Looking for a good used TSIO-360-LB or MB

[FlyWalt]

Hello all,

Our beloved 231 needs an engine change. We have about 2200 SFRM on her with, get this, no history of a top by the previous owner. Yes I am in disbelief.

Quite honestly, the 40K needed for a new FRM from Continental is big pill to swallow.

After spending several hours on the phone looking at the options I would like to find a good used engine, preferably an FRM with no damage history. The only ones I have found thus far is a FRM with a prop strike issue.D

Does anyone here have a lead I can follow?

Thank you in advance.

Walt

[DaV8or]

Is there a savings to be had by going with a rebuild by someone other than the factory? A good used engine that has been run recently and well maintained might be tough to find.

[FlyWalt]

That would only save us a few thousand dollars. The deal killer is a Non VAR crank that ups the bill high enough to where it makes more sense to go for an FRM. Or a used motor if I can find one.

[goncaloareia]

Hi

I have a TSIO-360-MB1 used that has some 100 hours since new (Continental remanufacture) and that was removed from an aircraft involved on a court claim (nothing to do with the engine, I'm a lawyer).

The engine is from 1999, was removed in 2004 from the aircraft and has been properly maintained in official hibernation (oil change every 6 months) by an engine shop since then.

Has all the documentation and paperwork to trace its roots and history.

Since I bought the aircraft that was involved in the court claim (mooney 252 TSE S/N 25-1150), and the previous owner arranged an agreement in court that got everything new firewall forward, in my deal the older engine came along, will all accessories included (alternators, intercooler, turbo, etc, etc...).

It's still in the Continental original box and I was looking at keeping it for spares or selling it to another mooney owner.

So if you're interested let me know and I can explain more the history for this engine.

Kind regards.

Goncalo Areia

[FlyWalt]

Goncalo, I have left you a PM

[NotarPilot]

Walt, I'm curious, is there a set of circumstances that say you need a new engine or are you simply getting a replacement soley based on the number of hours? I may be stirring the pot here but you maybe want to watch some of Mike Busch's Savvy Aviator webinar about "TBO and Beyond." Mike is an outspoken critic of simply rebuilding something based on hours. He has a Cessna 310 with engines that are 200% of TBO. Maybe something to consider.

[FlyWalt]

We discovered a valve keeper that was worn and was about to release a valve into the No 3 cylinder. I have been quoted 1200 by our AI to rebuild that cylinder and keep going. However I tend to think it is time to view it as a dodged bullet and retire the motor. Feel free to advise me on your wisdom. I am open to other opinions. However I am a VERY conservative aviator.

[danb35]

However I am a VERY conservative aviator.

The conservative solution is to fix what's shown to need fixing, and keep a close eye on the engine to make sure you catch it. Watch your engine monitor, borescope your cylinders, do oil analysis, cut open your oil filter, etc. A problem with one cylinder doesn't indicate a need to work on the others, much less tear down the bottom end.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Unless your 231 has a Trophy 262 conversion or you gain a field approval in some way, I don't think you can mount an MB engine to a pre-1986 Mooney M20K.

[FlyWalt]

I just got off the phone with the MSC in Ft Lauderdale, (Premier Aircraft). They are researching this project for me now. We MAY be able to do an engine upgrade with the MB. Let's see where it goes.

[DaV8or]

The conservative solution is to fix what's shown to need fixing, and keep a close eye on the engine to make sure you catch it. Watch your engine monitor, borescope your cylinders, do oil analysis, cut open your oil filter, etc. A problem with one cylinder doesn't indicate a need to work on the others, much less tear down the bottom end.

Well, the are two kinds of conservative when it comes to aviation. Fiscally conservative and safety conservative. They are not always one and the same. At some point, if the motor is starting to have nagging problems with potentially hazardous situations like the above valve issues, a rebuild might be in order. Part of the point of a rebuild is not just to make everything new specs again, but also just to open her up and see how everything is doing in there.

It's really up to the owner/pilot's comfort level.

On the other hand, if your filters are always squeeky clean and your oil pressure is good, you might consider pulling the bad jug and then doing a throughout inspection of the cam and inside the crankcase with a bore scope. Then, if all looks well, just do all new cylinders.

[FlyWalt]

"On the other hand, if your filters are always squeeky clean and your oil pressure is good, you might consider pulling the bad jug and then doing a throughout inspection of the cam and inside the crankcase with a bore scope. Then, if all looks well, just do all new cylinders."

Do you really think that this would be a good investment on a motor with 2200 hours? Remember, this engine has a TBO of 1800 hours. We are at 120 percent of engine life.

[FlyWalt]

Well the MB is not a viable option. Still looking for an LB.

[danb35]

Well, the are two kinds of conservative when it comes to aviation. Fiscally conservative and safety conservative. They are not always one and the same.

Absolutely agreed. However, maintenance is kind of like surgery--it's an inherently invasive procedure, and no matter how careful you are, there's always a risk of something going wrong. Doing more maintenance (or more invasive maintenance) is not, inherently, safety conservative. "Safety conservative" is identifying an actual problem and fixing it. Only when there aren't practical means to monitor an item's condition, and that item is critical to safety of flight, should the item be replaced/overhauled/whatever on some sort of schedule. That's not just financially conservative, it's also safety conservative.

That said, there may come a point when you "lose confidence" in a part, and just want to replace it. That isn't a problem, necessarily, but it's much more of an emotional call than anything else.

In this case, we have an engine with a known history and one known problem. The OP is proposing to replace it with a used engine of unknown history, with potential unknown problems. That doesn't sound "safety conservative" to me.

[DaV8or]

Do you really think that this would be a good investment on a motor with 2200 hours? Remember, this engine has a TBO of 1800 hours. We are at 120 percent of engine life.

Probably not, but I don't think I'd buy a used engine either. That's just me. I don't know how it prices out, but if you're short on cash and plan to keep the plane a lot longer, I might top the engine rather than park it.

[KSMooniac]

Why not overhaul what you already have? The only downside is the downtime associated with that route, but you'll keep all of your known, good parts and make sure everything is ready for another 2200 hours.

[NotarPilot]

Walt,

Do yourself a favor and listen to this Mike Busch webinar on TBOs. http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1878459789001

It won't cost you anything but it might help you make a better informed decision. Mike talks about how the failure rate of new engines 0-400 hours is actually higher than engines that are flown beyond TBO. After watching and listening to some of his information I would have no qualms flying right past TBO as long as everything was looking good on my engine. From what you're saying, I would probably elect to rebuild the bad cylinder and just keep on truckin. Meanwhile, keeping an eye on the engine like Dan Brown said above.

Or don't watch the video.

Steve

[jlunseth]

I just got off the phone with the MSC in Ft Lauderdale, (Premier Aircraft). They are researching this project for me now. We MAY be able to do an engine upgrade with the MB. Let's see where it goes.

There is a serial number limit to that conversion, in other words, if your 231 is before a certain SN the conversion cannot be done. I don't remember the number, but you can likely find it on the www.mooney.com website under their list of modifications. It is an aircraft SN by the way, not an engine SN.