Cost of a Certified Field Overhaul vs Experimential

MarkH

MarkH

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
788
Location
Under the SFRA
Display Name
Display name:
MarkH
Trying to run ownership numbers on an Experimental vs Certified, and one of the things I am trying to assign is an hourly cost for engine overhauls.
For traditional aircraft engines (O-235, O-200 for example), what would the cost difference be in overhauling the engine as experimental vs certified presuming that both overhauls are similar quality?

Also, for data points, if you have had a small aircraft engine overhauled recently, what did it cost, what engine and who overhauled it?

Thanks
 
If you outsource it. No delta with similar engines.
If you do it yourself, you can save mega bucks. The more you do, the more you save.

Tim
 
There is no difference between a cert or exp engine overhaul when it comes to cost unless you do all the work your self. For an O-200 I got a quote for $16,500 for an overhaul with accessories with a warranty from a reputable overhaul shop. You could do a field overhaul for 12-15k all depending on what can be reused and what has to be replaced.

An O-235 will be very similar albeit slightly more costly.

edit: That's just the price of the engine by the way. Not to include the labor to swap it or all the other little things that usually come up.
 
What he said ^^^

Other than being forced to comply with AD's on certified, which frankly you'd be foolish not to do even if you're experimental, you can do as much or as little as you'd like either way.
 
Salty said:
Other than being forced to comply with AD's on certified, which frankly you'd be foolish not to do even if you're experimental, you can do as much or as little as you'd like either way.
Click to expand...

On TCd products ADs need to be complied with no matter if it is hanging on an experimental aircraft or not. E/ABs are exempted from part 43 but not part 39.

Because of this the price delta is going to be basically zero, unless parts substitutions are made as improvements/cost cutting techniques. As you pointed out, the labor argument is not a concern because the pretty much anyone could assemble one of these engines with the necessary supervision to return it to service.
 
mondtster said:
On TCd products ADs need to be complied with no matter if it is hanging on an experimental aircraft or not. E/ABs are exempted from part 43 but not part 39.

Because of this the price delta is going to be basically zero, unless parts substitutions are made as improvements/cost cutting techniques. As you pointed out, the labor argument is not a concern because the pretty much anyone could assemble one of these engines with the necessary supervision to return it to service.
Click to expand...

But not everyone has access to an A&P willing to do such a thing.
 
Just like everyone says, the end result costs will be extremely close to that of a budget-priced “professional” shop or A&P field overhaul. At least it will have some sort of resale value to a larger field of buyers. Jewell Aviation comes to mind. There is one in Michigan, Kline Aviation, that I have heard good and bad reviews; they were involved in an investigation of a fatal crash that focused on the wrong piston pins being installed — IIRC they were supplied by the customer. Regardless, these budget shops do no different than most field overhauls as they send most of the stuff out to Divco and Aircraft Specialties Services always (just like your A&P buddy could do). The critical part is following the most up-to-date assembly guidelines and verifying the correct parts are installed correctly in the correct areas. I’m going to Jewell when the time comes. $18k all-in for an O-360, prop IRAN, and removal+installation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Plan to fly the entire life off or plan to sell it before then?
Yooper's comment on resale value has some importance if the latter.
Buyers (rightly or not) will have perceptions on which overhaulers will have higher value.
 
Huh, it never occurred to me that, after using a certified engine on an E-AB to fast-track the test phase, that there is no requirement to maintain the "certified status" of said engine, and Joe Clownshoe can then do his own overhaul on the thing.

I think my next plane will be E-AB. That's gotta shave off 25-50% of the MOH cost, no?
 
schmookeeg said:
I think my next plane will be E-AB. That's gotta shave off 25-50% of the MOH cost, no?
Click to expand...

It could if you let the mechanic do all of the work on the certified craft but did most of that work yourself on the experimental.

So...

You remove and disassemble the engine. That's 10 labor hours for the mechanic you're not paying for.

You send out the big pieces for overhaul yourself and don't need to pay the mechanic for his time or parts markup.

You order all of the new stuff- seals, bearings, cylinders, rod bolts, etc. You save mechanic time and parts mark-up.

You assemble the engine under the mechanic's supervision. That cuts his time in half, maybe. More savings.

You reinstall the engine and have him inspect it, rather than him doing the work. More savings.

Your DIY engine won't have a warranty. More savings. More risk too.

I figure you can save 50% or more of the total removal/overhaul/reinstall cost that way. I've done it myself on my RV-6 and have run the numbers on DIY overhaul costs vs hiring it done for the engine on the RV-10.
 
mondtster said:
On TCd products ADs need to be complied with no matter if it is hanging on an experimental aircraft or not. E/ABs are exempted from part 43 but not part 39.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that because my engine came off of a Cirrus that I am required to comply with AD's? I do, but I thought it wasn't mandatory on E/AB aircraft.
 
donjohnston said:
So are you saying that because my engine came off of a Cirrus that I am required to comply with AD's? I do, but I thought it wasn't mandatory on E/AB aircraft.
Click to expand...

When I asked this question previously. The answer was it depends. If you have maintained the type certificate of the engine. You must comply with the AD.
If you have altered the engine away from the type certificate in any way, you do not have to comply to the AD; but you are an idiot if you do not.

Tim
 
You do not have to comply with any AD notes on an engine used in an experimental. Only if that engine is reused on a certified airplane at a later date. Use your own judgement but I comply with them as they are usually pretty critical.
 
kyleb said:
It could if you let the mechanic do all of the work on the certified craft but did most of that work yourself on the experimental.

So...

You remove and disassemble the engine. That's 10 labor hours for the mechanic you're not paying for.

You send out the big pieces for overhaul yourself and don't need to pay the mechanic for his time or parts markup.

You order all of the new stuff- seals, bearings, cylinders, rod bolts, etc. You save mechanic time and parts mark-up.

You assemble the engine under the mechanic's supervision. That cuts his time in half, maybe. More savings.

You reinstall the engine and have him inspect it, rather than him doing the work. More savings.

Your DIY engine won't have a warranty. More savings. More risk too.

I figure you can save 50% or more of the total removal/overhaul/reinstall cost that way. I've done it myself on my RV-6 and have run the numbers on DIY overhaul costs vs hiring it done for the engine on the RV-10.
Click to expand...
I did exactly the above on my certified engine. Didn’t cost me any more than an experimental would have, as I would have paid the pro for the oversight in either case.
 
donjohnston said:
So are you saying that because my engine came off of a Cirrus that I am required to comply with AD's? I do, but I thought it wasn't mandatory on E/AB aircraft.
Click to expand...

Yes. It has been discussed here before and the knowledgeable folks agreed, to the dismay of some.

If you read some ADs there will be mention of common experimental types in which the affected parts are commonly used. Here's one as an example.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...4ba0b8da8625769d00695ada/$FILE/2009-26-12.pdf
 
Grum.Man said:
You do not have to comply with any AD notes on an engine used in an experimental. Only if that engine is reused on a certified airplane at a later date. Use your own judgement but I comply with them as they are usually pretty critical.
Click to expand...

Not true, although that's what the EAA tries to promote. Ask someone at your local FSDO or search here if you are in disagreement.

Experimentals are exempt from part 43 but there is no exemption to part 39.

Here's when it was discussed last:
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/e-ab-engines.118251/
 
Last edited:
mondtster said:
On TCd products ADs need to be complied with no matter if it is hanging on an experimental aircraft or not. E/ABs are exempted from part 43 but not part 39.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, an Experimental aircraft can be licensed using 8 reindeer as an engine. As I understand it, whacking the four small 0.062" pins holding the nameplate to the case of the TCd product converts it from a Continental O-200 to a Jimweir O-200 and I can use soup cans for pistons if I want. Just sayin'

Jim
 
mondtster said:
Not true, although that's what the EAA tries to promote. Ask someone at your local FSDO or search here if you are in disagreement.
Click to expand...

I believe you are incorrect, although reusing it on a standard certificated aircraft would require a WHOLE BUNCH of either logbook inspections, engine inspections, or a standard overhaul of most of the engine components that were not marked with an identifiable mark as the correct factory part would probably be true.
 
weirdjim said:
I believe you are incorrect
Click to expand...

Then the local PMI is incorrect and the others in agreement are too. I don't like the way it is structured but it is what it is.

Read the other thread I posted a link to regarding your data plate removal message.
 
Grum.Man said:
You do not have to comply with any AD notes on an engine used in an experimental.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Once an engine is installed on a E/AB aircraft Part 43 is no longer applicable but Part 39 is when the applicability statement of the AD states it does. Usually it starts out with "All engines installed..." There is an AC that explains this in detail but I don't have it handy at the moment.
 
The most valuable part of your plane will be the avionics, engine, and propeller. Not in any particular order either. I’m curious to how an insurance company would valuate the engine in regards to a loss if it was not certified.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ADs on aircraft parts and assemblies apply to those parts and assemblies when installed on an experimental airplane. So said my DAR and the FSDO when I was interviewed for my repairman cert.
 
Stewartb said:
ADs on aircraft parts and assemblies apply to those parts and assemblies when installed on an experimental airplane.
Click to expand...
Correct. But only if the AD applicability states it applies to non-TC'd aircraft. See AC 39-7 for specific guidance. There is another doc but can't find it at the moment.
 
AC 39-7D quite plainly talks about ADs that apply to non-TC aircraft (which includes those certificated with a Special Airworthiness Certificate (including E-AB) and it talks about how this will be worded in an AD to cover such aircraft.
So I think we can set to rest the argument that ADs never apply to Exp aircraft.
(I have not seen where AC 39-7D has been superceded or rescinded)
 
Now there are (for example) exp engines which are essentially identical to the certificated product, in fact most of the parts originate from the type-certificated engine but you will not likely see those engines (well, their dataplate ID) listed in an AD.
(but you'd be fool to use that to avoid compliance)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top