Field overhaul on my IO-540's?

$2k each still sounds a bit out there. Of course, aviation, and you gotta pay to play, and when you say 'Aerostar', surely that is the big boy pond(of pistons).

If you're leaking out the shaft that you can see, it's losing a lot more when you fly. I would opine that a significant amount of your oil use is going through the turbo shaft seal.

Now, we get down to how good are you as a wrench? I have rebuilt turbos for cars and it is really quite simple. Many places sell a kit or rebuilt pack. Your A&P is legally qualified to do the work, but how comfy is he, and can you watch, help? The hardest job is the balancing. Normally what I do is mark the turbine and the compressor and make sure when I put them back together they are in exactly the same orientation. Of course, this is not a new balance, and the weight could have changed, but a field OH of the turbo is something I would surely take on before I would do the engine. But -that's me. ;)

http://turbo-power.com/ (no affiliation, in your home state)
 
Our IO-540 is in the shop now at TRIAD for an overhaul with new cylinders for a bit under 28K. ...we almost got TBO out of the current one. It was running strong until a piece came off the magneto and fell into the nether reaches of the case. At 1950 hours is served it's purpose.... hardest part about the overhaul decision was the "might as well" stuff that will run it to ~40K. ($500 discount to do the prop at the same time...new motor mounts...etc...) "

Obviously I have only one engine and I'm mentally amortizing it over 2000 hours but I can't see spending 25K and dealing with the little things are every trip to the shop.
 
jbarrass said:
At 1950 hours is served it's purpose.... hardest part about the overhaul decision was the "might as well" stuff that will run it to ~40K. ($500 discount to do the prop at the same time...new motor mounts...etc...)
Click to expand...

The little things. Exhaust system, fuel pump, mags, alternator, starter, vacuum pump, hoses, cables, engine mount pads, baffles, oil cooler, the list goes on and on and on...
 
docmirror said:
$2k each still sounds a bit out there. Of course, aviation, and you gotta pay to play, and when you say 'Aerostar', surely that is the big boy pond(of pistons).

If you're leaking out the shaft that you can see, it's losing a lot more when you fly. I would opine that a significant amount of your oil use is going through the turbo shaft seal.

Now, we get down to how good are you as a wrench? I have rebuilt turbos for cars and it is really quite simple. Many places sell a kit or rebuilt pack. Your A&P is legally qualified to do the work, but how comfy is he, and can you watch, help? The hardest job is the balancing. Normally what I do is mark the turbine and the compressor and make sure when I put them back together they are in exactly the same orientation. Of course, this is not a new balance, and the weight could have changed, but a field OH of the turbo is something I would surely take on before I would do the engine. But -that's me. ;)

http://turbo-power.com/ (no affiliation, in your home state)
Click to expand...

This gets into an interested "owner supplied parts" question.

You don't need a yellow tag being Part 91, so could any turbo shop do the overhaul that you took it to?
 
jbarrass said:
Our IO-540 is in the shop now at TRIAD for an overhaul with new cylinders for a bit under 28K. ...we almost got TBO out of the current one. It was running strong until a piece came off the magneto and fell into the nether reaches of the case. At 1950 hours is served it's purpose.... hardest part about the overhaul decision was the "might as well" stuff that will run it to ~40K. ($500 discount to do the prop at the same time...new motor mounts...etc...) "

Obviously I have only one engine and I'm mentally amortizing it over 2000 hours but I can't see spending 25K and dealing with the little things are every trip to the shop.
Click to expand...

FWIW the IO-540 in a Comanche costs about $4K less to overhaul than one from an Aerostar. The new cylinder charge for the Aerostar engine is $5,400 vs $2,400 for the Comanche engine.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
This gets into an interested "owner supplied parts" question.

You don't need a yellow tag being Part 91, so could any turbo shop do the overhaul that you took it to?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I just don't know. Deakin stretched the 'owner supplied parts' rule as far as it would stretch. Here's the rub. There are parts that are used to rebuild aviation turbos, and parts that are used to rebuild auto turbos. My bet, with nothing to back it up says those parts come out of the same exact factory, although the av parts may go through a more detailed inspection before shipping or use(or they may not).

As far as having a car shop do the work, that would be a definite 'no', unless they had an A&P on staff, and he was willing to sign the log book: 'Rebuilt turbo with owner supplied parts. Inspected and tested to comply with FAR 43 - blah, blah, blah.'

That's why I started down the road of having the OPs A&P do the bench work on the turbo, and hand him the cartridge rebuild pack. Now, once he gets in there, may find the shaft damaged, or the housing sloppy, or the blades a bit toasted, or other stuff. But if the big bits are in good shape, the cartridge replacement, cleaning and clearancing isn't a big deal.

One of the little tricks I've found is to get the compressor scroll to housing clearance as low as practical. That will provide gobs more air, and is one of those racer tricks that not many people mess with. On a Paxton(belt driven) turbo I've gotten the clearance down to ~2 thou from the factory setting of about 5-7 thou and it makes a world of diff. Aviation - maybe I would get too tricky here, but making air is important.
 
charlie said:
FWIW the IO-540 in a Comanche costs about $4K less to overhaul than one from an Aerostar. The new cylinder charge for the Aerostar engine is $5,400 vs $2,400 for the Comanche engine.
Click to expand...

And the Aerostar is an angle valve head instead of parallel valve. So heads cost more, fuel pump costs more, etc.

docmirror said:
Yeah, I just don't know. Deakin stretched the 'owner supplied parts' rule as far as it would stretch. Here's the rub. There are parts that are used to rebuild aviation turbos, and parts that are used to rebuild auto turbos. My bet, with nothing to back it up says those parts come out of the same exact factory, although the av parts may go through a more detailed inspection before shipping or use(or they may not).

As far as having a car shop do the work, that would be a definite 'no', unless they had an A&P on staff, and he was willing to sign the log book: 'Rebuilt turbo with owner supplied parts. Inspected and tested to comply with FAR 43 - blah, blah, blah.'

That's why I started down the road of having the OPs A&P do the bench work on the turbo, and hand him the cartridge rebuild pack. Now, once he gets in there, may find the shaft damaged, or the housing sloppy, or the blades a bit toasted, or other stuff. But if the big bits are in good shape, the cartridge replacement, cleaning and clearancing isn't a big deal.

One of the little tricks I've found is to get the compressor scroll to housing clearance as low as practical. That will provide gobs more air, and is one of those racer tricks that not many people mess with. On a Paxton(belt driven) turbo I've gotten the clearance down to ~2 thou from the factory setting of about 5-7 thou and it makes a world of diff. Aviation - maybe I would get too tricky here, but making air is important.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my thought is that it wouldn't be ok to let the auto shop do it. If it were my plane, I'd probably just rebuild it myself... Says the guy with a twin turbo Mitsubishi and naturally aspirated 310. I think I have this backwards....

Good point on keeping the clearances down for more air. That will especially help efficiency up high where you're working at the max pressure ratio the turbos can supply. The thing I'd wonder about is if, when operated at high load for extended periods, if that would cause thermal growth/seizure issues. I don't know a ton about turbos.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
And the Aerostar is an angle valve head instead of parallel valve. So heads cost more, fuel pump costs more, etc.



...... The thing I'd wonder about is if, when operated at high load for extended periods, if that would cause thermal growth/seizure issues. I don't know a ton about turbos.
Click to expand...

Yes..... That Ted is one smart engineer.... Where were ya during my racing years???? I could have used that forward thinking kind of thing...

Extended running like aircraft or even stationary powerplants can and will build up excessive heat and thermal expansion needs to be considered.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Good point on keeping the clearances down for more air. That will especially help efficiency up high where you're working at the max pressure ratio the turbos can supply. The thing I'd wonder about is if, when operated at high load for extended periods, if that would cause thermal growth/seizure issues. I don't know a ton about turbos.
Click to expand...

The compressor wheel is usually a pretty tough alloy of Al with some Si and Cu, and some Ti. It won't grow as much as the housing which is often a simple cast blend of Fe. Of more concern is housing heat deformation over time, and also compressor wheel blade warpage from centrifugal force combined with adiabatic pressures just at the diffuser(outlet).

Since turbocharger compressor failures are generally a catastrophic engine event, working toward the tighter tolerances has a downside as well. In some cases, the lowered compression of the engine allows for just enough space in the chamber for all the compressor bits to pass through, but - it's not something I would want to rely on for a plane, so care is in order.
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
Yes..... That Ted is one smart engineer.... Where were ya during my racing years???? I could have used that forward thinking kind of thing...

Extended running like aircraft or even stationary powerplants can and will build up excessive heat and thermal expansion needs to be considered.
Click to expand...

Well, we're getting rather far afield for this thread, but the yield strength and the coef of expansion for the compressor wheel is much less of a factor than the items I mentioned above. Tyically the 200 series alloys of Al provide a very low coef of exp with the needed improvement in UTS and YS found in a compressor wheel. If any part of the compressor side is growing under load, it's generally the housing, however the cycles on the housing will eventually cause some warping and that is of greater concern than the thermal expansion. Sorry for the left turn here, back to scheduled programming.
 
docmirror said:
Well, we're getting rather far afield for this thread, but the yield strength and the coef of expansion for the compressor wheel is much less of a factor than the items I mentioned above. Tyically the 200 series alloys of Al provide a very low coef of exp with the needed improvement in UTS and YS found in a compressor wheel. If any part of the compressor side is growing under load, it's generally the housing, however the cycles on the housing will eventually cause some warping and that is of greater concern than the thermal expansion. Sorry for the left turn here, back to scheduled programming.
Click to expand...

I partially (sp) agree.....;)
 
docmirror said:
Well, we're getting rather far afield for this thread, but the yield strength and the coef of expansion for the compressor wheel is much less of a factor than the items I mentioned above. Tyically the 200 series alloys of Al provide a very low coef of exp with the needed improvement in UTS and YS found in a compressor wheel. If any part of the compressor side is growing under load, it's generally the housing, however the cycles on the housing will eventually cause some warping and that is of greater concern than the thermal expansion. Sorry for the left turn here, back to scheduled programming.
Click to expand...

Interesting points, thanks for the education. As I said, I don't know a ton about turbos (other than their uses). So it's an interesting consideration.
 
Anyone making maintenance decisions like this should attend the Mike Bush Savvy Aviator Seminar before opening up the check book.

When I bought my Turbo Comanche we were burning more oil than I was comfortable with (less than 1 qt an hr) and I was not getting MP like I expected 25" at 20,000'. Not enough to warrant any major expense yet but we decided to check it out and see if we could improve it a bit.

I was mostly concerned with not getting stuck flying out of town and getting as much speed as I was paying for. I also had a 397 NM one way trip over water with my family so I wanted to be somewhat sure about this new to me plane.

I started with having the mags IRAN-ed which worked out to about $200. New plugs for another $300. The turbos, hoses, compressions checked but were all tight and there were no leaks of oil on the ground and oil analysis were fine and on trend line. I had about 1500 hrs TSMO and 3700 TSN. I bought the plane from an air force officer who knew how to take care of the plane.

I wasn't achieving the MAP that I thought I should so I had the air-box rebuilt and manifold lines replaced and the turbos and oil lines checked and the waste gates worked on (by the Webco Comanche specialist). Under 1 amu in total.

So I flew it the first year no engine problems at all. The first annual, 13 months later, I opted to put 3 full rebuilt CermiNil treated cylinders on one side as I had 2 heat cracked heads.

Of course we were able to get a pretty good view of the condition of the bottom when we pulled the jugs. The following year we put 3 more jugs on the other side so I ended up with a TOP overhaul, we changed all lines (every 5 years for the AD-turbo STC). So I probably do not have more than about $4500 in a top OH (stretched out over 2 annuals and a few hundred flying hours).

I do not have any regrets. The engine has run so nicely since, oil consumption done to next to nothing, the engine sings. I guess if I had known how well the engine would continue to perform I might have gone with New Lycoming Jugs rather than rebuilt Jugs but I did want the CerminNil since I do not fly every week and they hold up better to infrequent flying.

From the sounds of your budget, I would likely do the same thing with the Aerostar. Start on the weaker engine if there is one: IRAN the accessories,airbox, replace all hoses for under $1500 per side; get away from Chrome jugs they are known for prefailures and get either CerminNil rebuilt jugs $500-600 ea or New Lycomings $1800 ea (for angle valve). I would not crack the case unless visual inspection or oil analysis indicated the need to do so. You might well be able to keep both those IO540's running for much less than the cost of a single major OH for many, many years to come.

The last thing I would consider in the decision is resale value of one type of OH vs another since in all likelihood there will not be any measurable resale value no matter which way you go.....based on what has happened in aviation the last 10 years and expecting the same to continue. Planning something for more than 5 or 10 years out in aviation is futile. Keep the money in your pocket.
 
Last edited:
I have a complete and concise set of cliff notes for turbo ops on a P-602. On check stubs.

Ted DuPuis said:
Interesting points, thanks for the education. As I said, I don't know a ton about turbos (other than their uses). So it's an interesting consideration.
Click to expand...
 
stratobee said:
Engines are 300hrs over TBO.
Click to expand...

The fact that it made it this long is a good sign that someone built it right in the first place and someone else ran it right in the 2nd place. There is a good chance this engine will go quite a bit farther without major expense. You might have gotten a jewel.

stratobee said:
This doesn't scare me per se, and I fly it (as they don't make metal), but they do burn oil. Which would suggest the tops are bad, as they engines are clean and have no oil leaks.
Click to expand...

oil burn could be a single bad ring in a single jug as in my case above.

stratobee said:
However, it doesn't make sense to do a top overhaul on a 2100hr engine.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I have talked to plenty of people who put 5000+ hrs on the bottom before cracking the case. They will put 2 tops on a good engine before a major.

I had 3475 hrs on a field o/h engine when we took it apart and all components were within serviceable limits and all but 2 parts were within new limits. The A&P thought sort of like you, why put a top or new jug on an old engine with 3500 hrs. He is eating crap now as I remind him of it every time I see him, weekly. So he says "what about my liability insurance?" I say "what about your professionalism?"

Luckily by the time they wasted this money it was no longer my airplane, I would never have let him rebuild the engine with no evidence that it needed rebuilding.
 
Topping an engine is a gamble,

You are betting you will get your money's worth out of the cylinders before the major is needed, as the engine ages the bet gets worse. I could not in good faith recommend doing a TOH on a past TBO engine. I would gladly do one if asked and be very happy for the owner if the engine keeps going long enough to make the gamble pay off.
 
wabower said:
I have a complete and concise set of cliff notes for turbo ops on a P-602. On check stubs.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right. I would like to be able to put modern turbos on a piston engine. I think we'd see improved reliability and performance, but we all know what happens when you try to enact progress.
 
Skylane81E said:
Topping an engine is a gamble,

You are betting you will get your money's worth out of the cylinders before the major is needed, as the engine ages the bet gets worse. I could not in good faith recommend doing a TOH on a past TBO engine. I would gladly do one if asked and be very happy for the owner if the engine keeps going long enough to make the gamble pay off.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your point. But putting new jugs on a case that turns out to need to be broken down later doesn't weaken the new jugs does it? What would be the difference of just Majoring the bottom at a later date as stated above by others?

It is sort of like replacing all six cylinders when you have one or two week cylinders.... It is like making an assumption that the whole engine is toast and that decision increases the Top by $15-16k in this case then that amount times 2 engines. If he topped both engines and later had to major one of the engines isn't he still money ahead? (assuming he continues to use the new jugs).

So a major OH might include new hoses, rebuilt mags, rebuilt or IRAN accessories, new plugs and new cylinders plus all that is involved in cracking open the case, it seems that if you did all but crack the case that could be a savings but if not, you just come back and do what you did not already do. You do not even have to take the engine off the plane to do a top and new accessories and hoses. When you do a major or crack open the case you do have to take it off the plane and many other things that drives the cost way up.

I just do not see why you think it is a big risk to do a TOP on an engine that has no indication or a warning towards needing bottom end.
 
Last edited:
Tony_Scarpelli said:
It is sort of like replacing all six cylinders when you have one or two week cylinders....
Click to expand...

That assumption turned out to be true in your case.

What did you 'save' by doing 3 cylinders one year and 3 the next ? You managed to hold on to $1800 of your money for one year longer but probably spent a bit more on disassembly and reassembly of baffles, intake and exhaust.
 
wabower said:
I have a complete and concise set of cliff notes for turbo ops on a P-602. On check stubs.
Click to expand...

Wayne, ole buddy. Your post have become -- whats the word? Oh yeah, trenchant. If posts were contribution margin in a large corp, your division would have been sacked long ago.

Keep on with the trenchant-ness, or trenchanity, or trenchantnous, however but way to show some tech support there. :rofl:
 
weilke said:
That assumption turned out to be true in your case.

What did you 'save' by doing 3 cylinders one year and 3 the next ? You managed to hold on to $1800 of your money for one year longer but probably spent a bit more on disassembly and reassembly of baffles, intake and exhaust.
Click to expand...

I think it is just a way of living. I owned two homes, two airplanes, bunch of other stuff and have no debt, not even credit cards. So it becomes a habit almost a religious experience to pay cash as you go. To pay cash for everything you need to keep some cash in the bank for things that pop up from time to time.

So it might have cost me a little extra labor to have done the left side one year and the right side the next year with the 2nd annual. I could have done both side the same year I guess but there wasn't a burning desire to do so. Maybe I wanted a few hundred hours experience with the Rebuilt jugs before buying 6 of them.
 
Well, that's what I did with my Commander and the unsupported/old GO-435's. Top overhauled them and kept on flying them. I still fly it. Yeah, she leaks about half a quart every hour, but they don't make metal.

I would gladly do the same thing in the Aerostar. The only thing that gives me pause is that I'm based at a 4200ft airfield in a hot climate. That's not tons of margin when you're full up and have tired engines.
 
I thought I was lucky getting 3500 hrs on a field oh engine with my first airplane but I think I make my own luck by making appropriate maintenance decisions.

I probably spend as much money on maintenance as most but I choose where to focus that expense. I like to keep accessories in top notch, oil analysis and any time I see, hear or smell something I don't like, I have it looked at and resolved. I do not spare money for safety, I target it where it needs to go.

This idea of wholesale replacement of engines at the drop of the hat doesn't work for me. If you have a bad engine it will make itself known to someone listening.

I met a guy that has a twin and one engine has morning sickness based on what he described but he continues to fly it until he arranges to finance a new engine. I will never do that with a single or a twin. If I couldn't afford to take care of it, I would stop flying. But part of his problem is that he has to rebuild the engine. He might be able to fix the valvues do a top on his cylinders or just do a top with rebuilt cylinders. So he might well be flying unsafe because of his assumptions that he needs to spend $40k when $6k might do more than solve the problem.

I do not have the newest cars or planes but I keep them at a state where I can go to either coast at a moments notice. I will fill em with gas and go to the coast without worry that they need some maintenance.

Maria says I should be as diligent with the houses.

weilke said:
That assumption turned out to be true in your case.

What did you 'save' by doing 3 cylinders one year and 3 the next ? You managed to hold on to $1800 of your money for one year longer but probably spent a bit more on disassembly and reassembly of baffles, intake and exhaust.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
Well, that's what I did with my Commander and the unsupported/old GO-435's. Top overhauled them and kept on flying them. I still fly it. Yeah, she leaks about half a quart every hour, but they don't make metal.

I would gladly do the same thing in the Aerostar. The only thing that gives me pause is that I'm based at a 4200ft airfield in a hot climate. That's not tons of margin when you're full up and have tired engines.
Click to expand...

You can measure the lift on the valves to see that the cam is within serviceable limits other than that the strength of the engine will come from the new cylinders, spark plugs and IRAN mags......Then as I stated above you want to ensure Turbos/wastegates are working properly and I do not see you having too much of a risk.

If you do not see the case going another 1800 hrs then go ahead and save even more money by getting rebuilt jugs rather than buying new and this will give you plenty of time to fly. I have about 300 hrs on rebuilt jugs, with Rajay turbo IP540 and the Jugs are getting the same compressions as they were 4 years ago when I put them on. I wish I were flying more than 50 hrs a year on this plane but the CirmiNil treatment seems to help as expected.
 
Flying around with morning sickness is one of the stupidest things you can do. Guy should just have his mechanic figure out which jug needs pulled and get it addressed.

Sigh...
 
Morning sickness... Is that generally related to sticky valves? Or?

Great thread folks. Thanks!
 
weilke said:
Your plane may be pregnant.
Click to expand...

And that, boys and girls, is how Lycoming actually makes engines.

There's a secret R-7755 hidden in the walls that gives birth to TIO-540-J2BDs and Aerostar engines. Abortions are performed on any TIO-541 engines that are discovered.
 
Well, just an update.

I just chucked the plane in for dual engine overhaul 2 weeks ago. Flew the engines 420hrs over TBO and they still ran fine with no squawks and would probably have gone on for quite a bit longer. What made me decide to do it in the end was nothing in particular. One was I had put newly O/H props on about a month ago (from another Aerostar that a guy is rebuilding into a turboprop single), and ever since I swapped, the left engines rpm took extra long to come up. It was lagging about 2-300rpm behind the right all the way up until rotation. It did always come up in the end, but was a little unsettling the first times until I knew the score. Couldn't really figure out what it was as the dome pressure etc all checked out. Consensus seem to be that it probably had something to do with oil pressure or oil sludge in the engine etc. The other factor was the anaemic climb after 15500-17500ft. This is more a turbo problem, but still, they're part of it. Also, the left engine was starting to show oil pressures at the very bottom of the green arc and consuming a little more. All in all, I thought it was time. And with the sale of my old plane, I had some cash to put in towards the overhaul.

In the end I decided to go with a shop here in California. They have a good reputation and gave a good quote. $23,675.00 for overhaul incl. accessories. Thats pretty competitive. Add to this the turbos at around $1600/piece (there's 4 of them), installing GAMI injectors, overhauling the wastegates, oil scavenger pumps, NDT engine mounts, hoses, airboxes and labour, and we're looking at at least $60-65K for the overhaul. But that's the price you pay to play. Comparably, this is not that bad all things considered, but still a h**l of a lot of money.
 
Last edited:
Best of luck of course. I'm a big fan of your plane, and hope it works out well. Please keep us advised on what you find in terms of infant mortality. 2 cases, all acc, many bearings, 12 jugs, 24 valves, guides, rockers, lifters, 4 turbos, and lots of other wear components.

To be frank, I thought Tony's advice on IRAN for what's wrong to be good. However, the left engine with low pressure is a concern. Maybe I would investigate that as a symptom rather than throw engines at the problem, but it is of course, your plane.
 
Oh thanks. Yeah, they're great machines. I've had no real problems with her in the short period of about 70hrs I've owned her. A leaking O-ring, but that's about it.

I'm actually not looking forward to that first test flight with the two new engines when I get her back. Scares me a little. Especially not out of HHR where there's no place to go in case things go t*ts up. At least with old engines they're probably not going to fail catastrophically, just kind of expire. But with new ones, that's a risk one has to consider.
 
Last edited:
First test flight following a double overhaul is dangerous for a few reasons. First is the possibility of MX error, which has many opportunities with so many things being touched. Second is that the owner/pilot is usually lacking proficiency since (s)he hasn't been flying.

To mitigate the second, it's beneficial to try to keep flying (especially in someone else's Aerostar), go to sim training, etc. Helps keep you sharp.

I did none of these with the 310's double overhaul, but I did fly the Aztec some (I still had it then) to help keep general flying proficiency.
 
Yes, it will be a very cautious test flight. Numerous high speed taxis before I commit etc. Thankfully I still have my old Commander until the new buyer picks her up and he doesn't mind me flying it, so I won't be completely rusty. Just rusty in Aerostars.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Flying around with morning sickness is one of the stupidest things you can do. Guy should just have his mechanic figure out which jug needs pulled and get it addressed.

Sigh...
Click to expand...

Agreed but I suspect non maintenance minded pilots are afraid they get to the shop and the guy says "new engine require" and knows he doesn't have the facts to back down the eager mechanic.
 
Since you are in for $65k we have to look at it positively. It should greatly increase the value of your plane over the next 200 hrs and will soon give you comfort and peace of mind and that is worth something. You obviously can afford it and that is something as well.

I would have replaced one engine at a time but then you would have to go down twice rather than once.:)

You might consider hiring Henning or other top notch twin professional pilot to pickup the plane and fly it with the mechanic/engine maker the first flight and then come pick you up for a full days worth of flying.

What is another $400?

Congratulations!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
And that, boys and girls, is how Lycoming actually makes engines.

There's a secret R-7755 hidden in the walls that gives birth to TIO-540-J2BDs and Aerostar engines. Abortions are performed on any TIO-541 engines that are discovered.
Click to expand...

Then there are the polydactyl IO-720s :rofl:
 
Since the engine question is answered, I wanted to revisit the logic of only paying cash for a set of engines. Modern life has a balance sheet not just a cash flow statement IMO, so why not consider financing a FWF? I would rather have the liquid asset earning income in excess of the debt, than be cash poor (especially when talking airplanes).

I understand the mental component of owning everything and I maintain very little debt as a rule. However, money is cheap, dollars are devaluing, and returns for the last year have been good. How much could that $65k earn is the question I'm always asking?
 
I wonder what the interest rates would be on actually financing the FWF directly. When I was looking at financing the Aztec, I was seeing rates of around 8%. Probably not too different for a FWF. Then you look at potentially doing a home equity loan.

I could see it making sense. I tend to try to simplify my life, though, and that's something that complicates it. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I wonder what the interest rates would be on actually financing the FWF directly. When I was looking at financing the Aztec, I was seeing rates of around 8%. Probably not too different for a FWF. Then you look at potentially doing a home equity loan.

I could see it making sense. I tend to try to simplify my life, though, and that's something that complicates it. :)
Click to expand...

8% wouldn't make sense, home equity or something tax deducable might though. I agree it complicates things, you'd have to be diciplined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top