TLS BRAVO IO540 ENGINE REPLACEMENT

[donkaye]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

I understand your point, but also that, if you can stand the downtime, there are shops that do a better job than the factory.  They hold tolerance closer, and set them to where they should be, not just within the range.

Just like in the car world.  There is stock and then there is "stock."   I had one engine done by a top Mopar shop.  I got the engine build sheet.  The rod bearing clearances were 0.010", 0.010", 0.011", 0.010"  NO factory engine has been built to such tolerances.

And many top auto engine shops prefer to start with a used engine, because the thermal cycles have caused things to expand and contact and settle into the lowest stress state.

When you're young your life seems infinite.  The cliche "Life is short" brings a response, "Yea, sure", snicker snicker.  However, there comes a time in seemingly short order when that cliche is not so funny anymore.  A 6 month downtime above all other considerations is then unacceptable.

[A64Pilot]

9 hours ago, donkaye said:

That may be true, but that can't be guaranteed, I don't want the airplane down all that time, and the engine isn't zero timed.  I'm on my 3rd Reman Lycoming Factory engine.  Bottom line, considering the cost of an engine and what I said above, I feel more comfortable with a factory engine.

You do understand that a factory “Reman” engine is overhauled don’t you?

In fact according to the FAA the term “remanufacture” doesn’t even exist.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_43-11.pdf

However I can understand you being more comfortable with a factory engine, it’s hard to go wrong with a Lycoming overhaul, but better does exist as it does for just about any kind of engine.

Oh and they are guaranteed, sometimes the guarantee is better than the factory. It’s easy to offer a very good guarantee if you get nearly zero come backs. 

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

You do understand that a factory “Reman” engine is overhauled don’t you?

Lycoming has three choices: 

1 New "Power your aircraft with a new Lycoming piston engine." 

2 Rebuilt "Get a factory rebuilt engine that’s built to new engine specifications and comes with a zero-time log book." https://www.lycoming.com/services/rebuilt-engines

3 Overhauled "Update your aircraft’s engine to a Lycoming overhauled engine with the most current features and parts." https://www.lycoming.com/services/overhaul-engines

 

A Lycoming rep explained to me that their Rebuilt has all new internal parts in a used, and if necessary, a new case and a comes with zero time logbook. Their Overhauled engine is within specs in the Overhaul Manual, but if any parts are out of spec, new parts go in. Lycoming had a program for many years that said if your core was within 20 years from time in service since new they would sell you a Rebuilt for the price of an Overhauled engine.

The biggest problem I see using anyone else to rebuild the Bravo engine is that not many shops have ever done one. This engine (TIO-540-AF1B) is only used in a Mooney Bravo M20M. Victor has done a few, but probably less than a handful. Poplar Airmotive has probably done the most of any independent- I had one of theirs' in one of the Bravos I owned. Western Skyways have done a few. Airmart has done a few. I can't think of any others, unless you count the shop in Kennett MO which has very mixed reviews even on much simpler engines. The factory engines all come with new or overhauled accessories, fuel systems, etc and many times these aren't included in quotes from shops. If any shops quote re-using the cylinders on this engine, run, do not walk away. 

[PT20J]

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

In fact according to the FAA the term “remanufacture” doesn’t even exist.

True. The proper term is "rebuilt" as defined in FAR 91.421(c): 

"For the purposes of this section, a rebuilt engine is a used engine that has been completely disassembled, inspected, repaired as necessary, reassembled, tested, and approved in the same manner and to the same tolerances and limits as a new engine with either new or used parts. However, all parts used in it must conform to the production drawing tolerances and limits for new parts or be of approved oversized or undersized dimensions for a new engine."

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

You do understand that a factory “Reman” engine is overhauled don’t you?

 

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

Lycoming has three choices: 

1 New "Power your aircraft with a new Lycoming piston engine." 

2 Rebuilt "Get a factory rebuilt engine that’s built to new engine specifications and comes with a zero-time log book." https://www.lycoming.com/services/rebuilt-engines

3 Overhauled "Update your aircraft’s engine to a Lycoming overhauled engine with the most current features and parts." https://www.lycoming.com/services/overhaul-engines

Comments to both posts above seem to be referring to independent shops doing overhauls vs Lycoming Factory Rebuilt.  However, if you focus upon buying an "overhauled" engine from the Lycoming Factory Overhaul inventory there does not seem to be any difference in quality or precision of the build when comparing Rebuilt to Overhauled - "All Lycoming factory new, rebuilt and overhauled engines are built on the same production assembly line. The same skilled workers build all types of engines, new or overhauled, 4-cylinders or 8-cylinders, and naturally aspirated or turbocharged."  Both Rebuilt and Overhauled reuses many used parts.  The price difference on AirPower for a Lycoming TIO-540-AF1B Factory OH vs Rebuilt is about $10,000. It seems that one is primarily paying for an extra year of warranty and "zero-time" written in the logbook.

From the Lycoming Website

Factory Rebuilt – Every part used in building the engine meets or exceeds new part specifications; or the engine is like new. It has a zero time since new and a zero time since major overhaul. Some parts may be used, but they meet the same specifications as a new part. Like new engines, this engine carries a two-year factory warranty up to the hourly overhaul period listed in Service Instruction 1009. This engine choice is for the customers who are looking to have a return on their investment by adding value to their airframe.

Overhauled – The parts used to build the engine meet or exceed service limits and specifications. The engine carries the previously accrued total time since new, but has zero time since major overhaul.   This engine also carries a one-year factory warranty up to the hourly overhaul period listed in Service Instruction 1009. An overhauled engine is best for the customer who is looking for the most cost-effective option, or for those who accrue hours very quickly and will likely run the engine through the next overhaul cycle. Some parts are no longer available new from the original equipment manufacturers, such as dual magnetos from Bendix/TCM. In these cases, those parts are overhauled by a reputable overhaul facility.

All Lycoming factory new, rebuilt and overhauled engines are built on the same production assembly line. The same skilled workers build all types of engines, new or overhauled, 4-cylinders or 8-cylinders, and naturally aspirated or turbocharged.

[PT20J]

The difference between factory overhauled and rebuilt is that overhauled uses parts that are at or close to service limits where rebuilt must meet new limits. Practically speaking, this means that the rebuilt likely has more new parts. That's why it is more expensive. When Lycoming tears down cores and inspects parts, the parts get sorted according to limits. The parts meeting new limits go into rebuild inventory, the lesser ones go into overhaul inventory, and the parts worn beyond service limits get scrapped. At least that's how it was described at the factory school.

Lycoming only began offering overhauls to be able to provide an engine at a lower price point to compete with field overhaulers when the new airplane market tanked and new engine sales declined.

 

[Pinecone]

6 hours ago, donkaye said:

When you're young your life seems infinite.  The cliche "Life is short" brings a response, "Yea, sure", snicker snicker.  However, there comes a time in seemingly short order when that cliche is not so funny anymore.  A 6 month downtime above all other considerations is then unacceptable.

Uuh, who is young????

[1980Mooney]

44 minutes ago, PT20J said:

The difference between factory overhauled and rebuilt is that overhauled uses parts that are at or close to service limits where rebuilt must meet new limits. Practically speaking, this means that the rebuilt likely has more new parts. That's why it is more expensive. When Lycoming tears down cores and inspects parts, the parts get sorted according to limits. The parts meeting new limits go into rebuild inventory, the lesser ones go into overhaul inventory, and the parts worn beyond service limits get scrapped. At least that's how it was described at the factory school.

Lycoming only began offering overhauls to be able to provide an engine at a lower price point to compete with field overhaulers when the new airplane market tanked and new engine sales declined.

Avweb says that Lyc and Cont only began offering "rebuilt" when the new airplane engine market tanked in order for the Factories to go after the "overhaul" market with an FAA blessed "marketing distinction/advantage".  They note that the Canadian Aviation authority does not recognize "zero time" rebuilt.  To them a "rebuild" is just an overhaul of a used engine plain and simple.

Please explain how a used Lycoming crankshaft within new limits makes it any better than one with slightly worn journals.  A Lycoming crankshaft can go four sizes, Standard, M003, M006 and M010 on the rods and mains.  Journals are resurfaced and new proper bearings are used to provide "factory" clearances between journal and bearing.  Lycoming does not track individual part duty time - a "within factory limits" crankshaft might have undergone more cycles than one with some journal wear.

A Lycoming approved oversize bearing kit to accommodate journal size/wear should provide the same performance and life as the "factory limit" bearing.  Maybe I am missing something.

https://www.avweb.com/ownership/the-zero-time-myth/

 

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by 1980Mooney

[1980Mooney]

On 11/24/2023 at 2:13 PM, Beau said:

IS IT WORTH $50,000 MORE FOR A NEW LYCOMING IO540 THAN A FACTORY REBUILD TO FACTORY NEW SPECIFICATIONS?

Please consider the following:

1. The engines can only be rebuilt so many times.  Is the factory rebuild to new specifications on its last rebuild?

2. Since there is a year wait for a factory rebuilt engine .  Can you get a new engine any sooner?

3. Is the new engine any more reliable than the factory rebuilt eengine? 

 

On 11/24/2023 at 2:46 PM, Fritz1 said:

overall you are looking at a $100k situation for an overhaul / rebuilt, new probably over $150k

you will probably overhaul the propeller and the oil cooler at the same time, inspect the engine mount for cracks and have it repainted

 

On 11/27/2023 at 9:56 AM, Pinecone said:

Just realize what the differences are.

Factory New is just that, all new parts, a new engine. (For Brave, right now $159,000)

Factory Rebuilt or Factory Reman is a zero time engine made of a mix of new and used parts, but the used parts meet the specs of new..  ($101,000)

Factory Overhaul is an overhaul, done by the factory, typically to new tolerances and specs. ($91,000)

The cost to maintain a GA engine has been skyrocketing.  @Fritz1 's all in "overall" numbers may have been accurate at one time but they don't even cover the cost the Lycoming engine when it is sitting in Pennsylvania ready to ship.  And @Pinecone's numbers are accurate although AirPower has none in stock.  Lycoming just agreed to a new union contract in September.  We don't know the terms but the Union turned down a 25-32% wage increase offer in June (per the local newspaper).

I suspect there will be price increases when new stock ships.  And a Factory Rebuild price needs to include removal, shipping, tax in some locations, new engine mounts, and IRAN -engine mount , oil cooler, hoses, auxiliaries like electric fuel pump etc. and re-installation.  I would think someone needs to budget at least $120,000 for a future Bravo Lycoming Factory Rebuilt.

With these absurdly high prices it is natural for owners to seek qualified independent shops for overhauls.  Not a lot of owners can write a $120,000+ check for what is in reality an overhaul.  The owner writing the check has to believe that he is getting a lot of real value.

Put another way - if you were looking at 2 equivalent Bravo's, same year, same avionics, paint, interior,:

• One had a Factory Rebuild 7 years and 450 hours ago - flown by 3 previous owners
• One had a reputable shop field overhaul 7 years and 450 hours ago - flown by 3 previous owners

Would you pay any premium for "Factory Rebuilt"?  Or would how the 3 previous owners flew and maintained the Bravo actually overshadow any perceived benefit of a a Factory Rebuild?

[PT20J]

The FAR defining rebuilt engines predates the slump in engine sales. Check AC 43-11. Or research the origins of the old 91.175.

I never claimed that one engine was better than another. It's simply a matter of how many new parts you are paying for.

New = all new parts $$$$

Rebuilt = mostly new parts $$$

Overhaul = mostly used parts $$

Zero time may or may not have marketing value, but practically it comes about because the parts are kitted from a stockpile of parts from disassembled returned cores along with whatever new parts are required and there is no meaningful way to calculate total time on the rebuilt engine.

Personally, I think that it's good that Lycoming offers options. 

[A64Pilot]

THE issue as I see it is that you can take that Lycoming money to a reputable engine builder and get a better than new much less zero timed Lycoming engine, for the same or less money, or not, thankfully we have a choice.

Lycoming AND continental both did two things to stay alive when new aircraft sales tanked, they started selling overhauls and jacked parts prices way high in order to make it more difficult for field overhauls to compete with factory. Sounds greedy but if they hadn’t they may likely have not survived, and if they didn’t then all there would be is PMA parts, maybe what Lyc and Conti didn’t see was by raising OEM prices so high it made PMA much more lucrative and the PMA parts business took off.

Lycoming has a distinct advantage over Conti, and that’s the marority of Experimental homebuilts when they use an aircraft engine overwhelmingly for whatever reason use a Lycoming. I suspect a whole lot of Lycoming new engine sales go into the Experimental world now, may even be the majority of new engine sales.

[LANCECASPER]

Another huge advantage of waiting for a factory engine is that once the engine arrives you can know schedule the swap.

I can't imagine taking an engine that is still running  that you decide has given you enough hours and shipping it off to an independent and then hoping that there won't be any glitches in the supply chain that causes delays in getting it back to you. With today's parts challenges, just for V-clamps alone, the airplane could be down 18 months  waiting on a critical part. When parts were plentiful field overhauls were not as risky of a choice.

[A64Pilot]

16 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Would you pay any premium for "Factory Rebuilt"?  Or would how the 3 previous owners flew and maintained the Bravo actually overshadow any perceived benefit of a a Factory Rebuild?

For me the deciding factor would be who did the overhaul, and to what tolerances. If it was a reputable shop with a good rep like my Gann motor then I’d go that way.

If it was some one I’d never heard of then I’d likely avoid it. It’s really difficult to determine how someone has maintained an engine unless of course you see things done wrong.

Now that guy who I’ve not heard of could be an excellent builder, an up and coming Gann if you will or he may be someone who has no business building motors, point is you don’t know.

‘So I think for the majority of aircraft buyers a factory motor does have value and will sell at a better price, but maybe 10% or less of the buyers know which shops are as good as or better than the factory and for them they would go that way, but I think they are in the minority.

If your buying with the thought of selling I’m sure a factory motor will sell more quickly, for how much more money I have no idea, but it seems apparent that motors are undervalued now, that is low time motors don’t command the price they should, used to be an engine at TBO you couldn’t give that airplane away, now people don’t think much about it

[A64Pilot]

27 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Another huge advantage of waiting for a factory engine is that once the engine arrives you can know schedule the swap.

I can't imagine taking an engine that is still running  that you decide has given you enough hours and shipping it off to an independent and then hoping that there won't be any glitches in the supply chain that causes delays in getting it back to you. With today's parts challenges, just for V-clamps alone, the airplane could be down 18 months  waiting on a critical part. When parts were plentiful field overhauls were not as risky of a choice.

A shop that turns engines regularly should know, many already have the parts on hand especially on models they rebuild most often, now if you have say a 720 or the 540 in question in this thread, then they likely don’t have a crank etc laying around. They should be able to give a realistic delivery date, but it’s not going to be as quick a turn as an exchange engine.

I’ve not called but surely the bigger shops have exchange overhauls for the common motors? That is engines sitting on the shelf ready to ship?

Me, I want my motor but then I do my own overhauls. I want mine because I know what the parts are, for example my Maule’s motor everything met new specs, rods, crank etc. cam and lifters I had reground just automatically and I foolishly replaced the cylinders without even looking at them. I won’t make that mistake again. Just about any first run Lycoming the crank etc should meet new specs.

What is happening and what has already happened in many aircraft like my C-140 is that it’s getting so that quality overhauls done right exceed the value of the aircraft. That makes it tough to justify an overhaul.

Oh, and on edit, if your one of the ones that’s going to run a motor until it starts making metal, then it’s my opinion that you should go with a factory exchange if all they still want is a running take out.

Reason is if it’s making metal then it’s more likely than not that a whole lot of expensive parts are damaged by the metal going through and you may end up with just as much, maybe more money in a field overhaul.

[PT20J]

53 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Lycoming has a distinct advantage over Conti, and that’s the marority of Experimental homebuilts when they use an aircraft engine overwhelmingly for whatever reason use a Lycoming. I suspect a whole lot of Lycoming new engine sales go into the Experimental world now, may even be the majority of new engine sales.

When I visited the factory, they said that their largest customer by far was Vans. (So Vans recent issues may have a negative impact). And, Lycoming has a separate area not connected to the production line where it builds custom experimental engines to spec. 

 

[PT20J]

For me, the deciding factor in going with a rebuilt was that I wanted roller lifters and, at the time, it was the fastest way to get back in the air. The fact that Lycoming has a AS9100 certified production line was icing on the cake, but I come from an ISO9000 tech background, so that probably means more to me than it might to others.

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

I’ve not called but surely the bigger shops have exchange overhauls for the common motors? That is engines sitting on the shelf ready to ship?

This thread is about a Lycoming TIO-540-AF1B, an engine whose only application is in a Mooney Bravo. There isn't an independent engine shop, regardless of size, that has one sitting on the shelf.

[amillet]

21 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Lycoming had a program for many years that said if your core was within 20 years from time in service since new they would sell you a Rebuilt for the price of an Overhauled engine.

I was able to use that discount in 2015.  I have almost 800 hours on the “rebuilt“ engine with no issues

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

This thread is about a Lycoming TIO-540-AF1B, an engine whose only application is in a Mooney Bravo. There isn't an independent engine shop, regardless of size, that has one sitting on the shelf.

Yes I know, that’s why in the reply I said if you have a 720 or the 540 in question it’s not likely they have parts laying around.

However threads aren’t ever really just about the one question that was asked, this one very quickly became about engines in general, with I think every reply from someone who bought a factory motor not having a Bravo Mooney.

However you brought up an interesting question, as these engines have such a small usage it would be interesting on what Lycomings response time would be, because it’s not likely they have one on the shelf either.

It may be a we have to have your first to rebuild or overhaul or maybe if you send a deposit we expect to ship in 6 months.

Be interesting to know what the answer is. 

[donkaye]

23 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Yes I know, that’s why in the reply I said if you have a 720 or the 540 in question it’s not likely they have parts laying around.

However threads aren’t ever really just about the one question that was asked, this one very quickly became about engines in general, with I think every reply from someone who bought a factory motor not having a Bravo Mooney.

However you brought up an interesting question, as these engines have such a small usage it would be interesting on what Lycomings response time would be, because it’s not likely they have one on the shelf either.

It may be a we have to have your first to rebuild or overhaul or maybe if you send a deposit we expect to ship in 6 months.

Be interesting to know what the answer is. 

Regarding your second paragraph, my engines obviously were Bravo engines.  After the shop incident in late September 2018, I immediately put my order in with Air Power.  I was quote 8 to 10 weeks.  Th engine arrived in mid December.   They were within a week of quoted time.  Definitely not the case today.  I had to put up $7,000 with the order and the balance when it was ready to ship.  No time was lost during the time of the order and the time it arrived.  Insurance issues took a couple of weeks, but the shop's insurance company couldn't have been more cooperative.  Lots of parts were ordered from Mooney, but they arrived fairly quickly, so when the engine arrived it was installed within a couple of weeks.  As with previous engines, I was required to give Air Power a check for about $29,000 to be held until the returned core was approved.  If the core was not approved, then that money would be gone.  The core has always been accepted.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, donkaye said:

Regarding your second paragraph, my engines obviously were Bravo engines.  After the shop incident in late September 2018, I immediately put my order in with Air Power.  I was quote 8 to 10 weeks.  Th engine arrived in mid December.   They were within a week of quoted time.  Definitely not the case today.  I had to put up $7,000 with the order and the balance when it was ready to ship.  No time was lost during the time of the order and the time it arrived.  Insurance issues took a couple of weeks, but the shop's insurance company couldn't have been more cooperative.  Lots of parts were ordered from Mooney, but they arrived fairly quickly, so when the engine arrived it was installed within a couple of weeks.  As with previous engines, I was required to give Air Power a check for about $29,000 to be held until the returned core was approved.  If the core was not approved, then that money would be gone.  The core has always been accepted.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[LANCECASPER]

Just now, A64Pilot said:

Thanks for the reply.

IF Mooney is the only use for this engine it makes me wonder if Lycoming might orphan it? But I assume that has a lot to do with how many parts are specific to just it, I have no idea myself

I doubt that since there were over 330 Bravos made, plus this engine has many common components of the TI0-540-AE2A which has been used in Piper Mirages since 1989, and is still in production today (Piper M350 it's called now).

[A64Pilot]

Just now, LANCECASPER said:

I doubt that since there were over 330 Bravos made, plus this engine has many common components of the TI0-540-AE2A which has been used in Piper Mirages since 1989, and is still in production today (Piper M350 it's called now).

I was just speculating that’s why I deleted that, of course as long as they are making money with it I doubt they will orphan it.

Didn't realize there were so many Bravo’s

[Fly Boomer]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I was just speculating that’s why I deleted that, of course as long as they are making money with it I doubt they will orphan it.

Didn't realize there were so many Bravo’s

There were 356 according to the chart in this thread:

http://www.mooneyspace.com/topic/47163-edit-eight-8-mooney-accidentsincidentsgear-ups-in-six-6-days

Not sure where those numbers came from.

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, Fly Boomer said:

There were 356 according to the chart in this thread:

http://www.mooneyspace.com/topic/47163-edit-eight-8-mooney-accidentsincidentsgear-ups-in-six-6-days

Not sure where those numbers came from.

I meant to type "over 350". Through 2005 there were 350 and they made a few in 2006 before the Acclaim was announced, so 356 is probably right.