Buying a plane past its engine TBO?

[nddons]

The price of the install is what you gamble with as the cost of the engine is pretty much recoverable. The other side of the coin is the mid time engine carries a price premium that expires at 75% TBO, so there is still depreciation on the table there. Then as you point out, exit strategy has a factor in the decision making process; just how long do you plan to keep the plane?

Can you explain your first sentence further? I'm not sure I follow.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

High time, frequent use, engines rarely catastrophically fail due to internal factors. Usually they start consuming too much oil, or are just down in power, and it gets decided to overhaul at the next convenient period. Or metal is noticed on an oil change.

Oh but thats just not true. So many many high time engines have failed due to people pushing the limits. Including crank failures , Pistons simply blowing off the case or cracking in flight. Many things are involved, including but not limited to how the plane is flown by how many people, who has worked on it, some good, some lousy mechanics out there, and in many cases an overhaul done by a cheap shop. So many variables involved. No blanket statement will suffice. Anyone renting an aircraft with 3100 hours on the engine is asking for big trouble. Especially nowadays with litigation the way it is.

 

[Henning]

Can you explain your first sentence further? I'm not sure I follow.

Engine removal and replacement labor is not represented in market valuation adjustments, just the cost of the engine. That's why 75% TBO values as a run out.

If you buy the plane with a 75% TBO engine, now the remaining value (assuming that core value is maintained) to TBO will 'pay for' the R&R. This isn't much of a gamble, and you are getting the cheapest operating hours out of the engine.

However, once you get past TBO, now you are counting on it making it enough further to cover the installation cost, that's a different set of odds if someone was making book. The operating hours are still the cheapest, the question becomes how many of them are you going to get.

 

[Henning]

Oh but thats just not true. So many many high time engines have failed due to people pushing the limits. Including crank failures , Pistons simply blowing off the case or cracking in flight. Many things are involved, including but not limited to how the plane is flown by how many people, who has worked on it, some good, some lousy mechanics out there, and in many cases an overhaul done by a cheap shop. So many variables involved. No blanket statement will suffice. Anyone renting an aircraft with 3100 hours on the engine is asking for big trouble. Especially nowadays with litigation the way it is.

Running engines into detonation has no relevance to wear and TBO. I can destroy an engine at any age, it only takes me about 30-45 seconds, a minute and a half if it's cold out, to make it lunch pistons.

But you won't be finding 150/160hp O-320s doing it, nor 180hp O360s, nor 230/5 hp 0-470s or 540s.

 

[nddons]

Engine removal and replacement labor is not represented in market valuation adjustments, just the cost of the engine. That's why 75% TBO values as a run out.



If you buy the plane with a 75% TBO engine, now the remaining value (assuming that core value is maintained) to TBO will 'pay for' the R&R. This isn't much of a gamble, and you are getting the cheapest operating hours out of the engine.



However, once you get past TBO, now you are counting on it making it enough further to cover the installation cost, that's a different set of odds if someone was making book. The operating hours are still the cheapest, the question becomes how many of them are you going to get.

Ah, OK. So if you hear of a factory reman. or replacement engine selling for $30,000, is that typically net of the trade-in of the existing engine core?

 

[Henning]

Ah, OK. So if you hear of a factory reman. or replacement engine selling for $30,000, is that typically net of the trade-in of the existing engine core?

Typically advertised prices are dependent on and inclusive of your rebuildable core. You have to read the fine print on the ads because not every deal is the same. If your crank or case is unusable, you may have to add some money.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

If your core is unusable then you certainly will be charged more money. Don't doubt it. A good bit more.

 

[Henning]

If your core is unusable then you certainly will be charged more money. Don't doubt it. A good bit more.

It all depends on the deal this week and from whom, but typically yes. There are/have been programs out there, IIRC from Lycoming with an SFRM deal when upgrading to a roller cam engine from flat tappet, where they don't ding you for core.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

It all depends on the deal this week and from whom, but typically yes. There are/have been programs out there, IIRC from Lycoming with an SFRM deal when upgrading to a roller cam engine from flat tappet, where they don't ding you for core.

The correct answer is.....yes you will pay more . Count on it.

 

[Tom-D]

If your core is unusable then you certainly will be charged more money. Don't doubt it. A good bit more.

By who?
Only the factory has the ability to deny core.

 

[Tom-D]

Oh but thats just not true. So many many high time engines have failed due to people pushing the limits. Including crank failures , Pistons simply blowing off the case or cracking in flight. Many things are involved, including but not limited to how the plane is flown by how many people, who has worked on it, some good, some lousy mechanics out there, and in many cases an overhaul done by a cheap shop. So many variables involved. No blanket statement will suffice. Anyone renting an aircraft with 3100 hours on the engine is asking for big trouble. Especially nowadays with litigation the way it is.

Henning is right, very few high timed engine are run to failure, they show symptoms which makes the owner nervous, and off it comes.

 

[genna]

Define "early". What is the model year of the one(s) being looked at? Didn't the SR22 first come out in 2001? If you limit the term "early" to 2001 through early 2005 then yes, they should be done. If you apply "early" to a few more years, it could still be due and due soon. Just something to consider. Without knowing the year in question due to the vague use of the word early, I thought I would throw that potential concern into the conversation.

As far as the panel, even if it is a 2001 panel that is still a fairly young panel and should be of little concern.

To me between a high time engine, a panel that is still fairly fresh and a potential CAPS repack, the repack would concern me the most.

Pre 2005. Is this a precise enough? This topic is about the engine. I've mentioned SR22 only to specify which engine.

CAPS is a whole other story that I'm fully aware of and not particularly interested in discussing.

 

[Henning]

Pre 2005. Is this a precise enough? This topic is about the engine. I've mentioned SR22 only to specify which engine.

CAPS is a whole other story that I'm fully aware of and not particularly interested in discussing.

IO-550 is a perfectly good engine. I'm not a personal fan of the SR-22 single power lever system because it limits the parameters I can choose from, however it does a good job of limiting the ability of a pilot to get into damaging operational parameters (which are unfortunately also the most efficient settings).

I wouldn't be too afraid of approaching 3000 hrs on the bottom "on condition" using oil analysis, and for a small bit of money and effort, you can clean the valve stems and touch up the valve seats with a lapping every few hundred hours and stay as lean as you can; and you can hedge your bet some.