TBO 5000
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 07. 2024
- In 2011, a 14-member Midwest flying club needed to decide what to do about its 1997 Cessna 172R whose Lycoming IO-360 engine had reached its 2,000-hour TBO. The club turned to its Maintenance Officer for advice, and he turned to Mike Busch's company Savvy Aviation. Thus began a collaboration that resulted in the Skyhawk's engine continuing in service for another decade until it reached the ripe old age of 5,000 hours and saving the club about $60,000. In this webinar, Mike tells the story of how this was accomplished. and talks about why every engine deserves the chance to continue in service "until its time comes." Savvy Aviation offers Professional Maintenance Services to owners of General Aviation aircraft, such as: SavvyMx (Professional Maintenance Management), SavvyQA (Expert Consulting), SavvyPrebuy, SavvyAnalysis (Engine Data Analysis) and Breakdown Assistance. Savvy also publishes a monthly newsletter with lots of interesting information for the general aviation enthusiast; subscribe to it at www.savvyaviation.com or text the word "Savvy" to 33777. This webinar was hosted by the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA).
- Auta a dopravní prostředky
Running my engine strong, right now she’s very close to 2700 hrs SMOH. Burns about a qt every 10 hrs, oil filter always comes clean with no metal and oil samples show normal levels. Thanks for the webinars.
40+ years as a mechanic and this was a very good representation of engines... Adding to his "Solvent" flush, we have used ATF (typeF) and water in similar fashion.. ATF is a very high detergent fluid and the water can aid in the release of carbon from cylinders/ring packs... Very well informed talk..
Thanks Randall!
I was in the auto industry , and what we used to use is transmission fluid. It has a lot of detergents in it .
Is that ATF mixed with water, or ATF separately from water? If separate, which one first?
I can listen to Mike talk all day! Love these webinars
I agree, absolutely wonderful.
Thanks you guys! Appreciate your support.
I have been needing a Savvy aviation video for a while. Thanks for posting.
Me too!
Glad to help!
The rental planes at the FBO I used to work at had about 4000 hours on there engines, ran great
Congrats to the pilots and MX of Unruly as they clearly took care of that engine.
The value of excellent maintainence shows its worth here.......
Condition monitoring...condition monitoring...condition monitoring!
Great story. thx
Helpful webinar
Great story. thank you...
Very good content! Thank you
Mike thank you so much for this valuable information.
thank you for sharing
One of our twin commander went almost 3000 hours on the last set of engines (TIO540 350hp). We fly aerial survey and go all the time.
Shrikes ?
No exceptions for experience, Mike listening to your voice tone n detailed yet short to the point is amazing and informative. Tks 🙂👍
I appreciate that!
Good stuff. Enjoyed
Very interesting! Thank you for sharing.
AMAZING I HAD AN AP IA TELL ME IN MY YOUNGER DAYS FLY IT PAST TBO YOU BECOME A TEST PILOT I DONT THINK A HIGH PERFORMANCE TSIO=540-J2BD LAST LIKE THAT BUT JUST SIMPLY AMAZING SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT MAINT PILOT TECHNIQUE AND OVERALL ATTENTION THIS ENGINE GOT
Brilliant
Yes Slick 50 contains PTFE. I have a letter from DuPont who makes the PTFE where they do not recommend putting it in ANY internal combustion engine!
PTFE will not “plate” to surfaces at temps lower than 1500F
Consider your Teflon coated egg pan!! The Teflon coating doesn’t last very long. If you have any oil blowing past your rings, your plugs will foul up quite rapidly with the Teflon leaving quite a mess! PS. I have tested Slick 50 on a Timken bearing machine with very dismal results. I wouldn’t put in my lawn mower!
Valuable and helpful information that is evidence-based. That is why I am a SAAVY member. Great seminar!
NOT EVIDENCE-BASED. I HATE EBM for instance. They suspected the problem, took a course of action, and remedied it BUT it was not a total guess as evidence-based often (BUT NOT ALWAYS) is. Evidence-based medicine would have killed me. I think it is the bane of modern medicine as it almost ALWAYS dumbs down diagnosis/troubleshooting.
We promote condition monitoring and only performing maintenance when necessary. I guess I'd call that data-driven maintenance?
I purchased a 1994 Chevy 2500 engine Chevy 350 gas engine, I purchase this new, because my work and had me driving 65-95k each year doing texter coating and painting of homes all over the state, I put 624k on this gas power engine is incredibly high for gas power engine of its time. When I traded the truck in they let it sit a lot and the engine had to be replaced within that year. However, when I traded it in it burnt a little oil but not bad it did not smoke, I just noticed my oil changes had to be done about 500 sooner than normal over time or else it would be a little low on oil. Chevy was impressed and put my truck in their magazine at the time, The drive train was all original. I believe I got so many miles out because of how often the truth was used and how it was used for long trips consistently. I agree if you use the motor all the time and let it run for long periods of time each run your engine will last up to 5x longer, Most chevy 350s would last at best about 160-220k miles. I purchased a new truck this time a ford 5.7 diesel and got 850k out of it, still running strong when I upgraded, I would bet that one hit the mill mark if the new owner drove it a lot. when most were lasting about 400-500k so I agree the engine will last longer if operated often and let to fully warm and run during each operation, I dove an abnormally about of miles each year most drive 12-25k a year I was averaging just under 100k a year I belive this is why my engine lasted for so many miles more then the average Ford 5.7 or Chevy 350!
I always found it funny that the same sentence on recommended TBO states, “….2,000 hour or 10 years.” Everyone ignores the 10 years bit. Most of the problems I have seen in my time in a GA have been age related. Engines that sat for extended amounts of time. Lost friends from “low time” engines that failed.
Curious what the engine oil change interval was?
Is there a CamGuard recipe available which is suitable for Rotax 912 engines in seasonal use?
looks like if the solvent treatment was done earlier it would have made 6000 hours!
Would it have been prudent to solvent flush the engine starting at 2000 hours & every 1000 hours there after?
my O235 data plate mention 0.005 valve clearance but operator manual said another value. what should I follow
I'd be more concerned about the accessories than the engine past TBO.
If engine failures are early, it is important to purchase the very best. An extra $5000, in the beginning, Might be cheaper in the long run.
Playback speed 1.50. You’re welcome
I love happy endings.
the Only Lucas Oil Product they list that has ANY mention of Aviation, is their Metal Polish.
Does the chart at the beginning discussing engine failure rate in regards to hours or calendar time Account for the numbers of those particular engines flying? I would hazard a guess that there are exponentially more new engines out there flying versus old engines.
The histograms plot the number of GA accidents attributed by NTSB to engine failure as a probable cause or contributing factor. They include only the roughly 50% of engine failure accidents where the NTSB actually reported engine time -- the other 50% where the NTSB didn't were presumably ones where the NTSB didn't feel that engine time was relevant to the probable cause.
The histograms plot numbers of accidents, not accident rates. There is no denominator information available on the population of engines as a function of engine time -- believe me, we searched for data like that and there's just none to be had. Therefore, it is important to interpret the accident counts reflected in the histograms with care. It is definitely not surprising that there were few accidents involving past-TBO engines because presumably the population of past-TBO engines is small (since the prevailing maintenance culture calls for euthanizing engines at TBO whether or not there's anything wrong with them). What is noteworthy is the surprisingly large number of accidents involving very low-time engines. If one reasonably assumes that the overwhelming majority of engines remain in service for at least 50% of published TBO, then the histogram data indicates that the failure rate of very young engines is very high, indicating a significant infant-mortality risk.
Regarding engine-failure accidents involving over-TBO engines, there were so few of those that we were able to go through each one in detail to try to determine exactly why the over-TBO engine failed in flight. When we did this, we learned that about 80% of those over-TBO engine failures were maintenance-induced failures caused by some mechanic error, as opposed to an age-related component failure. Clearly such maintenance-induced failures can occur with engines of any age. Indeed, I imagine at least some of the infant-mortality engine failures were due to a mechanic's error during engine installation in the airplane (though I confess I do not know how many). I suppose one could argue that high-time engines tend to have more invasive maintenance (e.g., cylinder changes) than do low-time engines, so perhaps high-time engines are more vulnerable to stupid mechanic tricks than low-time engines are. However, I would suggest that the best way to avoid maintenance-induced engine failures is NOT to overhaul engines at TBO (and thereby increase the likelihood of infant-mortality engine failures) but rather to choose mechanics who are competent, careful, and don't screw up very often. -- Mike Busch
@@savvyaviation It sounds like you're saying the data is not normalized by the proportion of engines in the fleet having that many hours. For example, the high bars at low hours could be because most engines have low hours, or it could be because young engines are more likely to fail. Most likely, some combination of both. We'd have to normalize the data to get an ideal how much each factor contributes to the high failure rate.
@@savvyaviation Great answer!
Great question!
@@savvyaviation I made a comment above which this reply answers. And after this answer, I think it's entirely possible that your conclusion that 'infant mortality' is greater than engine failures as they age is grossly inaccurate. The data does not show that -- it might in fact be showing the opposite, you just don't know. Every engine has an 'oppportunity' to fail when it's young - they are all young once. But very few have an opportunity to fail when it's old -- and the data is inconclusive that they 'take' that opportunity less often. Your conclusions are faulty.
Most A&Ps I talked to don't like Savvy. I figured out why. They all like to kill perfectly good engines at TBO no questions asked. A lot of owners are scared into it without another opinion. I am at 2150. Compressions all 73-75/ 80. Oil filter is always metal free. I have seen several new engines at my field start making metal under 200hours. Its scary. I will leave well enough alone. It ran to tbo at a flight school. Now it flies less than 50hours a year, sits outside. I run cam guard but hope to fly more often soon.
We don't like to generalize...we try to give all A&Ps the benefit of the doubt. The fact is, the old school stuff is still being taught at many A&P schools and old wives tales are hard to break. At Savvy we work with many shops that are willing to try something new. We see a gradual change over. There will always be curmudgeons, but we are hopeful that maintenance is becoming more thoughtful. Thanks for your comment!
Still lots of good honest mechanics available, that is the good news, but unfortunately we still have dishonest a/p mechanics around,
How about marvel mystery lube? On an automobile engine I've gotten one to be very very clean by continuously using this product inside my engine. Has anybody use this on the airplane engine for these reasons?
As a former NASA technical director with graduate degrees in engineering and over 40 yrs designing building all sorts of electrical and mechanical systems as well as building and restoring engines and as a A&P, I see much good in what Mike says but I am sad to see he has fallen for the Statistical rabbit hole trap. He has apparently led people down that hole with him. The data on engines he begins to show at about 7 min into this video makes me cringe to hear how it is being interpreted. Statistic will kill you faster than the time it takes to collect them. I remember once being a young man in driving school, and a teacher said, statistics show that most accidents happen within 5 miles of home, and most happen while people are driving 20 to 30 mph, and most happen while a person is wearing a seat belt. The teacher asked what does that mean? I said, then drive as fast as you can, stay away from home and don't wear a seatbelt. That was 40 yrs ago . Now let me tell you. Infant mortality is when something is JUST made or built and has NOT completed break in. None of this data is infant mortality. He is misusing the term. Early mortality is the term he should be using. BUT all this data does not mean anything he is suggesting it means. You can look at those Bar graphs and what you see is a linear reduction with age. This reduction is more indicative of the type of flying people do as the engine ages, NOT the engine itself. What I'm referring to is the "service duty", and on a new engine, service duty is Much higher, then the service duty falls linearly as the engine ages. This is because people pamper more and more an engine as it ages, and use it less and less often. In fact, in this video he is talking all about a story where they treated a engine with maximal service duty maintenance regardless of its use frequency. And it went 5000 hs. It has nothing to do with the Hrs or the engine failure rate. What you see in those bar graphs is the effect of a plane as it gains hrs and the owners lower and lower use of the plane, as well as their lower and lower maintenance because they are using it less and less. You absolutely cannot determine any form of engine failure probability from this data as he and the not so smart NTSB is attempting to show. It is a sucker hole to even try. What you can see is the less you use it the more it breaks, which is a proven fact of just about everything. These charts show how people lower the service duty as the engine hrs get higher, that's what they show. But we can see from the two near identical 1000-1499 and 1500-1999 a common cause of failures. This near identical failure rate is attributed to a common cause between them. These are the peak years and hrs . The engine sits for long periods between flights as someone lowers their use of the plane as it ages, because they think they are reaching some limit and don't want to use up the life. This sitting causes moving parts to collect surface corrosion. All moving parts in everything from the engine to the alternator and magnetos shafts to cables and more. This small amount of corrosion between extended non use then gets ablated off as you now return to use it . there is accelerated wear from it for a short period. But this accelerated wear is repeated over and over every time you let it sit for a long period. Including On things not inside the engine There is also ablated rust dust sent everywhere. It eventually builds up and shorts things out like an armature in alternator. In the engine it gets churned through everything until broken down. Chemical analysis of the oil will not detect it as metal flakes, because they are not. Rust is oxidation and when it is ablated off the parts by movement it causes accelerated wear and it is set free into the oil to do it everywhere as it is being broken down. when it passes through the combustion chamber, and it will, it is turned into carbon. so a chemical analysis of engine oil will not reveal there was rust. However, engines that do get chem analysis on oil and show a very high amount of carbon tend to indicate the operator is not running the engine as frequently as they should. You see this in annuals where the engine has been used less than 50 hrs for the yr and the oil is as black as can be, this is a sign of too low of a service duty. The other effect of low service duty is the plane is simply not flying much, If it is not flying it can have an accident.
We just spoke to a rep for Lycoming and they said it doesn’t matter the condition of core because they don’t have up charges with their program. Idk if that’s because We subscribe to something different but we can send. Them any condition core.
If it had been run LOP would it still be flying on that engine?
I recently bought a light twin with O-360-A1Ds at about 950 SMOH. The previous owner ran them at 25"mp and 2500 rpm, leaned (not sure if he ran LOP or ROP, but I strongly suspect ROP); I almost always run them at 20"mp and 1800 rpm LOP. I flew it cross-country over 2400 nm and only burned about 1 quart of oil per engine at 22"mp and 2350 rpm, so I think they seem to be running pretty strong so far. Can anyone with experience with those engines tell me what to watch for in terms of wear and indications of pending issues? Thanks!
What you are looking for is an increase in wear metals in the oil samples, loss of compression, engine not making static RPM. Increase in oil consumption, and decrease of oil pressure.
Wonder if the mechanic added a disclaimer with the annual endorsement.
I would have at least quoted an overhaul at each inspection…and got proof of denial. I do that every time.
Barrett Precision rejects something like 20% of the jugs they get from lycoming so their standards are at least as good if not better than the factory
WTF.. Are the managers of Lycoming so mediocre or crooked now to push 20% bad ones.. Jail the crooks if they cause accidents..
Wouldn’t it have been worth it to pull the jugs and replace the rings? Or is that 20-20 hindsight? It sounds like that was the only issue with the engine
There comes a point when spending money on an old engine isn’t worth it.
From listening to old Savvy lectures, removing the jugs opens up opportunity for main bearings to shift and it can cause new issues to contend with.
@@christianjforbes if done correctly, that won’t happen. Always take engine work to a shop you trust.
You tried well to obscure the airport, but there is a Midwest airport, KGPH
I’ve seen a few fatalities from old engines loosing power due to camshaft and lifters degradation…
Cam/lifter failure should be fairly easy to detect with oil analysis and filter inspection. Generally cam/lifter failure is slow so you have time to catch it before it has a noticeable effect on performance and reliability.
@@LesNewell Right? And most of cam and lifter degrad are partial power fails. Many pilots panic and stall the airplane instead of landing it right. Pilot failure is not an engine failure accident.
There have been countless fatalities shortly after engine overhauls as well. In fact, an Aero engine is significantly more likely to catastrophically fail in the first 200hrs after overhaul than it is to totally fail in the remainder of its life. Usually if it makes it a few years it probably wont fail catastrophically and will give some sort of warning.
Diesel fuel is an excellent flush...
Why , in this modern era , are we still using lead in fuel ? Old habits are hard to break but if the ROTEX can do well with Motor fuel without the ethonol why not standard engines. Any octane fuel can be run as long as the timing is set correctly. I learned at Ft. Eustis in the 60's. I was trained on the OV-1 , CV-2 and the U-8. we were shown that any available fuel could be used as long as the timing was correct. What say you...
What's the scale on the left side of the accident histograms mean? Is the first column's "70" accidents mean 70 accidents per 10,000 engines in service? Or is it just 70 accidents per year? Unless those histograms take engine hour PERCENTAGE OF ENGINES IN SERVICE into account, they are vastly unrepresentative. Quite simply, EVERY engine must be new and have zero hours on it AT ONE TIME, while only the most rare engine will reach service above TBO time -- and the NUMBER of flying engines will decrease appropriately as that histogram moves from left to right. THEREFORE, it's entirely possible (and frankly intuitive) that the MOST number of failures (per engine in service) could in fact be happening WHEN THEY ARE OLD and not when they're young -- completely opposite from what Mike is suggesting.
Please be more thoughtful about stats, that graph at 6 min doesn't say what you think it says because it's not normalized for the flying engine fleet. For example that same curve would appear if engines past 1,000 TSO were 4x as likely to die, but 90% of flying aircraft have engines that were overhauled in the last 500h. Engines at 2.5-3k are almost certainly VERY rare, so very few failures are expected. That's the problem with stats, they paint a very incomplete picture and thus lead to confident false conclusions.
With that said, thank you for the video and I largely agree with the ethos of it!
AC_20-105C, does not support any of this
Rotax 912 is at 3230 hours with only oil changes, but the gearbox is rattling so it's time to overhaul it. This is experimental, not certified.
I'm confident that the rotax 915 will last to 2000
The most dumb way to damage a machine is by not using it. Old German saying !!
that depends a lot on the type of machine - the more complicated it is, that saying becomes more true
@@ghostrider-be9ek Like what? be specific and detailed.
@@outwiththem a sewing machine will sit in a closet just fine for 20 years, while a printing press for a paper mill, will start to decay and mold in a few months of disuse.
@@ghostrider-be9ek W were talking about expensive engines here, not sewing machines. LOL..
@@outwiththem right LOL - your quote said MACHINE, not "expensive engine" - please correct your BS statement then if thats what you intended
too many and-um's I give up after a few minutes of listening to the videos. learn to not get throat clearing as a part of your dissertation. Get training on public speaking so we mere mortals can actually enjoy your most informative, valuable, useful and appreciated knowledge.
watch at 1.50x speed
No doubt infant mortality is a problem with our engines. It would be great to have more data on engine failures - why they fail. We also need more data on how many hours are flown. No doubt this is hard data to get, but I'm guessing soon Savvyaviation.com will have enough data to do even more analysis.
We're working on this...its one of our research areas! Stay tuned.