- Joined
- Jun 1, 2016
- Messages
- 1,187
- Reaction score
- 368
I was wondering if I could get some opinions on post engine OH break in oil, and the possible lack there of.
I'm looking at a Cherokee that underwent an engine OH around 250 hours ago (5 years ago). The OH was completed by what appears to be a reputable engine OH facility in the Southwest US. Post OH engine oil was changed approximately every 10 hours for the first 50 hours. Camguard was introduced at 30 hours. Then per the logbooks, at 70 hours post OH, the engine was removed and "inspected for contamination". The center, rear, and connecting rod bearings were replaced with new. Pistons were replaced with serviceable, installed with new rings, and the cylinders were honed. The engine was re-installed, and oil changes were again made approximately every 10 hours with Camguard being introduced again at 30 hours.
I have yet to determine the exact cause of the teardown inspection, but based on what is in the logbooks, I am suspecting the possible lack of use of mineral oil after the OH. The reason for this is because all of the logbook entries post OH specifically state that the engine was serviced with Phillips XC-20W50. After the teardown inspection the logbooks show the engine was serviced with Phillips XC-20W50 "Type M" for the next 2 oil changes. At 20 hours post teardown, it was again serviced with Phillips XC-20W50. All of the maintenance performed and log entries prior to engine OH, post OH, pre and post teardown, were accomplished by the same maintenance provider with very complete and detailed log entries. From this I've assumed, that the lack of "Type M" oil post OH wasn't an omission in the logbooks, and quite possibly was the reason for the teardown inspection since they then specifically used "Type M" oil in the post teardown log entries.
My questions are first, is this theory of lack of "Type M" oil causing the teardown inspection plausible? If indeed the teardown was done due to a lack of "Type M" oil post OH, are there any other long term effects that I should be concerned with? In regards to what was replaced and completed in the teardown inspection (listed above), was the teardown inspection sufficient, and consistatnt with this type of problem? If you don't feel this is the issue or cause of the teardown inspection, what other problems could have required a teardown and "inspection for contamination"?
It seems like a pretty big screw up to me if this is indeed the case and the cause of the teardown inspection. How would you consider this issue from a buyers perspective? It appears from the logbooks to be an otherwise very well maintained aircraft. Would love to know others thoughts on this. Thanks!
I'm looking at a Cherokee that underwent an engine OH around 250 hours ago (5 years ago). The OH was completed by what appears to be a reputable engine OH facility in the Southwest US. Post OH engine oil was changed approximately every 10 hours for the first 50 hours. Camguard was introduced at 30 hours. Then per the logbooks, at 70 hours post OH, the engine was removed and "inspected for contamination". The center, rear, and connecting rod bearings were replaced with new. Pistons were replaced with serviceable, installed with new rings, and the cylinders were honed. The engine was re-installed, and oil changes were again made approximately every 10 hours with Camguard being introduced again at 30 hours.
I have yet to determine the exact cause of the teardown inspection, but based on what is in the logbooks, I am suspecting the possible lack of use of mineral oil after the OH. The reason for this is because all of the logbook entries post OH specifically state that the engine was serviced with Phillips XC-20W50. After the teardown inspection the logbooks show the engine was serviced with Phillips XC-20W50 "Type M" for the next 2 oil changes. At 20 hours post teardown, it was again serviced with Phillips XC-20W50. All of the maintenance performed and log entries prior to engine OH, post OH, pre and post teardown, were accomplished by the same maintenance provider with very complete and detailed log entries. From this I've assumed, that the lack of "Type M" oil post OH wasn't an omission in the logbooks, and quite possibly was the reason for the teardown inspection since they then specifically used "Type M" oil in the post teardown log entries.
My questions are first, is this theory of lack of "Type M" oil causing the teardown inspection plausible? If indeed the teardown was done due to a lack of "Type M" oil post OH, are there any other long term effects that I should be concerned with? In regards to what was replaced and completed in the teardown inspection (listed above), was the teardown inspection sufficient, and consistatnt with this type of problem? If you don't feel this is the issue or cause of the teardown inspection, what other problems could have required a teardown and "inspection for contamination"?
It seems like a pretty big screw up to me if this is indeed the case and the cause of the teardown inspection. How would you consider this issue from a buyers perspective? It appears from the logbooks to be an otherwise very well maintained aircraft. Would love to know others thoughts on this. Thanks!
