I think that information is important to us coupe owners.  When looking to buy, 
I found many "low time" engines, that had been majored decades ago!  Someplace 
there is a "guess" as to how it was stored for those years.   I finally chose 
one that was fairly low hours (125 hrs SMOH) and 14 years since overhaul!  
Fourteen years is a long time, but I satisfied myself that the engine had been 
run frequently enough during that time to make it a good gamble in my eyes.  I 
think Continental time limits are 12 years regardless of hours, so I took a 
chance on it.  So far, so good, time will tell.

--- In [email protected], "Roy Stubbs" <rdstu...@...> wrote:
>
> There have been some good comments and individual examples of good running 
> engines with fatal flaws and engines that have run well past TBO.  As an 
> engineer I am well aware of ‘infant-mortality,’ and also the more common 
> idea that if something is operating well ‘don’t  fix it.”
> 
>  
> 
> The EAA article on TBO is part of a longer running series on 
> Reliability-Centered Maintenance, a program reportedly now used by the 
> airline industry and the military.  More specifically the EAA article on 
> engine TBO drew on five years of data covering the years 2001-2005 for small 
> piston airplane accidents attributed by the NTSB to engine failure.  The data 
> shows a steady  and rapid decline in engine failure accidents both as Hours 
> Since Overhaul and Years Since Overhaul.  Only after 3,000 hours and/or 25 
> years does the accident rate begin to pick up.  What the NTSB data cannot 
> show is much about failures beyond TBO as most engines are overhauled at the 
> point.
> 
>  
> 
> Assuming that engines failures will begin to increase at and beyond TBO 
> produces a bathtub shaped failure curve.  To stay out of the presumptive wear 
> out zone we overhaul our engines which puts us back into the infant-mortality 
> zone.
> 
>  
> 
> What to do?  Maybe find an airplane with about 1,000 hours on the engine and 
> operate it for 1,000 hours.  That is what the data ‘suggests.’
> 
>  
> 
> J
> 
>  
> 
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of Donald
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 12:24 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Engine TBO
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> But, to play the devils advocate, that crack did not just magically appear at 
> some determined TBO. There are schools of thought that also show a good 
> running engine should not be tampered with, you also run the risk of problems 
> in the overhaul. One of the members of this group just had a catastrophic 
> engine failure, with crank busted, at like 300 hours SMOH, but we would not 
> want to therefore become believers that one should overhaul at 300 hrs. I am 
> aware of MANY engines that have run to the neighborhood of twice TBO with no 
> problems.
> 
> --- In [email protected] <mailto:ercoupe-tech%40yahoogroups.com> , 
> "Jerry Eichenberger" <JEichenberger@> wrote:
> >
> > Jerry -
> > 
> > My story about TBO was that about 30 years ago I was in a group that owned 
> > an Aztec and Bonanza. The Bonanza was at TBO. Against my wishes, the group 
> > voted to go another 100 hours. The engine was running like a Swiss watch, 
> > burned almost no oil, compressions were excellent; you get the idea.
> > 
> > After that 100 extra hours, most of the group wanted to go another 100. I 
> > put my foot down and said to either overhaul it or buy me out. We 
> > overhauled it.
> > 
> > The crankshaft had a crack 270 degrees around the circumference. Who knows 
> > how long the crack had been there, but it was likely to have 
> > catastrophically failed within that next 100 hours had we not torn down the 
> > engine.
> > 
> > Hence, I'm a a believer in TBO. What little do you gain by assuming that 
> > the innards of the engine are OK just because compression and oil burn are 
> > good?
> > 
> > Jerry E.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] <mailto:ercoupe-tech%40yahoogroups.com>  
> > [mailto:[email protected] 
> > <mailto:ercoupe-tech%40yahoogroups.com> ]On Behalf Of Jerry Ward
> > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 5:14 PM
> > To: [email protected] <mailto:ercoupe-tech%40yahoogroups.com> ; 
> > Roy Stubbs
> > Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Engine TBO
> > 
> > 
> > I just read the article and it appears to me that they are on to something 
> > smart. I would hope that the FAA would read this and change the way engines 
> > are overhauled. I would hate to have to overhaul a perfectly good running 
> > engine that is strong and has good compression and seems to not burn too 
> > much oil. It appears that the fresh engines are the ones to worry about. 
> > Jerry in the Great Northwest.
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 2/15/10, Roy Stubbs <rdstubbs@> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > From: Roy Stubbs <rdstubbs@>
> > Subject: [ercoupe-tech] Engine TBO
> > To: [email protected] <mailto:ercoupe-tech%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > Date: Monday, February 15, 2010, 1:02 PM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Has anyone on the list read this month’s EAA Sport Aviation’s 
> > article â€Å"Is Engine TBO a Myth?”?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Wonder what your thoughts might be?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: ercoupe-tech@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:ercoupe- t...@yahoogroups 
> > .com] On Behalf Of Roy Stubbs
> > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:55 AM
> > To: 'Jack Burwell'; 'Ronald Hynes'; 'earl johnson'
> > Cc: ercoupe-tech@ yahoogroups. com
> > Subject: RE: Fw: RE: [ercoupe-tech] Floor board removal
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Mine are also made up of two pieces and have the rudder pedal assembly 
> > which needs to be removed before the floor boards can be removed. The only 
> > way it is accomplished is my 5’6” 125# son and pilot buddy.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: ercoupe-tech@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:ercoupe- t...@yahoogroups 
> > .com] On Behalf Of Jack Burwell
> > Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 3:08 PM
> > To: 'Ronald Hynes'; 'earl johnson'
> > Cc: ercoupe-tech@ yahoogroups. com
> > Subject: RE: Fw: RE: [ercoupe-tech] Floor board removal
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Mine are made up of 2 pieces but they are still an absolute nightmare to 
> > remove and reinstall.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ercoupe-tech@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:ercoupe- t...@yahoogroups 
> > .com] On Behalf Of Ronald Hynes
> > Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 12:54 AM
> > To: earl johnson
> > Cc: ercoupe-tech@ yahoogroups. com
> > Subject: Re: Fw: RE: [ercoupe-tech] Floor board removal
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I will always admire old Henry Ford and his way of thinking. When he would 
> > have a difficult problem with manufacturing his autos, he was said to 
> > assign the problem to the lazyest of his employees because if they could 
> > not find a better way to fix the problem then there wasn't a better way. 
> > After 40 years of owning and driving Fords, I follow Henry's idea and I 
> > simply ask my sons. Never fails me.
> > 
> > Ron Hynes, Alberta Canada
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Sat, 2/13/10, earl johnson <johnsonec2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > From: earl johnson <johnsonec2000@ yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Fw: RE: [ercoupe-tech] Floor board removal
> > To: "Tech-Ercoupe Group" <ercoupe-tech@ yahoogroups. com>
> > Received: Saturday, February 13, 2010, 2:00 PM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > i have seen a Ercoupe with Floor Board made up of two pieces,not sure if it 
> > legal
> > 
> > however i have been thinking about doing that sure would make under the 
> > floor board
> > 
> > service easier.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Sat, 2/13/10, jackburwell2619@ comcast.net <jackburwell2619@ 
> > comcast.net> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > From: jackburwell2619@ comcast.net <jackburwell2619@ comcast.net>
> > Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] Floor board removal
> > To: "'rurndum'" <rurln...@smith- valley.com>, ercoupe-tech@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Saturday, February 13, 2010, 2:00 PM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I just went through the process assisting with the annual and it's a real 
> > pain having to remove the brake pedal and an even bigger pain reinstalling 
> > it and the boards.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ercoupe-tech@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:ercoupe- t...@yahoogroups 
> > .com] On Behalf Of rurndum
> > Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 12:37 PM
> > To: ercoupe-tech@ yahoogroups. com
> > Subject: [ercoupe-tech] Floor board removal
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I helped with an annual inspection yesterday on a '46 C Model. Removing the 
> > floor board was a pain because of the brake pedal being attached to it. Is 
> > there a modification to make the floor removal easier?
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Jack
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your 
> > favourite sites. Download it now!
> >
>


Reply via email to