+ SMOH

I would have no problem flying my engines till past 4000+ hours if they never show me a reason to O/H them. Fingers crossed!
Click to expand...

Good point. It’s a big difference between buying someone else’s 4000 hour engine and an engine that you bought at 500 hrs and have put 3500 hrs on it.
 
tawood said:
So I'm wondering...if it had been good to fly at 3000, or 3750 (or even 3790) why not beyond that? What made you decide to replace it?
Click to expand...
It had flown very little for eight or nine years before I got it and it started losing oil pressure. I wasn’t as knowledgeable about engines as I am now, so I took my mechanics word that it was OK when we started the refurbishment and when he said it had to be replaced. It was supposed to be a $6-8,000 project that turned into a huge money pit. If I knew then what I know now about engines and planes that sit, I wouldn’t have started the project.
 
Looks like the guy was good at saving money.


Pass.

Especially since that model is a dime a dozen.
 
JScarry said:
It had flown very little for eight or nine years before I got it and it started losing oil pressure. I wasn’t as knowledgeable about engines as I am now, so I took my mechanics word that it was OK when we started the refurbishment and when he said it had to be replaced. It was supposed to be a $6-8,000 project that turned into a huge money pit. If I knew then what I know now about engines and planes that sit, I wouldn’t have started the project.
Click to expand...

That makes sense.

I worry about mine, as my engine was rebuilt about 12 yeara ago but it only had 450 hours when I got it two years ago (with only 10 hours a year for the two years previous to me). But I’ve put about 200 hours on it in two years now so I’m hoping I’ve past the point of having a “low use” problem.
 
My post was a thought experiment, nothing more. I was wondering what people would do that plane if a new engine was necessary.

Sent from my cheap plastic brick using Tapatalk
 
We have a 172 in our club with 3400 hrs SMOH running fine "on condition". The club planes are in steady use however. They don't get a chance to corrode from lack of flying
 
I've flown a 172 that had 4200 hours on the engine (first run). Used all the time, dry climate. 4200 is nothing.
 
No problem. A gas pickup with 200,000 miles has 5k-6k hours on it. Sure the steady state cruise loads are higher on aircraft but they don’t get spun upto 5,000rpms or more, and spend most of there hours in steady state cruise.

Even gas generators in boats or industry that get run at high % of power last 10,000 hours. Steady state is good for engines and besides we don’t wear them out we rust them out!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Aaronk25 said:
No problem. A gas pickup with 200,000 miles has 5k-6k hours on it. Sure the steady state cruise loads are higher on aircraft but they don’t get spun upto 5,000rpms or more, and spend most of there hours in steady state cruise.

Even gas generators in boats or industry that get run at high % of power last 10,000 hours. Steady state is good for engines and besides we don’t wear them out we rust them out!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
How many old high time engines have you torn down.
the ones I have are simply worn out, bearings showing copper of the shell, piston to cylinder wall way over allowed clearance, cranks out of round, rods stretched out of round, lots of stuff known as normal wear.
 
Not many, by I’ve got to look inside lots! It seems the ones that get run often and for extended periods, with scheduled crankcase oil changes seem to look good. I think the ones that look worn out sit longer then, the subsequent wear comes from abrasives such as rough interface between cylinder and rings, crank bearings, valve guides ect. Storage with old acidic oil is the worst. Then when flying they literally grind themselves apart.

I ran 1800 hours on my 200hp angle valve motor and 3 out of 4 cylinders met bottom end of new limits. Why is it that others seem to be at bottom end of service limits?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Aaronk25 said:
Not many, by I’ve got to look inside lots! It seems the ones that get run often and for extended periods, with scheduled crankcase oil changes seem to look good.
Click to expand...
And I've seen part 135 engines that never got cold in their history, that were totally worn out.
There is no solid rule to say how any engine is run, that says how long it will last.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top