Aryana wrote:
I wouldn't imagine anyone else but the customer would pay for that. How else would it work? If there is a shop that will take my engine and will buy me a crank if it fails inspection, I would love to send them the engine I just bought from BL!
Price averaging is exactly what the big shops do, if they quote you a solid price out the door, they have averaged the price over the past engines and know how to absorb the cost of the bad with the good.
With me and many other A&Ps we just contract the labor. all the other costs are exactly what it cost to overhaul your engine.
I my humble opinion the guy who starts the project, should be the guy who finishes it.
And remember every engine is a pandora's box, don't know what you have until you open and inspect.
The logs on my engine reflected a factory Remanufactured engine, in actually it had a .010" under standard crank.
I, personally, would have complete confidence in anything that came out of Nixon. Their work has always been top notch and their reputation is spotless.
sorry but I can't speak to which shop is a good facility for O-300 engines. I'll probably do my own when the time comes. to add to the previous conversation though, back when I did all the overhauls for our company I would send all my cases to Nickson's and they always did a standout job on those. I didn't use them for other stuff though, mostly because I already had my favorite shops for other parts and pieces.
'56 "C170 and change"
'52 Packard 200
'68 Arctic Cat P12 Panther
"He's a menace to everything in the air. Yes, birds too." - Airplane
The "picky-ness" of each owner is a personal and subjective matter. For a Part 91 operator who wants a few hundred hours of ownership and sell it to someone similar down the road...an engine which has been "repaired" is probably just fine....and the common man on the street will not differentiate between that process and a true "overhaul".
But if it is planned to put it into commercial service, or if one wants the option to sell it abroad (where foreign rules may differ significantly)...a genuine "overhaul" is more appropriate.
I believe a factory remanufactured engine fully complies with the rules even if it has a machined crankshaft .010" under. Those processes have their own advantages/pitfalls.
Tom, clearly you know the difference between repair/overhaul/reman/rebuild/etc. although most owners do not. Since you do, then it might be fair to point out that your labor to perform the "overhaul"....or the "repair" is likely the same?
And that the major differences being whether or not the owner is willing to pay for all NEW through-bolt$ and other mandatory part-replacements to meet that definition on his own engine or not?
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
George, when you really want full control of the rebuild process your local A&P gives you the best deal.
Overhauling the C-145/0-300 is not brain surgery and any A&P can legally do it.
How would you like to spend the money on a factory rebuilt engine only to find that the crank in it will not pass the overhaul manual for use again? Plus the fact, you will not know this until it is ready for the next overhaul.
gahorn wrote:
Tom, clearly you know the difference between repair/overhaul/reman/rebuild/etc. although most owners do not. Since you do, then it might be fair to point out that your labor to perform the "overhaul"....or the "repair" is likely the same?
Not really George, I normally charge flat rate on repairs, engine or airframe doesn't make a hoot to me. the $2500 charge of the labor on an overhaul is much less than paying flat rate for the time it requires.
It averages about 60-80 man hours to complete the overhaul and testing of the 0-200/0-300, that happens in a period of 3-5 weeks, so it much simpler to simply charge a set fee for the service. otherwise you'll drive your self nuts trying to track the time, a minute here, an hour there.
And OBTW, FAR 43.2 is not FAA gibberish, it is plane languish what the return to service entry shall contain.
The point I was trying to make (for the benefit of those who might be confused about the different definitions is)...that if you are charging "flat rate" for the engine work...then the big price-difference for the owner would be the price of the parts used. If you re-use through-bolts in a "repair"...it would be cheaper than if you used the required NEW through bolts specified by TCM in an "overhaul".
Therefore the merits of an owner accepting a "repair" versus and "overhaul" might be quite different price-wise.
As for the "rebuild" : TCM will have specified which parts (such as a crankshaft) which might be under/over sized and still meet that definition.... the owner may have no idea which size crank he has since that information is usually not specified to the end-user....and a NEW logbook is issued showing zero-time since rebuild so the owner has not much idea of past history of any components....UNLESS the buyer specifically insists upon that information when ordering the unit.
There are some operators (usually commercial operators) who find advantages in remans/rebuilds because their recordkeeping requirements are simpler when complying with operations specifications. If one plans always to exchange the runout engine for a rebuilt one...then who cares what the rebuilt engine crank measures? ... run it to TBO and swap it out, end of dilemna.
But if one plans to "repair" your own engine and replace as few parts as possible to fly some more.... then one might be more concerned about starting out with a part which cannot be repaired a second or third time. (Which, by the way, is a great reason to simply exchange it for a factory rebuild. There are other examples, such as when you discover a cracked crankcase. Or you have a siezed engine with a non-VAR crankshaft, such as I did on a Baron I once operated. TCM waived the extra charges for exchanging a non-VAR crank when I simply bought a rebuild, while if I'd had them or anyone else repair or overhaul it...the owner would have had to pay another $8K for a crank.)
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
gahorn wrote:The point I was trying to make (for the benefit of those who might be confused about the different definitions is)...that if you are charging "flat rate" for the engine work...then the big price-difference for the owner would be the price of the parts used. If you re-use through-bolts in a "repair"...it would be cheaper than if you used the required NEW through bolts specified by TCM in an "overhaul".
The beauty of the 0-300 is that the overhaul manual hasn't been re-written in many years, and Continental mandatory parts replacement list is on a SB. which is not required to be complied with in part 91.
The accepted standard for the administrator is the overhaul manual, and there is no mandatory replacement required there except for the service limits given.
So beware, there is a huge loop hole in the rules and many shops are using it.
Aryana wrote:What's the SB number for the Continental mandatory parts replacement list?
SB 97-6B, found in the MX Library.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
Cessna® is a registered trademark of Textron Aviation, Inc. The International Cessna® 170 Association is an independent owners/operators association dedicated to C170 aircraft and early O-300-powered C172s. We are not affiliated with Cessna® or Textron Aviation, Inc. in any way.
