Engine overhaul

[Tolka]

The engine in the aircraft I have a share in (2007 Cessna 172SP) will reach 2,000 hours in about 2 years time. We will probably opt for a factory overhaul by Lycoming. We have been building up an engine fund for this cost over the last few years. What ball-park figures should we expect to pay to have this work done. It would be helpful if you could split it between the cost of the overhaul itself and the cost of having the engine re-installed. The aircraft's engine is a Lycoming IO360L2A.

[Echo Romeo]

Hope this is still current, but someone I knew got quotes, exchange unit, 30k and 2k for the work, don't know exactly the engine except it was 180hp fuel injected Cessna 172SP.

[A and C]

If it is then get it overhauled in Europe.

Remember that at engine overhaul you will need new hoses, the oil cooler cleaned ultrersonicly and the engine frame has to have a magnetic particle inspection to meet the Cessna SID's check requirement, so you need to Budget for this.

[Johnm]

I had my O360 overhauled by Nicholson McClaren at Wokingham near Reading £18k and all that wasn't replaced was the crankcase. Excellent job and they even stepped up when the brand new Slick mag failed in France at 100 hours and Slick just didn't want to know.

[pmh1234]

If the engine is fine - good compression, not excessive oil consumption - then why not continue as it is?

[Cows getting bigger]

30k is too much for an IO-360. I would expect nearer 20k.

[maxred]

If it is N reg, and ticking along nicely, stick it on condition.

At next annual, oil analysis, borescope check, and if comps good, I would leave it alone.

A thread on a US site, giving stats of the horrendous amount of new engines/full overhaul, failing after 100-200 hours.

A lot of guys using the 'if it aint broke, dont fix it'...

[Silvaire1]

If it is N reg, and ticking along nicely, stick it on condition.

There would be no 'sticking it on condition' because FAA maintenance regs do not make a distinction between engines on the basis of their time in service in relation to the manufacturers TBO recommendation. Private aircraft engines are operated on condition, under the same annual inspections, regardless of low or high engine TIS or calendar time.

What you do beyond the FAA annual inspection is your own business, and taking a closer look at an engine as it ages is considered a good idea by many owners. Oil leaks sometimes motivate people to take things apart too.

[maxred]

Silvaire, the OP clearly stated that the engine was coming up to 2000 hrs TBO. You are well aware that under FAR, the engine can be operated under the tag - 'on condition', long after the recommended life/hours mandate, and ASSUMING that the correct FAA annual checks, 100 hour checks, are all complied with in line with the manufacturers maintenance manual, then yes - it can be 'stuck on condition'.

Obviously the engine must be thoroughly checked, at every maintenance juncture, that is only good and clever practice, but, only FAR allows this. He could not do it under EASA.

[Silvaire1]

Maxred, you misunderstand. We are in 'violent agreement' :) except that on N-register there are LESS requirements than you thought.

There is no European style 'tag' for 'on condition' for FAA regulated private light aircraft. ALL engines must be inspected annually by the same simple procedures, regardless of time since overhaul. Manufacturer recommended TBO has no regulatory standing. As such, neither engine operating time nor calendar time since overhaul make any difference to FAA mandated inspection or maintenance protocol - regardless of whether the engine has 25 hrs and two months since overhaul or 3000 hrs and 30 years. There are no special regulations and procedures for engines having exceeded any particular time or calendar period since overhaul - hence the engine would not be put 'on condition'.

In addition, 100 hr inspections are required only for FAA regulated aircraft in commercial service. Otherwise an annual inspection is the only FAA mandated inspection to maintain airworthiness of a privately owned aircraft, and FAA regulated private light aircraft are not required to document or submit a maintenance program.

And finally, the manufacturers maintenance manual is a reference document under the FAA regs, not a legal document. Only the 'Airworthiness Limitations' section (if it exists) is regulatory in nature. The required scope of an annual inspection is regulated by a specific FAR which does not reference commercial data such as recommended procedures within the maintenance manual. The certificated mechanic (A&P IA for an annual) must satisfy a very generic and simple FAR, something like the MOT requirement for a UK car. Otherwise, The A&P and owner can use the manufacturer's maintenance manual procedures as a reference, at their discretion, but need not slavishly follow them. This has an advantage when they have been proven wrong over time - and since FAA certified aircraft do not have a government appointed commercial 'support' organization to mandatorily update the maintenance manual decades after manufacture, over say 50 years that becomes even more often the case than it is with a newly certified aircraft. Regardless, best practice is determined by the owner and certificated mechanic.

[maxred]

Appreciated Silvaire, I actually did not appreciate that finer detail on the FAR status. Even more reason that ALL should be under the FAA N reg regime