New engine on high airframe

I

ivan.rosado1

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 22, 2015
Messages
13
What do you think, it is a good idea to put a new engine on a high TTAF?
1991 Piper Archer II
 
as opposed to bolting a runout engine on it???? Assuming you want to fly it I think a good motor is a good idea. New? That's one option. Who doesn't like new?
 
New as in brand new, or new as in an overhaul? It depends on your core if you are talking "Factory New", and how many hours you're looking to put on it. If your core is junk and you are a typical owner/pilot who flies 100 hours a year or less, the most economic way to do it is buy a mid time engine. If you have the plane in a rental program that is making money, then the factory new engine may make more sense. There are also older engines with fresh overhauls, or you can buy a good core and have it overhauled or trade it on factory rebuild.
 
My Navion probably has close to 6000 hours on the airframe. I put a brand new IO-550 on it about ten years ago.
 
ivan.rosado1 said:
It's around 8600 TTAF 1981 Archer II...
Click to expand...

If it's in good condition, it will last another couple of engine cycles, so it depends on what you want and how you use it. If you WANT a new engine, and intend to keep the plane long term, Imwould say "go ahead".
 
And where did that time come from? Single owner? Many owners? , a club? A trainer? Log book history if at all credible, on and on.
 
Had over 8000 hrs on my arrow when I sent the engine out for overhaul. Didn't realy lose on the resale as I bought it with high time.
 
Also be sure to check other things besides new engine. You may need a new baffle set, exhaust components and so forth. Most folks look at just engine or cylinders but many other supporting items are old and need replacing.
 
Which brings up the ?, which would you rather; a 1975 plane with only 500 hrs on airframe/engine or a plane with 10000hrs and a overhauled engine with 500 hrs?
Do airframes have theoritical limits?
 
teejayevans said:
Which brings up the ?, which would you rather; a 1975 plane with only 500 hrs on airframe/engine or a plane with 10000hrs and a overhauled engine with 500 hrs?
Do airframes have theoritical limits?
Click to expand...

Not enough information.
 
ivan.rosado1 said:
What I mean is in regards to the resale value....
Click to expand...

The resale value will definitely go down if you don't put an engine on it.

No problems.

Now if you don't want the airframe anymore, you can give it to me.
 
Call me crazy but I prefer a runout engine then I can add new engine and maintain it with no surprises.
 
teejayevans said:
Which brings up the ?, which would you rather; a 1975 plane with only 500 hrs on airframe/engine or a plane with 10000hrs and a overhauled engine with 500 hrs?
Do airframes have theoritical limits?
Click to expand...

I'll prefer the 500 young aircraft.
 
teejayevans said:
Do airframes have theoritical limits?
Click to expand...

Sadly, yes. We just don't know what those are for all aircraft. See Aloha Airlines Flight 243. In response, the FAA has mandated ongoing aging aircraft inspection programs, time limits on certain parts (for example, 18,000 hours limit on Piper Tomahawk stock spars), and for some aircraft models, permanent retirement limits.
 
Henning said:
The one that's been sitting on the ramp for the last 30 years next to the ocean? Like I said, not enough information.
Click to expand...


I was assuming all things being equal, since a lot of replies seem not to be bother by high hours.
 
Anticept said:
Sadly, yes. We just don't know what those are for all aircraft. See Aloha Airlines Flight 243. In response, the FAA has mandated ongoing aging aircraft inspection programs, time limits on certain parts (for example, 18,000 hours limit on Piper Tomahawk stock spars), and for some aircraft models, permanent retirement limits.
Click to expand...


Where would I find this info: in air worthiness directive, service bulletin?
 
teejayevans said:
I was assuming all things being equal, since a lot of replies seem not to be bother by high hours.
Click to expand...

But all things are not equal, and there is nothing worse on a machine than letting it sit. Me personally, I want the plane that has flown 50-100 hrs a year consistently and lived in a hangar all its life. For most GA planes I don't really consider airframes "high time" until 10,000hrs. Condition is far more important than hours, and while there is some correlation between the two, hours are by no means a definitive indicator. I'll take the 40 year old Colorado plane that has been hangared all its life with 6500 hrs over the 40 year Florida plane that has lived on the ramp at Key West all its life with 500 hours.
 
I've flown Pipers with 12k and 15k hours. Maintenance gets to be more common as more things wear out, but I've never felt unsafe in them.

Check for skin cracking at every conceivable point, at least during the annual. With an old aircraft you just know that sooner or later its going to happen, but when? 20k? 30k? Cessna and Pipers have no stated time, its all about condition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top