Overhaul of C-145

[GAHorn]

Hey, Tom! Bruce F. wrote: "I'm currently overhoualing my engine following the overhaull manual."

Do the regs address "overhoualing" and "overhaull"????
(Go for it, Bruce!)

[GAHorn]

I think you guys need to read the FAR 43.2

§43.2 Records of overhaul and rebuilding.

(a) No person may describe in any required maintenance entry or form an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part as being overhauled unless-

(1) Using methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, and reassembled; and .........

This whole business about "acceptable to the Administrator" is pretty vague. I would assume the the Administrator (of the FAA,I suppose) would prefer that the overhaul be performed in compliance with all applicable service bulletins as well as the latest overhaul manual,but I'm just guessing.
The logbook entry for my overhaul (done three years ago) sez "performed under good shop conditins and in accordance with Continental Overhaul Manual p/n X30013." Doesn't mention service bulletins--were any applicable SB's complied with? Or even looked at? Also no indication that the thru bolts were replaced.
By the way,I've got ECI steel cylinders & I've had no trouble with them in 529 hours SMOH.

Eric

I believe the complete comment, which includes: "... in accordance with current standards and technical data acceptable to the Administrator, which have been developed and documented by the holder of the type certificate..." refers to subsequent SBs, ADs, etc issued by/on behalf of ...the type certificate holder (mfr.)
Therefore, any Mandatory SB's and all AD's should be complied with. My 2 cents.
By the way, I've fallen victim to exhaust valve difficulties on 575-hour TCM cylinders. During annual, two cyls had leaking exhaust valves. The cause has been hypothesized as a combination of out-of-tolerance valve guides and possible carbon beneath a valve and it's seat which caused erosion. The guides are being replaced, and the cyls will be given new valves and the seats being re-faced, and will be installed with new pistons and .005" oversized rings. (I don't believe in re-using exhaust valves once they've had any problem.)
This engine had 220 hours on it when I bought it. I've put 350 hours on it. The two cyls in question have had lower compression than the others since I've owned it, typically they've run in the low 60's with slight hissing at the exhaust valves. My IA has recommended each time to keep running it. (I've always wanted to remove them and clear up the problem, and this year I've insisted upon it. Sure enough one valve is badly eroded and the other could have been re-faced, but as I said, I don't believe in that on exhaust valves. Especially since it's been hissing slightly for several hundred hours.)
Look out, Joe! I get this thing back together and I'll be running at MMO! (That's not what you're thinking, Eric.)

[N1478D]

I've never said that you are not smart George! To start coming up with your excuses now is brilliant. Even if you stick 8 cylinders on that old slow B of yours, it's still going to be an old slow B.

[zero.one.victor]

I believe the complete comment, which includes: "... in accordance with current standards and technical data acceptable to the Administrator, which have been developed and documented by the holder of the type certificate..." refers to subsequent SBs, ADs, etc issued by/on behalf of ...the type certificate holder (mfr.)
Therefore, any Mandatory SB's and all AD's should be complied with. My 2 cents.
.......................

George,your quote re: current standards" and "developed....by the holder of the type certificate" are in section 2 of the reg,which refers to testing. Go Back & reread Tom's post. I interpreted it same as you at first,but upon rereading it seems to apply to testing the engine,not performing the overhaul itself. Strictly speaking,that's how I would interpret it. Bit I agree,IMHO all SB's & AD's should be complied with by the basis of common sense. Just like the SB re: prop strike/sudden engine stoppage--as I recall it being discussed,engine teardown/inspection is mandatory only if the airplane is used for hire. But common sense says (to me) that non-compliance is foolish.
By the way,when I quote previous posts I generally delete the portions which I'm not referring to,so I don't fill up the topic with the same long posts over & over again. I'm not trying to do a "Nixon watergate tapes" thing.

Eric

[GAHorn]

That's one of the problems with the regs...they allow lots of "interpretation".
I don't see it the same way as your last msg, Eric, because the part 1 ends the sentence with "and"...meaning it's not yet a complete statement, only that the policy/regulation has two important points. SB's meet the definition of Part 1 when they contain methods because they become 'acceptable' data. Therefore any methods of actual overhaul/repair contained within them are part and parcel of the entire process.
Example: older designs which get superceded are frequently introduced via SB and not necessarily via revision of an overhaul manual, since the process didn't change, only the design (which in itself had to go thru approval as a part of the type design change.) If a faulty design is removed from public service, such part may have exactly the same inspection and installation procedure as it's descendant does, so no change to the overhaul manual is required. A SB might address this quite nicely, and we agree it should be followed. That's how I see it, correct or not.

[Tom Downey]

GA wrote:

I believe the complete comment, which includes: "... in accordance with current standards and technical data acceptable to the Administrator, which have been developed and documented by the holder of the type certificate..." refers to subsequent SBs, ADs, etc issued by/on behalf of ...the type certificate holder (mfr.)

IF you read that into the regulation, then you must also read into the regulation that the SERVICE BULLETIN for TBO must also be complied with.

IF you are building a part 135 operators engine, all service bulletins must be complied with, part 91 operators are not bound by that requirement.

IF the requirement is IN the latest version of the MANUFACTURERs overhaul manual then it is required, as stated in FAR 43.2

Don't trust your old greasy book, Cont. updates their manuals on CD every month now. you must have their latest up date or the FAA will bust you.

subscription for their Web page (that is the method for the up date) is $750 per year, NOW you know why I am retiring, I can't justify the cost increase to my small customer base.

The manufacturers are forcing us out. because the want a big deep pocket (FBO's) between them and pilots's lawyers.

The days of freelanced A&P-IAs are nearly over.