Borescopes

2

21541803

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
67
Display Name
Display name:
Wannabeaviator
Any recommendations for a flexible 'scope:
under $500
to take a peek at valves etc.
SnapOn ?
Snake ?
Milwauke?
Thanks
 
the little cheap ones do not work.
 
For a real scope such as the IPlex you're looking at around $8-10k. As Tom said, the $150-$200 videoscopes with the flexible, non-articulating wands are basically just a novelty - very difficult to work with as far as getting them to point at what you want to look at and limited in focal range.

For looking at valves there's really no point. You can fail a compression test miserably and not be able to visibly detect anything wrong in the cylinder. If you think you can stick a cheap camera in there and find a big chunk of valve burnt or broken off - why? The result of your compression test is going to have you pulling that jug anyway. I have pulled cylinders that were giving readings of 20/80 and looking down inside the bore at the valves with cylinder removed and a powerful flashlight there was no visible indication that there was anything wrong with it.

I've got one of the cheapies and it can be useful for looking under floorboards and in wingtips for bird, rat or mud dauber nests but it's not a "borescope" by a long shot.
 
The $30 dental cams work great and have excellent image quality. Even better than some of those expensive professional units. You can easily see a burnt valve before it becomes a issue.

But, yes the cheap harbor freight or snap on borescopes do not work well.
 
Any recommendations for a dental camera that works with a I-Pad?
I borrow the expensive borescopes from work
but worry every time that something is going to break.
Dave
 
Silvaire said:
For looking at valves there's really no point. You can fail a compression test miserably and not be able to visibly detect anything wrong in the cylinder. If you think you can stick a cheap camera in there and find a big chunk of valve burnt or broken off - why? The result of your compression test is going to have you pulling that jug anyway. I have pulled cylinders that were giving readings of 20/80 and looking down inside the bore at the valves with cylinder removed and a powerful flashlight there was no visible indication that there was anything wrong with it.

I've got one of the cheapies and it can be useful for looking under floorboards and in wingtips for bird, rat or mud dauber nests but it's not a "borescope" by a long shot.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid this is terrible advice. Take a look at some of the webinars by Mike Busch: http://www.savvyaviator.com/
You'll find he recommends the bore-scope over any other investigative tool on an aircraft engine except an engine monitor. A monitor will give you some notice of a failing exhaust valve (most common problem) but a bore-scope will give you much more - up to 100 hours. So it's recommended to scope your cylinders every 100 hours and look for anomalies that indicate a problem in the making. The idea is to find it LONG before it turns into a "missing chunk"....! Suggest listening to some of the webinars for a lot of good info on engine maintenance and check his credentials. Better than questionable forum advice..... :yikes:
 
Last edited:
aviatingfool said:
I'm afraid this is terrible advice. Take a look at some of the webinars by Mike Busch: http://www.savvyaviator.com/
You'll find he recommends the bore-scope over any other investigative tool on an aircraft engine except an engine monitor. A monitor will give you some notice of a failing exhaust valve (most common problem) but a bore-scope will give you much more - up to 100 hours. So it's recommended to scope your cylinders every 100 hours and look for anomalies that indicate a problem in the making. The idea is to find it LONG before it turns into a "missing chunk"....! Suggest listening to some of the webinars for a lot of good info on engine maintenance and check his credentials. Better than questionable forum advice..... :yikes:
Click to expand...
What can you fix with a borescope?
 
I didn't see the terrible advice in Silvaires post. I read it that he was just saying there were times when parts fail and the borescope might not have predicted it.
 
tmyers said:
I didn't see the terrible advice in Silvaires post. I read it that he was just saying there were times when parts fail and the borescope might not have predicted it.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Silvaire
"For looking at valves there's really no point."

You read wrong.
 
Tom-D said:
What can you fix with a borescope?
Click to expand...

Cute....like saying what can you fix with a compression test or an engine monitor. Or what can you fix with an X-ray...
Cute....not helpful, but cute. :rolleyes:

Tom-D
This message is hidden because Tom-D is on your ignore list.

Love this button! :rofl:
 
Last edited:
aviatingfool said:
Originally Posted by tmyers
I didn't see the terrible advice in Silvaires post. I read it that he was just saying there were times when parts fail and the borescope might not have predicted it.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Silvaire
"For looking at valves there's really no point."

You read wrong.
Click to expand...

avfool: I'm telling you that you are not going to operate your engine for 100 hours, possibly with an engine analyzer, then do a standard compression test at annual with satisfactory results and then stick a $100 videoscope in there and go "OMG! look at that! we need to pull this cylinder"

If you think otherwise, have at it.
 
Silvaire said:
avfool: I'm telling you that you are not going to operate your engine for 100 hours, possibly with an engine analyzer, then do a standard compression test at annual with satisfactory results and then stick a $100 videoscope in there and go "OMG! look at that! we need to pull this cylinder"

If you think otherwise, have at it.
Click to expand...

You obviously have not paid any attention to the information on the webinars and I listen to Mike over forum trolls any day.
 
I listened in on Mike Busch's webinar last week. It was interesting. As he said, compression tests can vary. You might get a good test one day, a week later get a bad one, and then a third test it goes back to being good. The borescope is just a diagnostic tool to help figure out what is going on in your engine. He said to pull a cylinder based on only a compression test may be completely unnecessary, and to use other methods (borescope) to figure out what the problem is.
 
aviatingfool said:
You obviously have not paid any attention to the information on the webinars and I listen to Mike over forum trolls any day.
Click to expand...

My advice is based on 38 years as an A&P/IA busting my knuckles on everything from a J3 Cub to a B777. I have replaced countless cylinders and done complete overhauls. Never at any time would a cheap videoscope have been of any real use. I've seen all of Savvy's webnars.

You do whatever you want but don't jump on me, I have every right to toss in my two cents. Put me on "ignore" if it chaps your hide that much.
 
JB1842 said:
I listened in on Mike Busch's webinar last week. It was interesting. As he said, compression tests can vary. You might get a good test one day, a week later get a bad one, and then a third test it goes back to being good. The borescope is just a diagnostic tool to help figure out what is going on in your engine. He said to pull a cylinder based on only a compression test may be completely unnecessary, and to use other methods (borescope) to figure out what the problem is.
Click to expand...

Savvy's advice comes straight out of Continentals SB03-3 which was written to try stem the high amount of unnecessary cylinder removals due to compression test anomalies. The differential compression test isn't exactly a highly sophisticated procedure but a good A&P who understands what he's doing can garner a lot of valid conclusions based on the results. Continental speaks of utilizing a borescope as an investigative tool. Aside from the fact that the $100 videoscopes are not anything near a true borescope I'm saying that there is very little chance that the decision to remove a cylinder or not would be based on what you see with that little camera.

Thus I say there's not much point to it. If anyone disagrees, fine. I've just never seen any evidence to prove otherwise.
 
Silvaire said:
Savvy's advice comes straight out of Continentals SB03-3 which was written to try stem the high amount of unnecessary cylinder removals due to compression test anomalies. The differential compression test isn't exactly a highly sophisticated procedure but a good A&P who understands what he's doing can garner a lot of valid conclusions based on the results. Continental speaks of utilizing a borescope as an investigative tool. Aside from the fact that the $100 videoscopes are not anything near a true borescope I'm saying that there is very little chance that the decision to remove a cylinder or not would be based on what you see with that little camera.

Thus I say there's not much point to it. If anyone disagrees, fine. I've just never seen any evidence to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

:popcorn::popcorn:;)
 
Silvaire said:
Savvy's advice comes straight out of Continentals SB03-3 which was written to try stem the high amount of unnecessary cylinder removals due to compression test anomalies. The differential compression test isn't exactly a highly sophisticated procedure but a good A&P who understands what he's doing can garner a lot of valid conclusions based on the results. Continental speaks of utilizing a borescope as an investigative tool. Aside from the fact that the $100 videoscopes are not anything near a true borescope I'm saying that there is very little chance that the decision to remove a cylinder or not would be based on what you see with that little camera.

Thus I say there's not much point to it. If anyone disagrees, fine. I've just never seen any evidence to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'm a soon to be aircraft owner and am trying to learn all I can. I don't think I would trust a $100 borescope, but I won't tell my mechanic "no" if he wants to use one.
 
JB1842 said:
Interesting. I'm a soon to be aircraft owner and am trying to learn all I can. I don't think I would trust a $100 borescope, but I won't tell my mechanic "no" if he wants to use one.
Click to expand...

You will learn a lot going through those webinars on EAA from Busch. If the logic, data and common sense doesn't convince you - nothing will, stick with your A&P and keep the checkbook handy.

It has nothing to do with trust. It has to do with being able to see anything. My $250 borescope can see the valves just fine, not easy, but a good view. This will tell me how they are doing and gives plenty (in most cases) of warning of developing issues. Too many cylinders get pulled without need and most owners just go along with it.

Some other input (and it's not like Mike is trying to sound like it's his idea):

"I suggested that it sounded like the club's mechanics had done a good job, but that had they performed regular borescope inspections of the cylinders they probably would have detected the cracks earlier. TCM requires at least annual borescope inspections (TCM SB03-3), but Lycoming does not. Nevertheless, I believe frequent and regular borescope inspections are an essential part of engine condition monitoring."

"The bore scope is the gold standard for cylinder condition inspection"....

Continental built a six cylinder engine and ran it on a dyno to establish full HP and compression. They then removed the cylinders and filed the gap in the compression rings to reduce compression down 10 pounds at a time until they were down to 40/80 and still got the same exact same HP.....still want to pull that jug without looking in it? But, on the other hand a leaking valve can lead to valve failure and catastrophic at that. (See slide of one that should have been caught much earlier with a regular scope) This can be predicted with viewing through a scope long before you can hear it whistle during compression testing. Handy gadgets!

You can look at a valve open and close with a scope and see the amount of side-to side motion that will indicate the wear on the guide. You can see the sides of the cylinder in the reversal zone to see the wall condition that my require replacement. And all this info is available for a couple hundred bucks. I'd say that is "worth it".... :yes:

Slide_edited_zpsd34325e3.jpg


The early scopes used to meet Continental SB were pretty simple:

OldScope_edited_zps83572049.jpg


BadValve_edited_zps40d262c3.jpg


Hope this is useful. I too am trying to learn all I can and listen to the best to gain that knowledge. My A&P now borrows my scope all the time....:D
:popcorn:
 
Last edited:
aviatingfool said:
Cute....like saying what can you fix with a compression test or an engine monitor. Or what can you fix with an X-ray...
Cute....not helpful, but cute. :rolleyes:

Tom-D
This message is hidden because Tom-D is on your ignore list.

Love this button! :rofl:
Click to expand...
The Fool kills me....anyone who disagrees with him gets put on his ignore list....POA is going to be a very lonely place for him...
 
aviatingfool said:
You will learn a lot going through those webinars on EAA from Busch. If the logic, data and common sense doesn't convince you - nothing will, stick with your A&P and keep the checkbook handy.

It has nothing to do with trust. It has to do with being able to see anything. My $250 borescope can see the valves just fine, not easy, but a good view. This will tell me how they are doing and gives plenty (in most cases) of warning of developing issues. Too many cylinders get pulled without need and most owners just go along with it.

Some other input (and it's not like Mike is trying to sound like it's his idea):

"I suggested that it sounded like the club's mechanics had done a good job, but that had they performed regular borescope inspections of the cylinders they probably would have detected the cracks earlier. TCM requires at least annual borescope inspections (TCM SB03-3), but Lycoming does not. Nevertheless, I believe frequent and regular borescope inspections are an essential part of engine condition monitoring."

"The bore scope is the gold standard for cylinder condition inspection"....

Continental built a six cylinder engine and ran it on a dyno to establish full HP and compression. They then removed the cylinders and filed the gap in the compression rings to reduce compression down 10 pounds at a time until they were down to 40/80 and still got the same exact same HP.....still want to pull that jug without looking in it? But, on the other hand a leaking valve can lead to valve failure and catastrophic at that. (See slide of one that should have been caught much earlier with a regular scope) This can be predicted with viewing through a scope long before you can hear it whistle during compression testing. Handy gadgets!

You can look at a valve open and close with a scope and see the amount of side-to side motion that will indicate the wear on the guide. You can see the sides of the cylinder in the reversal zone to see the wall condition that my require replacement. And all this info is available for a couple hundred bucks. I'd say that is "worth it".... :yes:

Slide_edited_zpsd34325e3.jpg


The early scopes used to meet Continental SB were pretty simple:

OldScope_edited_zps83572049.jpg


BadValve_edited_zps40d262c3.jpg


Hope this is useful. I too am trying to learn all I can and listen to the best to gain that knowledge. My A&P now borrows my scope all the time....:D
:popcorn:
Click to expand...

What magic is in a borescope that will fix that burned spot?

If the burned spot is causing a leak. aren't you going to pull the cylinder anyway?

OBTW, the cheepie borescopes have the camera end that is too big to get into the spark plug hole.

You ridge " Prism type" bore scope is a good one, we used those in the turbin of the T-56-14A for many years.
 
Tom-D said:
What magic is in a borescope that will fix that burned spot?

If the burned spot is causing a leak. aren't you going to pull the cylinder anyway?

OBTW, the cheepie borescopes have the camera end that is too big to get into the spark plug hole.

You ridge " Prism type" bore scope is a good one, we used those in the turbin of the T-56-14A for many years.
Click to expand...
Sorry Tom, he can't hear you over the sound of how awesome he is!
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
and you are smart to do so.... I too take Mike Busch's opinion over just about anyone on this forum.
Click to expand...

I'll bet Mike will be the first to tell you that you can't fix anything with a borescope, all they can do is enable you to tell the customer why it must come off.

Dear customer, I have good news and bad, the leak isn't valves, must be a rings.
 
21541803 said:
Any recommendations for a flexible 'scope:
under $500
to take a peek at valves etc.
SnapOn ?
Snake ?
Milwauke?
Thanks
Click to expand...

Back to the OP's original query: I have one of these, got it at Costco for $150. Prior to that I had a ProScope V which is similar but purely optical (no video or electronics)

As I said, for the purpose of examining valves and cylinders it's not going to be a game changer by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't want to commit blasphemy of the Savvy gospel but like I said earlier, his take on this subject is lifted directly from the Continental Service Bulletin including all of the pictures (he provides none of his own) In regards to those pictures (the same ones posted by avfool) not a single one of them is an image from a borescope or even a videoscope. They are all pictures of cylinders that have been removed from the engine and I can tell you this: the cylinder on the right was removed because it failed a compression test, not because someone noticed some discoloration on the exhaust valve.

If you are going to utilize a videoscope for cylinder inspection and believe, as has been claimed, that it is the single most useful tool for this purpose then you face two distinct scenarios:

#1 the cylinder passes the compression test but when looking inside with your $30 dental camera you notice some discoloration so you pull the cylinder for repair.

#2 the cylinder fails the compression test miserably but based on your not seeing anything abnormal with your $30 dental camera you make the decision to continue operating it.

Like I said earlier, I have pulled cylinders that had compression readings of 20/80 and with my face looking right down the barrel could not detect anything visually wrong. The compression test, as crude and unsophisticated as it is, is going to tell you something WAY before you will see anything with the naked eye.

and we haven't even begun to mention what you are going to be seeing on an engine analyzer if you have one on board prior to even performing a simple compression test.
 
There is no point arguing with someone who has one foot in the stone age and "has always done it that way....". But it's always funny to see them get all cranked up over Savvy Aviator. I think he and his organization has done more to educate and improve this field than any hundred or more old salts with their compression testers.

You must not remember the webinar very well because at no time did Mike insinuate those valve pictures were taken by him with a bore scope. The previous photos in the webinar were described specifically as off his own plane and taken with his own "borescope" which is actually a dental device, and not a $30 one..... All shown below.

The point is, compression tests are not the do all to end all that A&Ps have used as a crutch since the Wright Bros. and are less valuable than a good look at what's going on. If you don't look, you won't see that burn spot growing. If you don't look, you won't be aware the guide is getting worse. Then when your engine throws a valve because a couple hundred hours ago, at the last compression test, everything was just peachy - you'll cuss that compression test all the way to an engine out landing. Like he says "compression tests can lie"....they really can... :dunno:

So hopefully folk will make up their own mind and take that 2 cents for what it cost. I'd suggest spending some time learning about the modern aviation maintenance theory that has been proven by the airlines and military for many years now and quit pulling jugs over a compression test alone.
Just my 2 cents.....:rolleyes:

An interesting scope used by a professional hangar that maintains many, many aircraft:
MikesScope_zpsa3d32822.jpg


Closed valve in good shape (2800 hours!):
ClosedValve_zpsa6d8bda6.jpg


Open valve in good shape and on closing showed no excessive guide wobble on closing:
Openvalve_zpsce91d3d8.jpg


Good cylinder, also on his personal plane, had shown 75/80:
GoodCylinder_zps3e2724c8.jpg


Bad cylinder on his plane that had shown 45/80, hence the inspection proved it was reason to pull as opposed to many tests that are wrong:
BadCylinder_zps5f986a64.jpg


Whew, this is a lot of work. Have better things to do this evening. Hope this helps those that don't know-it-all. :rolleyes:
I'll pass on further posting here and let the flaming begin.
 
Last edited:
:mad2:

Where's the popcorn icon......
Fearless Tower said:
The Fool kills me....anyone who disagrees with him gets put on his ignore list....POA is going to be a very lonely place for him...
Click to expand...
The syndrome, is, "everyone on the planet has inferior knowledge to me....." :dunno:

So why come here for validation? Why do you need validation?
 
bbchien said:
:mad2:

Where's the popcorn icon......
The syndrome, is, "everyone on the planet has inferior knowledge to me....." :dunno:

So why come here for validation? Why do you need validation?
Click to expand...

Just what we need! For the good doctor to show up. Let's hope he didn't bring his probes... Because if he did, we're all in trouble! ;)
 
He follows me around to whine and belittle me - he's getting good at it...talk about needing validation ....must be sad to have nothing better to do.... :sleep:
 
Last edited:
Silvaire said:
For a real scope such as the IPlex you're looking at around $8-10k. As Tom said, the $150-$200 videoscopes with the flexible, non-articulating wands are basically just a novelty - very difficult to work with as far as getting them to point at what you want to look at and limited in focal range.

For looking at valves there's really no point. You can fail a compression test miserably and not be able to visibly detect anything wrong in the cylinder. If you think you can stick a cheap camera in there and find a big chunk of valve burnt or broken off - why? The result of your compression test is going to have you pulling that jug anyway. I have pulled cylinders that were giving readings of 20/80 and looking down inside the bore at the valves with cylinder removed and a powerful flashlight there was no visible indication that there was anything wrong with it.
Click to expand...

I agree the inexpensive flex inspection cameras don't work well inside cylinders but with a dental (intra-oral) camera it's pretty easy to see an incipient valve problem by looking for asymmetrical color patterns on the valve head. You can also see issues on the valve's seating surface but unless you rotate the valve you can only see a small portion of that.
 
I use two different videoscopes, I only wish they could have been bought for $500.00. I use the smaller dia. scope with a special guide tube on the PT6A engines. I have one that is slightly larger dia. for the recips. The borescope view of the hot section and compressor on a turbine is a must at pre-buy. I always run the scope through all of the cylinders and both turbos on a recip. pre-buy too.

I'm just getting ready to post still pictures and attempt some video of the internal inspections on my blog.

Kevin
 
aviatingfool said:
He follows me around to whine and belittle me - he's getting good at it...talk about needing validation ....must be sad to have nothing better to do.... :sleep:
Click to expand...
Dude. You're the one that got thrown out of AOPA and sent me the abusive emails. Get a grip.
 
Oh good, I got him going now. Can't see his rants cuz he's on my ignore list. But pretty soon he'll start posting my name and address and picture and picture of my dog and a picture of my dog's poop and all the other stuff he's dug up on me when he's not saving the universe's pilots. Then he gets his whine on about how mean I am to him and how tired he is about it all, just hoping others will chime in and pat him on the head and tell him he's the king. Then, if he gets them wound up enough, his gang of cyber bullies will jump in and kiss his butt while tearing me a new one....it's all pretty entertaining, really...:rofl:

I don't see it any more as they are all censored by my settings but when you quote them I get a taste of the silliness. What grown men will do to compensate for......(!) is quite amazing, particularly when they hide behind a keyboard.

Wonder if the moderators here eventually get tired of the attacks like AOPA did but then hey, what would I do for entertainment? :rolleyes:

Flame on gang: :popcorn: :thumbsup: :popcorn:
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Dude. You're the one that got thrown out of AOPA and sent me the abusive emails. Get a grip.
Click to expand...
You called it Doc...this dude is a trip.....he accuses everyone of whining who disagrees with him (as seen in almost every thread he participates in and the harassing email he sen you) when he is the only one who actually is.

This dude's a trip.....I'm laughing my butt off.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top