Cracked lifter bodies on my C-145

[twlareau]

We are going to mic all the journals before sending out. I would like to have some base line numbers.

[twlareau]

In the parts catalog it lists part number 531211 as a bolt,crankcase tie. Is this considered a thru bolt and need to be replaced during an overhaul per continental service bulletin. I know part number 537465 is listed as a thru bolt. The bolt,crankcase tie looks like a thru bolt to me but is not cheap at $130.00 per unit X 7.

[marathonrunner]

Jeez ginbug, you need to pick a different shop. I don't know of any I have dealt with that just grind things to generate money. They are on the west coast though or midwest. Maybe east coast shops do things differently

[GAHorn]

Thad,

Since you have decided to send out all the stuff except the case why not have the case inspected, inspect the cylinders and call it a Major. You are so close.

This is always the question.

....

Of course, that would not actually BE a "major"..... it would still be a "repair."

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Thad,

Since you have decided to send out all the stuff except the case why not have the case inspected, inspect the cylinders and call it a Major. You are so close.

This is always the question.

....

Of course, that would not actually BE a "major"..... it would still be a "repair."

I meant Overhaul not Major. My point was with the inspections he was planning he was closer to meeting the requirements of the Overhaul definition so why not meet the rest and call it an Overhaul.

[GAHorn]

My intent was to keep us from re-defining the terms.
Neither plan would meet the definition of " overhaul",
if the cylinders (or any other time-in-service component) was merely
inspected and not returned to overhauled condition.
One of the most common errors found in logbooks is the
confusion and mis-use of those terms. The vast majority of
engines returned to service after major teardown (despite the logbook
entries), are neither overhauls nor rebuilds...but instead are "repairs".

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

My intent was to keep us from re-defining the terms.

Good catch. Of course when I typed Major I was thinking in terms of what wasn't a minor repair. Of course a Major repair on an engine would not be an overhaul.

Neither plan would meet the definition of " overhaul"...

We intentionally did not list all the requirements of an overhaul. We simply stated that once the inspections Thad planned to carry out where done, he was closer to an overhaul than not so why not complete the overhaul.

...if the cylinders (or any other time-in-service component) was merely
inspected and not returned to overhauled condition.

One of the most common errors found in logbooks is the
confusion and mis-use of those terms. The vast majority of
engines returned to service after major teardown (despite the logbook
entries), are neither overhauls nor rebuilds...but instead are "repairs".

Yes I agree the word overhauled is many things to many people and not understood by many. So there it is. What is overhauled condition? The word overhaul is not defined in FAR 1.1 how ever it is defined in FAR 43.2 Records of overhaul and rebuilding.

• § 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
  
  (2) It has been tested in accordance with approved standards and technical data, or 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, supplemental type certificate, or a material, part, process, or appliance approval under part 21 of this chapter.
  
  (b) No person may describe in any required maintenance entry or form an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part as being rebuilt unless it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, reassembled, and tested to the same tolerances and limits as a new item, using either new parts or used parts that either conform to new part tolerances and limits or to approved oversized or undersized dimensions.

So a cylinder inspected and found not to have any defects outlined per the overhaul manual and also within the serviceable dimensions IS in overhauled condition. It requires no new parts or new tolerances.

So bottom line an overhaul is nothing more and nothing less than a Disassembly, Cleaning and Inspection (Chapter 10 OHM). Repair and Replacement (Chapter 11 OHM). Reassembly, Final Assembly, Timiing and Testing (Chapter 12).

Those parts that can not be repaired to at least serviceable limits or those parts required to be replaced by the manual are the only new parts required. Of these steps the testing is probably the one most flagrantly not followed. How many have a 4 bladed test club (not a flight propeller) and ground run the engine with no baffling installed?

The biggest misunderstanding with the word overhaul is folks think it means the engine or its part are new or like new. That can be pretty far from the truth. And log book entries don't help lots of times as the overhauler is not required to list the discrepancies found and how they were repaired or to what tolerances the components were found, possibly repaired to, and used. They are only required to say the engine was overhauled per the overhaul manual and that leaves some pretty wide latitude.

Here is a link to an excellent article I found on this subject: http://www.aviationpros.com/article/103 ... rhaul-myth

[GAHorn]

Also, be aware that new, approved oversize/underside....does not equate to"serviceable".

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Also, be aware that new, approved oversize/underside....does not equate to"serviceable".

I'm not following that statement.

[GAHorn]

"Serviceable limits" are suitable for continued service....but may not meet "new, or approved oversize/under size" specifications.
An engine which has not met ALL the specifications of the mfr s overhaul specs....is not an
overhaul ed engine...it's a repaired engine...it has"zero hours since REPAIR....not since overhaul...
and should not be represented as SMOH.
Example: TCM Overhaul Manual requires complete replacement of thrubolts.
An A & P disassembles, cleans, inspects, measures and finds the used bolts meet the same dimensions as new bolts and reuses them. ALL other parts are replaced with new parts, and
the engine is reassembled, test run, and approved for return to service.
This is now a REPAIRED engine....not an overhauled engine.
The practice of signing off such work as an overhaul is one which is widely abused,
often with many parts being returned to service which do not meet the definition
of the rules.

[N2255D]

Also, be aware that new, approved oversize/underside....does not equate to"serviceable".

I'm not following that statement.

They are not serviceable because they are only oversize on the underside.

[c170b53]

Aside from a debate on what is an overhaul and what is a repair

[GAHorn]

Aside from a debate......

I would hope a discussion such a this not be misconstrued with a "debate".
The very point is to learn from each other and to preserve accuracy in our vocabulary. It's often the miscommunication that creates hardship/injury....which never mightnt
have occurred if matters had been accurately represented in the beginning.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

"Serviceable limits" are suitable for continued service....but may not meet "new, or approved oversize/under size" specifications.
An engine which has not met ALL the specifications of the mfr s overhaul specs....is not an
overhaul ed engine...it's a repaired engine...it has"zero hours since REPAIR....not since overhaul...
and should not be represented as SMOH.

I agree that the overhaul has to meet the standards of the overhaul manual . That includes oversized or undersized parts as allowed by the overhaul manual or other approval for overhaul. An overhauled engine with a legally ground .010 under crank and .010 over bearings, .15 over cylinders, .005 over rocker shafts, longer push rods and other things I can't think of at the moment is overhauled if the manual allows it and in many cases it does.

Example: TCM Overhaul Manual requires complete replacement of thrubolts.
An A & P disassembles, cleans, inspects, measures and finds the used bolts meet the same dimensions as new bolts and reuses them. ALL other parts are replaced with new parts, and
the engine is reassembled, test run, and approved for return to service.
This is now a REPAIRED engine....not an overhauled engine.
The practice of signing off such work as an overhaul is one which is widely abused,
often with many parts being returned to service which do not meet the definition
of the rules.

This is a bad example George because the overhaul manual (C-145) does not call for the replacement of the thrubolts. In fact it does not call for the replacement of a lot of things one might replace at overhaul such as main or connecting rod bearings. TCM SB 97-6 1997-04-07 MANDATORY REPLACEMENT PARTS calls for the replacement of the thrubolts as well as a lot of other parts. As we know we do not have to comply with SBs for part 91 flying and it is not called for in 42.3 where the term overhaul is defined.

Ok then why are overhaulers replacing thrubolts at $134 a pop. Because there is case law where a mechanic was found to not have followed the Lycoming Overhaul Manual (OM) by the NTSB because in part he did not follow a Lycoming SB that called for a person performing the magnetic particle testing to be certified. Appearently the Lycoming OM says that any SBs subseguently issued by Lycoming are part of the OM. Here is an article with analysis of that case: http://www.aea.net/AvionicsNews/ANArchi ... wsHill.pdf

I haven't read the Continental C-145 OH from cover to cover lately. But a recent quick review did not show the manual contains any wording that would include any subsequent SBs as part of the manual. So in my opinion SBs including but not limited to TCM SB 97-6 do not have to be complied with in order for an Continental C-145/0-300 engine to be considered by the FARs to be overhauled.

BTW- The danger of course with the decision in the case law is that with some simple wording in overhaul or maintenance manuals, manufactures can supercede the FARs and in effect require everyone to comply with ALL SBs issued. Beware, this is one reason we do not want TCM or Cessna rewriting or up dating any overhaul or maintenance manuals for our aircraft.

[GAHorn]

"Serviceable limits" are suitable for continued service....but may not meet "new, or approved oversize/under size" specifications....

I agree that the overhaul has to meet the standards of the overhaul manual . That includes oversized or undersized parts as allowed by the overhaul manual or other approval for overhaul. An overhauled engine with a legally ground .010 under crank and .010 over bearings, .15 over cylinders, .005 over rocker shafts, longer push rods and other things I can't think of at the moment is overhauled if the manual allows it and in many cases it does. .

A part which meets "service limits" may be out-of-spec for new, oversize, or undersize limits...but may continue for time-in-service. Therefore, it cannot meet "overhaul" defn'. The engine utilizing such parts is a "repair".

Example: TCM Overhaul Manual requires complete replacement of thrubolts.....

...This is a bad example George because the overhaul manual (C-145) does not call for the replacement of the thrubolts. In fact it does not call for the replacement of a lot of things one might replace at overhaul such as main or connecting rod bearings. TCM SB 97-6 1997-04-07 MANDATORY REPLACEMENT PARTS calls for the replacement of the thrubolts as well as a lot of other parts. As we know we do not have to comply with SBs for part 91 flying and it is not called for in 42.3 where the term overhaul is defined.....

I think it's the PERFECT example, Bruce. Firstly, I did not specify the C145/O300 engine, as I was speaking in generic terms....
HOWEVER, you bring up a magnificent example of this vocabulary problem: YES...you are correct, a Part 91 operator does not HAVE to comply with all SB's. HOWEVER..if the mfr issues a SB which provides instructions for completion of the overhaul, such as the SB 97-6.... it becomes a requirement of that overhaul. (See the article you posted regarding this very matter.)\
BUT, also..as you correctly observe, Pt 91 operators are NOT req'd to comply with that SB... however if they don't...they may NOT call it an "overhaul".... it is a "REPAIR."