Shadrach Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 I think there is a world inside general aviation that operates engines like the one we're talking about all the time. I believe there are a lot of older IA's that would not have a problem flying behind this engine. Since over the years they have witnessed several examples of similar engines performing just fine. But I think there may be a safety stigma behind defending an engine like this. When It's been 42 years since overhaul, it has to be bad, is the consensus on this board. Correct me if I'm wrong. My point being that this engine keeps getting signed off by somebody! And it keeps putting along. Granted it could start making metal tomorrow. But so could anyone's engine. I guess what we're saying is, is that this one is more likely to make metal sooner. The big question is, is that founded in facts? Or just legends. Bob I'd fly behind it...solo, under very carefully planned day VFR missions for the first hundred or so hours... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AESpecialists Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Some older IA's may only dial the crank and let it fly on a prop strike. To be honest all that is required is to inspect the crank gear, dowl pin, and to change the bolt with new locking tab. To comply with the factories inspection guidelines, I don't believe you need to even split the case. I wouldn't touch it if some one wanted me to sign it off with out splitting the case. Espically after 42 years. -Matt Not true, although you're right, some old-timers will argue that. Latest revision of Lycoming's overhaul manual explicitly states that all SB's and SL's are to be considered PART OF THE MANUAL. There is a very clear list of inspection criteria in SB533B that states a complete teardown is necessary. One other point. If the owner said he "scoped" the cam and lifters, implying that it was done with a borescope instead of taking off a cylinder and looking inside, then he is being less than truthful. There is no way to get a borescope there. I really wish there were it would have saved time and $$ in the past 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N601RX Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Not true, although you're right, some old-timers will argue that. Latest revision of Lycoming's overhaul manual explicitly states that all SB's and SL's are to be considered PART OF THE MANUAL. There is a very clear list of inspection criteria in SB533B that states a complete teardown is necessary. One other point. If the owner said he "scoped" the cam and lifters, implying that it was done with a borescope instead of taking off a cylinder and looking inside, then he is being less than truthful. There is no way to get a borescope there. I really wish there were it would have saved time and $$ in the past But an independent mechanic is not required to use the latest edition of the manual. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AESpecialists Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 But an independent mechanic is not required to use the latest edition of the manual. Even the oldest manuals will advise you check for revisions and use the latest data provided. Otherwise just what is the mechanic signing off? "IAW what I felt like today" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hosshawk Posted July 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 One other point. If the owner said he "scoped" the cam and lifters, implying that it was done with a borescope instead of taking off a cylinder and looking inside, then he is being less than truthful. There is no way to get a borescope there. I really wish there were it would have saved time and $$ in the past That's nice to know! Thanks guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.