Rami1988 wrote:
They didn’t even put new cylinders. Didn’t even change the hose! Its like how cheap can you be to not even change the hose.
Cylinders are a real problem these days, as they often have tremendous backlogs and can’t be gotten without massive delays. That has been the case for a few years now.
It’s quite true that before it was just “standard” to put new cylinders, but it is not actually a requirement to do so, nor does it in every case make sense. All that is required is that the cylinders are within the service limits. And actually, cylinders can also be overhauled.
In many cases, particularly in normal aspirated engines, this can actually be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Seeing that “new” does not necessarily mean “better” in recent years, an expertly overhauled or found to spec cylinder out of older batches can be better than new ones.
A few anecdotes on pre-buys with existing problems
On a nearby house next to the river, the sellers declared ‘has never flooded’ on the property information questionnaire (UK PIQ). In reality, every winter they visibly and loudly had a petrol-driven pump emptying their cellar into the mains drain on the road. They ended up paying the buyers £500k to rectify and compensate – on a £900k house. If they’d used a quiet electric pump into a private soakaway they would probably have got away with it. Do your own background, like IO390.
I bought a 400 year old house a while ago, and chose the highest level of survey. However, it was just a box-ticking exercise: if it wasn’t on the list, it didn’t get looked at. Years later, I realised the main beam had been cut to install a staircase. It wasn’t unsafe, but a builder/architect would have spotted it immediately. Someone familiar with the aircraft type may be better equipped than an unfamiliar mechanic.
I was lucky with my aircraft purchase, in that I already had a working relationship with a good mechanic for the pre-buy; this is less likely straight out of flying school. I also knew the seller a little; it’s probably naïve, but I didn’t think he was the type to sell a lemon. It’s human to judge others by your own standards 
I did the test flight with a neutral pilot, i.e. not alone or with the seller, to better check each item of avionics and get a proper feel for the aeroplane. Get good advice, get help, and get a feel for the seller.
In cars, even if you don’t fill any specific paperwork, you can sue the previous owner for “hidden defect” if the engine had a major problem – even if the previous owner was not aware of it himself.
Maybe in France, but thankfully this is not in the UK, otherwise not many people would sell a used car
You can’t use that for minor stuff, but often it’s after a breakdown (an engine that breaks because of internal wear, damage, or an accident because of a structural weakness, corrosion, leaks). Generally the insurance has to be involved, and since they are the ones paying for the damage they have the resources to investigate and find a defect retrospectively. For aircrafts this could well apply to (unadvertised or unknown) corrosion damage, excessive wear, structural weaknesses, or other major damage because of maintenance negligence. Insurances have possibly less experience, but if you find retrospectively that something major is outside documented maintenance specification, it might work.
I think it’s sound to sue someone after the fact for (provaby) selling you something that can kill you and others (assuming you can prove it and you are acting in good faith yourself, i.e. you found out something major and dangerous that would have kept you out of the transaction in the first place). If you sell me crap without telling me, you pay for the difference between what you advertised (a safe and ready to fly aircraft) and what you actually sold. Not saying it’s easy to enforce, but on paper it’s a good idea (it protects the party with the least information).
What I take from this is that having read all the manufacturer maintenance checks (all inspection items, oil tests etc.) is a good starting point for a pre-buy.
In Germany you only have liability if you buy a used car from a dealer. If not you buy as seen and that’s it. Even if the engine blows up on the way home.
Of course another thing if the seller guarantees something.
Presumably it’s the same with planes.
Overhauled – The parts used to build the engine meet or exceed service limits and specifications.
The definitions used by Lycoming, including this one, are FAA regulatory definitions not their individual business approach.
An important point here, and one that might be useful for those with evidently limited experience, is that an overhauled engine by regulatory definition can be just barely within allowable service limits, and nowhere near new condition. The requirement is that the engine be disassembled, measured and inspected, and reassembled within service limits, which makes it safe for operation. How many hours it will operate subsequently before it is outside of service limits is not defined
The only requirement beyond that is that the overhaul comply with the manufacturers service documentation, which does in some cases require that certain parts be replaced regardless of condition. This does not by any means ensure that it is a ‘new’ engine. In order to get that, if it’s what you want, you must individually negotiate it with the mechanic doing the job, and/or the company he is working for. Also, some engines cannot be overhauled to new limits unless you stumble into new old stock parts or similar.
When buying a plane, the key issue is to learn by reviewing whatever records are available (and by inspection) the actual condition of the plane. For an engine overhaul this means the records on a component by competent level, either by reference to the logbook entry, Form 1 or 8130s for each component, or whatever else can be found. Relying on general statements (or any statements) by the seller is essentially worthless, and expecting them to be accountable for some future legal process is a negative approach, and also strikes me as a bit silly in the real world. Look at the plane and records as a grown up, make your best assessment, pay what it justifies in your own mind including any allowance for risk areas, and move on into responsible ownership.
That’s hilarious But true.
AFAIK all of the well known US shops will rebuild an engine to new limits throughout. But European owners tend to prefer European shops and there is a fair % of bad eggs among them. One shop in central Europe was overhauling engines by a respray… nobody would notice, would they?
Shipping to the US is not difficult (ignore the comments on that thread by people who have never had a dog in the game). The main challenge is that most EU-reg planes need an EASA-1 and only the bigger US shops can generate one. This is where N-reg has a big advantage.
That’s hilarious But true.
If you own e.g. a Kinner 5-cylinder radial and want to keep your PT-22 flyjng, it’s just simple reality. New parts haven’t been available for decades. That aside, there are many other circumstances on more common engines that result in many or most overhauls not being entirely done to new limits. Some parts will go several overhaul cycles before they are outside of service limits, and as one example a smart fleet owner will learn what makes sense to run through two overhaul cycles to keep money in his pocket.
Overhauls aren’t done by ‘shops’ except that the mechanic who does them may or may not be working for somebody else. Most of the parts are sent out to machine shops for rework regardless. The mechanics work is just disassembly, measurement and reassembly and if it’s being done in a repair station the only difference is that the guy doing the work may not need to be government qualified because he’s working under a written procedure that factors in the characteristics of the particular facility and the inspection responsibilities of other mechanics who work there.
The definition of overhaul is what it is. There is no FAA intent to make sure that every engine that’s overhauled is anything other than safe to fly as it is released by the mechanic. It’s a big, wide world out there with many different individual owner priorities
I don’t think you can dismantle everything during a pre-buy. Say you later discover corrosion in an inner part of the engine (which is crucial to operation and a danger to fly, and proves there was maintenance negligence). Then I think you’re completely entitled to ask for compensation from the owner for the associated repairs.
I completely agree to check for everything that you can and take the ownership responsibility on yourself. But there are limits, especially if some easy to find data (maintenance manual of the aircraft / engine) proves maintenance was done wrong in a hard-to-check place.
All engines have corrosion, the issue is how much and it is shades of grey. By the time you get done screwing around with lawyers you’ll have spent more than the cost of repair. Any wise seller would have nothing to do with a buyer whose mind works that way when buying a decades old plane, and it will be obvious to him.
The exception might be if you were buying something in the million plus range, from a dealer, and it is under a written warranty. However unless there were huge fat in the deal, and a warranty, I’m not sure that an ethical dealer wouldn’t gently discourage you from buying a used plane from them. These are old machines, they break, the owner pays to fix them. Risk is part of the deal when buying a plane, unless you buy down the risk with a warranty.
