Field overhaul vs. Corona Aircraft Engines

[NotarPilot]

On September 13, 2016 at 9:26 AM, cliffy said:

Most engines don't make TBO for reasons other than who did the overhaul.

Most of the time it is because the engine sat around and rusted for 20 years trying to get TBO hours.

There's a reason why Lyc will go for 2200 hrs for TBO, IF YOU USE IT UP IN A HURRY, but only 2000 if you take your time.

I've often heard some Lycomings making it up to 4,000 hours but I imagine those are mostly trainers that get flown daily.

[Steve20]

Off the subject. I have a Lycoming 0-540 engine out of a Aztec. 1,800 hrs. No prop strike. Sold props to Santa Monica props. Selling engine and need help on price. It was my dad's. He was a licensed mechanic. Any info would be appreciated.

[Steve2]

I operated 6 or 7 172s that were fitted Corona overhauled engines, all made it to around 2700-3000 hours without any problems other than the occasional leaking exhust valve.  When I was looking to overhaul the engine in my O I tried to contact them for a quote, called and left messages, emailed, used the web site contact form.....no response.

[bob865]

Thought this might be inerestig to throw into the mix.  This is a quote from Jimmy Garrison's mooney value guide:

"3. Believe it or not, there is some value in a mid-life or higher time engine that has recently been torn down for a prop strike or some other internal repair. I have always stressed to buyers that a plane with a recent prop strike (no airframe damage) has some real value added because if there are issues developing in the engine, the shop doing the teardown will not (or should not) put it back together without addressing those issues. While not an overhaul, it is a good insurance policy to know a professional has looked at the internals of the engine."

This was what I was looking at when I bought my plane.  While it was a higer time engine, it was completely torn down by a reputable engine shop not long before I bought it.  The seller, nor I, had any delusions about it not being overhauled.  I did however feel better buying it with the high time engine after a full tear down inspection than I would have without.  New prop and inspected engine actually helped the seller on value in my case.

IMHO, in aviation, we put way too much effort and value in the word overhaul.  Just my 2 cents as somene who has worked in the maintenance field in several different industries, including avtiation, in my short career.  Let the flaming commence.

[ragedracer1977]

19 minutes ago, bob865 said:

Thought this might be inerestig to throw into the mix.  This is a quote from Jimmy Garrison's mooney value guide:

"3. Believe it or not, there is some value in a mid-life or higher time engine that has recently been torn down for a prop strike or some other internal repair. I have always stressed to buyers that a plane with a recent prop strike (no airframe damage) has some real value added because if there are issues developing in the engine, the shop doing the teardown will not (or should not) put it back together without addressing those issues. While not an overhaul, it is a good insurance policy to know a professional has looked at the internals of the engine."

This was what I was looking at when I bought my plane.  While it was a higer time engine, it was completely torn down by a reputable engine shop not long before I bought it.  The seller, nor I, had any delusions about it not being overhauled.  I did however feel better buying it with the high time engine after a full tear down inspection than I would have without.  New prop and inspected engine actually helped the seller on value in my case.

IMHO, in aviation, we put way too much effort and value in the word overhaul.  Just my 2 cents as somene who has worked in the maintenance field in several different industries, including avtiation, in my short career.  Let the flaming commence.

Same boat here. While the engine is 1700 smoh, about 500 hours ago the case was replaced due to a crack.  While they were in there, they replaced the cam, all the bearings, lifters, etc, and installed 4 brand new cylinders.  Half the paperwork calls it an overhaul, half calls it a case change.  It definitely didn't subtract from the value when I was buying the plane 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, bob865 said:

Thought this might be inerestig to throw into the mix.  This is a quote from Jimmy Garrison's mooney value guide:

"3. Believe it or not, there is some value in a mid-life or higher time engine that has recently been torn down for a prop strike or some other internal repair. I have always stressed to buyers that a plane with a recent prop strike (no airframe damage) has some real value added because if there are issues developing in the engine, the shop doing the teardown will not (or should not) put it back together without addressing those issues. While not an overhaul, it is a good insurance policy to know a professional has looked at the internals of the engine."

This was what I was looking at when I bought my plane.  While it was a higer time engine, it was completely torn down by a reputable engine shop not long before I bought it.  The seller, nor I, had any delusions about it not being overhauled.  I did however feel better buying it with the high time engine after a full tear down inspection than I would have without.  New prop and inspected engine actually helped the seller on value in my case.

IMHO, in aviation, we put way too much effort and value in the word overhaul.  Just my 2 cents as somene who has worked in the maintenance field in several different industries, including avtiation, in my short career.  Let the flaming commence.

No flames here, you’re correct about “overhaul” it’s right up there with “fresh annual”

Clarence