Super high time engine

1600vw said:
Lead in fuel does nothing but lubricate the valves. Period. No More, its there for the valve train.
Click to expand...
Actually it's exactly the opposite. Lead in the fuel modifies the flame propogation speed. That's all it does that is beneficial. Everything else about lead is detrimental to the engine. In the case of valve train it doesn't lubricate anything, on the contrary it causes deposites that lead to valve problems.
 
JHW said:
Actually it's exactly the opposite. Lead in the fuel modifies the flame propogation speed. That's all it does that is beneficial. Everything else about lead is detrimental to the engine. In the case of valve train it doesn't lubricate anything, on the contrary it causes deposites that lead to valve problems.
Click to expand...

You people do not know what you are talking about. The engines of old, meaning all the way up to the late 70's used soft valves and seats.

Without lead you burned those valves. Do not tell me I am wrong. I know my engines, I built way to many and had to change way to many valve and seats in older engines becuase of lack of lead to lubricate and cool the valve train.

First thing you learn in college back in the day was all about lead in fuel and why we where seeing the problems we were seeing once it was removed.

Let me ask how many were building engines in the 60's and 70's. and where did you get your degree?

Lead was put in fuel for the valve train...PERIOD..
 
Lets talk fuel...Do any of you really know fuel?

Why do we see different Octane numbers on fueld pumps? Why do we need higher Octane.

Lets see how many google this question and copy and past.

How about a thermostat. whats it used for and what happens if you remove it?
 
Why do we use a higher Octane fuel?

My car says in the manual to use 87 octane.

My Dragster uses 110 octane

Why must we use different octanes?
 
If nothing else you are an expert at being condescending.

Sent via teletype
 
Did you get to Keep the Comanche?

1600vw said:
Tony, when I found my hangar and opened the door there sat a 172 and a Comanche. They both have been setting for about 25 years.

Today the 172 is flying again, the comanche just sets. I believe the owner received a DUI years ago and lost his PPL.

Back to the thread.

You have blow by on a new engine, its just not alot. Well at first untill the rings seat you have more blow by but even after the rings seat those rings do not keep 100% of the combustion in the cylinders, no way they can. If they could we would not need a PCV system.
Your PCV, Postive Crankcase ventilation system keeps your rings seated and the gas fumes out of the block. On older cars we called them draft tubes. Next time you see a tractor pull event watch under those engines. That steam you see coming from thos two tubes is the old Draft system. they do not use a PCV Valve on those engines like we do not use them on airplane engines. We use a catch can like the draft systems. They started using catch cans to keep the oil off the road.
A PCV system does a better job a sealing the rings from the draft system. They both do a good job of scavaging the fumes from the block so you do not have a bomb that will go bang or blow up.

Tony

Lead in fuel does nothing but lubricate the valves. Period. No More, its there for the valve train.
Click to expand...
 
1600vw said:
Lets talk fuel...Do any of you really know fuel?

Why do we see different Octane numbers on fueld pumps? Why do we need higher Octane.

Lets see how many google this question and copy and past.

How about a thermostat. whats it used for and what happens if you remove it?
Click to expand...
Maybe you should start a new thread for that?
 
1600vw said:
Lead was put in fuel for the valve train...PERIOD..
Click to expand...
sorry, still just as wromg no matter how many times you say it.

lead was and is for combustion modification. In the ancient past there were some secondary effects that let people use poor quality valve seats but those days are long gone.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
His only response was "well, now we know."
Click to expand...

I know I'm deviating a little...but this is what bothers me about this story.

I understand that you were flying an engine that gave every appearance of being fine and it was in fact fine. But you didn't KNOW that. And you seemed to be fine with that. What if something had been wrong?

If there had been a problem...and if someone had been hurt....do you think there is any jury in the world that would not have found you completely negligent in maintaining the airplane, even with all pilots on the jury? It would have been an open and shut case.
 
bflynn said:
I know I'm deviating a little...but this is what bothers me about this story.

I understand that you were flying an engine that gave every appearance of being fine and it was in fact fine. But you didn't KNOW that. And you seemed to be fine with that. What if something had been wrong?

If there had been a problem...and if someone had been hurt....do you think there is any jury in the world that would not have found you completely negligent in maintaining the airplane, even with all pilots on the jury? It would have been an open and shut case.
Click to expand...

If there had been a problem and someone sued, he would've been SOL anyway.
 
Tony and I were at OJC one day and saw my old 250 N6424P on the ramp, still wearing the same paint job that I ferried back from the pain shop in 1974.

Steve Foley said:
Looks like your plane was closely related to mine: 6480R
Click to expand...
 
1600vw said:
Lets talk fuel...Do any of you really know fuel?

Why do we see different Octane numbers on fueld pumps? Why do we need higher Octane.

Lets see how many google this question and copy and past.

How about a thermostat. whats it used for and what happens if you remove it?
Click to expand...

1600vw said:
Why do we use a higher Octane fuel?

My car says in the manual to use 87 octane.

My Dragster uses 110 octane

Why must we use different octanes?
Click to expand...
If you think that you've found a place where you can impress others with condescending questions about elementary knowledge than you've found the wrong forum. You might have more success at:
http://www.flightsim.com/
http://www.flightsimworld.com/forums/
http://forum.simflight.com/
 
The main plane I flew in training and have been renting since is now at approximately 3,900 SMOH.

The examiner back in October almost didn't want to fly in it, but didn't make it a major issue of it only to not further extenuate circumstances for my checkride progress.

I can tell you the motor runs well, though. In some ways I feel I should be worried, but I mostly am not. What does main bearing or rod or crank fatigue failure life look like?

C172M
 
bflynn said:
I know I'm deviating a little...but this is what bothers me about this story.

I understand that you were flying an engine that gave every appearance of being fine and it was in fact fine. But you didn't KNOW that. And you seemed to be fine with that. What if something had been wrong?

If there had been a problem...and if someone had been hurt....do you think there is any jury in the world that would not have found you completely negligent in maintaining the airplane, even with all pilots on the jury? It would have been an open and shut case.
Click to expand...

Brian I never let insurance myths or fears make decisions for me. I make the best judgement I can for the safety of my self and my family. If it is good enough for me, it is good enough for anyone I allow to fly it. First off nearly 75% of all accidents are from pilot related issues not hardware failure. Of the rest of the 25% reasons for accidents engine failure is a small %.

Here are some additional facts:

I took oil analysis every 100 hrs with every oil change and could see the trends with no stand outs.
Of course you check the screen and filter.
Of course there were no leaks, temp problems, oil pressure problems.
Boroscope shows the insides of the cylinders.
When I replaced a cylinder(s) we did as thorough of inspection on the bottom as possible.
Aviation maintenance studies indicate that the failure rates for my engine were better from 1500-3500 hrs than they are the first 200 hrs of a new engine.
Information from Savvy aviators course advocate and support my actions.
All of the A&P IA at my A&P training also advocate same. (i was getting my Powerplant certificate so that I could build my engine when that time came).

So no its science not voodoo.

Also take a step back and read the Nall reports. If your first goal is safety there are plenty of ways that you can be a safer pilot than over spending on unnecissary maintenance:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/00nall.pdf

One of the least possible ways to die in aviation is due to catastrophic engine failure...far better chance with flight into terrain, fuel failure from running out of gas, Night IMC, lack of proficiency for the type of flying you do. Flying less than 20 hrs a year and then taking off into IMC. I think engine quitting is way on the bottom of the list of probabilities.

So If I had any hesitation about an engine over 2000 hrs tbo, I would just always land with at least 1 1/5 hours of fuel ruling out running out of gas. Staying proficient. Not taking chances with weather. Not delaying maintenance that was required. Regular flying with other CFI's or experienced pilots and learning from each of them. Staying current with safety issues and materials. Regularly IRAN mags, starter, alternator.

Life is a trade off. Over all I think my flying has been as safe as someone buying a new Warrior who maybe doesn't pay as much attention to all the ways to die in the nall report.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
If there had been a problem and someone sued, he would've been SOL anyway.
Click to expand...

It takes the same faith to get up in a new engine as it does to get up in a plane that you know and have flown 500 hrs or more. I guess it also gives some comfort that I live in Kansas where there are 360 degrees of open fields to glide to and while the crops might damage the prop and paint they will do little to hurt the passengers. With a little more care there is a dirt runway every mile if you can avoid the power lines, no matter what direction you are flying.
 
While I have heard of the benefits of MMO, I erred on the side of aviation caution and decided to use Camguard about 4 years ago after reading countless users who had great success with this additive.

Sadly, I'll find out if firsthand if this additive has added benefit when in January, my engine shop tears down my perfectly running engine to replace a perfectly good crank all due to Lycoming's idiotic SB-569A.
 
If it's a Malibu crank at FL250, it looks like the prop blade sticking straight up has suddenly become stationary. The accompanying sound is a distinctive hiss as the cabin pressure falls to ambient.

jFlight said:
The main plane I flew in training and have been renting since is now at approximately 3,900 SMOH.

The examiner back in October almost didn't want to fly in it, but didn't make it a major issue of it only to not further extenuate circumstances for my checkride progress.

I can tell you the motor runs well, though. In some ways I feel I should be worried, but I mostly am not. What does main bearing or rod or crank fatigue failure life look like?

C172M
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Tony and I were at OJC one day and saw my old 250 N6424P on the ramp, still wearing the same paint job that I ferried back from the pain shop in 1974.
Click to expand...

I remember that flight not so many moons ago. Ivan never did buy a plane. I think he is still using that club he told you about.
 
He's a nice guy, and that club is probably his best option. His usage wasn't sufficient to justify buying one.



Tony_Scarpelli said:
I remember that flight not so many moons ago. Ivan never did buy a plane. I think he is still using that club he told you about.
Click to expand...
 
i know of a Cessna 150 pipe line inspection plane with 4817 hrs on a Continental O-200A
he runs 5 hrs every day at 500 Ft AGL at 65 % i i know the pilot never runs full power not even on take off, he used to do the same on no full power take off on his AG planes, must work hes a great pilot and hes planes are all wayyyyyy pass TBO.
 
skyflea said:
i know of a Cessna 150 pipe line inspection plane with 4817 hrs on a Continental O-200A
he runs 5 hrs every day at 500 Ft AGL at 65 % i i know the pilot never runs full power not even on take off, he used to do the same on no full power take off on his AG planes, must work hes a great pilot and hes planes are all wayyyyyy pass TBO.
Click to expand...
depends on the ag plane, our pawnee with the baby 260hp engine needs all the squirrels taking meth to get off the ground. Most baby ag planes have the prop gov at the high side of tolerance, with appropriate leaning over by the mechanic to get enough parallax viewing the tach
 
CT Arrow said:
Sadly, I'll find out if firsthand if this additive has added benefit when in January, my engine shop tears down my perfectly running engine to replace a perfectly good crank all due to Lycoming's idiotic SB-569A.
Click to expand...

Then buy a Continental. ;)

We have two and are very happy with them.
 
Frankly, I rather sit on the right side of the bathtub than the left one. Count me in on the post-TBO crowd. To each their own and all that jazz but I feel a lot of people leave money on the table by being so averse to some manufacturer reference number. Kinda like the 3,000 mile oil change number thrown around for millenia.

That's fine by me, the market discounts aircraft pricing based on engine time very heavily, so there's always a lot of life and cheap flying hours to be had for those not averse to flying post-TBO, especially if you keep the runs frequent. Like I said, I rather be on the right side of the tub if something happens than be the overzealous dupe that gets punched in the mouth and wallet when his/her sub-100SMOH engine starts throwing stuff around the case.

When I look at airplanes I don't even look at engine times anymore. I go after history of use in the past 12 months. From that criteria, the post-TBO market provides the best bang for the buck and so far I've had very good service and reliability from this aircraft demographic.
 
CT Arrow said:
The answer I would expect from a Lycoming guy.... Just say'n:yesnod:
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood me.

We have two CONTINENTALS and are very happy with them. We're selling the plane that has Lycomings in it. The powerplants were part of the decision process in that.
 
wabower said:
If it's a Malibu crank at FL250, it looks like the prop blade sticking straight up has suddenly become stationary. The accompanying sound is a distinctive hiss as the cabin pressure falls to ambient.
Click to expand...
I thought that the new piper company copyrighted that hiss sound as a trademark of the malibu? That is why when I lose one engine on a B200 I cannot hear a hiss.
 
1600vw said:
Let me ask how many were building engines in the 60's and 70's. and where did you get your degree?
Click to expand...
Well I happen to know that the kid you are sparring with has a couple of masters degrees in mechanical engineering and chemistry and worked for GM, BMW, and Caterpillar designing engines for the last 20 years. It is frustrating for me to say that the little sht knows more about engines than I have forgotten. What exactly are your qualifications, again?
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
It takes the same faith to get up in a new engine as it does to get up in a plane that you know and have flown 500 hrs or more. .
Click to expand...

I had the TCM folks in Alabama give me the same gist...Apparently new motors have a nasty infant mortality rate. I'd be more nervous with a motor under 100 hours than a motor with 2100 hours with solid compressions.
 
davidm767 said:
I had the TCM folks in Alabama give me the same gist...Apparently new motors have a nasty infant mortality rate. I'd be more nervous with a motor under 100 hours than a motor with 2100 hours with solid compressions.
Click to expand...

This is true, and part of why a good builder with good quality control processes is important to help minimize the probability of an engine having a low-time failure. Most low-time failures are due to bad quality control and a step being missed. Something like forgetting to torque a rod properly. Of course, mistakes can still be made and problems can still occur. There are also the issues of bad parts that can fail and/or start making metal early on.
 
We made exactly the same decision.

w_privett said:
I thought that the new piper company copyrighted that hiss sound as a trademark of the malibu? That is why when I lose one engine on a B200 I cannot hear a hiss.
Click to expand...
 
RAM tech left just a tad-much pigtail on a safety wire in the accessory case on one of their fancy O/H jobs on a TSIO-520. The wire was chewed off by another gear and part of it ended up stuck an oil pressure relief valve. Not good.

Ted DuPuis said:
This is true, and part of why a good builder with good quality control processes is important to help minimize the probability of an engine having a low-time failure. Most low-time failures are due to bad quality control and a step being missed. Something like forgetting to torque a rod properly. Of course, mistakes can still be made and problems can still occur. There are also the issues of bad parts that can fail and/or start making metal early on.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
RAM tech left just a tad-much pigtail on a safety wire in the accessory case on one of their fancy O/H jobs on a TSIO-520. The wire was chewed off by another gear and part of it ended up stuck an oil pressure relief valve. Not good.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that'll make for a bad day.

If you're ever bored, try leaving one of the wrist pin plugs out - that takes about 500 hours before the wrist pin ends up cracking through and the piston takes the cylinder out the side of the engine with it.
 
We just had this discussion in the shop yesterday. Went like this.

How many hrs will you you run an engine before OH or you pull her from service.

I sat and listened....listened somemore..Then I spoke up.....

Here is what I said.....Time or numbers do not mean a thing....You can talk numbers or time ran all day long.

You want to have a clue as to how long that engine will be in service..Borescope the engine, look at valves and cylinder walls.

You will know more about that engine using a borescope for 5 mins then you will looking at the engine. If you know what to look for.

Burn pattern on valves will tell you how long that valve will last and how that engine has been running...ect

The piece of mind you get from that $250.00 borescope will make you wonder why you never purchased one before.

Now you can find them for more then 250 and cheaper....Its all what flavor or style do you want.



I am not a little SHT..will be 60 within a very short time...Have been building engines for over 40 years.

Octane was a Bi-product of lead not the main use....If that was the case we would not of needed Octane posters...They would have left lead out for another octane poster...But if they removed the lead our valves where toast...I lived it...did not study it or read about it...I then repaired all the engines that people tried to use unleaded fuel in.

When we went to the Catalitic Converter lead would plug these. We found we had to get the lead out, but now we had fuel with a lower octane for octane was a bi-product of lead which we used to lubricate the valve train and cool the valves.

I could go on but lost interest......
 
Last edited:
I concur with JHW's assessment...

Also worth noting that, at least on factory gray-paint engines, the lead is completely unnecessary for the valvetrain. I'd suspect it's the same for factory gold-paint engines, too. But the improved anti-knock properties are necessary on certain engines.
 
Ok guys, gals and everyone in between here's the deal.

After searching and searching I found my old notes and books from back in the day when I went through school.

I am totally WRONG. I was taught just as you say here. Lead was for Octane and the second benifit if any is for the valve train, this is the way its taught.

It was working in the field that us as mechanics back in the day came to the conclution that because they removed the lead we started seeing all the engines coming in with burned valves, where in years past we did not see this. It was only after the removal of the lead this started showing up.

I was wrong here. I will admit that to everyone.

H.A.S.
 
A rare sight on this board for someone to admit being wrong, but one I wish we'd see more frequently. You have my respect. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top