Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Incorporating a used engine

  1. #11
    Sam Buchanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    KDCU
    Posts
    567
    Some assumptions and blanket statements have been made in this thread that are unfortunate. One is that all used engines are unknown and a piece of junk. While there are certainly engines on the used market that should not be flown, the educated buyer can greatly reduce the odds of an unhappy experience. An engine with a well-documented history and recent time in the air should still be airworthy on a fresh airframe. After all, when we buy a used aircraft......we are getting a used engine and many used aircraft are happily flown by new owners.

    But not all builders will want to go this route and that is ok.....builder's preference. In the first twenty years of the RV fleet very few new engines were installed in new builds. That has changed as the average cost of a new RV approaches six figures. Yes, there is some risk in installing a used engine, but it can be managed as can all the other risks associated with flying. Putting a 20 thousand dollar engine on a ten thousand dollar airframe is not going to be a viable option for all builders.

    Frank, $200 will buy you a brand new gasket set for a Lycoming or Continental.
    Last edited by Sam Buchanan; 06-24-2017 at 09:15 PM.
    Sam Buchanan
    The RV Journal RV-6 build log
    Fokker D.VII semi-replica build log

  2. #12
    cub builder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North Central AR
    Posts
    456
    The only blanket statement I made is that I wouldn't do it again. I've seen way too many "well documented engines" that looked great in the logs, but were a pile of junk inside. I think I also said that it does work out for some. IMHO, it's kind of like playing Russian Roulette and I'm not real big on gambling.

    It's not about the value of the airframe. It's about the value of the person in the aircraft. Crashing a $5,000 airframe can be just as fatal as crashing a $200,000 airframe. Many times used engines work out just fine. Just understand that until you look, you don't really know what you have on the front of your plane. Personally, the 8 adrenalin filled minutes it took me to nurse my plane into an airport at night with a disintegrating engine was more than enough time for me to consider the value of the $$ I had saved by buying a used engine that looked great on paper. I came very close that night to leaving my young wife as a widow with two young boys to raise on her own. It changed my attitude towards the value of what is written in the logs vs the value of opening up the engine and inspecting the insides for myself.

    The good news is that most aircraft engines are quite robust and usually fail gracefully in that if you listen to what the engine is telling you it will usually tell you it is in distress before it fails. In retrospect, had I been listening better, my failed engine had been telling me it was in trouble. I just hadn't learned the language yet and was missing the clues.

    -Cub Builder
    A&P
    Former Tech Counselor
    Former Flight Advisor

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,205
    I don't fly at night anymore. Too many close calls, the risk isn't worth it.

  4. #14
    Sam Buchanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    KDCU
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Berson View Post
    I don't fly at night anymore. Too many close calls, the risk isn't worth it.
    Me either. Only had one close call (that I know of...) but I don't have any flights that must be flown at night.
    Sam Buchanan
    The RV Journal RV-6 build log
    Fokker D.VII semi-replica build log

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oak Harbor Wa
    Posts
    400
    When you stop to think about it, everyone flys a used engine. it's simply matter of how much trust you have in it. How did your brand new engine gain your trust? by tearing it down or flying it?

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Downey View Post
    When you stop to think about it, everyone flys a used engine. it's simply matter of how much trust you have in it. How did your brand new engine gain your trust? by tearing it down or flying it?
    I don't think anyone is saying not to buy a used engine and use it; just that "buyer beware" is something to take very serious.

    Loads of questions should be asked, and the fewer that can be answered, the more caution should be used.

    For example, I know some folks that if I bought an engine from them and they said it was in good shape that would be good enough for me...I'd bolt it on and crank it. But from a stranger? Not so much.

    Especially if I spent seven or ten years building the firewall back - I'd take a bit more and check the engine closely.
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  7. #17
    Joda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by CarlOrton View Post
    (well, removing the data plate to de-certify it...)
    There's no need to remove the data plate from an engine when installing it in an experimental aircraft. The very fact that is operated under an experimental amateur-built airworthiness certificate means that the engine no longer meets its type certificate, so it's already "de-certified". Removing the data plate has no purpose.
    Cheers!

    Joe

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    I thought the whole remove the data plate thing was to denote it was on an experimental (and not subject to AD's) so that it couldn't be rotated back to a certified aircraft.

    Any illumination on the matter would be appreciated. My want of trivia is never satisfied.
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,205
    Does the engine and prop need the data plates to get the 25 hour test period instead of 40 hours for uncertified?

    Does the prop/engine combination need to be certified? Or just any certified prop on any certified engine?
    Last edited by Bill Berson; 06-25-2017 at 10:01 PM.

  10. #20
    Joda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Giger View Post
    I thought the whole remove the data plate thing was to denote it was on an experimental (and not subject to AD's) so that it couldn't be rotated back to a certified aircraft.
    That's the commonly-held belief, but it's not based on fact. The fact is, once the engine is mounted to and operated on an experimental amateur-built airframe, it automatically becomes an experimental engine. This is due to the fact that the maintenance regulations found on 14 CFR Part 43 do not apply to the experimental amateur-built aircraft. As such, there is no requirement that the person doing maintenance on the aircraft, engine, or any installed components, hold any sort of FAA certificate. In other words, ANYONE is allowed to perform maintenance, repair, or modification to that aircraft (including all installed equipment and components). And further, the maintenance recording requirements and return to service requirement found in Part 43 also do not apply, so there is no regulatory requirement for any maintenance to be recorded in aircraft records.

    All this being the case, there is no way for the FAA to verify whether all maintenance has been performed by certificated individuals in accordance with appropriate regulations, as none of this is required. Thus, the engine cannot continue to meet its type certificate regardless of whether the data plate is installed or not. The very fact that non-certificated individuals "may" have performed maintenance on the engine is all it takes to make the engine "experimental".

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Berson View Post
    Does the engine and prop need the data plates to get the 25 hour test period instead of 40 hours for uncertified?

    Does the prop/engine combination need to be certified? Or just any certified prop on any certified engine?
    Yes, the data plates for the engine and prop must be in place in order to get the 25 hour flight test period, AND the applicant must be able to show that the engine and prop have been certificated together on a standard category aircraft in order to get the 25 hour flight test. If the engine and prop have not been certificated TOGETHER on a standard category airplane, you'll get 40 hours even if both engine and prop are individually certificated.

    Hope this helps!
    Cheers!

    Joe

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •