Which European shop do they sent them to?
Pistons already come in matched-weight sets so there isn’t a lot of scope there. Removing metal from parts of the crank is an FAA-approved procedure.
It’s a long debate whether the mfg-only authority to issue fresh (zero timed) logbooks is worth anything. Arguably it is worth something only to a clueless buyer. I got two engines so far which were zero-time in all practical respects.
hazek wrote:
hazek
26-Apr-24 21:22
35@Darkfixer what’s wrong with this one?
Been looking into that one, looks pretty OK.
But need some updating of Avionics, also 1600h on engine. They say those engines last to TBO is treated properly.
Was test flying a Mooney M20M Bravo today.
What can you say…
Those Bravos are for sure something extra.
Think we tried some more slow flight and had ~14.2Gallons at ~140KTS @ 1700ft
It’s little bit thirsty but what a performer.
Extremely stable in flight and I can see why this is a great tourer.
This one is the second place on my “wish”.
It’s little bit overkill for my mission, but then if you want to travel in Europe you have one of the better aircrafts.
Turbo, Oxygen, TKS (FIKI) and fast.
Will sleep on it and decide tomorrow if I will go with this instead of the M20K Encore with corroded engine.
This one has Garmin G1000 (non waas) but easy to upgrade if you have 30k EUR :-)
I’d rather not disclose the name of the shop in this debate as to not be labled biased or promote a specific one. You could ask Lycoming what shop to send your engine to, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d send you to that one ☝️
During overhaul most shops use new cylinders (as they should), the pistons are part of the cylinder kits. Maybe they’re weight matched, I don’t know for sure. But the conecting rods are reused and I believe should be weighed and matched again, while taking into account any potential slight differences in piston weight, so the connecting rod – piston sets of opposing cylinders are weight matched to each other as good as possible.
Yes, dynamically balancing a crankshaft is an FAA approved procedure, I’m just saying it probably won’t achieve much, as power pulse contributes far more to engine vibrations, and afterwards the crankshaft should be renitrided. If you want to reduce vibrations it’s much more helpful to have the prop statically and dynamically rebalanced.
I agree, a factory rebuild engine is not necessarily worth more than a well maintained freshly overhauled engine, as always, it depends.
I heard some people say the metallurgical quality of old engines is better. So they prefer to stick with their old case and crank for as long as possible. (Don’t know if there’s any truth to that)
In case both the case and crank would turn out to be unserviceable, you’re probably better off (cheaper) with a factory overhauled engine.
If down time is the only concern, you’re best off with an exchange engine, although you might not always know what you get, if you ask for a roller tappet exchange engine, you’re more likely to get a fairly new engine (max 20 years old).
…
I agree with all above, except I would be very surprised at that European shop. One long-gone UK Lyco disti was probably Lyco-recommended but not by many customers… myself included (a dodgy shock load inspection).
Older, roughly pre-1999, cranks are the best. They were made by some German contractor and had zero failures. The whole crank saga (SB569 etc) came out of a new contractor which messed up the heat treatment, although the details of who was more to blame were much disputed and the resulting litigation was interesting too. I think it was posted here somewhere. I had 1 x OH, and 1 x exchange for another OH engine which was ex Israel Air Force and with logbooks in Hebrew 
Cool, man I can’t wait to start flying it. It’s going to be another 2-3 weeks for me unfortunately.
Btw this is my main mission:
Mine is without TKS so can carry quite a bit. Maybe in the future when we get rid of the vacuum system it might carry even more. But do check if it carries enough for your needs with TKS.
hazek wrote:
Mine is without TKS so can carry quite a bit. Maybe in the future when we get rid of the vacuum system it might carry even more. But do check if it carries enough for your needs with TKS.
Will do a new W&B before I buy it, since I think the actual one is wrong.
They did a new W&B 2017, and then suddenly lost 13kg and more forward CG.
That is little strange since everything is mounted in tail, they added a TAS605.
But that don’t add 13kg.
So I think the did weight it with half tank TKD Fluid since there is no note if they did or then how much tks fluid.
It’s on the edge of working, but it would be manageable with 60Gallon for a 60min flight (Will need to burn 18gallon to be at MLW)
With myself, wife and child + 10kg bagage, full TKD fluid.
Will remove 1x back seat 7kg)
Will lose 5kg on myself (I have 5-7kg too much, this is a good motivation to get into shape)
Don’t dare telling wife to drop a few kg :
60gallon is ~3h at 75% (VFR inc reserve)
70gallon is ~3h:30m at 75% (VFR inc reserve)
And you don’t need to fly 75%, at 65% you have good speed too.
Every extra KG available is good, so will she if I can remove something else :-)
MLW
Now I’m intrigued… whilst I’m quite aware of the MLM myth in the “big iron” world, what are the implications of landing overweight in one of these SEP toys of ours?
PS
Guaranteed thread drift, apologies to all.
I have a few hours on a 201, made a few years ago, and can’t remember about any landing weight mass restrictions, but it might be fading memory induced.
@hazek, quick answer, appreciate, still trying to learn 😉
So, similar to the bigger brethren, 2 procedures, one operational, and one maintenance if the touchdown/rollout wasn’t smooth. On the airliners pilot/maintenance would look at the flight data acceleration, and then decide if further action is necessary.
Maybe some of our electronic goodies are precise enough to record the touchdown acceleration…
