What's your take on a mid-time engine (Cont O-470R) with an unusually high calendar time SMOH??? In this case the plane has been owned by the same guy for decades, and allegedly flown fairly regular (average would be 20 something hours a year)

What kind of affect does it have on the value of the plane??

How far does one take the "on condition" engine as far as calendar time goes?? I'm sure there has been some cylinder work since then, but no record of a top overhaul. Many of us have engines that are well over the 12 year calendar limit I'm sure...my cub included....

Seems to me that if the engine isn't making metal and power and compressions are good, the bottom end is in good shape?!?! I've heard of 3,500 hour Continentals but

Lets say you buy the plane and a short time later you need a top overhaul and discover an issue with the bottom end. Since only a mid-time engine (hours), would an IRAN still be a good idea as far as resale value...maybe you bought the plane cheap enough that you wouldn't be upside down on it after this kind of engine work...

Anyway, what do you guys think?? I know, not many specifics, but I don't think they matter too much...more of a general question.

When you start getting into calendar times that high I start to get nervous.

You're getting into an era when logbook entries were known to be quite vague and the parties involved would be hard to contact should you need to. Also corrosion can hide in the bottom end and after that many years it's only a matter of time...

Where was the aircraft operated for all those years? Someplace dry?

These anecdotal stories we all here about engines operated well beyond their suggested tbo are great, no reason a well maintained and regularly operated engine shouldn't do they, but is 20 hours a year regularly operated?

A visual inspection of the cam faces and lifters would be on my list at the very least.

You noted that you're pretty sure there was cylinder work done but nothing logged.

That right there would cause me to run, not walk away from that plane, unless the price was compelling.....like compelling enough to pay for a major (not top) overhaul.

MTV

The price of the aircraft should reflect the price of an overhaul as well as ALL the accessories. While it might still run ok, the value is limited to the core. On an aircraft that old that hasn't had the engine replaced, there will be all kinds of extra parts that will be replaced. $$$$$$$ and time. Big can of worms.

I have a 182B with a 0470L that fits this discription. When I bought it I priced it as a runout engine and the old Hartzell prop needing replacement. I have had about 400hrs without major issues, some work on the mags and carb but no show stoppers. As previously mentioned, a plane this old and "original" will have issues with age related components, but I was looking for a good straight corrossion free airframe, which is what I got. Engines, avionics etc can be replaced, as long as the price is right.

I'm still rocking a 1959 GO-300, never overhauled and a few hundred hours over TBO. Literally today is the airplanes "birthday", Jan 19 1959 making it 58 years old today.

bart wrote:What's your take on a mid-time engine (Cont O-470R) with an unusually high calendar time SMOH??? In this case the plane has been owned by the same guy for decades, and allegedly flown fairly regular (average would be 20 something hours a year)

Is this the 1965 Cessna 180 up near Seattle, WA? I was talking to the seller/looking through the logs and that is why I ended up taking it off my list - not because the engine has 37 year SMOH - but because the price is not reflective of the fact that the engine is basically a core (not sure I would consider 20 hours a year as flying regularly). I personally would not (my own personal limits) be comfortable flying behind that engine - and the price is not accounting for the fact that engine is a core.

mtv wrote: run, not walk away from that plane, unless the price was compelling.....like compelling enough to pay for a major (not top) overhaul.

MTV

Plus the age of the engine - think rust, lots of rust - so this ^ is exactly what I thought.
Unless he's living in a desert, maybe.

mtv wrote:You noted that you're pretty sure there was cylinder work done but nothing logged.

That right there would cause me to run, not walk away from that plane, unless the price was compelling.....like compelling enough to pay for a major (not top) overhaul.
MTV

Sorry, what I meant by that was no top overhaul noted in the ad for the plane, I haven't seen all the logs since the OH but I'm sure there has been some cylinder work done in that amount of time...

Newbizor wrote:I'm still rocking a 1959 GO-300, never overhauled and a few hundred hours over TBO. Literally today is the airplanes "birthday", Jan 19 1959 making it 58 years old today.

You must've been taking good care of it all these years!

corefile wrote:Is this the 1965 Cessna 180 up near Seattle, WA? I was talking to the seller/looking through the logs and that is why I ended up taking it off my list - not because the engine has 37 year SMOH - but because the price is not reflective of the fact that the engine is basically a core (not sure I would consider 20 hours a year as flying regularly)

Yes, that's the one. Great looking 180 but...

So what is a '65 in seemingly good condition worth with a fresh overhaul??? $85K?? Hard to know, there's so many variances in these airplanes, its hard to find a "comp". Not to mention, we never really know what they ACTUALLY sold for once they disappear from the marketplace..

I told the guy I'd be interested at $65K, but since then I've changed my mind...scares me a little. Would be nice to get a '65 180 for that price though...might even have money left over from selling the cub to pay the tax man What to do....

I agree about running away from an engine with any "unlogged" work having been done on it.

That said, I bought an airplane with a 37-year-old "reman" and 1600 hours on it. That's about 43 hours per year... The airplane had been in Wyoming for the last 10 years, so a relatively dry climate. During the pre-buy, we pulled one (middle) cylinder and looked at everything we could see in the bottom end, and it looked clean. I flew it for two more years, and then sold it to another guy who has the money set aside to rebuilt it (as I did) if/when something indicates that it really needs to be done. But the compressions have been great, and it runs like a top.

That's just one data point, but I think pulling a cylinder to check the bottom end is a really good idea on an "elderly" or "high time" engine, and as long as the prospective purchaser is footing the bill, I see little reason to object.

JP256 wrote:I agree about running away from an engine with any "unlogged" work having been done on it....

Just to be clear, I never meant to imply there was anything that hadn't been logged with the airplane in this particular case...but agree otherwise

I can only add from my own experience with my airplane. When I bought it 13 years ago, it had about 960 hours on the engine, which is a conversion putting a Lycoming O-360 into a P172D, which originally had a Continental O-300 variant. From my recollection, the conversion was done in 1973, taking the engine from a wrecked Mooney. Right now, I don't recall whether the engine was overhauled before installing into my airplane, or whether it was just "as is", so I don't know if that was the "original mileage" of the engine or time since overhaul. At this point, it doesn't matter, but for at least 31 years best case scenario, the engine averaged only 30 hours per year, but worst case scenario, it was less than that. According to the logs, the last few years were more like 10-12 hours per year, in the relatively dry climate of mid-Oklahoma.

Compressions were good and oil use was minimal for the trip home and the next few hours. But at about 15 hours from the time I took delivery, the engine threw a rod through the top of the case, and I landed in a field. As best my engine builder could determine, a bearing had spun, cutting off the oil supply.

With that background, I'm not sure I'd run away from an airplane with minimal use during the years, if the airframe was really good, as mine was. But either negotiate a lower price, or be prepared for the airplane to be an expensive experiment, as mine turned out. When you buy a premium priced airplane and then add the cost of a replacement engine during the first few weeks, it gets pricey!

Looking back, it was a very disappointing situation, but I did end up with a really nice little airplane, into which I've continued to pour way too much money in addition to that custom built engine. No regrets.

Cary

A 'top overhaul' is not something that has any real definition to a mechanic, most will not log anything with those words. A 'top overhaul' in the selling an airplane world means cylinders replaced or overhauled. If you have log entries showing cylinders replaced or overhauled, that is the same thing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Uh, I guess I am probably a few months late, but I figured I would throw in my two cents.

My 1969 172k has 2250 hrs on what I believe is the original engine (good ol' Lycoming O-320 E2D). Same time as airframe and no mention of work done in the logs.

Now this bird has spent its life in the midwest (Kansas), so fairly dry.

Well it just got done with annual and they said it checked out very well. Good comp., no metal in oil filter, etc.

I was nervous when I bought this plane about the engine time. (I overlooked it BECAUSE of the high time) The owner let me train in it years ago and I soloed in it, so I was familiar with everything else. The engine checked out okay; it simply was over TBO. But the more I researched, the more I became concerned with condition over hours or years.

I called every mechanic I knew and asked their opinion. Most said it was probably okay. just watch it closely. The most interesting answer came from an OVERHAUL shop. He said, quite frankly, if its that old with those hours AND it checks out fine, then DON'T touch it. Whatever was done when the engine was built was done right, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I talked with someone, who had the same model at Oshkosh, what hours they had on theirs and they said a little over 3000.

Anyway thats just my experience. LOTS of research and thought. Basically I bought it ready to pay for an overhaul, but hoping I can stretch it out AWHILE. I think it comes down to knowing the history of the aircraft, plus how it has been cared for.

I would think anywhere very humid would definitely have an effect, but I don't know to what degree. A lot of variables there, too. How regularly flown? What oil used? Did he spin the prop thinking he was circulating something, not realizing he was scraping off protective oil coating from everything? Etc.

I would say just get as much info as you can, and go from there.

So basically my answer is "I don't know, you're just gonna have to wing it."

One thing to bear in mind in these kinds of discussions is that Lycoming and Continental engines are very different beasts when it comes to low use age engines.

MTV

Mike, is that because of the camshaft location?

Lycomings seem to be more prone to problems from not being flown, usually camshaft / follower corrosion,
but IMHO a Continental that's been sitting without being used for many years is a crap shoot too.
That said, my 470K is a factory reman from 1993, with about 1400 hours put on it over the 24 years since then..
I think maybe it sat a fair amount during the winter with at least one previous owner, but other than having to have one cylinder touched up two years and about 190 hours ago it's hanging right in there.
Barring complications, I'm planning on running it right past the official 1500 hour TBO without a worry.
FWIW there's a TCM service information letter which bumps up the TBO to 1700 hours for some 470 models based on s/n.

http://www.continentalmotors.aero/uploa ... L98-9C.pdf

I have had two 50 hour engines fail- NOT stop- Just make flakes in short order.

First was Cont. 85-12 most all parts. second was Lyc 0-360 left out in the rain.

Never know

There will have been several service bulletins and maybe even some ADs that may mandate a lot of parts replacement if you ever have to open this engine up.

Suggest you plan on a factory reman if you ever encounter a problem. A field overhaul or even an IRAN could require so many replacement parts that it would be cheaper to just trade it in.

Think of a worst case scenario. You nick a runway light. Tear down reveals no damage, but because the case is open, you have to comply with a number of service bulletins and an AD. The insurance company pays for the IRAN, but you have to pay for all the betterment.

Summary, don't have to walk away, but don't pay too much.

Pinecone wrote:
Summary, don't have to walk away, but don't pay too much.

Exactly. Engines can be replaced. Airframes, not so much.

I wonder what happened with OP and the purchase?

If it's a nice bird and the owner is willing to be realistic (bargaining skills are key here!), then I wouldn't let the engine stop me. Lots of folks purchase and pull [engine] to be sure of what they're getting.

The issue in my mind is if the logs are credible and there isn't, as Mike V. pointed out, some questionable work having been done. If it happened in the engine, let your imagination run wild as to what else may have been done in the rest of the plane...

This scenario is similar to my Aug '16 purchase of our 180J, in that it had only flow handfuls of hours yearly since 2003, sometimes as low as 12-14, and it sat for 18 months while the owner was working overseas. It was a MN bird, and hangared throughout the period.

We pulled one jug on the 1,150-hr. O470R to take a look around, and scoped all the others. Some light, minor corrosion on the cylinder walls, but that was it.

I've flown it almost 90 hours since Aug. with 25 hr. oil changes and all the oil analyses have come back with healthy reports.