Used Lycoming Pitfalls
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used Lycoming Pitfalls
I will in the future be looking for a Lycoming IO-360 for the RV I am currently building. Looking at various options which include a new Lycoming, a Superior 'Lycloming', or a used high time engine to have reconditioned.
The used engine market seems to be a bit of a minefield and has the potential to end up costing thousands. I have been told that I should look for a dirt cheap prop strike engine to heave rebuilt as any used engine could potentially have a hidden history anyway and at least the price offered will reflect that.
Has anyone gone down that route of having a prop striked engine inspected and rebuilt? I would be interested to hear of the pro's and cons as well as rough prices for the inspection etc.
The used engine market seems to be a bit of a minefield and has the potential to end up costing thousands. I have been told that I should look for a dirt cheap prop strike engine to heave rebuilt as any used engine could potentially have a hidden history anyway and at least the price offered will reflect that.
Has anyone gone down that route of having a prop striked engine inspected and rebuilt? I would be interested to hear of the pro's and cons as well as rough prices for the inspection etc.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: purley
Age: 69
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you say an IO-360, do you mean the 180BHP version or the 200BHP version ? As I believe the larger one as fitted to Bulldogs are actually a bit bigger. The G-RVVI that Jerry Parr built has one of those and has a non standard bulged cowling ? Not sure if the PA28 Arrow with both the 180 and 200 are in fact the same engines. One of the main differences are all the ancillarys.
Have a look at the Lycoming website for all the differences.
Have a look at the Lycoming website for all the differences.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
I was thinking of the 180 version. I think the RV will be good enough with that and a CS prop. It's all still open to change at the moment though as I am just finishing the empennage
I was thinking of the 180 version. I think the RV will be good enough with that and a CS prop. It's all still open to change at the moment though as I am just finishing the empennage
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: purley
Age: 69
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have an RV6 with 180 and a fixed pitch propeller. What I can tell you is that the propeller that Vans supply for that engine is a very special version of the
Sensenich. The prop is effectively a clipped tip version but incredible high pitch.
It is 72 inch diameter, but 85 inch pitch !!!!! compare that with a PA28/180 fixed pitch which is 60 inch pitch or a Robin 400/180 that is 64 inch pitch. What it means is that you still get good full power static RPM at 2,300 rpm due to the clipping and 1,000 fpm climb rate and 150 kts at 2,400rpm. So why on earth bother with a VP prop and the costs of maintenance and rebuilds. On the 160 engine the VP makes a little bit more sense. The RV with the 180 is more nose heavy than the 160, so the VP makes it worse. Keep it simple, tip forward canopy to get to the back of the instruments and better visibility, less air noise.
Of course the wheel at the back not the front !!!!!
Sensenich. The prop is effectively a clipped tip version but incredible high pitch.
It is 72 inch diameter, but 85 inch pitch !!!!! compare that with a PA28/180 fixed pitch which is 60 inch pitch or a Robin 400/180 that is 64 inch pitch. What it means is that you still get good full power static RPM at 2,300 rpm due to the clipping and 1,000 fpm climb rate and 150 kts at 2,400rpm. So why on earth bother with a VP prop and the costs of maintenance and rebuilds. On the 160 engine the VP makes a little bit more sense. The RV with the 180 is more nose heavy than the 160, so the VP makes it worse. Keep it simple, tip forward canopy to get to the back of the instruments and better visibility, less air noise.
Of course the wheel at the back not the front !!!!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer the OP's question, my preference would either be a brand new engine, if the budget allows, or, if less money is available, an engine in mid life, which has run regularly over a long period (NOT a hangar queen, and not damaged), which is then at least top overhauled before your installation, or better a top overhaul and the case split for inspection. And, in either case all accessories overhauled. Then you will know what you started with, and have confidence. In your new labour of love plane, a low cost unknown engine is not what you want!
Avoid Lycomings which have sat not run for periods of months, unless they were properly preserved.
I say this having worked in an engine overhaul shop for years, and owning both a Continental (O-200) and Lycoming (O-360).
The very coarse fixed pitch prop is fine on the RV, but you will sacrifice some takeoff and climb performance. Fixed pitch is always a compromise. I have flown MTV CS propellers on a number of O-360 powered aircraft (Lake Amphibian, Twin Comanche, DA-42-360, and my Teal Amphibian), and very much like them. I did the back to front testing of the Twin Comanche with the MTV's having also just tested the two blade CS Hartzells. There was a noticeable improvement in climb performance.
For taildragger aircraft, there is a added (though hopefully little used) benefit to having the MTV propeller: In the worst case, if you accidentally prop strike the aircraft, the blades will take the hit, and your hub and engine will survive undamaged. They will still need inspection, but will most likely survive. If you ground strike a metal prop, you're replacing the entire prop, and probably some of the engine.
Avoid Lycomings which have sat not run for periods of months, unless they were properly preserved.
I say this having worked in an engine overhaul shop for years, and owning both a Continental (O-200) and Lycoming (O-360).
The very coarse fixed pitch prop is fine on the RV, but you will sacrifice some takeoff and climb performance. Fixed pitch is always a compromise. I have flown MTV CS propellers on a number of O-360 powered aircraft (Lake Amphibian, Twin Comanche, DA-42-360, and my Teal Amphibian), and very much like them. I did the back to front testing of the Twin Comanche with the MTV's having also just tested the two blade CS Hartzells. There was a noticeable improvement in climb performance.
For taildragger aircraft, there is a added (though hopefully little used) benefit to having the MTV propeller: In the worst case, if you accidentally prop strike the aircraft, the blades will take the hit, and your hub and engine will survive undamaged. They will still need inspection, but will most likely survive. If you ground strike a metal prop, you're replacing the entire prop, and probably some of the engine.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble with buying an engine that has had a prop-strike, is that unless you strip it and do a full shock-load inspection and NDT analysis of the crank, you won't know whether you've bought a great motor or a new anchor until far too late. No vendor of said motor is going to agree a sale to you subject to the strip, inspection and test as - until it's opened up - the motor is like schrodingers cat; simultaneously both alive and dead...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
Last edited by wsmempson; 8th Sep 2016 at 17:39.
When you say an IO-360, do you mean the 180BHP version or the 200BHP version ? As I believe the larger one as fitted to Bulldogs are actually a bit bigger. The G-RVVI that Jerry Parr built has one of those and has a non standard bulged cowling ? Not sure if the PA28 Arrow with both the 180 and 200 are in fact the same engines.
The 180 HP engines have parallel valve head where as the 200 HP have angle valve heads. The angle valve heads have wider wider head and wider rocker covers and thus require more space under the cowls. They're quite easy to distinguish from the parallel valve versions. The parallel valve head rocker covers are bowl shaped, the angle valve head rocker covers are flat and bigger.
I'd echo Steep Turn's comment, don't cheap out on the engine.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would second JBs comments about not rejecting an engine that is FP only, we have this on our 7, performance is still good and I find for aeros I can set 2,500 RPM, giving 150kts and do all manouvres, including a full vertical roll with 150 kts max at this power setting, it leaves a good margin below max RPM and will gain height as I do it!
Last edited by foxmoth; 9th Sep 2016 at 08:28. Reason: Sp.
One of the most common non-injected engines available is that used in the R22 helicopter. Student pilots appear to roll them over regularly. I have seen these engines sold as not requiring a shock load inspection because the belt drive absorbs the shock. Two points here, firstly the idea that there is no shock is debateable and secondly if the drive drive train is disrupted under power where did the revs climb too? My guess is an overspeed. Be wary.
I don't know too much about prop-strike engines, but in my car-rallying days we did manage to put a con-rod through the side of an engine.
I know the flywheel is in a different area on the aero engine, but our crankshaft was both bent and twisted, such that the tdc of the affected cylinder would be about 10 degrees out.
Some engineering companies could correct these faults, with a hydraulic press, but we renewed both crankshaft and cylinder block (as they were cheap enough.)
Be prepared for some heavy engineering if you get a prop-strike engine !
.
I know the flywheel is in a different area on the aero engine, but our crankshaft was both bent and twisted, such that the tdc of the affected cylinder would be about 10 degrees out.
Some engineering companies could correct these faults, with a hydraulic press, but we renewed both crankshaft and cylinder block (as they were cheap enough.)
Be prepared for some heavy engineering if you get a prop-strike engine !
.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The prop strike engine will be a lottery. You might be lucky and the crank is fine, you might be unlucky and have £6k bill before you do anything else.
If you buy it after an inspection - and it passed then the price will not be discounted anything like so much - but it will still have had a prop strike.....
If you are buying second hand get a thorough inspection, check the history and that probably means visiting the last place it was based or used. Engine cores have a significant value and if they are really cheap then there is usually a very good reason. A lycoming rebuild with cylinders, camshaft and all the SB260 bits is going to be circa $16k and likely that in pounds, adding a new crankshaft fairly inflates that bill.
If you buy it after an inspection - and it passed then the price will not be discounted anything like so much - but it will still have had a prop strike.....
If you are buying second hand get a thorough inspection, check the history and that probably means visiting the last place it was based or used. Engine cores have a significant value and if they are really cheap then there is usually a very good reason. A lycoming rebuild with cylinders, camshaft and all the SB260 bits is going to be circa $16k and likely that in pounds, adding a new crankshaft fairly inflates that bill.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say there are three viable options, buy a brand new engine, or a just zeroed one from a trustworthy source, or get an engine at lifetime end and let it rebuilt at your preferred engine overhauler. I personally would not go for a used used engine, because you have no idea wether it was broken in correctly and/or how it was treated by the former owner. This is a bit "certified thinking", but I firmly believe it is best also for experimental and homebuilt, at this stage.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will in the future be looking for a Lycoming IO-360 for the RV I am currently building. Looking at various options which include a new Lycoming, a Superior 'Lycloming', or a used high time engine to have reconditioned.
The used engine market seems to be a bit of a minefield and has the potential to end up costing thousands. I have been told that I should look for a dirt cheap prop strike engine to heave rebuilt as any used engine could potentially have a hidden history anyway and at least the price offered will reflect that.
Has anyone gone down that route of having a prop striked engine inspected and rebuilt? I would be interested to hear of the pro's and cons as well as rough prices for the inspection etc.
The used engine market seems to be a bit of a minefield and has the potential to end up costing thousands. I have been told that I should look for a dirt cheap prop strike engine to heave rebuilt as any used engine could potentially have a hidden history anyway and at least the price offered will reflect that.
Has anyone gone down that route of having a prop striked engine inspected and rebuilt? I would be interested to hear of the pro's and cons as well as rough prices for the inspection etc.
In low usage aircraft the high position camshaft in the Lycoming is a disaster and will rust also the history of stuck valves and over heating cylinders with cracking cylinders is a long and sorry tale. Why are the cooling fins shaved off on one side ? , result uneven cooling and oval wear. If you have to fit one the angle valve is better less valve sticking. For long life keep cylinder heads under 380f, use a 4 cylinder engine monitor and run lean of peak if injected plus fly often as Lycoming say 40 hours a month to make the 2000 TBO best of luck.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the replies.
To clarify, I am 99% certain I will be either buying a new Lycoming or a superior 'Lycloming' engine. I was interested to hear of other options but it sounds like a prop striked engine would be a can of worms best not opened. No matter how cheap it is.
The Lycoming may be a dinosaur but it is proven. If you want an aerobatic fast touring machine with short field capabilities what other options are there?
To clarify, I am 99% certain I will be either buying a new Lycoming or a superior 'Lycloming' engine. I was interested to hear of other options but it sounds like a prop striked engine would be a can of worms best not opened. No matter how cheap it is.
The Lycoming may be a dinosaur but it is proven. If you want an aerobatic fast touring machine with short field capabilities what other options are there?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exaggeration !
Horizon Flyer vastly overstates the case against the Lycoming engine like any piece of machinery requires care and maintenance.
Nothing Horizon says is untrue but the chances of all the things to the same engine are minimal, I have yet to see a crankcase that has been properly crack tested fail in further service, likewise the internal components go through NDT to avoid failure in further service.
The biggest problem is low usage with internal corrosion being a killer of cam shafts & cylinders with low oil temp being the prime cause of the moisture that causes the corrosion. Lycoming do publish to avoid these problems.
Nothing Horizon says is untrue but the chances of all the things to the same engine are minimal, I have yet to see a crankcase that has been properly crack tested fail in further service, likewise the internal components go through NDT to avoid failure in further service.
The biggest problem is low usage with internal corrosion being a killer of cam shafts & cylinders with low oil temp being the prime cause of the moisture that causes the corrosion. Lycoming do publish to avoid these problems.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess you are stuck with using the Lycoming piece of junk. The problem with a sudden engine stoppage as Lycoming call it is how did it stop. The deacceleration forces can be very high, all the ancillaries will need an overhaul and there is the probability the case will crack at 3 to 4 hundred hours, also all the ancillary gears should be changed as they can micro crack and dump micro grains of hard steel in the oil, like putting grinding past in the oil. This is not listed in lycoming list of must change items.
Yes, you can inspect an engine to the Nth degree if you choose to, but Lycoming have many decades of understanding what is needed for safe and dependable engine operation, and what is not.
If any Lycoming engine is a "piece of junk" blame the owner/maintainer, not Lycoming. Anything good can be made to be junk with abuse and poor care, but Lycomings do not start out that way, nor get that way with proper operation and care!
The deacceleration forces can be very high
Engines and accessories are consumable, either running, or sitting, they wear and deteriorate, it's inevitable. Budget for that! Don't fly poorly maintained junk, that's your choice!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horizon Flyer vastly overstates the case against the Lycoming engine like any piece of machinery requires care and maintenance.
Nothing Horizon says is untrue but the chances of all the things to the same engine are minimal, I have yet to see a crankcase that has been properly crack tested fail in further service, likewise the internal components go through NDT to avoid failure in further service.
The biggest problem is low usage with internal corrosion being a killer of cam shafts & cylinders with low oil temp being the prime cause of the moisture that causes the corrosion. Lycoming do publish to avoid these problems.
Nothing Horizon says is untrue but the chances of all the things to the same engine are minimal, I have yet to see a crankcase that has been properly crack tested fail in further service, likewise the internal components go through NDT to avoid failure in further service.
The biggest problem is low usage with internal corrosion being a killer of cam shafts & cylinders with low oil temp being the prime cause of the moisture that causes the corrosion. Lycoming do publish to avoid these problems.
Last edited by horizon flyer; 19th Sep 2016 at 19:57.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 360 is very damage tolerant but it has to be due to all the built in design faults which I can list if you
And, it sounds as though the damage tolerant Lycoming engines still got you home on three cylinders - there's something to be said for that!
Personally, I have flown Continental, Lycoming, Pratt and Whitney, Franklin, Theilert, and Rotax piston engines. They all got me where I intended to be. In each brand design features and flaws can be found, but they are all certified, and with a lot of operational experience to show that they are worthy. None are perfect, and as asked by the OP, there are things a pilot/owner should know to best care for each engine. But, none are "junk" (when maintained airworthy), and branding them so because of care or wear and tear maintenance concerns is short sighted....