jetdriven

Moody Aero graphics is pretty good too. I have ordered from them once before.

Thats where you tell him you have it pulled back to 23 square.

on the exact same engine no less.

Scott, couldnt hold out for the G2?

Don is the real deal. Don't forget Jan .

Here is some data for you. LOP If you want the blank excel sheet, you are welcome to it. Let's see some more.

Busch is an A&P, a 30-year aircraft owner (turbo 310 no less), and a comercial rated pilot who flies often. Whewn he speaks, I listen. I also think he is more credible that a crusty old mechanic that spouts off engine operation philosophy when he is not a pilot anymorew than I would take proper go-around procedure in a 737 from a student pilot. Some people have it, some people run their mouth. Now, regarding 50 LOP etc. Continental has come out and admitted the earth is round. Lycoming is having a harder time with it. 1500 hours of single engine time, I finally discovered it myself. I see no "going out on a limb" with 50 LOP at 65% power when we take regular trend sheets on the aircraft and it is consistently running cooler the leaner from peak. This is fact in our specific M20J, IO-360A3B6D application, and not voodoo "it feels wierd" ouija board decision making. Come on, al the engineers on this board and you are overriding data on gut feelings? We monitor all 4 CHT and if 280 or 330 CHT on the hottest cylinder is harming something, then I must be dense. I fly turbine airplanes for a living, and if pilots cannot be taught to manage their engine around peak EGT and use "do not exceed" parameters theh we are all in trouble. Turbines operate to within .1% or .5% of rated redline RPM on two different spools, and to within 10-20 of redline temperatures. Exceed that and you just trashed a million dollar engine. A Mooney is so much less demanding, it just makes the argument that pilots cannot manage a LOP piston laughable. Quote: N4352H Nobody argues the science, its the practical application and execution. This is Lycoming's rub. This is what varies widely. Just ask Performance or other overhaulers.....they won't go out on a limb until Lyc releases the hounds. Mike Busch fills a vaccum if you are hoping for a revelation, deeply frugal, an A&P or ardent do it yourselfer. IMHO, nothing beats a MSC.

I have asked you again this is the third time, what is Lycoming's official position on LOP ops, and has this differed from the paper written in 2000? Math was discovered some years ago yet it hasnt changed much either. Also, my graph was from an alternative fuel survey done in 2002, BTW. Tell you what, engien shops replace plenty of cylinders and overhaul plenty of engines early and I would say that the VAST majoriry of them are run ROP. Just like that book from 1977 says to. Why did all those cylinders need to be changed?

Wow, what an impressive airplane. if we could afford one of those, it would take two seconds to decide.

NVM

Neither Mike Busch nor do I suggest flying past FAR requirements, AD's, or FAR 23 limitations. Those are non-negotiable. But replacing a primary alternator in a dual alternator airplane because it has 600 hours on it is completely asinine. For hire 135 operators are generally required to overhaul at TBO but our 135 company, for example, had a waiver for 20% over TBO based on their maintenance program. 121 airlines run everything on condition, they take trend monitoring for this. Our GE CF34 CRJ engines were "power by the hour", it took automatic trend data and GE would say "do a hot section" or "take it off" based solely on condition. No calendar or hourly limits were considered. Airlines also do ETOPS which has proven to be as reliable as a 4-engined plane. So, can you answer my question? please quantify with data how replacing parts based on some calendar or hour limit improves safety?

Thats great. Until the plane wont start because of a bad impulse coupler ands you get a 3K bill to R&R it. Hey, pay up buddy, if the mags are more thsan 3 degrees out of time they must be overhauled too with 12 hours labor to R&R. You should consider taking the plane to a different mechanic after 13 years. Does he look at everythign, every time? Lube the tail jackscrew every hundred hours? That's in the service manual. There is likely a whole list of things he hasnt noticed. Of course, the buyer of your plane might. Not to bust your butt. I am glad you have a good relationship and youre airplane expenses are nominal and your plane is maintained. There are a lot of hucksters out there, and lots of things covered up, etc.

We should start a file section like in CSOB. There is so much information out there, and I hoard all of it. A few minutes reading can really fix the problem, and less expensive than the "replace and see how it goes" method.

The AIM is advisory, not regulatory. The only "published" pattern is left turns when approaching to landing, unless a right pattern is published. We dont fly 45 entries in the CRJ or the 747 either. Someone call the feds. Quote: allsmiles What seems to be the "great consternation"? Do we not have procedures we all learned back in private days on pattern entry at an uncontrolled field? In addition, do we not have published procedures in the A/FD that address this? Some people suggest in announcing and obtaining permission from other traffic if they mind we change a procedure to suit us! I don't believe this is up to us to change as we see fit just because it's inconvenient to fly the published procedure! Try explaining that one to the FAA! My philosophy and practice is announce your intentions and position frequently starting from 10 miles out and follow the published pattern in sequence.

Parker, we even have the Century II and III service manual. Our airplane was rocking gently in roll. Like a degree or two sometimes. After a few hours I diagnosed attitude indicator failure, it was off level about 2-3 degrees at times. After 50 hours it got worse, but I knew it was coming. Stuff doesnt always suddenly totally fail. A shop might have rerplaced 5K in autopilot parts when the autopilot was fine to begin with. Know your aircraft. Manage risk. Quote: Parker_Woodruff I don't have nearly the knowledge of the engineers and A&Ps on this board. But this stuff makes sense if you ditch the preconceived notions you have. you really do have to make an effort. Have you opened up the Bendix/RSA training manual to learn how the fuel system in your IO-360 works? That's how deep I've had to go to help my understanding of our engines. Note: I has not taken the APS courses. I had never learned about what LOP even was until about 3 years ino being a rated pilot. I have, however done significant reading on both LOP and maintenance. Note 2: My airplane is primarily maintained at an MSC

It could go either way. The engine is likely in pretty good shape from a "just overhauled" standpoint. Tearing it down and putting it back together may end up with who knows what. Ask them the main bearing or tappet clearances after they give it back to you. I bet they dont measure that. 1200 hours later, the engine is bad.

Please answer my question. Again, please quantify with data how replacing parts based on some calendar or hour limit improves safety? Our aircraft is not for sale. But when it is, the hours past TBO were free to us, and we will price it at market. A nice shiny paint job - it will sell for top dollar, and unlike many who buy airplanes on this board from open checkbook owners, ours will not need a 20K annual at an MSC, because our "worthless, geared up rebuilt airplane" has no discrepancies. Quote: N4352H And? Is it for sale??? Let's see with the gear-up and in this condition, maybe a Savvy Aviator graduate would love to have it. Of course, they could recognize the value in something that hasn't yet failed.

Airlines are "cheap", by that definition too. Here we go again with voodoo feelings vs. hard data. I work for an airline, and everything is run on condition. We have engines with 20,000 on the last overhaul. These airplanes have a safety record soem 50 times better than your "open checkbook" airplane. Throwing money at the problem is not a solution. People soend 10K getting their autopilot worked on, and it still does not work. If you have the service manuals, and do some troubleshooting, and have an A&P with that mindset as well, you can fix it for 10% of the amount, and it works when it leaves. Again, please quantify with data how replacing parts based on some calendar or hour limit improves safety? The part that is on your plane is working. The part you are putting on it may have an infant mortality event. We just installed an electric ADI in our plane, and now we are going to run our 800 hour vacuum pump till failure. Yes, right up until it quits. What are the consequences of it failing? none. Does it affect safety? no. dispatch reliability? no. Prop has 12 years since new and 1400 hours. Past the McCauley TBO. Airworthy? yes. Legal? yes. Does replacing it with an overhauled unit make that next single hour more safe? I believe, less safe. What about the next ten hours? It might be trouble free, where it is as reliable as the one we took off. But more safe? no. Its just money. Our cylinders are first run and yes, we are going to take those past TBO unless there is a reason to pull them off. A reason, not a feeling. So, there it is.

I was just nothing that "critical number" thing. I dont know where that started, but it doesnt make sense. I have found that we typically get ~17 NMPG at 65% power (2400 RPM). Pulling it back to 2100 or so, can raise it to the 18.5 or 19 range. But flying 115 KTAS the fixed cost starts to take over, and your cost per trip isnt much less.

Also, ask them what they are basing their recommendation. No "feelings" here, how about some hard data to stand on. Quote: AustinPynes I actually think I fall into the category of just needs dressing but my independent and the FAA Repair Station both are calling for teardown.

Lycoming SB 533C deals with propeller strikes. This is different than "sudden stoppage" which is one revolution or less. Take a look. http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/publications/service-bulletins/pdfs/SB533A.pdf

His theory is that TBO is just a recommendation. And it is based on severe service. Does the failure of the part cause a hazard or a dispatch reliability problem? Is there an AD or a FAR 23 mandate for it to be replaced on a schedule? If not, RUN TILL FAILURE. Someone doesnt have to replace something based on a calendar or a hours fgure. It is not required, and in the case of pulling off all the cylinders on a Cirrus for a top overhaul, when you reassemble the engine the bearings shift, causing a rod to throw and a crash. How safe is that?

iPhone won't post replies. Agreed with Carousam. If you lean it as much as possible to taxi, when you go to take off, the engine will not accelerate above 1500-1700 RPM. Serves as a reminder. You are using target EGT method for takeoff and climb, right?

He is also an IA and I think his position is credible. He says dont replace something until it needs it. His work is all signed off and he flies the aircraft. Isnt that what it's all about?

I would take detailed photos and send them to Lycoming and ask them.