Inspect or overhaul after a prop strike

[hoot777]

Looking for my comrades ( current name for friends as I watch the news) for advice. I’m dealing with a prop strike . Engine was over -hauled in 2003 and has close to a 1000 hours on it. I’m considering going ahead and overhauling it while I’ve got it off and in the engine shop. Engines was in great shape but the almost 20 years on it has me leaning towards the overhaul. I’d appreciate your thoughts.

[Raptor05121]

Insurance company paying to split the case? Sounds cheap to pay out of pocket to get that "SMOH" tag added and increase your aircraft value

[hammdo]

This same situation happened years ago on the plane I have now. ~1400 hrs on engine @ the time of propstrike/gear up landing. That owner went with tear down/IRAN. New prop, OH of the governor, OH mags. It's been repair 'on condition' since. She is flying great, basically the bottom end was rebuilt and ADs complied with.  Recertified cam/followers/lifters
 

It's a trade off, pay now or pay later (selling the plane). If you keep her a while, IRAN  is not bad....

-Don

[kortopates]

At 20 years I would probably want to overhaul it too, but wait till you get the the inspection report to decide. They'll be able to tell what it really needs now after they get it apart and then you can make a more rational decision based on wear.

Of course a very important criteria is if this is your forever plane and if you plan on keeping it for the forseeable future. If so, there may be no benefit in the longterm to overhauling early and it may well do better to just IRAN the engine now and possibly go well past 2000 hrs before really needing to overhaul. If you only plan to keep it for a short while (couple years) its harder decsion to make.   

[A64Pilot]

Tough call, My Maule was at 1800 so I did the overhaul.

It was a 235HP 540 so wide open was 2400, everything checked out to new tolerances, there is no telling how long that engine would have gone, but when I went to sell it having five years and 500 SMOH did I’m sure help it sell.

Our 200 HP 360’s wear faster I’m sure as they are run harder.

One thing I try to get people to understand and most don’t is that an engine overhauled early usually costs a lot less money to overhaul than one that’s run well past TBO.

Someone who chooses to go well past TBO may be better served with a Factory exchange

[jetdriven]

problem now is that factory exchange  is booked a year out, and an IO360A is 40K plus.

[Jetman]

I bought into 2000 Ovation and wanted an overhaul 1450 hrs because the plane sat for extended periods of time. Continental

engines do not last when sitting around, they create moisture if not flown regularly.  When they cracked the case the cam lodes were

in really bad shape and that alone helped to make the overhaul decision.

 

[cliffy]

Another point of view-

What kind of prop strike did you have?  Dig big holes in concrete while folding the blades back on the prop or just tick the runway with light damage to the tips?

A lot of "dig holes" engines come out perfectly fine after IRAN. 

Who is paying the bill? If you, can you easily afford that much expense to overhaul? If the insurance company, they'll pay for IRAN, you pay the difference.

You have a 180 HP Lyc engine  Probably the most durable engine out there

Decision time is either just do the AD required rear crankshaft gear stuff OR tear it down and see what is wrong (IF anything).  

Just a light tic with blade tip damage MAY give priority to just doing the rear gear AD, Many "dig holes" engines have also done this and do fine. 

Just depends on how much you want to spend, Rear gear doesn't even require engine removal. 

Question for the group- Find me a catastrophic failure of an engine (especially a 180 HP engine) after only doing the Rear Gear AD

 

[Andy95W]

1 hour ago, cliffy said:

 

Question for the group- Find me a catastrophic failure of an engine (especially a 180 HP engine) after only doing the Rear Gear AD

 

About 10 years ago the local flight school had a C-172 go off the runway and it caught the prop.  Nothing too major, complied with the rear gear AD, changed the prop, put back in service.  About 100 hours later, crankshaft broke in the middle.  CFI and student limped it to the runway safely on partial power.

But I agree with your premise, Cliffy.  In over 30 years around GA, and over 2/3 of that as an A&P and CFI, that is the only instance I can remember hearing about.

[cliffy]

2 hours ago, Andy95W said:

In over 30 years around GA, and over 2/3 of that as an A&P and CFI, that is the only instance I can remember hearing about.

My point exactly  The risk is minimal if the AD is completed in reference to a complete overhaul or IRAN.  Probably no worse than any other cause of engine failure due to maintenance.  

[Guest]

8 hours ago, cliffy said:

Another point of view-

What kind of prop strike did you have?  Dig big holes in concrete while folding the blades back on the prop or just tick the runway with light damage to the tips?

A lot of "dig holes" engines come out perfectly fine after IRAN. 

Who is paying the bill? If you, can you easily afford that much expense to overhaul? If the insurance company, they'll pay for IRAN, you pay the difference.

You have a 180 HP Lyc engine  Probably the most durable engine out there

Decision time is either just do the AD required rear crankshaft gear stuff OR tear it down and see what is wrong (IF anything).  

Just a light tic with blade tip damage MAY give priority to just doing the rear gear AD, Many "dig holes" engines have also done this and do fine. 

Just depends on how much you want to spend, Rear gear doesn't even require engine removal. 

Question for the group- Find me a catastrophic failure of an engine (especially a 180 HP engine) after only doing the Rear Gear AD

 

Not quite the same thing, but our local flight school had a Superior crankshaft snap in half in flight on a new 172, the engine had around 1000 hours on it.
 

Clarence

[cliffy]

I know of a Cessna 140 that had a crank break in the rod journal fillet on a C-85  and continued to run for 5 mins as they got down to a runway.

It was caused by having the crank reground .010 undersize but the shop did not radius the regrind cut into the crank cheek. 

Classic sharp edge fatigue failure.  BUT that was 60 years ago too !!

Other than the old Continental 6 cyl cranks that  broke (IIRC) crank failure by breaking isn't too common.