Mags Overhaul / Replacement TBO

OtisAir

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
642
Location
Lansdale
Display Name

Display name:
OtisAir
Howdy - Just curious if someone can tell me what the TBO is for Mags. I have a Cherokee 180 and was just advised that my MAGS are past TBO and should be replaced or rebuilt (they haven't even opened 'em up yet).

Thoughts Please. Thanks

Shane
 
Howdy - Just curious if someone can tell me what the TBO is for Mags. I have a Cherokee 180 and was just advised that my MAGS are past TBO and should be replaced or rebuilt (they haven't even opened 'em up yet).

Thoughts Please. Thanks

Shane

Which mags? Bendix? Slick? something else?

iirc the Slick mags are so (relatively) inexpensive, that it's cheaper
to replace than rebuild.
 
I elected to have Slicks installed opposed to rebuilding but I'm not sure what the TBO was. $2700
 
I have a Cherokee 180 with a Lyc O-360-A4A. Pretty sure it is 500hrs. (Edit: I have Bendix mags on the Cherokee).

As an aside... For my $0.02, Mag TBOs should be observed...

A few years back, the mags had reached TBO, but I was planning on selling the plane in a few months time, so I elected not to overhaul... A few flights later, I had a mag failure at a few hundred feet on upwind. That was quite alarming as the engine ran extremely rough, and dropped about 400 hundred RPM (the failed mag hadn't just shut off, it was misfiring). Since the plane was still producing power, and I was not that high off the ground, I elected to do a 180 and land downwind vs troubleshoot in the air.



Howdy - Just curious if someone can tell me what the TBO is for Mags. I have a Cherokee 180 and was just advised that my MAGS are past TBO and should be replaced or rebuilt (they haven't even opened 'em up yet).

Thoughts Please. Thanks

Shane
 
Last edited:
Most Slick mags (including the ones on your O-360-A engine) have a 500-hour inspection requirement. See Unison publication L1363 for details, but it includes:
- Partial disassembly and internal inspection.
- New contact points are required, other components do not need to be replaced unless they do not meet the inspection requirements listed in L-1363 "Magneto Maintenance and Overhaul Manual" (found at http://www.eaa105.org/Info/SlickMagOverhaulManual.pdf).

If you have the old 4000-series Slicks from the 1960-70 time frame, there's also a SB recommending tossing them after 900 hours.
 
Most Slick mags (including the ones on your O-360-A engine) have a 500-hour inspection requirement. See Unison publication L1363 for details, but it includes:
- Partial disassembly and internal inspection.
- New contact points are required, other components do not need to be replaced unless they do not meet the inspection requirements listed in L-1363 "Magneto Maintenance and Overhaul Manual" (found at http://www.eaa105.org/Info/SlickMagOverhaulManual.pdf).

If you have the old 4000-series Slicks from the 1960-70 time frame, there's also a SB recommending tossing them after 900 hours.

Those inspection requirements come from service bulletins written by the company lawyers. and not required by part 91 operators.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it until it is.

My advice to my customers is simple, If you have Bendix SL series mags, IRAN as required when needed.Mags are not Voodoo magic the parts are available, and the work should be brick simple to any A&P.
 
Howdy - Just curious if someone can tell me what the TBO is for Mags. I have a Cherokee 180 and was just advised that my MAGS are past TBO and should be replaced or rebuilt (they haven't even opened 'em up yet).

Thoughts Please. Thanks

Shane

There is no TBO on mags. Ask your mechanic to show you the requirement in writing.
 
How about Bendix Scintilla Mags?

:D

All Bendix mags are Scintilla I worked there when I was a kid, in Sidney NY. until it was sold to TCM. they did not manufacture any mas for a period of time now you can buy new from TCM
 
Those inspection requirements come from service bulletins written by the company lawyers. and not required by part 91 operators.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it until it is.

My advice to my customers is simple, If you have Bendix SL series mags, IRAN as required when needed.Mags are not Voodoo magic the parts are available, and the work should be brick simple to any A&P.

Years ago, my Slick mags hit around 500 hours and my A&P
recommended looking at them. They were pretty worn with
that 500 hours of use. So I replaced them with new Slick mags.
It would have been pretty much the same cost to pay him his
labor to replace the worn parts as putting new mags on.
 
Years ago, my Slick mags hit around 500 hours and my A&P
recommended looking at them. They were pretty worn with
that 500 hours of use. So I replaced them with new Slick mags.
It would have been pretty much the same cost to pay him his
labor to replace the worn parts as putting new mags on.

Years ago it was cost effective, not so today.
 
All Bendix mags are Scintilla I worked there when I was a kid, in Sidney NY. until it was sold to TCM. they did not manufacture any mas for a period of time now you can buy new from TCM


Cool -- My IA thinks the one Mag on oy O-145-b2 is original.

looks like tractor parts...
 
Cool -- My IA thinks the one Mag on oy O-145-b2 is original.

looks like tractor parts...

The old "Case tractor" mag came off the same machines as the SL line at Scintilla.
 
My advice to my customers is simple, If you have Bendix SL series mags, IRAN as required when needed.Mags are not Voodoo magic the parts are available, and the work should be brick simple to any A&P.
I agree. However, with that engine, he probably has Slicks, and the engine gurus I know strongly recommend following the SB for the 500-hour inspection for them.
 
I agree. However, with that engine, he probably has Slicks, and the engine gurus I know strongly recommend following the SB for the 500-hour inspection for them.

I've heard the same recommendation. And, I've been on the receiving end of a dead Slick mag. I did not enjoy it. I had to spend 2 nights in Amarillo because of it.

I'm for rebuilding Slicks every 500 hours. Forget the inspection. The 2 Slick failures we've had would not have been caught at inspection anyway. One was a bad condensor and the other was a bad coil. You just can't catch those before they go bad.
 
That it's easier to find an old Case SC with electric start than a old Champ/Chief...:wink2:

...and that's absolutely fine! Until I get too feeble, I'll hand prop -- no battery, no flywheel, no extra nuttin (unless, of course I'm flying the 205, -35, C172, C182, or A36)

Simple is good!
 
I

I'm for rebuilding Slicks every 500 hours. Forget the inspection. The 2 Slick failures we've had would not have been caught at inspection anyway. One was a bad condenser and the other was a bad coil. You just can't catch those before they go bad.

Why would you say that, when each of those parts have a simple test to pass?
 
I agree. However, with that engine, he probably has Slicks, and the engine gurus I know strongly recommend following the SB for the 500-hour inspection for them.

Have you ever seen a FBO or major repair station that wasn't looking for work or trying to cover their A--

I would guess that the average mag failure will be closer to engine TBO than 500 hours.

WE all can see the early failures and make a big deal over it, but the truth be known all the mags that go to engine TBO are never heard from, It's kinda like 2% of the Mags make 100% of the news.

I have 2 Bendix SL series on my bench now that have no record of being serviced (off the engine) in the last 3600 hours. Yeah, they are hurting
 
Why would you say that, when each of those parts have a simple test to pass?

As I understand it, telling if they are bad is easy.
Telling if they are going to go bad soon is not so easy.

I guess I'd rather pay for the rebuild or replacement than suffer through the failure again. Mags are supposedly redundant, but losing one causes a noticeable and disturbing reduction in performance.
 
As I understand it, telling if they are bad is easy.
Telling if they are going to go bad soon is not so easy.

I guess I'd rather pay for the rebuild or replacement than suffer through the failure again. Mags are supposedly redundant, but losing one causes a noticeable and disturbing reduction in performance.

When tested properly both parts will give you a bad indication long before they fail.

The two primary failure is the worn cam follower of the points, opens the points late and closes them early. the electrolysis of the rotor, and distributor block, cause a high resistant circuit that will create a carbon tract and a misfire. all these problems will show high mag drops long before the mag will fail.

Listen to your engine, they talk, understand what they are saying.
 
I always do the (500 hr ) inspection every annual, regardless of hours on the Malibu and Mirage aircraft. The pressurized Slick mags will barely make 200 hrs without maintenance. The amount of water that enters through the pressure system really kills the mags particularly the 20 series Bendix/TCM mags on the TCM engines. I pulled a perfect running 6363 Slick mag off of a Mirage and found both coil wedges laying inside. You never know what you will find. I always pull the dual mag apart every year on my 172 too.

I would not feel right without internally inspecting the mags every year. At the MMOPA safety seminars I tell owners that their shop should just exchange the mags if they are unwilling to inspect them internally at the annual. It's a lot cheaper than trying to get 4 people back home on the airlines on Sun. getting it fixed then picking up the aircraft 800 miles from home.

Kevin
 
Have you ever seen a FBO or major repair station that wasn't looking for work or trying to cover their A--

I would guess that the average mag failure will be closer to engine TBO than 500 hours.

WE all can see the early failures and make a big deal over it, but the truth be known all the mags that go to engine TBO are never heard from, It's kinda like 2% of the Mags make 100% of the news.

I have 2 Bendix SL series on my bench now that have no record of being serviced (off the engine) in the last 3600 hours. Yeah, they are hurting
...none of which is a good reason not to do the recommended 500-hour inspection on Slick mags.
 
...none of which is a good reason not to do the recommended 500-hour inspection on Slick mags.

I believe most Slick mags inspected at 500 hours have parts replaced for no reason. Mags will give an indication of failure long before they actually quit.

I agree with Mike Bush in that many of these maintenance routines are unnecessary. and if it is working properly leave it alone.

IRAN as necessary, even with Slicks, simply because there are too many problems induced by human factor.
 
We do the 500-hour inspections on the 12 Slicks and one D3000 TCM we have in the fleet. We usually find that the points are gone by the 1000-hour mark, and with the hassles Slick has had in the last two years we sure wouldn't feel comfortable just leaving them alone. We just had a 60-hour Slick apart and it's coil tab was bent (SB2-08A) and the brush was shot. The hollow rotor shaft end had cut a big smile into the tab and would have sawn it off sooner or later. SB3-08A deals with the points cam that Slick started using; it was of a different composite and wore out really quick. A worn cam opens the points too late and too little, retarding the timing and costing a lot of power and burning the contacts, and if it gets bad enough the mag won't fire at all. Points gap is critical; it's related to E-gap and therefore the power of the spark. And you can't get an accurate E-gap setting on worn points using a feeler gauge. Got to use the right tools.

Bendix/TCM has had their troubles, too. They had issues with the flyweight rivets on the impulse coupling (would let go and drop metal bits into the engine gears and so on) and other problems. SBs, which are legally optional, that deal with such issues sometimes become ADs, which are legally mandatory, and by the time you get your mechanic to tackle the AD so you can keep flying, the parts are all gone and on backorder for who knows how long. If it's a commercial operation, doing the SBs is one way to get a leg up on the less-savvy competition. You'll be flying when he's grounded.

If the points have a significant mound on one contact, the condenser might be going. If they're nice and gray on both, the condenser is OK and not likely to make trouble anytime soon. It should have a capacitance of around .34 mf. The distributor rotor bearings sometimes wear, much of the time they don't, but they do get sludged up. The plastic gears wear out and can cause serious misfiring (spark to the wrong cylinder) if they wear enough to skip a few teeth. That's one reason why we have the OFF-R-L-BOTH switch in the cockpit: to shut off a wayward mag so it can't drag the engine down. In the Slick the bearings are usually the last thing to cause trouble; in the older Bendixes they weren't sealed too well and would get rusty. I once had one fall apart in my hands when I opened it. Too many years of neglect.

Dan
 
Mags will give an indication of failure long before they actually quit.
My two mag failures gave no prior warning of impending failure, so I'll keep doing the 500-hour checks per the Unison SB on the Slicks on my O-360-A.
 
Magnetos like any other moving parts need lubrication. Doing the recommended inspections also covers this.

How many A&P mechanics have the proper tools and test equipment to return to service any Mag?

when apart, would you suspect the average A&P would comply with these instructions or even have the subscriptions for the manuals?

http://www.unisonindustries.com/docs/L-1085BC.pdf

Remember the old Slick Throw away mag? are you advocating that we disassemble and lube it?

Most shops don't want the liability of working on the mag, they simply send it out for overhaul when in reality all it needed was a set of points.
 
My two mag failures gave no prior warning of impending failure, so I'll keep doing the 500-hour checks per the Unison SB on the Slicks on my O-360-A.

That's totally a personal decision, I'll do the trouble shooting and repair as necessary, when I have reason to do so.
 
How many A&P mechanics have the proper tools and test equipment to return to service any Mag?

when apart, would you suspect the average A&P would comply with these instructions or even have the subscriptions for the manuals?

http://www.unisonindustries.com/docs/L-1085BC.pdf

.

There are many shops around that do routine maintenance and overhaul of magnetos. It's a simple job for a rated A&P to remove the mags and take them to the shop to have an IRAN procedure done.

You seem to always contradict yourself. In a previous post you state the following:

Mags are not Voodoo magic the parts are available, and the work should be brick simple to any A&P.

It amazes me that a mechanic that holds an A&P along with an IA certificate advocates doing minimal maintenance and to run an critical engine component "to failure" in order to save money.

I would guess that the average mag failure will be closer to engine TBO than 500 hours.

Let's hope your "guessing" doesn't ever cost one of your customers his life.

WE all can see the early failures and make a big deal over it, but the truth be known all the mags that go to engine TBO are never heard from, It's kinda like 2% of the Mags make 100% of the news.

You have zero statistics to back that up.


I have 2 Bendix SL series on my bench now that have no record of being serviced (off the engine) in the last 3600 hours. Yeah, they are hurting

Just because someone didn't make a required log entry doesn't mean it wasn't done.

 
NTSB Identification: FTW99LA027 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Monday, November 16, 1998 in SAN ANGELO, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 9/28/1999
Aircraft: Mooney M20J, registration: N201QK
Injuries: 1 Minor.
The airplane was en route cruising at 9,500 feet msl approximately 12 miles east of its destination, when the pilot reported a loss of engine power. At 2,200 feet msl, the pilot reported that he would not make the runway. During the off airport landing, the airplane struck a tree, the right wing separated from the airframe, the airplane descended into the water, and came to rest inverted in water 7 feet deep. Examination of the wreckage revealed engine oil in the single drive dual magneto and one of the rear case bearing retaining plate screws was broken. The magneto was removed from the engine and disassembled. A metallurgist found that screw failure was a result of delayed fracture from hydrogen embrittlement and the 'hydrogen was most likely picked up during the cadmium plating for corrosion resistance at original manufacture of the screw.' The magneto had accumulated 775.58 hours since last overhaul in 1993. At the last annual inspection, November 1998, the magneto points and timing were checked. Time since that annual inspection was 3.27 hours. Service Bulletin (SB) 643 dated 02/08/94 recommended magnetos be 'overhauled or replaced at the expiration of four years without regard to the accumulated operating hours since new or last overhaul.' No evidence was found that the SB had been accomplished; however, under 14 CFR Part 91 operations, compliance with the SB is not required. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The total loss of engine power due to the magneto failure resulting from oil contamination when the bearing plate retainer screw fractured due to improper manufacturing. Factors were the lack of suitable terrain for the forced landing, and the dark night conditions.

NTSB Identification: NYC04LA192.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Saturday, August 14, 2004 in Rhinebeck, NY
Probable Cause Approval Date: 9/13/2005
Aircraft: Waco QCF, registration: N11478
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
During the initial climb after takeoff, the airplane experienced a partial loss of engine power, and the pilot elected to perform a forced landing to the grass at the runway overrun. During the landing, the airplane's lower left wing, propeller and left wing were damaged. The pilot reported that the airplane was fueled, and then flew normally for about 25 minutes earlier on the day of the accident. On scene examination of the engine, which included an inspection of intake, exhaust, and fuel system, did not reveal any pre-impact malfunctions. A subsequent teardown of the engine did not reveal any catastrophic failures; however, a mechanic reported that bench testing of the magnetos revealed that they both contained open secondary windings. During an interview, the mechanic further stated that the problem with the magnetos was not apparent until they were heated to a temperature of about 130 degrees. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
A partial loss of engine power due to a magneto failure.

NTSB Identification: ATL97LA009 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Friday, October 25, 1996 in AMELIA ISLAND, FL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 8/21/1997
Aircraft: Mooney M20K, registration: N32DG
Injuries: 2 Serious, 1 Minor, 1 Uninjured.
During the climb after takeoff, the engine began to run rough, then lost power. According to the pilot, he turned on the boost pump, and the engine quit. The pump was turned off, the engine surged, then quit again. During a forced landing, the airplane struck trees, then came to rest on a street. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed corrosion in the left magneto, which was indicative of moisture contamination of the magneto that may have resulted in a loss of power. Additionally, the engine driven fuel pump pressure was set high, which would have resulted in a rich mixture, when the boost pump was activated. The engine had been equipped with pressure type, Slick Electro Model 6224 magnetos. A service bulletin, applicable to another aircraft manufacturer, had been issued by the magneto manufacturer to inspect the pressurized magnetos each 100 hours for evidence of moisture contamination. The same information was contained in the magneto maintenance and overhaul manual. The airplane was maintained under an annual inspection program, with no intervening 100 hour inspections; 159 hours of flight time had been accumulated since the last annual inspection. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
inadequate maintenance/inspection, which resulted in a failure to detect and correct moisture contamination of the left magneto; and/or improper adjustment of the engine fuel pump output, which resulted in excessive fuel pressure.

NTSB Identification: ATL96LA128 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Thursday, September 19, 1996 in GEORGETOWN, SC
Probable Cause Approval Date: 7/28/1997
Aircraft: Piper PA-32-300, registration: N9VM
Injuries: 1 Minor.
While climbing through about 2,500 feet after takeoff, the engine lost power. The pilot was forced to land on unsuitable terrain, which resulted in a collision with a tree. After the accident, the engine's left magneto was found jammed due to a failed impulse coupling. The jammed magneto broke the idler gear and the crankshaft gear with which it meshed, precipitating a total loss of power. The impulse coupling was the subject of an airworthiness directive that required recurring inspections at each 500 hours of engine operation. Records showed that the last inspection of the magneto was in November 1988, 432 hours after the engine had been overhauled. The last annual inspection was in October 1995, with a tachometer time of 2,905 hours since overhaul. At the time of the accident, the engine had a total flight time of 3,109 hours recorded since overhaul. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
failure of maintenance personnel to comply with an airworthiness directive, requiring periodic magneto inspections; inadequate annual inspection of the airplane by (other) maintenance personnel; and subsequent failure of the impulse coupling in the left magneto, which resulted in a jammed magneto, failure of the idler and crankshaft gears, and subsequent loss of engine power. The lack of suitable terrain for a forced landing was a related factor.

NTSB Identification: CHI93DTG03 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Friday, August 20, 1993 in WASHBURN, ND
Probable Cause Approval Date: 8/17/1994
Aircraft: PIPER PA-25-235, registration: N4693Y
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
The pilot was maneuvering to make a spray run on an aerial application flight when the airplane lost all engine power. The pilot made a forced landing in the field, and struck two fence posts during landing roll. The engine examination revealed the impulse coupling flyweight in the left magneto had jammed and seized the magneto. The magneto drive gear and the camshaft gear were stripped. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
the loss of engine power due to a magneto failure.
 
All this failed magneto talk makes me wonder -- since there are two magnetos (since about 1935 or so), why would the failure of one cause all these NTSB -worthy accidents?

:dunno:
 
All this failed magneto talk makes me wonder -- since there are two magnetos (since about 1935 or so), why would the failure of one cause all these NTSB -worthy accidents?
First, not all magnetos are actually redundant -- see the Lyc O-320-H-series and others with the "2-in-1" magnetos in which even contained single-point failures can stop the engine's ignition. Second, as evidenced in several of R&W's cases, magnetos usually plug into the accessory gearbox, so magneto failures aren't always physically contained to the offending unit and can propagate to other systems or otherwise jam the gearbox killing the drive to the other mag, the fuel pump, the oil pump, and/or the vacuum pump.
 
First, not all magnetos are actually redundant -- see the Lyc O-320-H-series and others with the "2-in-1" magnetos in which even contained single-point failures can stop the engine's ignition. Second, as evidenced in several of R&W's cases, magnetos usually plug into the accessory gearbox, so magneto failures aren't always physically contained to the offending unit and can propagate to other systems or otherwise jam the gearbox killing the drive to the other mag, the fuel pump, the oil pump, and/or the vacuum pump.

That really defeats the redundancy concept, doesn't it....?
 
My mag failure last fall, did not show up at all in the runup mag check. ~75 RPM drop both mags. I even did several full power runups on the ground. The problem didn't occur until the mags were hot at altitude.

Like a lot of the GA aircraft systems, mags are redundantish. Knowing the failure modes and taking care of them is the way to go I think. After my mag failure, my buddy with a M20F had his dual-mag pulled and checked and the main bearing (bushing?) was worn (like oblong), so he went for the overhaul. I'm not sure that the dual-mag is really worse than the two mags most of us have. The two mags are still driven from the same gear or set of gears, so there are definitely possible common mode failures.

Given, Dan and Tom's discussions, I think we'll be doing more detailed checks on the mags every annual.
 
First, not all magnetos are actually redundant -- see the Lyc O-320-H-series and others with the "2-in-1" magnetos in which even contained single-point failures can stop the engine's ignition. Second, as evidenced in several of R&W's cases, magnetos usually plug into the accessory gearbox, so magneto failures aren't always physically contained to the offending unit and can propagate to other systems or otherwise jam the gearbox killing the drive to the other mag, the fuel pump, the oil pump, and/or the vacuum pump.

And the camshaft.

When I was a kid in High School 40 years ago my Power Mechanics instructor told us that 90% of engine troubles would be electrical, yet most mechanics will place first blame on the fuel system. In those 40 years since, working on cars and trucks and stationary stuff and boats and airplanes and so on, I have found this to be abundantly true. Magnetos especially are troublesome, which is why we have one carburetor and two magnetos, and it's one reason why car manufacturers stopped using mags a long, long time ago. My Dad's '59 Rambler had a Continental four-banger industrial engine in it, with a magneto that made a LOT of trouble. That mag was all alone on the road by that time. Nobody else had one on a car. Airplanes would be using auto-style ignition systems if they didn't have to rely on the airplane's electrical system, which, again, causes a large percentage of the problems we encounter. There are now devices to replace mags, fitting into the same drive spot, that generate their own power and drive an electronic ignition system. They're just not certified yet and homebuilders are way ahead, again.

Dan
 
That really defeats the redundancy concept, doesn't it....?
Well, it still provides electrical redundancy, and limited mechanical redundancy, but at the end of the day, you can only have so much redundancy with a single engine. The fact that these accidents are rare suggests that the system works to the extent the FAA requires for light Part 91 GA safety, but don't nobody think that there's no added risk in ignoring recommended mag maintenance on the grounds that "the second mag will get me home if the first one fails" because, sometimes, it doesn't. For those reasons, the 500-hour inspection seems to me to be cheap and cost-effective insurance.
 
Last edited:
Well, it still provides electrical redundancy, and limited mechanical redundancy, but at the end of the day, you can only have so much redundancy with a single engine. The fact that these accidents are rare suggests that the system works to the extent the FAA requires for light Part 91 GA safety, but don't nobody think that there's no added risk in ignoring recommended mag maintenance on the grounds that "the second mag will get me home if the first one fails" because, sometimes, it doesn't. For those reasons, the 500-hour inspection seems to me to be cheap and cost-effective insurance.

Well stated. :thumbsup:
 
Who from POA had a mag failure several years ago and made the glide to an airport was that Lance?
 
Back
Top