Peeling the Onion

Tom-D said:
And you assume the A&P wouldn't do that?
Click to expand...

I have never seen any independent shop or individual mechanic follow a system as robust as even the most modest Part 145 does. And if you say that you do, I’d say you’re disingenuous at best.
 
Having overhauled an IO-520 several years ago, here's one bit of advice I'd give that doesn't seem common. I'd get it overhauled as close to home as you can find someone to trust. Then you can go look at it occasionally and, more importantly, make them look at you.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I have never seen any independent shop or individual mechanic follow a system as robust as even the most modest Part 145 does. .
Click to expand...
And when you go that way, you pay for a lot you usually don't need, and you loose control of the parts buying, Plus you will not get your good parts back, you normally just get an engine off the shelf.

Plus the fact that you most likely don't realize, they send their machine work out to the same machine shops as all the others rebuilders do. They buy the same parts from the same manufacturers that any other shops do
 
Tom-D said:
shouting the same ol BS as you usually do.
demonstrating you don't know squat about why the thread is used and why it isn't.
Click to expand...

No shouting here. Don't need to when you follow the manual. o_O
 
Tom-D said:
There ya go folks, The cop out, doesn't know the reason, So
Click to expand...

No cop out, just a differing opinion about how an overhaul can be done. The OP wanted some feedback. Some overhaulers do the bare minimum, some do more. Some follow manuals and service bulletins, some do not.

For the OP, these are things to ask before you start, so you can make an educated decision that you can live with.
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
Is there a reason to not follow the manufacturer's guidance?
Click to expand...
Yes, the manufacturer must apply their manuals to the worst overhauler in the industry.
they must cover all circumstances that could occur.
TCM engines have been overhauled in the field for many many years (1930-20++
TCM knows there are those that will not have their cases reworked And TCM knows that those cases may not seal up as they should.
in todays world of lapping and line boring cases provides us with cases that have perfect bearing clearances and perfectly fitting cases that do not require the silk thread to make up for deviances in the case.
very light application of any of the approved sealing compounds insure that there will be no seepage and that is all we need.
 
Tom-D said:
Yes, the manufacturer must apply their manuals to the worst overhauler in the industry.
they must cover all circumstances that could occur.
TCM engines have been overhauled in the field for many many years (1930-20++
TCM knows there are those that will not have their cases reworked And TCM knows that those cases may not seal up as they should.
in todays world of lapping and line boring cases provides us with cases that have perfect bearing clearances and perfectly fitting cases that do not require the silk thread to make up for deviances in the case.
very light application of any of the approved sealing compounds insure that there will be no seepage and that is all we need.
Click to expand...
First they haven’t been “TCM” in close to a decade, now.

Second, CM allows for the sealant as described above. Reference in the other thread on this subject.

So why not follow the manufacturer guidance? You didn’t answer that question.
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
One of the participants likes to "post beyond their knowledge". For example, claims ammonia to be an acid and claims water isn't a solvent.
Click to expand...
And you like to argue about it, bring up old issues to de-rail the thread.
 
Tom-D said:
And you like to argue about it, bring up old issues to de-rail the thread.
Click to expand...
I merely answered a question. I didn't say who.
To bring it back on track, why not follow the manufacturer's guidance? CM allows the use of a silk thread or a thin layer of the appropriate sealant (stated in their instructions).
 
Cap'n Jack said:
To bring it back on track, why not follow the manufacturer's guidance? CM allows the use of a silk thread or a thin layer of the appropriate sealant (stated in their instructions).
Click to expand...
Already answered that.
 
Just curious. Is all this angst toward Tom an effort to kill a sale for him? I have yet to see anything that indicates
that his work is inadequate. If you have some evidence of that put it forth or kindly go to another thread with the Tom attacks.

I started a thread seeking information and advice regarding the ills of my O-200A. Tom has put forth useful information as have a few others. I am not understanding how the angst toward Tom is productive in helping come up with a solution to my run out engine problem.

Thanks
 
MBDiagMan said:
Just curious. Is all this angst toward Tom an effort to kill a sale for him? I have yet to see anything that indicates
that his work is inadequate. If you have some evidence of that put it forth or kindly go to another thread with the Tom attacks.

I started a thread seeking information and advice regarding the ills of my O-200A. Tom has put forth useful information as have a few others. I am not understanding how the angst toward Tom is productive in helping come up with a solution to my run out engine problem.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Lotta folks in this thread haven’t assembled one. I’ve assembled 3. If you look up N7281X you might find the last one I did, the damn plane was totaled when another airplane was towed into it. Probably under 500 hours on that engine with 4 brand new cylinders. Just happens it was an O200. This ain’t rocket science.

Now the fun, I took that thing apart about 100 hours after test flight cause it looked like there was too much metal in the filter for my inexperienced eye and I looked at every damn thing possible and there wasn’t a thing wrong. Threw it back together with all the original parts, ran great and obviously outlived the airplane. Who knows where it is now
 
To the original poster.

Take advice on the net with a grain of salt. Do your own research and ask lots of questions. Such as, what service bulletins are incorporated during the overhaul process? Are the manufactuers' manuals followed and referenced? What kind of warranty will I get? What is all included in the overhaul price? Do you have references that I can contact?

I know I would be asking these. But, it isn"t my $$ either. :)
 
Tom-D said:
...very light application of any of the approved sealing compounds insure that there will be no seepage and that is all we need.
Click to expand...


Cap'n Jack said:
I merely answered a question. I didn't say who.
To bring it back on track, why not follow the manufacturer's guidance? CM allows the use of a silk thread or a thin layer of the appropriate sealant (stated in their instructions).
Click to expand...

Cap'n Jack said:
Where?
Click to expand...


Looks like Tom answered the question well before the above quoted posts.

:rolleyes:
 
JAWS said:
Some overhaulers do the bare minimum, some do more.
Click to expand...
That statement alone shows us you do not have the basic understanding of FAR 43.2
 
Tom-D said:
That statement alone shows us you do not have the basic understanding of FAR 43.2
Click to expand...

Please do educate us all. Start another thread about it. :)
 
Okay, the engine is in and now test flown. Runs great and everything looks good after the test flight. I am buried in other things to do for the next two weeks then it will be time to log some hours.

It’s great to have a new heart in this ol’ Family friend! It pulls strong down the runway and feels and sounds healthy.

Thanks Tom!
 
Last edited:
I don’t follow. I bought the engine outright for a reasonable price which included installation and now have some good cores to sell to offset some of the cost.

It has all worked out very well. His process is assembling an engine from quality parts including new cylinders and quality testing and machine work on the reused yellow tag pieces. His experience with this particular engine family and adherence to proper FAR procedures makes for a quality result.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Okay, the engine is in and now test flown. Runs great and everything looks good after the test flight. I am buried in other things to do for the next two weeks then it will be time to log some hours.

It’s great to have a new heart in this ol’ Family friend! It pulls strong down the runway and feels and sounds healthy.

Thanks Tom!
Click to expand...
enjoy ! we had a great time in Texas. Thanks for the business. :)
 
JAWS said:
To the original poster.

Take advice on the net with a grain of salt. Do your own research and ask lots of questions. Such as, what service bulletins are incorporated during the overhaul process? Are the manufactuers' manuals followed and referenced?
Click to expand...

You apparently don't understand that When you have parts re-worked by a good CRS, the part will comply with all that.

Any engine I have in service, I'll buy back at the original price plus removal hours and shipping, for the first 250 hours, after that it's prorated to TBO.
Match that with any engine builder.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Okay, the engine is in and now test flown. Runs great and everything looks good after the test flight. I am buried in other things to do for the next two weeks then it will be time to log some hours.

It’s great to have a new heart in this ol’ Family friend! It pulls strong down the runway and feels and sounds healthy.

Thanks Tom!
Click to expand...
Well, if you are happy with it, that's great.
 
Tom-D said:
And you like to argue about it, bring up old issues to de-rail the thread.
Click to expand...
Nothing to argue about. It's a fact that ammonia is basic. Water certainly dissolves salt, sugar, etc, and so is indeed a solvent.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Nothing to argue about. It's a fact that ammonia is basic. Water certainly dissolves salt, sugar, etc, and so is indeed a solvent.
Click to expand...

You know ... this is going to be a waste of time, but I really wish you'd let that one drop. Having never met Tom, I could still tell you who he reminds me of, but see above re: waste of time. I'll just say that I've known many people in my life who'd say things that weren't technically correct, but who were outstanding at what they did. In fact, I once managed a shop for a large corporation, and one of my technicians was a lot worse than that. He couldn't pass a test to save his life, either. But on the subject of "trusting him" to do the work, I'd have traded any two of my other technicians for another one of him. He was that good. SCARY good.

Is water a solvent? Chemically, scientifically, technically, yes. But I knew what Tom meant. (As I recall, the thread was about corrosion.)

Next time you go to restaurant, ask the kitchen how a microwave works. If they say, "it cooks from the inside out," by your standard, why, horrors! Go find a different restaurant. (Microwaves heat certain molecules -- notably, oil and water -- much more quickly than others, which is why your sandwich may have lukewarm bread, but a slice of ma'loanley inside that burns your tongue off. Has nothing to do with "cooking from the inside out," and yet, many otherwise bright people say that all that time.

The key is whether I can understand what someone is telling me. That's all that matters, and to be honest, I've found Tom's advice here to be quite useful as I learn about this stuff.

As for his personality .. .. . well, I'm 63 years old, broadcast engineer for decades, have won awards, have written peer-reviewed publications, have several industry certifications ... but never finished college. I didn't have to. It was a waste of time. (Even back then, things were getting far more political than educational, so I quit, went to work, and never looked back.) I know what I know. From time to time, in one of the Broadcast Engineering groups on Facebook, some youngster will come in and tell me I'm wrong.

The first thing I usually do is to laugh and shake my head. If I thought they had the qualifications to question me in my area of expertise, I might be concerned.

I suspect that Tom feels the same way. I'd be honored to have Tom-D work on anything that I ever own, once I finally get the money straight so that I can start flying.
 
Stephen Poole said:
You know ... this is going to be a waste of time, but I really wish you'd let that one drop. Having never met Tom, I could still tell you who he reminds me of, but see above re: waste of time. I'll just say that I've known many people in my life who'd say things that weren't technically correct, but who were outstanding at what they did. In fact, I once managed a shop for a large corporation, and one of my technicians was a lot worse than that. He couldn't pass a test to save his life, either. But on the subject of "trusting him" to do the work, I'd have traded any two of my other technicians for another one of him. He was that good. SCARY good.

Is water a solvent? Chemically, scientifically, technically, yes. But I knew what Tom meant. (As I recall, the thread was about corrosion.)

Next time you go to restaurant, ask the kitchen how a microwave works. If they say, "it cooks from the inside out," by your standard, why, horrors! Go find a different restaurant. (Microwaves heat certain molecules -- notably, oil and water -- much more quickly than others, which is why your sandwich may have lukewarm bread, but a slice of ma'loanley inside that burns your tongue off. Has nothing to do with "cooking from the inside out," and yet, many otherwise bright people say that all that time.

The key is whether I can understand what someone is telling me. That's all that matters, and to be honest, I've found Tom's advice here to be quite useful as I learn about this stuff.

As for his personality .. .. . well, I'm 63 years old, broadcast engineer for decades, have won awards, have written peer-reviewed publications, have several industry certifications ... but never finished college. I didn't have to. It was a waste of time. (Even back then, things were getting far more political than educational, so I quit, went to work, and never looked back.) I know what I know. From time to time, in one of the Broadcast Engineering groups on Facebook, some youngster will come in and tell me I'm wrong.

The first thing I usually do is to laugh and shake my head. If I thought they had the qualifications to question me in my area of expertise, I might be concerned.

I suspect that Tom feels the same way. I'd be honored to have Tom-D work on anything that I ever own, once I finally get the money straight so that I can start flying.
Click to expand...
And when he posts beyond his knowledge, you really don't know what he may be pulling out of his butt. It's like the fake news- they post some stuff that is truthful, and some BS. None of us have the time to separate the BS from the truth, so we stop using those media. Some of the other A&P's here have questioned his conclusions as well. Like his conclusions that an new or rebuilt engine is rebuilt by the time you get to pattern altitude, and the implication that one doesn't need to follow break-in procedures. I'll take an A&P's word- when several question another, one starts to wonder about the single one. This isn't some sort of theoretical science with multiple possible theories, it's instructions from the manufacturer.

MBDiagMan said:
Wow Stephen. Are you SURE that you’ve never met Tom?
Click to expand...
I hope you don't end up with this situation: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations...ev_id=20150928X72825&ntsbno=WPR15FA268&akey=1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top