Incorporating a used engine

[CarlOrton]

Hi, All; I understand the ramifications of what I'm about to ask, but was looking mainly for actual experiences from other builders.

Has anyone ever placed a used certificated engine as-is on their project, without rebuilding it? (well, removing the data plate to de-certify it...) As an example, I've been able to find mid-time engines salvaged from hail-damaged planes. No prop strike, etc. Aside from changing the oil/filter, checking the plugs, etc., and assuming good compression, why not just slap it on your airframe and go with it?

[Sam Buchanan]

Hi, All; I understand the ramifications of what I'm about to ask, but was looking mainly for actual experiences from other builders.

Has anyone ever placed a used certificated engine as-is on their project, without rebuilding it? (well, removing the data plate to de-certify it...) As an example, I've been able to find mid-time engines salvaged from hail-damaged planes. No prop strike, etc. Aside from changing the oil/filter, checking the plugs, etc., and assuming good compression, why not just slap it on your airframe and go with it?

I've done it twice, an O-320 (Cessna 172) on the RV-6 in 1998 and more recently an O-200 (Cessna 150) on the Fokker replica. I left the data plate on both engines. Just keep in mind it is a bit of a roll of the dice because you don't have first-hand knowledge of the internal condition of the engine. If the engine has been inactive or infrequently flown in recent years there may be issues with corrosion. But if you purchase the engine at a good price where you can afford overhaul if necessary down the road, it can be a reasonable option.

[DaleB]

Why would you remove the data plate?

[CarlOrton]

Why would you remove the data plate?

OK; was just going by memory here, and that sometimes fails.... I was under the impression that even if installed in an E/AB aircraft, the engine still had it's certification, and would therefore have to have only "approved" parts otherwise it could be deemed unairworthy. Personally, I don't care if the plate's on it or not, as long as I can add any ol' nut or bolt I want from the aviation department of Lowes (and I would never do that; except to perhaps attach a ground cable, and even then I'd think about it...)

[nrpetersen]

My opinion is that I would rather use a tired old but still running OK engine on a first flight than a freshly overhauled one. The well used engine won't surprise you with infant mortality failures, and can better survive poor baffling & other cooling problems. Corrosion problems in the cylinders (assuming a reasonable inspection) won't cause a catastrophic failure - just high oil consumption. Once you got the other test flight wrinkles straightened out, go ahead and overhaul it. But expect the engine to run hotter until it is broken in. Just make sure the outside is reasonably clean so it can cool, and so you can spot oil leaks.

[CarlOrton]

I view that as a valid aspect that I know about, but hadn't considered in this context. Thanks for the reminder!

[Frank Giger]

My opinion is that I would rather use a tired old but still running OK engine on a first flight than a freshly overhauled one. The well used engine won't surprise you with infant mortality failures, and can better survive poor baffling & other cooling problems. Corrosion problems in the cylinders (assuming a reasonable inspection) won't cause a catastrophic failure - just high oil consumption. Once you got the other test flight wrinkles straightened out, go ahead and overhaul it. But expect the engine to run hotter until it is broken in. Just make sure the outside is reasonably clean so it can cool, and so you can spot oil leaks.

This can bite one in the rear end, though.

One of my EAA brothers bought what was billed as a "moderately high but sound" engine and had to perform a landing under stress on flight number three. Subsequent tear down showed it was in much worse shape than advertised; while the compression was good, the main bearings looked like termites had their way with them.

I'd say a tear down inspection before first flight is probably prudent if the engine isn't a completely known quantity.

[Joda]

(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.

[Frank Giger]

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.

[Bill Berson]

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?