Run out engine?

nddons

nddons

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
13,304
Location
Waukesha County, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Stan
I'm looking at an ad for a 1975 Bonanza A36 with an IO-520-BB-10B engine. (Not sure what all of that means yet.). I think TBO is 1700 hours. The ad shows 1700 hours since factory reman, 400 hours since top overhaul.

For purposes of assigning value to the aircraft, would you price this as a run-out engine?

Does the 400 hours STOH mean anything to me as a potential buyer?

This is kind of new to me.
 
Yes for the first question no to the second.time since a top overhaul doesn't mean much,would have to check logs to see what was done on the top.
 
I'd suggest asking Mike Busch at Savvy Aviators if you'd like a professional opinion from someone who manages more than a hundred piston singles. He has enlightened thoughts on engine life and TBO.

https://www.savvymx.com/index.php/webinar

He has a 310 and over 3000 hours on the engines. Last I heard only 3 or 4 of 12 cylinders have been replaced.

My engine has 2300 hours on the bottom and is running fine, evidenced by excellent oil pressure and oil analysis every 25 hours. The top done to mine gave it hundreds more hours....but due to bad cylinder coating is not going to last much longer.

A lot of folks believe in the old theories of piston engine TBO etc. That has kept A&Ps in business for years hence the negativity you'll hear regarding the modern theory used by the military and airlines for years. Yes, and before turbines too....

If the seller is still stuck in that old mud you're in luck - obviously the engine is shot...:yikes:
 
Last edited:
It needs expensive engine work. Current owner wants out for this reason could be a place to start.
 
Stan,

Since Poplar Grove is so close to you in relative terms, give them a call. They are most helpful. Too bad we didn't live closer. I am looking to put together a Beech partnership.

Arthur
 
400 STOH means that it's a Continental.

Yes, the engine is run out. I'll leave it up to you and your mechanic to decide if it's still safe to fly. In terms of money for longevity, this engine doesn't owe anyone anything.
 
asgcpa said:
Stan,

Since Poplar Grove is so close to you in relative terms, give them a call. They are most helpful. Too bad we didn't live closer. I am looking to put together a Beech partnership.

Arthur
Click to expand...

I would love to do that as well. Would you do that at PWK?
 
bartmc said:
400 STOH means that it's a Continental.

Yes, the engine is run out. I'll leave it up to you and your mechanic to decide if it's still safe to fly. In terms of money for longevity, this engine doesn't owe anyone anything.
Click to expand...

That's kind of what I was thinking. Actually, I'm probably 18-24 months out from doing anything, but I'm trying to learn as much as I can.
 
flyingriki said:
I'd suggest asking Mike Busch at Savvy Aviators if you'd like a professional opinion from someone who manages more than a hundred piston singles. He has enlightened thoughts on engine life and TBO.

https://www.savvymx.com/index.php/webinar

He has a 310 and over 3000 hours on the engines. Last I heard only 3 or 4 of 12 cylinders have been replaced.

My engine has 2300 hours on the bottom and is running fine, evidenced by excellent oil pressure and oil analysis every 25 hours. The top done to mine gave it hundreds more hours....but due to bad cylinder coating is not going to last much longer.

A lot of folks believe in the old theories of piston engine TBO etc. That has kept A&Ps in business for years hence the negativity you'll hear regarding the modern theory used by the military and airlines for years. Yes, and before turbines too....

If the seller is still stuck in that old mud you're in luck - obviously the engine is shot...:yikes:
Click to expand...

Even though I've never owned a plane, I like Busch's articles in Sport Aviation. I could see the value of having an advocate for Mx issues, especially for a first plane.
 
Depends on how it was flown ,by whom, oil changed regularly flown regularly. Some engines fly over TBO, many don't make it anywhere near TBO. It's a crap shoot and if the buyer loses, it's big dough. I'd pass.
 
nddons said:
For purposes of assigning value to the aircraft, would you price this as a run-out engine?
Click to expand...

Has the seller already priced it as a run out?
What's the aircraft worth with a new engine ?
 
I did a lot of research on this as the first plane I wanted was 400 hours past TBO, but had a bottom job right at TBO but they didn't zero time it (prop strike on an airport sign and insurance repair) I took the approach of adding the asking price of the plane...plus a new engine...where would I be?...well for me, I got a good deal and taking into account the condition and avionics with even having to drop a new engine in...I wasn't finding a plane for that total budget that had everything this 182 had.

My A&P looked at the logs starting the pre buy...and he said to plan on a new engine sooner than later. We then put it through a FULL annual and at the conclusion, he said scratch that...the engine is in great shape and go beat the hell out of this engine as a new pilot for a few hundred hours rather than destroying a new engine as a new pilot.

200 hours later it is going strong, religious oil change and oil analysis every 50 hours and I know not to put any major money into this engine. I fully expect a new engine soon, but not gonna do it till I have to...then I will have a great equipped plane with a new engine and still ahead of the game financially!

Moral of the story, don't be afraid of a run out engine but make sure you can stomach putting one in if it takes a crap on you sooner than later!
 
Let's put it this way -- I'd need a lot of engine analysis to confirm the good condition of everything top to bottom/front to back to convince me not to price it as run out.
 
It is run out and should be priced as such! The reality is you may get 1 hour or 500+ hours out of it until it needs overhaul! all these additional hours are free if you buy it as a run out. :D
That being said, there is no guarantee that a 300 hour engine won't start making metal next week.:mad2:
 
N747JB said:
It is run out and should be priced as such! The reality is you may get 1 hour or 500+ hours out of it until it needs overhaul! all these additional hours are free if you buy it as a run out. :D
That being said, there is no guarantee that a 300 hour engine won't start making metal next week.:mad2:
Click to expand...

Those are my thoughts as well. Hours on the old engine are free only if I didn't value the plane as a run-out.
 
If you can get the plane at a good price, run the current engine to the end and then upgrade to a IO550. That upgrade typically requires:

- some additional expense to either convert the engine or do a trade-up with a shop that offers overhaul exchanges
- some expense for the STC on the engine change
- a prop that is approved for the IO550, the plane may already have one if it was changed sometime along the way.

Now if you want to go crazy after that, you can start to add tip-tanks and a TAT turbonormalizer system :D.

Come over to beechtalk.com and peruse the 'A36, A36TC, B36 model changes' thread that is stickied at the top. There have been many changes over the years, some of them desireable (integrated shoulder belts in second row seats, reversible middle row, useable baggage compartment, upgrade to IO550), some of them undesirable (increasing empty weights). The earlier models tend to have good useful loads and are fast. Later models have more desireable autopilots and a standard instrument panel layout rather than the fold-over or T-bar yoke. Depending on what you want to do with the A36, some configurations are more desireable than others. If you frequently fly with a non-pilot in the right seat, you want to have the fold-flat pedals and throw-over yoke. That way your pax has a lot more room, you have a better view of the instruments on and switches on the right panel and there is no risk of a pax stepping on the rudder during a bad time. If you plan on doing instruction in the plane with anyone but an experienced pilot, having right-sided brakes and the T-bar yoke is desireable (the throw-over can be changed for a T-bar in maybe an hour of A&P time if all the wiring works. The right-sided brakes are a big investment to retrofit and they take away the fold-flat feature to some extent, there are limitations on who can give flight instruction in a Bo with throwover yoke).

Either way, it's a terrific plane. Like any plane, it has it's compromises, but on balance there are few aircraft that can compete.
 
Last edited:
As for whether it should be a runout ? The thing that usually fails on them are the cylinders, if they are good, you may well get another 500hrs out of the whole thing. Or not.

If I was the buyer I would call it a runout.

If I was the seller I would sing you some song about how Mike Bush says this and your mechanic says 'it is a strong engine' and be insulted by your allegation that it is anything but perfect ;)
 
This thread begs the question, Would you rather buy an aircraft with a first run factory new engine that is near TBO or a unknown overhauled used low/mid time engine?
 
Tom-D said:
This thread begs the question, Would you rather buy an aircraft with a first run factory new engine that is near TBO or a unknown overhauled used low/mid time engine?
Click to expand...

At what price ?
 
Tom-D said:
is it always about money?
Click to expand...

Mh, yeah if both of them go into a wood crate that says Continental on it after I am done with them money is the only thing that matters.

If the plan was to have it overhauled, I would probably prefer the first-run, assuming of course that the key pieces are reusable (heavy case, var-crank). On the field overhauled unit it would be helpful to have the work-orders and reports from the overhaul so I could send a copy to you and ask for your opinion ;-) .
 
weilke said:
If you can get the plane at a good price, run the current engine to the end and then upgrade to a IO550. That upgrade typically requires:

- some additional expense to either convert the engine or do a trade-up with a shop that offers overhaul exchanges
- some expense for the STC on the engine change
- a prop that is approved for the IO550, the plane may already have one if it was changed sometime along the way.

Now if you want to go crazy after that, you can start to add tip-tanks and a TAT turbonormalizer system :D.

Come over to beechtalk.com and peruse the 'A36, A36TC, B36 model changes' thread that is stickied at the top. There have been many changes over the years, some of them desireable (integrated shoulder belts in second row seats, reversible middle row, useable baggage compartment, upgrade to IO550), some of them undesirable (increasing empty weights). The earlier models tend to have good useful loads and are fast. Later models have more desireable autopilots and a standard instrument panel layout rather than the fold-over or T-bar yoke. Depending on what you want to do with the A36, some configurations are more desireable than others. If you frequently fly with a non-pilot in the right seat, you want to have the fold-flat pedals and throw-over yoke. That way your pax has a lot more room, you have a better view of the instruments on and switches on the right panel and there is no risk of a pax stepping on the rudder during a bad time. If you plan on doing instruction in the plane with anyone but an experienced pilot, having right-sided brakes and the T-bar yoke is desireable (the throw-over can be changed for a T-bar in maybe an hour of A&P time if all the wiring works. The right-sided brakes are a big investment to retrofit and they take away the fold-flat feature to some extent, there are limitations on who can give flight instruction in a Bo with throwover yoke).

Either way, it's a terrific plane. Like any plane, it has it's compromises, but on balance there are few aircraft that can compete.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. I joined beechtalk on Jan. 20, so I'm doing a lot of reading.

The A36 is a little overkill for my mission, but I'm just trying to fully understand the breed. I saw the -36 model change sticky. Do they have one for the -33 and -35?
 
nddons said:
The A36 is a little overkill for my mission, but I'm just trying to fully understand the breed.
Click to expand...

What is your mission ? If it involves less than 4 people, we can allways throw some bicycles in the back to make a A36 a requirement :D .
 
nddons said:
Probably 450 in the front, 150 in the back, and baggage.
Click to expand...

I hope that's two people up front ;-) you may have to throw some luggage all the way in the back and have the back pax in row 3 during takeoff and landing so you dont get nose-heavy. The nice thing is that you can reconfigure the seats at will. Opinions are split whether you need separate W&B sheets for each configuration or whether the fact that the weights and arms are published in the POH are sufficient but you can leave the left seats in for the rear pax to stretch out, strap a cooler behind the copilot and tie the luggage on the floor in the back right. Travel in comfort.
 
weilke said:
I hope that's two people up front ;-) you may have to throw some luggage all the way in the back and have the back pax in row 3 during takeoff and landing so you dont get nose-heavy. The nice thing is that you can reconfigure the seats at will. Opinions are split whether you need separate W&B sheets for each configuration or whether the fact that the weights and arms are published in the POH are sufficient but you can leave the left seats in for the rear pax to stretch out, strap a cooler behind the copilot and tie the luggage on the floor in the back right. Travel in comfort.
Click to expand...

Affirmative. ;). I'm 6'2" 270. I'm hoping a Bonanza is comfortable for me. I need to get a ride some day.

Are there any front row size differences between the -33, -35, and -36? I'm familiar with the aft changes, and that they moved the cockpit forward on the wing for the A36, but what about overall dimensions of the cockpit area?
 
If your 270, 6-2 you need to go to a good cardio. Doctor and have him explain that you should weigh a lot less and what the risks are. Aircraft won't matter if you fail the physical.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
If your 270, 6-2 you need to go to a good cardio. Doctor and have him explain that you should weigh a lot less and what the risks are. Aircraft won't matter if you fail the physical.
Click to expand...

And another good discussion goes off topic and snarky - good show! :nono:
 
I was told this so am alerting others. I am Same height. I weighed about 230. Now at 185. Doctor said either lose the weight or don't come back. Glad I listened. Might help someone else. It also helped my light sport flying . The airplane responded a lot better. ( doctor head of cardio dept.)
 
nddons said:
Affirmative. ;). I'm 6'2" 270. I'm hoping a Bonanza is comfortable for me. I need to get a ride some day.
Click to expand...

It'll be snug, laterally. The cockpit isn't terribly wide, the CFI who checked me out is rather stout, not much room up front between the two of us. The other issue is headroom, I am 6'3" and 200lbs, I found that a Clarity Aloft headset keeps me from bumping my head into the headliner.

I am usually alone up front, sometimes one of my kids plays copilot. The A36 is a great plane for 1 pilot and 3 passengers. You can load them in through the barn-doors, make sure everyone has their headset plugged in, close the passenger door, get in the front and start up. Works a lot better than the setup with only one door where your last passenger has to wait on the ramp until you have gotten on board. Some people prefer to put the middle seat forward and use all the space in the back for luggage, then you are back to loading pax through one (small) door but everyone is facing forward. One other option of course is only to put one middle seat in and have the single second row pax get on board through the passenger door.

Are there any front row size differences between the -33, -35, and -36? I'm familiar with the aft changes, and that they moved the cockpit forward on the wing for the A36, but what about overall dimensions of the cockpit area?
Click to expand...

I believe the cockpit is the same between the later model V-tails/F33 and the A36. Early V-tails had a bench-seat mounted on the spar and there was markedly less room.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top