Continental A65 Freshly Overhauled

[Kerbs]

My IA has an A65 that he did a field overhaul on for sale. (He performed the work for a customer and ended up with the engine due to non-payment. Motor is 0 SMOH. I can get more detail but what I have on it is an A65 taper flange with cylinders 15 over. Bendix 4RN lunchbox mags, stromburg carb, exhaust and comes with a McCauley 7163. He is asking $6,500 for everything.

The engine is on a stand right now, I can likely get some pictures or get you in touch with my IA. I am not selling it myself, just offered to post it in case someone was looking.

[Woody]

Is that prop a 7143 ? I dont think a 65 will turn a 7163

[Robert Lees]

My IA has an A65 that he did a field overhaul on for sale. (He performed the work for a customer and ended up with the engine due to non-payment. Motor is 0 SMOH. I can get more detail but what I have on it is an A65 taper flange with cylinders 15 over. Bendix 4RN lunchbox mags, stromburg carb, exhaust and comes with a McCauley 7163. He is asking $6,500 for everything.

The engine is on a stand right now, I can likely get some pictures or get you in touch with my IA. I am not selling it myself, just offered to post it in case someone was looking.

I bought a Taylorcraft in the USA in 2015 with a "100 hrs since major overhaul" A-65 engine and it quit about 30 hours later. LINK to the full story It concerned me that shoddy workmanship was apparently unsupervised by the FAA.

Caveat emptor, mea culpa.

Is the work unsupervised? Or approved? Under what FAA regulation?

Over the next few years I had to get more cylinder work done (valve lapping) on the engine by a different organisation; it was only by coincidence that I noticed they weren't deflating the hydraulic tappets upon cylinder replacement. I educated them.
I do wonder if this basic process is endemic in maintenance organisations who are "approved" to do "field overhauls" of small Continental engines? Do the FAA ever get to see what they do?

Kerbs, and others: what exactly is a "field overhaul" in FAA-land, and how does that legally relate to "0 SMOH" in your post?

Rob in the UK

[N96337]

Rob....
From the current FAR's...

§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, technically unless the engine is run in according to the overhaul manual, it really shouldn't be signed off as such. That being said, the reality is that there are a lot of "overhauls" performed without complying to the strictest order of the manual. Your experience with the lifters is a prime example of the common "not quite it" practices. When I worked at an overhaul facility, I gained a tremendous amount of respect for doing it right...and I'm really picky about what I do to an engine and who does any work that I need to ship out. These engines are basic and very simple, but can still be messed up quite well by incompetence or ignorance. A lot of people get in over their heads, without knowing how far in they are. All that being said, there are a lot of great mechanics out there that perform a great "field overhaul" by sending in parts to be inspected/worked that is past the capability of their shop, such as non destructive testing and rework of cases, and they do the assembly and run in. That's the most common way, and it gets the job done wonderfully.
I hope that answers your question?
John

[Hank Jarrett]

I have an engine I bought back in the 70s that was in a crate with paperwork that showed a full overhaul, done by an IA with all the measurements and numbers from the overhaul. We had to open something up ( I don't even remember what, but something looked funny) and we found out there were a number of bad things about the engine. My IA and I started doing minor things like pulling the valve covers and taking he kidney tank off to look around. What we found was that the engine had been taken completely apart, cleaned and painted, then put back together and NO work had been done on it. My IA called it an "Aerosol Overhaul".
We contacted the FAA to report what we found and they said that the IA number on the paperwork was NOT for the name on the paperwork, in fact the IA for the number had been dead for years. The name was not in their files at all. I ended up taking the whole thing to a mechanic my IA recommended who was also a machinist who built engines for stock car drivers. My IA checked every component and we replaced all of the bad ones after which the machinist dynamically balanced all of the moving parts. Want to see something terrifying? watch an A-65 crank on a balancing machine spinning at 20,000 RPM! All of the none rotating parts were made up into matched sets and were kept together for assembly. Most of these things weren't really needed but I wanted to learn.
When the engine was fully assembled my mechanic/IA went into the hospital and ended up dying from Cancer. It was devastating to loose a new friend and a MESS trying to find the paperwork for the engine. When we found the paperwork we found out he hadn't filled put any of the overhaul paperwork. I now have a precision balanced, fully overhauled engine that is a thing of beauty, with forged paperwork from an IA who doesn't exist.
Next step? My current IA and I plan to do a full tear down, just like for an overhaul and inspection, and reassemble the engine with all new seals. We will then use THAT date for the overhaul. Crazy as it sounds, I am looking forward to it. I really enjoyed the last build.
Lesson? Even with perfect paperwork, you NEVER really know what you have till you look yourself. Just roll with it and look at it as part of the adventure.

Hank

[Edwin Otha]

What process did you use to "precision balance" the engine and was it Approved? This is becoming a large problem as the experience level on these little engines fades. We still are operating on WW2 surplus parts and the overhauls might use 1940's new parts. Paperwork is what you need to keep all of this stuff in order.

EO

[Hank Jarrett]

All of the parts were inspected by the IA at an engine overhaul facility and then passed to the machinist. After mass and dynamic balancing they were all inspected and fully approved for use as withing specs for new parts. Balancing doesn't require a lot of machining. Only very small cuts were made to the balance pads on the rotating parts and the skirts of the heaviest pistons (in the area that the factory makes cuts to get them within design tolerance, he just got them to MUCH closer weight than the spec required). The biggest benefit came from his precision weighing of things like wrist pins, pin caps and connecting rods, which are kept is sets to maintain the balance! The lightest pins got the heaviest caps as an example. It was surprising how much variance ehre was in those parts weights! The connecting rods were machined (again on the factory balancing pads) to not only the same total weight but to put the CG of each the same distance out from the crank.
Will it make a difference? No idea, but I did learn a LOT about balancing an engine. I just wish we had polished and ported her and CCed the combustion chambers. Got to learn how to do it but we didn't have time to do mine. At the RPM a 65 runs I doubt it would do much, but I really don't know. I do know other engines he did were exceptionally smooth running.

[Edwin Otha]

Thats my point. If there is no approved process it isn't allowed. The imbalance can be addressed by matching the offsetting components to achieve the balance requirements. Removing metal from the crankshaft/ rod assemblies would not be an approved method without additional engineering approval. Does it matter, probably not. But if we start seeing failures in these areas that were modified with no approval, a FAR 43.12 violation, the next thing will be a new AD on the engines.

EO

[Hank Jarrett]

So long as the parts still met the dimensional requirements for NEW parts and passed all NDI checks, my IA and the engine repair shop had no problem. Neither do I. There were factory replacement parts in stock with MORE material taken off of the balance pads than the ones I used. Nothing in the regs says I am allowed to breath either, but I'm not going to stop because of it. I have been through this discussion before with several IA and people from the Small Aircraft Certification Directorate in Kansas City. There is nothing wrong with the work we did.

[Kerbs]

I was just offering it up to help my IA out and in the case someone was looking for an A65. He has all the paperwork and tags from the overhaul. I do not have the details but am happy to get anyone in touch that is interested. I have no idea on the prop and doubt it would work on a t-craft but an included prop to re-sell is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

[Edwin Otha]

I piped up to stop them from bashing your engine. Everyone has an opinion and they choose to voice it, when their actions cause concern they defend them. I'm sure your IA will have no problem selling the engine to recoup his investment.

Always use approved processes by the engine manufacturer or STC holder.

EO

[Kerbs]

Thanks EO. No offense taken by anyone and all good questions. At the end of the day, a field overhaul commands less money thank a big name shop or factory overhaul. That said they can be good engines. (My 85 is a field overhaul and it runs lights out!) But it all comes down to paperwork. If anyone is looking for an affordable a65, I can put them in touch. He may be willing to take offers. Just offering it up as a service as finding engines can be a PITA.

[Scott]

what exactly is a "field overhaul" in FAA-land, and how does that legally relate to "0 SMOH" in your post?

Technically an overhaul is an overhaul, field or otherwise. Each engine's overhaul manual has specific requirements that must be completed, plus ADs, service bulletins and assessory replacement/overhauls. There's also a specific set of limits.. dimensional, total time, cycles that may mean parts must be replaced. And of course specific non destructive testing requirements. (In Canada ndt must be done by an approved maintenance organization having ndt on its approval list. I suspect its the same in the US).

Whether these requirements are met in a pristine overhaul shop, or in a qualified person's garage is irrelevant, as long as the overhaul standards are met.

Regulatory oversight starts with personnel licensing, as with everything else we do on certified aircraft, the work must be documented and the parts traceable, and it's all subject to enforcement in the end. Lots of percieved and real problems with the system, but that's how it works.

Problems arise because there are humans involved. Errors can be made, both by a qualified licensed individual, or a 9-5 employee of an engine shop.

I've seen bad things done by both. I'd have no problem buying/flying a properly documented engine from a qualified individual who's prepared to put his butt on the line by personally signing for the work.

It's not difficult to uncover the so called spray bomb overhaul. A review of the ndt certifications, new parts list, work report etc. against the manufacturers published requirements is required. Anything missing or non conforming and the engine is not overhauled, not zero smoh. Buyers should allow no wiggle room here.

Unfortunatly, data demonstrates that overhauled engines represent an increase in risk. First few flights I stay within dead stick range of the strip!
S

[Hank Jarrett]

VERY well said Scott! What I faced when I first looked over my "freshly majored" engine, all with paperwork that looked perfect, is FRAUD. All the logs were totally false, as verified by the FAA when we reported the "Aerosol Overhaul". Unfortunately there was no way to trace teh fraud back to anyone. Our only option was to trash the engine or do an entire overhaul all again from ground zero. That is what we did in a first class engine repair facility with several very competent engine IAs watching the whole process. The only difference was I was doing the rebuild myself under their supervision. They had agreed that a fully qualified mechanic would sign off the work. Certainly not the least expensive way to do the job but I learned a LOT in the process.

[Robert Lees]

I write with vested interest: Some may recall my 2015 photo of my newly-purchased Taylorcraft in the USA:



which was from an A-65 engine supposedly "overhauled" less than 100 hours prior to this particular failure, and sold to me as such.

Overhauled?; my arse: this was an accident waiting to happen; the "overhaul" was not properly done or not properly overseen by the FAA who are supposed to oversee engine airworthiness in the USA. Who is the crook? The cheap overhauler, or the FAA for failing to oversee these "field overhauls"?

As you may tell, I'm still quite angry, because it cost me a lot of money to resolve what should have been better supervised by the FAA. Here in the UK that organisation would have been shut down years ago.

Sorry for the rant.

(Full Trip report including the engine failure for those who haven't seen it: here )