1967 7KCAB Project on Ebay

Bart is correct - an uneducated purchaser will look for TSMO. The rest of us will look for who did the "overhaul" and how long ago it was done.

One of my neighbors bought a Champ with an extremely low time SMO - at least in the logbooks. He made it halfway home, then discovered (apparently) that the engine was completely worn out.

Four hundred hours ago I re-did my Cub engine - new crank, cam, lifter bodies, pistons, rings. Case welded and re-machined by Divco. Cannot call it an overhaul. Just listed what I did in the log.
 
Interestingly, the FAA actually has published an AC defining engine overhaul terminology: AC 43-11

A few excerpts that might help make some inferences on the question of OH vs IRAN:

5.b.(1) "A major overhaul consists of the complete disassembly of an engine, inspected, repaired as necessary, reassembled, tested, and approved for return to service within the fits and limits specified by the manufacturer's overhaul data."

6. "... These limits are outlined in the engine overhaul manual as a "Table of Limits" or a "Table of Dimensional Limits." These tables, listing the parts of the engine that are subject to wear, contain minimum and maximum figures for the dimensions of those parts and the clearances between mating surfaces."

6.b.(1) "... In an engine overhaul certain parts must be replaced regardless of condition."

So here is the way my dumb layman's brain sees it:
A. Engine was overhauled 20 years ago. All parts subject to wear were restored to limits.
B. Engine sat without running. So no wear, but potential damage due to corrosion.
C. IRAN would inspect all parts for corrosion, but would not need to replace parts due to wear.
D. Some parts would have to be replaced regardless of condition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top