Does anyone have any experience with Columbia Aviation in Pennsylvania? I was referred to them by Penn Yan Aviation who will no longer overhaul C-145 small engines. They recommended Columbia. When I called the latter they advised me I could expect to need a top overhaul half-way through the life of the engine. This is not real encouraging at the outset.
I need to get an overhaul or reman but I want a good, thorough job. Does anyone have any experience with Columbia? Or, is there another shop in the Northeast that someone had a very good experience with?
Looking forward to some sound advice.
Jack Henion
Columbia Aviation
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
I suppose it depends upon how you operate the engine
(i.e., whether the top end will need attention sooner or
later). If the airplane sits and flies 20-30 hours per year,
you can kinda count on topping it before it reaches TBO.
Flew mine almost 190 hours last year and just did a leak-down
test (annual time). There's around 340 SCMOH on it. Got 80/80
on two cylinders and 78/80 on the rest.
If you get a quality overhaul and operate it often (with care, proper
leaning, etc.) I don't see why you couldn't nurse the top end past
mid-TBO.
Another thought is if one or two jugs go south on you mid-span through
the TBO, so what..... A relatively modest amount of money/labor
will freshen up those cylinders and give you many more hours of
reliable service. The bottom ends of these engines have been
said to be "bullet proof". Careful operation of the engine and perhaps
attention to the top end now & then can yield years & many hours
of reliable service.
Just some thoughts....
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
(i.e., whether the top end will need attention sooner or
later). If the airplane sits and flies 20-30 hours per year,
you can kinda count on topping it before it reaches TBO.
Flew mine almost 190 hours last year and just did a leak-down
test (annual time). There's around 340 SCMOH on it. Got 80/80
on two cylinders and 78/80 on the rest.
If you get a quality overhaul and operate it often (with care, proper
leaning, etc.) I don't see why you couldn't nurse the top end past
mid-TBO.
Another thought is if one or two jugs go south on you mid-span through
the TBO, so what..... A relatively modest amount of money/labor
will freshen up those cylinders and give you many more hours of
reliable service. The bottom ends of these engines have been
said to be "bullet proof". Careful operation of the engine and perhaps
attention to the top end now & then can yield years & many hours
of reliable service.
Just some thoughts....
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
-
Bruce Fenstermacher
- Posts: 10320
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am
Susan
Columbia has an excellent reputation around here. I have toured the shop and talked to the people that work there. Scotty has probably forgotten more about Continential and Lycoming engines than most know.
My C-65 was rebuilt by them in the 70's and was humming along nicely till the prop meet the ground one day and it is currently there for a prop strike tear down inspection.
They are very busy which I think could only mean they do a decent job for the price cause they are a relatively small shop in the hills of PA.
Obviously since one of my engines is there now. If I was going to pay someone to rebuild my engine (I'm currently rebuilding my own know), I wouldn't hesitate to use them. They conveniently are the closest to me, which would way heavy in that decision.
As for the top overhaul halfway through TBO, this would not be uncommon and a lot of different things go into whether you'll actually need one. If you were talking to Scotty (and you probably did), he was just being realistic and telling you the truth. It's not a reflection of Columbia's work.
I just noticed in another post you said you have a vacuum pump. If it's mounted on the back of the engine then more than likely you have a 0-300D not a C-145. Shouldn't make much difference to the rebuilders but it might.
Columbia has an excellent reputation around here. I have toured the shop and talked to the people that work there. Scotty has probably forgotten more about Continential and Lycoming engines than most know.
My C-65 was rebuilt by them in the 70's and was humming along nicely till the prop meet the ground one day and it is currently there for a prop strike tear down inspection.
They are very busy which I think could only mean they do a decent job for the price cause they are a relatively small shop in the hills of PA.
Obviously since one of my engines is there now. If I was going to pay someone to rebuild my engine (I'm currently rebuilding my own know), I wouldn't hesitate to use them. They conveniently are the closest to me, which would way heavy in that decision.
As for the top overhaul halfway through TBO, this would not be uncommon and a lot of different things go into whether you'll actually need one. If you were talking to Scotty (and you probably did), he was just being realistic and telling you the truth. It's not a reflection of Columbia's work.
I just noticed in another post you said you have a vacuum pump. If it's mounted on the back of the engine then more than likely you have a 0-300D not a C-145. Shouldn't make much difference to the rebuilders but it might.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
Fresh cylinders sure give more confidence. Now, with 1000+ hours since overhaul, I fly higher over the Ouachita Mountains in western AR/eastern OK (pronounced bleep) than 4 years ago with just 300 hours on the engine - higher to provide larger safety margin, would rather be down low. Don't do near as much night flying and am reluctant to take kids on a long cross country now also. It does seem like it's only one or two cylinders that are showing their age, but the hours effect confidence. My cylinders might make 1800 hours or more, but the flying will be different in the last few hundred hours than the first 1000.
Last edited by N1478D on Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Joe
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
-
Bruce Fenstermacher
- Posts: 10320
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am
Just realized that Susan but if you have a vacuum pump you still probably have a 0-300D.
Jack, just remove Susans name from my earliar post and insert your name and disregart the part about vacuum pumps.
Jack, just remove Susans name from my earliar post and insert your name and disregart the part about vacuum pumps.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
Perhaps Columbia made that prediction based upon overhauled or chromed cylinders rather than new ones. You should ask them to clarify their statement.
I recommend NEW cylinders if you can afford them, in whichever flavor your overhauler prefers. Milleniums by Superior, ECI's, or TCM's. They've all pretty much worked out their bugs by now. (I'd probably select ECI's, personally, but any of them are better than old, tired, re-worked cylinders if you want to get maximum life out of a fresh overhaul.)
I recommend NEW cylinders if you can afford them, in whichever flavor your overhauler prefers. Milleniums by Superior, ECI's, or TCM's. They've all pretty much worked out their bugs by now. (I'd probably select ECI's, personally, but any of them are better than old, tired, re-worked cylinders if you want to get maximum life out of a fresh overhaul.)
We looked back over the records, and I was a little off on some of my remembrances. Sorry... 
Our engine was overhauled in 1999, not 2001. It was having cylinder cracking problems, one of which happened while I was onboard, and scared me half to death. It was the second cylinder that had cracked on the engine, which is why it got the major overhaul right afterward. The situation underscored the inherent impressive capabilities of the 170 in a less-than-perfect situation with a capable pilot. In another situation six months before, my husband's boss had made a bad decision when a cylinder cracked in his engine while inflight. It ended in the worst possible way, and my husband could easily have been on that flight. Being in that same situation only six months later is why it scared me silly.
So they put four more new cylinders on it, and they were all Millenium cylinders. Turned out the crankshaft was cracked, too. (The engine is indeed an 0-300, btw.) The Milleniums have been very reliable, and the engine has been purring along very happily ever since.
That cylinder cracking problem is the worst problem I ever heard about that the 170s had to deal with, and it certainly wasn't a design flaw. One of the things I find most important with cars, and the 170s, is their reliability. I am not interested in getting stuck on the side of the road somewhere, and I sure don't want to have engine problems while in the air, either.
So I'm definitely in favor of new cylinders, too.
Our engine was overhauled in 1999, not 2001. It was having cylinder cracking problems, one of which happened while I was onboard, and scared me half to death. It was the second cylinder that had cracked on the engine, which is why it got the major overhaul right afterward. The situation underscored the inherent impressive capabilities of the 170 in a less-than-perfect situation with a capable pilot. In another situation six months before, my husband's boss had made a bad decision when a cylinder cracked in his engine while inflight. It ended in the worst possible way, and my husband could easily have been on that flight. Being in that same situation only six months later is why it scared me silly.
So they put four more new cylinders on it, and they were all Millenium cylinders. Turned out the crankshaft was cracked, too. (The engine is indeed an 0-300, btw.) The Milleniums have been very reliable, and the engine has been purring along very happily ever since.
That cylinder cracking problem is the worst problem I ever heard about that the 170s had to deal with, and it certainly wasn't a design flaw. One of the things I find most important with cars, and the 170s, is their reliability. I am not interested in getting stuck on the side of the road somewhere, and I sure don't want to have engine problems while in the air, either.
So I'm definitely in favor of new cylinders, too.
-Susan
N3440D
55 170B
TIC170A Member
N3440D
55 170B
TIC170A Member
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
I've owned two airplanes,both Continental powered . I put 300-some hours on my O-200 powered C-150 & so far about a thousand on my C-145 powered 170. From my experiences,and from talking with others in the 8 years I've been flying,as a rule of thumb Continental engines rarely make TBO without some top end work. Seems that usually the (exhaust) valve guides get loose & let the valve flop around and erode the valve seat,then sooner or later that cylinder won't make 60/80 (or whatever your IA's limit is) and you have to pull that cylinder & get it reworked.
I don't know if it is a valve-train geometry thing,or too-soft guide material,or what,but Lycomings don't seem to suffer from this as much as Continentals. My engine got new ECI cylinders when it was overhauled 2 years ago. A friend who is pretty knowledgable tells me that the guides used in the ECI cylinders are better material,& will hold up much better than Continental's guides. I don't know if that's true,the ECI cylinders haven't been out long enough to have an established track record. If the ECI guides are made of better stuff,why can't those guides be installed in the other brand cylinders?
If it is a valve/rocker geometry thing,then it seems like those roller rockers would help reduce the guide wear,but I haven't heard of all that many people installing them.
Maybe a person should just plan on pulling all the cylinders at 1000-1200 hours,or whenever the compressions start looking bad,and installing new guides,recutting valve seats,etc. If the top end does make it to TBO, it'd just be like a bonus!
Eric
I don't know if it is a valve-train geometry thing,or too-soft guide material,or what,but Lycomings don't seem to suffer from this as much as Continentals. My engine got new ECI cylinders when it was overhauled 2 years ago. A friend who is pretty knowledgable tells me that the guides used in the ECI cylinders are better material,& will hold up much better than Continental's guides. I don't know if that's true,the ECI cylinders haven't been out long enough to have an established track record. If the ECI guides are made of better stuff,why can't those guides be installed in the other brand cylinders?
If it is a valve/rocker geometry thing,then it seems like those roller rockers would help reduce the guide wear,but I haven't heard of all that many people installing them.
Maybe a person should just plan on pulling all the cylinders at 1000-1200 hours,or whenever the compressions start looking bad,and installing new guides,recutting valve seats,etc. If the top end does make it to TBO, it'd just be like a bonus!
Eric
My buddy's brother-in-law lives next door to an engineer who says his sister's cousin had a Lycoming that went 4,000 hours and never had anything done to it but oil changes. But, that's just an anecdote, of course. 
There is no way that apples are compared to apples when it comes to claims of reliability with regard to different makes of aircraft engines.
Was the TCM engine rebuilt with new or used cylinders? The used ones, were overhauled how many times? Bored oversize? Or chromed? Previously used in skydiving operations? Or fire patrol on long, steady-state power settings? Field overhual? Or factory remanufactured? Which tolerances? Was it operated by experienced pilots who were gentle? Or ham-fisted students on touch-and-goes and practice engine-outs? And on and on and on, etc. etc.
There's just no way to give an example of a TCM vs a Lyc. engine and come out with a truly unbiased comparison, anymore than you can get Bubba to agree on a Ford or Chevy pickup. But there is one thing you can do. You can look at the basic design and make a few educated guesses.
Lycoming made a huge marketing push with their 1/2" valve stems (a redesign to reduce their out-of-control failure rates) and re-marketed their engines as 2,000 TBO engines. The public fell for it. In 36 years of experience, including a couple years as chief pilot of a pipeline patrol company that used 172's in both TCM and Lycoming-powered airplanes, I came to believe that Lycoming's reputation for being "bullet proof" is horse-hockey.
We had more catastrophic failures with Lycomings, including failed oil pumps, broken crankshafts, and cracked gears, that we never had with the O300's in the TCM powered airplanes (which might have an occasional stuck valve due to cheap cylinder overhauls.) The Lycomings had more camshafts that failed to make TBO and their rocker box machinery never withstood the test of time that the TCM's did. I believe it can be explained by simply examining the differences in the valve trains of the two engine designs.
Lycomings have their cam up above the crankshaft, high in the crankcase where it is subject to rust and corrosion when sitting, vs Continentals have their cams down below the crank where it benefits from the sump oil and the draining oil from the crankshaft.
Lycomings have small capacity hydraulic lifters that don't pump enough oil to fry and egg, vs Contintental lifters which pump huge amounts of oil to the rockers and valve-trains.
See: http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Marvel/tbo3.html
Lycomings, even factory rebuilt/remanufactured ones, almost never get to TBO without serious valve-train work involving "top overhauls" around 1100-1300 hours. Many of them don't get that far without camshaft changes. The O300/C145 engines, when overhauled to new specs, and flown regularly enjoys one of the highest reliability reputations in the industry. Unfortunately, they're just not made anymore. And until Superior came out with new cylinders thereby forcing TCM to get back into the market, old cylinders were overhauled and stuck back onto so many of the small Continentals that the engine's reputations began to suffer. It was an unwarranted smudge on the reputation, in my opinion, based upon personal experience with over 3500 hours in Continental powered single-Cessnas, and personal observation over a fleet of patrol aircraft using both types engines.
Lycoming just made a marketing-claim coup that Continental was unable to respond to after Textron ended up owning both Cessna and Lycoming.
The roller-rockers are not too popular because 1) they're so expensive they never pay for themselves (especially when compared to --what control engine?) 2) an AD note came out against the rocker rollers because of their own failure modes (too many moving parts) and 3) original rockers, when properly rebushed and faces correctly ground, will more likely last to TBO. True, they impart a side-load to the valve-stem, but so do Lyc's. There's no advantage the Lyc has in this regard, and with their sorry lubrication, there's plenty of opportunity for valve problems in a Lyc.
I've owned 6 different Continental engines and the only time I've ever been really scared was when I had a double engine failure in a Lycoming powered Navajo, due to the sorry piggy-back magneto using a single drive-gear design of that engine.
(And talk about using alternate fuels,...Continentals are a lot more tolerant of that than Lycomings are. But that may just be another anecdote.) My 2 centavos.
There is no way that apples are compared to apples when it comes to claims of reliability with regard to different makes of aircraft engines.
Was the TCM engine rebuilt with new or used cylinders? The used ones, were overhauled how many times? Bored oversize? Or chromed? Previously used in skydiving operations? Or fire patrol on long, steady-state power settings? Field overhual? Or factory remanufactured? Which tolerances? Was it operated by experienced pilots who were gentle? Or ham-fisted students on touch-and-goes and practice engine-outs? And on and on and on, etc. etc.
There's just no way to give an example of a TCM vs a Lyc. engine and come out with a truly unbiased comparison, anymore than you can get Bubba to agree on a Ford or Chevy pickup. But there is one thing you can do. You can look at the basic design and make a few educated guesses.
Lycoming made a huge marketing push with their 1/2" valve stems (a redesign to reduce their out-of-control failure rates) and re-marketed their engines as 2,000 TBO engines. The public fell for it. In 36 years of experience, including a couple years as chief pilot of a pipeline patrol company that used 172's in both TCM and Lycoming-powered airplanes, I came to believe that Lycoming's reputation for being "bullet proof" is horse-hockey.
We had more catastrophic failures with Lycomings, including failed oil pumps, broken crankshafts, and cracked gears, that we never had with the O300's in the TCM powered airplanes (which might have an occasional stuck valve due to cheap cylinder overhauls.) The Lycomings had more camshafts that failed to make TBO and their rocker box machinery never withstood the test of time that the TCM's did. I believe it can be explained by simply examining the differences in the valve trains of the two engine designs.
Lycomings have their cam up above the crankshaft, high in the crankcase where it is subject to rust and corrosion when sitting, vs Continentals have their cams down below the crank where it benefits from the sump oil and the draining oil from the crankshaft.
Lycomings have small capacity hydraulic lifters that don't pump enough oil to fry and egg, vs Contintental lifters which pump huge amounts of oil to the rockers and valve-trains.
See: http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Marvel/tbo3.html
Lycomings, even factory rebuilt/remanufactured ones, almost never get to TBO without serious valve-train work involving "top overhauls" around 1100-1300 hours. Many of them don't get that far without camshaft changes. The O300/C145 engines, when overhauled to new specs, and flown regularly enjoys one of the highest reliability reputations in the industry. Unfortunately, they're just not made anymore. And until Superior came out with new cylinders thereby forcing TCM to get back into the market, old cylinders were overhauled and stuck back onto so many of the small Continentals that the engine's reputations began to suffer. It was an unwarranted smudge on the reputation, in my opinion, based upon personal experience with over 3500 hours in Continental powered single-Cessnas, and personal observation over a fleet of patrol aircraft using both types engines.
Lycoming just made a marketing-claim coup that Continental was unable to respond to after Textron ended up owning both Cessna and Lycoming.
The roller-rockers are not too popular because 1) they're so expensive they never pay for themselves (especially when compared to --what control engine?) 2) an AD note came out against the rocker rollers because of their own failure modes (too many moving parts) and 3) original rockers, when properly rebushed and faces correctly ground, will more likely last to TBO. True, they impart a side-load to the valve-stem, but so do Lyc's. There's no advantage the Lyc has in this regard, and with their sorry lubrication, there's plenty of opportunity for valve problems in a Lyc.
I've owned 6 different Continental engines and the only time I've ever been really scared was when I had a double engine failure in a Lycoming powered Navajo, due to the sorry piggy-back magneto using a single drive-gear design of that engine.
(And talk about using alternate fuels,...Continentals are a lot more tolerant of that than Lycomings are. But that may just be another anecdote.) My 2 centavos.
Engine shop
In New Hampsire I know of a fella that overhauls small aircraft engines. He overhauled a friends c-75 and it was a work of art. He has a small shop and is a straight shooter and is knowladgeable and nice to talk to. He works with small volumes so he can maintain his quality level. He has a small website
http://www.sandhillaviation.com
Just a option if your looking for someone in the northeast
Vic
http://www.sandhillaviation.com
Just a option if your looking for someone in the northeast
Vic
Hey Joe, how did you get so gunshy with the 0-300 in your plane? If the oil analysis and compression check are holding up well, I personally don't see any reason not to let the young ones ride along and enjoy flight. I am just about to go over 1000 hours on my engine...last overhauled in 1974...and still take my family on long multi fuel stop cross countries that in reality stretch the 170 to its limits. With 6 cylinders up front, even if two decide to sit down and quit, you still have four more pounding away to help you to the nearest landing field. Of course I can't tell you what to do with your children...but the most dangerous thing you can do is put them in a car...even a brand new one. Even a total engine failure in a 170 is a cakewalk compared to what happens in even a minor automobile wreck 
John, 2734C in Summit Point, WV
John, an average of 170 hours per year is not gunshy! An emergency landing with kids to take care of a long ways from home is not fun for the kids. My post was just stating that the first 1,000 hours had a different feeling of confidence about it, than the last few hundred hours before overhual. The Continental drivers at the airport talk about the need to replace cylinders in the 1,000 hour time range. I didn't have a stuck valve untill about 900 hours. The last time I made a landing with a rough running engine I had two children on board, and their welfare added greatly to the uncomfortable feeling looking down and not seeing anything but the buildings of downtown Austin just behind us and trees (tall bushes hurt too) when the engine went bad. Getting myself hurt is one thing, but flying with children deserves a very conservative mindset - IMHO! I fly, and I still have passengers, BUT, now I fly with more options available for emergencies than I did 4 years ago with a fresh engine. The further apart the landing opportunities are, the higher I fly to allow more gliding time and distance. You are right about our engines (mine is a C145 by the way) getting us to an airport the majority of times when there is engine trouble, they are amazing. I hope your engine keeps running anytime you, and especially children are on board. I also hope you are a conserative pilot and not a bold pilot. The mental exercise I am going thru for the first time is - when do you replace those cylinders. It is not really a simple answer for some of us. Sold my first plane before the hours piled up. Now, the question of how long do you go and when do you spend the money is at hand. My engine is running great, compressions are in line, and climb and cruise power are still strong. The owners at the airport with many years of experience influence my feeling of confidence in those cylinders. At overhaul I would like to start out with new cylinders. If new ones are put on now, maybe needlessly, then what happens at overhaul with cylinders with 400 or 500 hours on them? I would like to wait and do it all at once, if possible. So, for now, while information is being gathered and decisions are tyring to be made, I am flying as conservative as I can.
Joe
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
John,I was hit head-on in my pickup by a drunk driver about 13 years ago,it was totalled. I walked away unhurt (love them seat belts!). Over the last 4th of July weekend,a guy I know was killed when his turbine Bonanza ran outa fuel. He had to put it down in the Cascade mountains of washington & the only suitable place just wasn't long enough. He ran out of field & hit an embankment & died,I believe of head/facial injuries.
Don't kid yourself,if a cylinder decides to quit it may decide to jump overboard too! It might do enough damage to the rest of the engine that you WON'T have 4 others pounding away. Like my dead friend proved,even something simple (& dumb!) like running outa gas can kill ya.
I lucked out 2-1/2 years ago,when a connecting rod broke ( punching a hole in the case,and also taking out the opposing cylinder) it did keep chugging away (barely) long enough to get me to an airport I'd just passed about 3 miles back. If I'd been over the middle of the Cascades it woulda been a different story. I look at long over-water or over-mountain flights a little differently now.
To paraphrase Joe,I have a lot more confidence now in my fresh engine,but I still consider the worse-case scenario & try to plan my flights accordingly.
Eric
Don't kid yourself,if a cylinder decides to quit it may decide to jump overboard too! It might do enough damage to the rest of the engine that you WON'T have 4 others pounding away. Like my dead friend proved,even something simple (& dumb!) like running outa gas can kill ya.
I lucked out 2-1/2 years ago,when a connecting rod broke ( punching a hole in the case,and also taking out the opposing cylinder) it did keep chugging away (barely) long enough to get me to an airport I'd just passed about 3 miles back. If I'd been over the middle of the Cascades it woulda been a different story. I look at long over-water or over-mountain flights a little differently now.
To paraphrase Joe,I have a lot more confidence now in my fresh engine,but I still consider the worse-case scenario & try to plan my flights accordingly.
Eric