 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hooverra
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 11
Location: The Plains, Virginia
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 7:40 pm Post subject: Borescope |
 |
|
I'm looking into the purchase of a video Borescope. (Cylinder and general inspection) Does anyone on the list have direct experience with any of the lower cost devices <$500?
Thanks.
Ralph Hoover
RV7A
Sent from my iPad
| | - The Matronics LycomingEngines-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List |
|
_________________
Ralph & Laura Hoover
RV7A N527LR |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BARRY CHECK 6
Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Posts: 738
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:43 am Post subject: Borescope |
|
|
Ralph:
Two questions:
1 - What do you think you have done that justifies a bore scope inspection?
2 - What do you expect to find?
The reason for these questions are: Your time and money could be better spent with standard diagnostic (common sense) testing. I am not a fan of bore scopes because they REALLY do not show anything that either the pilot knows they did wrong or they just repeat what common sense testing already shows. When a problem show itself in such a way as to be noticed in flying, a bore scope ONLY confirms what you already KNOW. Seriously I have never seen anything that a bore scope shows that was not diagnosed previously without it. Better to use the $500 on a new cylinder than on a bore scope.
Bore Scopes are better for a Colonoscopy.
Barry
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralph <hooverra(at)comcast.net (hooverra(at)comcast.net)> wrote:
[quote]--> LycomingEngines-List message posted by: Ralph <hooverra(at)comcast.net (hooverra(at)comcast.net)>
I'm looking into the purchase of a video Borescope. (Cylinder and general inspection) Does anyone on the list have direct experience with any of the lower cost devices <$500?
Thanks.
Ralph Hoover
RV7A
Sent from my iPad
===========
="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
le, List Admin.
===========
nes-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
===========
http://forums.matronics.com
===========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
[b]
| | - The Matronics LycomingEngines-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mel(at)becknet.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:40 am Post subject: Borescope |
|
|
Barry,
As an A&P, I could not disagree more. First, the price-point of $500 is high -- even high quality video borescopes today cost well under half that. I've seen very good units for under $150. For example, Fry Electronics sells one for $120 with excellent depth of field, illumination, and resolution, and includes on-board mirror, magnet, and hook attachments. Yes, you can spend big bucks on units with integrated laser measurement tools, wireless video screens, and motion recording capability, but you don't need that for aircraft engine work.
Although you can infer internal cylinder condition from other measurements, such as engine compression sounds, a visual inspection is still valuable and, I believe, highly recommended on a routine basis. Engine manufacturers such as Lycoming recommend borescoping cylinders on ALL its engines every 100 hours, or at least annually. And engine service bulletins offer useful guidance in analyzing borescope imagery (e.g. http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB03-3.pdf). Most video borescopes today have image capture capabilities that let you compare suspect areas year to year.
There's just no substitute for seeing cylinder conditions first hand. A borescope lets you better identify the cause of engine compression problems. For example, a borescope will instantly reveal corrosion, and the location of the corrosion (top vs bottom) will help you identify its cause. Cylinder wall scoring, impossible to detect any other way, is instantly visible with a borescope. The image capture capability makes it easy to email images to an experienced mechanic for a second opinion, and even a pilot can gain valuable insight by comparing image changes over time.
Borescopes can be invaluable at other times as well. Have you ever dropped a screw in the belly of an aircraft? You can't leave it there -- it could jam a control during flight. WIthout a borescope you might face hours of searching with a magnet; with a borescope you can likely find the part in minutes -- I have, on several occasions.
In my opinion, every aircraft owner should have at least an inexpensive borescope on hand at all times. It's a very cheap way to stay on top of internal engine conditions, and you'll find other uses for it as well.
Why perform the equivalent of seeing-eye dog maintenance when you can have a high quality visual record of what's going on in your engine, at a very low cost?
-mel
On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:39 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
[quote]Ralph:
Two questions:
1 - What do you think you have done that justifies a bore scope inspection?
2 - What do you expect to find?
The reason for these questions are: Your time and money could be better spent with standard diagnostic (common sense) testing. I am not a fan of bore scopes because they REALLY do not show anything that either the pilot knows they did wrong or they just repeat what common sense testing already shows. When a problem show itself in such a way as to be noticed in flying, a bore scope ONLY confirms what you already KNOW. Seriously I have never seen anything that a bore scope shows that was not diagnosed previously without it. Better to use the $500 on a new cylinder than on a bore scope.
Bore Scopes are better for a Colonoscopy.
Barry
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralph <hooverra(at)comcast.net (hooverra(at)comcast.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> LycomingEngines-List message posted by: Ralph <hooverra(at)comcast.net (hooverra(at)comcast.net)>
I'm looking into the purchase of a video Borescope. (Cylinder and general inspection) Does anyone on the list have direct experience with any of the lower cost devices <$500?
Thanks.
Ralph Hoover
RV7A
Sent from my iPad
===========
="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
le, List Admin.
===========
nes-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
===========
http://forums.matronics.com
===========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics LycomingEngines-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
harley(at)agelesswings.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:22 am Post subject: Borescope |
|
|
I agree with Mel, Barry...
I've had the unit that Harbor Freight sells (very similar to the one Frys sells, but currently on sale for $89) and it has proved invaluable a couple of times. Just recently dropped some parts into the hell hole on my Long EZ, for example, as well as checking out the interior of my centersection spar for dropped parts. Also used it to look into the transmission on my truck.
However, the camera on either of these from Frys or Harbor Freight is not quite small enough to fit in a spark plug hole.
Also, the display on the one that I have is detachable and wireless. The newer models don't appear to do this. This allows one to hold the display steady and remote from the camera (up to 10 feet or more away) while moving the camera and it's holder around...something much more difficult to do with the attached units like they sell now.
Having said all that, Harbor Freight DOES have one that fits in spark plug holes:
http://tinyurl.com/6o5c4hs $200
All of the above can store the images in a computer
Harley
On 11/7/2011 8:35 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: [quote]Barry,
As an A&P, I could not disagree more. First, the price-point of $500 is high -- even high quality video borescopes today cost well under half that. I've seen very good units for under $150. For example, Fry Electronics sells one for $120 with excellent depth of field, illumination, and resolution, and includes on-board mirror, magnet, and hook attachments. Yes, you can spend big bucks on units with integrated laser measurement tools, wireless video screens, and motion recording capability, but you don't need that for aircraft engine work.
Although you can infer internal cylinder condition from other measurements, such as engine compression sounds, a visual inspection is still valuable and, I believe, highly recommended on a routine basis. Engine manufacturers such as Lycoming recommend borescoping cylinders on ALL its engines every 100 hours, or at least annually. And engine service bulletins offer useful guidance in analyzing borescope imagery (e.g. http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB03-3.pdf). Most video borescopes today have image capture capabilities that let you compare suspect areas year to year.
There's just no substitute for seeing cylinder conditions first hand. A borescope lets you better identify the cause of engine compression problems. For example, a borescope will instantly reveal corrosion, and the location of the corrosion (top vs bottom) will help you identify its cause. Cylinder wall scoring, impossible to detect any other way, is instantly visible with a borescope. The image capture capability makes it easy to email images to an experienced mechanic for a second opinion, and even a pilot can gain valuable insight by comparing image changes over time.
Borescopes can be invaluable at other times as well. Have you ever dropped a screw in the belly of an aircraft? You can't leave it there -- it could jam a control during flight. WIthout a borescope you might face hours of searching with a magnet; with a borescope you can likely find the part in minutes -- I have, on several occasions.
In my opinion, every aircraft owner should have at least an inexpensive borescope on hand at all times. It's a very cheap way to stay on top of internal engine conditions, and you'll find other uses for it as well.
Why perform the equivalent of seeing-eye dog maintenance when you can have a high quality visual record of what's going on in your engine, at a very low cost?
-mel
On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:39 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
| Quote: | Ralph:
Two questions:
1 - What do you think you have done that justifies a bore scope inspection?
2 - What do you expect to find?
The reason for these questions are: Your time and money could be better spent with standard diagnostic (common sense) testing. I am not a fan of bore scopes because they REALLY do not show anything that either the pilot knows they did wrong or they just repeat what common sense testing already shows. When a problem show itself in such a way as to be noticed in flying, a bore scope ONLY confirms what you already KNOW. Seriously I have never seen anything that a bore scope shows that was not diagnosed previously without it. Better to use the $500 on a new cylinder than on a bore scope.
Bore Scopes are better for a Colonoscopy.
Barry
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralph <hooverra(at)comcast.net (hooverra(at)comcast.net)> wrote:
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics LycomingEngines-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BARRY CHECK 6
Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Posts: 738
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:40 am Post subject: Borescope |
|
|
Mel:
In aviation it always comes down to opinions. You surely have the right to disagree, but, I as an A&P also have never had a problem that a bore scope solved.
Does anyone do a bore scope after each flight?
That is the only way a bore scope would qualify as a Preventive Maintenance device.
So something has had to happen to bring up the need to do a bore scope.
What would a bore scope do that investigative research could not do?
Show scratches on the cylinder walls? OK - Then what... You tare the cylinder down.
Just putting a Grain of Wheat Light Bulb on a variable power supply and dropping it down the spark plug hole would show the same thing.
OK - Then what... You tare the cylinder down.
So, you can't see the valves. Well yes you can with a simple mirror on a wand. What is the bore scope going to show... Well, yes, much better picture than a 3/8" Dia. mirror.
But, why are you looking at the valves - Maybe because they are leaking!
A compression check will show that also. OK - Then what.. You tare the cylinder down.
A bore scope will not show valve wobble... SB388. A bit of time and a good dial indicator and fixture will do that better than a bore scope.
The only good argument for getting a bore scope would be as Ralph says... "General Inspection" - Yes, there sure are areas that are just a royal PITA to see. Inside fuel tanks, up under <--- I just love that oxymoron - the dash.
Now what I did not realize is the drastic price drop - I would NEVER pay $500... But for LQQKing up under (LOL) the dash or in the tail cone... Now there you have a argument that holds water. <--- Tong in cheek.
So, Ralph... If you can get a real good camera (hate the term bore scope) at a real good price - - - Go for it. Just don't expect it to solve problems inside the engine.
Barry
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Mel Beckman <mel(at)becknet.com (mel(at)becknet.com)> wrote:
[quote] Barry,
As an A&P, I could not disagree more. First, the price-point of $500 is high -- even high quality video borescopes today cost well under half that. I've seen very good units for under $150. For example, Fry Electronics sells one for $120 with excellent depth of field, illumination, and resolution, and includes on-board mirror, magnet, and hook attachments. Yes, you can spend big bucks on units with integrated laser measurement tools, wireless video screens, and motion recording capability, but you don't need that for aircraft engine work.
Although you can infer internal cylinder condition from other measurements, such as engine compression sounds, a visual inspection is still valuable and, I believe, highly recommended on a routine basis. Engine manufacturers such as Lycoming recommend borescoping cylinders on ALL its engines every 100 hours, or at least annually. And engine service bulletins offer useful guidance in analyzing borescope imagery (e.g. http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB03-3.pdf). Most video borescopes today have image capture capabilities that let you compare suspect areas year to year.
There's just no substitute for seeing cylinder conditions first hand. A borescope lets you better identify the cause of engine compression problems. For example, a borescope will instantly reveal corrosion, and the location of the corrosion (top vs bottom) will help you identify its cause. Cylinder wall scoring, impossible to detect any other way, is instantly visible with a borescope. The image capture capability makes it easy to email images to an experienced mechanic for a second opinion, and even a pilot can gain valuable insight by comparing image changes over time.
Borescopes can be invaluable at other times as well. Have you ever dropped a screw in the belly of an aircraft? You can't leave it there -- it could jam a control during flight. WIthout a borescope you might face hours of searching with a magnet; with a borescope you can likely find the part in minutes -- I have, on several occasions.
In my opinion, every aircraft owner should have at least an inexpensive borescope on hand at all times. It's a very cheap way to stay on top of internal engine conditions, and you'll find other uses for it as well.
Why perform the equivalent of seeing-eye dog maintenance when you can have a high quality visual record of what's going on in your engine, at a very low cost?
-mel
On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:39 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
| Quote: | Ralph:
Two questions:
1 - What do you think you have done that justifies a bore scope inspection?
2 - What do you expect to find?
The reason for these questions are: Your time and money could be better spent with standard diagnostic (common sense) testing. I am not a fan of bore scopes because they REALLY do not show anything that either the pilot knows they did wrong or they just repeat what common sense testing already shows. When a problem show itself in such a way as to be noticed in flying, a bore scope ONLY confirms what you already KNOW. Seriously I have never seen anything that a bore scope shows that was not diagnosed previously without it. Better to use the $500 on a new cylinder than on a bore scope.
Bore Scopes are better for a Colonoscopy.
Barry
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralph <hooverra(at)comcast.net (hooverra(at)comcast.net)> wrote:
|
| Quote: |
_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
s-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics LycomingEngines-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mel(at)becknet.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:57 am Post subject: Borescope |
|
|
Barry,
We can agree to disagree, but my practice is in line with manufacturers' recommendations. Your arguments seem a little contrived, what with old-school widgets such as grain-of-wheat bulbs and tiny mirrors.
I never said a borescope is a panacea; you should use all the tools at your disposal, selecting the best one for a particular task. A borescope will often be the fastest way to get information about the inside of the cylinder. For example, you can't detect corrosion reliably by listening to compression sounds, which I would consider to be an important preventative maintenance inspection. A borescope gives you great data immediately.
Why not just get a borescope and take advantage of modern technology at a great price? Perhaps you'll "tare" down fewer engines 
-mel
On Nov 7, 2011, at 9:34 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
[quote]Mel:
In aviation it always comes down to opinions. You surely have the right to disagree, but, I as an A&P also have never had a problem that a bore scope solved.
Does anyone do a bore scope after each flight?
That is the only way a bore scope would qualify as a Preventive Maintenance device.
So something has had to happen to bring up the need to do a bore scope.
What would a bore scope do that investigative research could not do?
Show scratches on the cylinder walls? OK - Then what... You tare the cylinder down.
Just putting a Grain of Wheat Light Bulb on a variable power supply and dropping it down the spark plug hole would show the same thing.
OK - Then what... You tare the cylinder down.
So, you can't see the valves. Well yes you can with a simple mirror on a wand. What is the bore scope going to show... Well, yes, much better picture than a 3/8" Dia. mirror.
But, why are you looking at the valves - Maybe because they are leaking!
A compression check will show that also. OK - Then what.. You tare the cylinder down.
A bore scope will not show valve wobble... SB388. A bit of time and a good dial indicator and fixture will do that better than a bore scope.
The only good argument for getting a bore scope would be as Ralph says... "General Inspection" - Yes, there sure are areas that are just a royal PITA to see. Inside fuel tanks, up under <--- I just love that oxymoron - the dash.
Now what I did not realize is the drastic price drop - I would NEVER pay $500... But for LQQKing up under (LOL) the dash or in the tail cone... Now there you have a argument that holds water. <--- Tong in cheek.
So, Ralph... If you can get a real good camera (hate the term bore scope) at a real good price - - - Go for it. Just don't expect it to solve problems inside the engine.
Barry
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Mel Beckman <mel(at)becknet.com (mel(at)becknet.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | Barry,
As an A&P, I could not disagree more. First, the price-point of $500 is high -- even high quality video borescopes today cost well under half that. I've seen very good units for under $150. For example, Fry Electronics sells one for $120 with excellent depth of field, illumination, and resolution, and includes on-board mirror, magnet, and hook attachments. Yes, you can spend big bucks on units with integrated laser measurement tools, wireless video screens, and motion recording capability, but you don't need that for aircraft engine work.
Although you can infer internal cylinder condition from other measurements, such as engine compression sounds, a visual inspection is still valuable and, I believe, highly recommended on a routine basis. Engine manufacturers such as Lycoming recommend borescoping cylinders on ALL its engines every 100 hours, or at least annually. And engine service bulletins offer useful guidance in analyzing borescope imagery (e.g. http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB03-3.pdf). Most video borescopes today have image capture capabilities that let you compare suspect areas year to year.
There's just no substitute for seeing cylinder conditions first hand. A borescope lets you better identify the cause of engine compression problems. For example, a borescope will instantly reveal corrosion, and the location of the corrosion (top vs bottom) will help you identify its cause. Cylinder wall scoring, impossible to detect any other way, is instantly visible with a borescope. The image capture capability makes it easy to email images to an experienced mechanic for a second opinion, and even a pilot can gain valuable insight by comparing image changes over time.
Borescopes can be invaluable at other times as well Have you ever dropped a screw in the belly of an aircraft? You can't leave it there -- it could jam a control during flight. WIthout a borescope you might face hours of searching with a magnet; with a borescope you can likely find the part in minutes -- I have, on several occasions.
In my opinion, every aircraft owner should have at least an inexpensive borescope on hand at all times. It's a very cheap way to stay on top of internal engine conditions, and you'll find other uses for it as well.
Why perform the equivalent of seeing-eye dog maintenance when you can have a high quality visual record of what's going on in your engine, at a very low cost?
-mel
On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:39 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
| Quote: | Ralph:
Two questions:
1 - What do you think you have done that justifies a bore scope inspection?
2 - What do you expect to find?
The reason for these questions are: Your time and money could be better spent with standard diagnostic (common sense) testing. I am not a fan of bore scopes because they REALLY do not show anything that either the pilot knows they did wrong or they just repeat what common sense testing already shows. When a problem show itself in such a way as to be noticed in flying, a bore scope ONLY confirms what you already KNOW. Seriously I have never seen anything that a bore scope shows that was not diagnosed previously without it. Better to use the $500 on a new cylinder than on a bore scope.
Bore Scopes are better for a Colonoscopy.
Barry
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralph <hooverra(at)comcast.net (hooverra(at)comcast.net)> wrote:
|
| Quote: |
_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
s-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics LycomingEngines-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andrew.p.sanders(at)boein
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:44 pm Post subject: Borescope |
|
|
Bought one from Costco a month or so ago. Works great! Records stills and video, 10mm head easily fits through spark plug hole. Comes with a flexible extension to double the reach (to about 4'). The video head detaches from the handle/probe and works wireless. Worked great in resolving the rust/debris issues in the old VW. WISH I had it when I was chasing the fuel leak in the Cardinal wing tank!
Best part... $150.
Andrew
| Quote: | Subject: Borescope
From: Ralph <hooverra(at)comcast.net>
|
| Quote: | I'm looking into the purchase of a video Borescope. (Cylinder and general inspection)
Does anyone on the list have direct experience with any of the lower cost
devices <$500?
|
| | - The Matronics LycomingEngines-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BARRY CHECK 6
Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Posts: 738
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:56 pm Post subject: Borescope |
|
|
Mel:
I am Old School... And proud of it I won't give away my age.
Every generation has to reinvent the wheel and lay claim to it.
In your example: For example, you can't detect corrosion reliably by listening to compression sounds, which I would consider to be an important preventative maintenance inspection. A borescope gives you great data immediately.
Here is Old School Logic:
- If the corrosion is that light a good run will remove it.
- If the corrosion is that heavy you will see it with that Old School Grain of Wheat bulb.
- If the compression tests were GOOD why would one look inside with a bore scope?
- If the compression tests were BAD... You would have low compression. Air escaping into the sump area - AND - Then you would be hearing it. Or escaping out the exhaust pipe - AND - Then you would be hearing it. Or escaping out the Carb - AND - Then you would be hearing it. SOoooo why would you need a bore scope? You can see the problem on the compression gauge and/or hear it.
- Then what would your next action be? - - -
- WHOOPS... I guess you would be tearing down the cylinder... No help from the bore scope here. Just another proof of the obvious.
- And, if there was corrosion - that could be found out with the Old School - Grain of Wheat Bulb... LED's are just not right for all jobs. Cost... Less than $3 for bulb, wire and adjustable power supply. My ideas - - - - old yes, but not contrite. Are what got us to where WE are today. I know you were amazed at what McGiver could do with a bobby pin and a book of matches. If you can't relate to Mcgiver maybe the 'A' Team impressed you.
What I do like about a bore scope - AND - Wish I had one last Wednesday - As I said: Is to LQQK up under the dash. Will I spend $150 for one? Nope... But I will ask Santa.
Barry 
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Mel Beckman <mel(at)becknet.com (mel(at)becknet.com)> wrote:
[quote] Barry,
We can agree to disagree, but my practice is in line with manufacturers' recommendations. Your arguments seem a little contrived, what with old-school widgets such as grain-of-wheat bulbs and tiny mirrors.
I never said a borescope is a panacea; you should use all the tools at your disposal, selecting the best one for a particular task. A borescope will often be the fastest way to get information about the inside of the cylinder. For example, you can't detect corrosion reliably by listening to compression sounds, which I would consider to be an important preventative maintenance inspection. A borescope gives you great data immediately.
Why not just get a borescope and take advantage of modern technology at a great price? Perhaps you'll "tare" down fewer engines
-mel
On Nov 7, 2011, at 9:34 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
| Quote: | Mel:
In aviation it always comes down to opinions. You surely have the right to disagree, but, I as an A&P also have never had a problem that a bore scope solved.
Does anyone do a bore scope after each flight?
That is the only way a bore scope would qualify as a Preventive Maintenance device.
So something has had to happen to bring up the need to do a bore scope.
What would a bore scope do that investigative research could not do?
Show scratches on the cylinder walls? OK - Then what... You tare the cylinder down.
Just putting a Grain of Wheat Light Bulb on a variable power supply and dropping it down the spark plug hole would show the same thing.
OK - Then what... You tare the cylinder down.
So, you can't see the valves. Well yes you can with a simple mirror on a wand. What is the bore scope going to show... Well, yes, much better picture than a 3/8" Dia. mirror.
But, why are you looking at the valves - Maybe because they are leaking!
A compression check will show that also. OK - Then what.. You tare the cylinder down.
A bore scope will not show valve wobble... SB388. A bit of time and a good dial indicator and fixture will do that better than a bore scope.
The only good argument for getting a bore scope would be as Ralph says... "General Inspection" - Yes, there sure are areas that are just a royal PITA to see. Inside fuel tanks, up under <--- I just love that oxymoron - the dash.
Now what I did not realize is the drastic price drop - I would NEVER pay $500... But for LQQKing up under (LOL) the dash or in the tail cone... Now there you have a argument that holds water. <--- Tong in cheek.
So, Ralph... If you can get a real good camera (hate the term bore scope) at a real good price - - - Go for it. Just don't expect it to solve problems inside the engine.
Barry
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Mel Beckman <mel(at)becknet.com (mel(at)becknet.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | Barry,
As an A&P, I could not disagree more. First, the price-point of $500 is high -- even high quality video borescopes today cost well under half that. I've seen very good units for under $150. For example, Fry Electronics sells one for $120 with excellent depth of field, illumination, and resolution, and includes on-board mirror, magnet, and hook attachments. Yes, you can spend big bucks on units with integrated laser measurement tools, wireless video screens, and motion recording capability, but you don't need that for aircraft engine work.
Although you can infer internal cylinder condition from other measurements, such as engine compression sounds, a visual inspection is still valuable and, I believe, highly recommended on a routine basis. Engine manufacturers such as Lycoming recommend borescoping cylinders on ALL its engines every 100 hours, or at least annually. And engine service bulletins offer useful guidance in analyzing borescope imagery (e.g. http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB03-3.pdf). Most video borescopes today have image capture capabilities that let you compare suspect areas year to year.
There's just no substitute for seeing cylinder conditions first hand. A borescope lets you better identify the cause of engine compression problems. For example, a borescope will instantly reveal corrosion, and the location of the corrosion (top vs bottom) will help you identify its cause. Cylinder wall scoring, impossible to detect any other way, is instantly visible with a borescope. The image capture capability makes it easy to email images to an experienced mechanic for a second opinion, and even a pilot can gain valuable insight by comparing image changes over time.
Borescopes can be invaluable at other times as well Have you ever dropped a screw in the belly of an aircraft? You can't leave it there -- it could jam a control during flight. WIthout a borescope you might face hours of searching with a magnet; with a borescope you can likely find the part in minutes -- I have, on several occasions.
In my opinion, every aircraft owner should have at least an inexpensive borescope on hand at all times. It's a very cheap way to stay on top of internal engine conditions, and you'll find other uses for it as well.
Why perform the equivalent of seeing-eye dog maintenance when you can have a high quality visual record of what's going on in your engine, at a very low cost?
-mel
On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:39 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
| Quote: | Ralph:
Two questions:
1 - What do you think you have done that justifies a bore scope inspection?
2 - What do you expect to find?
The reason for these questions are: Your time and money could be better spent with standard diagnostic (common sense) testing. I am not a fan of bore scopes because they REALLY do not show anything that either the pilot knows they did wrong or they just repeat what common sense testing already shows. When a problem show itself in such a way as to be noticed in flying, a bore scope ONLY confirms what you already KNOW. Seriously I have never seen anything that a bore scope shows that was not diagnosed previously without it. Better to use the $500 on a new cylinder than on a bore scope.
Bore Scopes are better for a Colonoscopy.
Barry
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralph <hooverra(at)comcast.net (hooverra(at)comcast.net)> wrote:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
s-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics LycomingEngines-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mel(at)becknet.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:28 pm Post subject: Borescope |
|
|
Sigh. I'm in my 50's, but I've progressed with technology. Hopefully Santa will be good to you
-mel
On Nov 7, 2011, at 2:53 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
[quote]Mel:
I am Old School... And proud of it I won't give away my age.
Every generation has to reinvent the wheel and lay claim to it.
In your example: For example, you can't detect corrosion reliably by listening to compression sounds, which I would consider to be an important preventative maintenance inspection. A borescope gives you great data immediately.
Here is Old School Logic:
- If the corrosion is that light a good run will remove it.
- If the corrosion is that heavy you will see it with that Old School Grain of Wheat bulb.
- If the compression tests were GOOD why would one look inside with a bore scope?
- If the compression tests were BAD... You would have low compression. Air escaping into the sump area - AND - Then you would be hearing it. Or escaping out the exhaust pipe - AND - Then you would be hearing it. Or escaping out the Carb - AND - Then you would be hearing it. SOoooo why would you need a bore scope? You can see the problem on the compression gauge and/or hear it.
- Then what would your next action be? - - -
- WHOOPS... I guess you would be tearing down the cylinder... No help from the bore scope here Just another proof of the obvious.
- And, if there was corrosion - that could be found out with the Old School - Grain of Wheat Bulb... LED's are just not right for all jobs. Cost... Less than $3 for bulb, wire and adjustable power supply. My ideas - - - - old yes, but not contrite. Are what got us to where WE are today. I know you were amazed at what McGiver could do with a bobby pin and a book of matches. If you can't relate to Mcgiver maybe the 'A' Team impressed you.
What I do like about a bore scope - AND - Wish I had one last Wednesday - As I said: Is to LQQK up under the dash. Will I spend $150 for one? Nope... But I will ask Santa.
Barry
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Mel Beckman <mel(at)becknet.com (mel(at)becknet.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | Barry,
We can agree to disagree, but my practice is in line with manufacturers' recommendations. Your arguments seem a little contrived, what with old-school widgets such as grain-of-wheat bulbs and tiny mirrors.
I never said a borescope is a panacea; you should use all the tools at your disposal, selecting the best one for a particular task A borescope will often be the fastest way to get information about the inside of the cylinder. For example, you can't detect corrosion reliably by listening to compression sounds, which I would consider to be an important preventative maintenance inspection. A borescope gives you great data immediately.
Why not just get a borescope and take advantage of modern technology at a great price? Perhaps you'll "tare" down fewer engines
-mel
On Nov 7, 2011, at 9:34 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
| Quote: | Mel:
In aviation it always comes down to opinions. You surely have the right to disagree, but, I as an A&P also have never had a problem that a bore scope solved.
Does anyone do a bore scope after each flight?
That is the only way a bore scope would qualify as a Preventive Maintenance device.
So something has had to happen to bring up the need to do a bore scope.
What would a bore scope do that investigative research could not do?
Show scratches on the cylinder walls? OK - Then what... You tare the cylinder down.
Just putting a Grain of Wheat Light Bulb on a variable power supply and dropping it down the spark plug hole would show the same thing.
OK - Then what... You tare the cylinder down.
So, you can't see the valves. Well yes you can with a simple mirror on a wand. What is the bore scope going to show... Well, yes, much better picture than a 3/8" Dia. mirror.
But, why are you looking at the valves - Maybe because they are leaking!
A compression check will show that also. OK - Then what.. You tare the cylinder down.
A bore scope will not show valve wobble... SB388. A bit of time and a good dial indicator and fixture will do that better than a bore scope.
The only good argument for getting a bore scope would be as Ralph says... "General Inspection" - Yes, there sure are areas that are just a royal PITA to see. Inside fuel tanks, up under <--- I just love that oxymoron - the dash.
Now what I did not realize is the drastic price drop - I would NEVER pay $500... But for LQQKing up under (LOL) the dash or in the tail cone... Now there you have a argument that holds water. <--- Tong in cheek.
So, Ralph... If you can get a real good camera (hate the term bore scope) at a real good price - - - Go for it. Just don't expect it to solve problems inside the engine.
Barry
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Mel Beckman <mel(at)becknet.com (mel(at)becknet.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | Barry,
As an A&P, I could not disagree more. First, the price-point of $500 is high -- even high quality video borescopes today cost well under half that. I've seen very good units for under $150. For example, Fry Electronics sells one for $120 with excellent depth of field, illumination, and resolution, and includes on-board mirror, magnet, and hook attachments. Yes, you can spend big bucks on units with integrated laser measurement tools, wireless video screens, and motion recording capability, but you don't need that for aircraft engine work.
Although you can infer internal cylinder condition from other measurements, such as engine compression sounds, a visual inspection is still valuable and, I believe, highly recommended on a routine basis. Engine manufacturers such as Lycoming recommend borescoping cylinders on ALL its engines every 100 hours, or at least annually. And engine service bulletins offer useful guidance in analyzing borescope imagery (e.g. http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB03-3.pdf). Most video borescopes today have image capture capabilities that let you compare suspect areas year to year.
There's just no substitute for seeing cylinder conditions first hand. A borescope lets you better identify the cause of engine compression problems. For example, a borescope will instantly reveal corrosion, and the location of the corrosion (top vs bottom) will help you identify its cause. Cylinder wall scoring, impossible to detect any other way, is instantly visible with a borescope. The image capture capability makes it easy to email images to an experienced mechanic for a second opinion, and even a pilot can gain valuable insight by comparing image changes over time.
Borescopes can be invaluable at other times as well Have you ever dropped a screw in the belly of an aircraft? You can't leave it there -- it could jam a control during flight. WIthout a borescope you might face hours of searching with a magnet; with a borescope you can likely find the part in minutes -- I have, on several occasions.
In my opinion, every aircraft owner should have at least an inexpensive borescope on hand at all times. It's a very cheap way to stay on top of internal engine conditions, and you'll find other uses for it as well.
Why perform the equivalent of seeing-eye dog maintenance when you can have a high quality visual record of what's going on in your engine, at a very low cost?
-mel
On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:39 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
| Quote: | Ralph:
Two questions:
1 - What do you think you have done that justifies a bore scope inspection?
2 - What do you expect to find?
The reason for these questions are: Your time and money could be better spent with standard diagnostic (common sense) testing. I am not a fan of bore scopes because they REALLY do not show anything that either the pilot knows they did wrong or they just repeat what common sense testing already shows. When a problem show itself in such a way as to be noticed in flying, a bore scope ONLY confirms what you already KNOW. Seriously I have never seen anything that a bore scope shows that was not diagnosed previously without it. Better to use the $500 on a new cylinder than on a bore scope.
Bore Scopes are better for a Colonoscopy.
Barry
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralph <hooverra(at)comcast.net (hooverra(at)comcast.net)> wrote:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
s-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics LycomingEngines-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BARRY CHECK 6
Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Posts: 738
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:42 pm Post subject: Borescope |
|
|
Thanks Mel:
Yea, I do have more than a hand full of years on ya.
I'll LQQK at Coscos and see what they offer and ask Santa... Maybe even sooner it is my birthday this month... A very famous national holiday.
Barry
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Mel Beckman <mel(at)becknet.com (mel(at)becknet.com)> wrote:
[quote] Sigh. I'm in my 50's, but I've progressed with technology. Hopefully Santa will be good to you
-mel
On Nov 7, 2011, at 2:53 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
| Quote: | Mel:
I am Old School... And proud of it I won't give away my age.
Every generation has to reinvent the wheel and lay claim to it.
In your example: For example, you can't detect corrosion reliably by listening to compression sounds, which I would consider to be an important preventative maintenance inspection. A borescope gives you great data immediately.
Here is Old School Logic:
- If the corrosion is that light a good run will remove it.
- If the corrosion is that heavy you will see it with that Old School Grain of Wheat bulb.
- If the compression tests were GOOD why would one look inside with a bore scope?
- If the compression tests were BAD... You would have low compression. Air escaping into the sump area - AND - Then you would be hearing it. Or escaping out the exhaust pipe - AND - Then you would be hearing it. Or escaping out the Carb - AND - Then you would be hearing it. SOoooo why would you need a bore scope? You can see the problem on the compression gauge and/or hear it.
- Then what would your next action be? - - -
- WHOOPS... I guess you would be tearing down the cylinder... No help from the bore scope here Just another proof of the obvious.
- And, if there was corrosion - that could be found out with the Old School - Grain of Wheat Bulb... LED's are just not right for all jobs. Cost.. Less than $3 for bulb, wire and adjustable power supply. My ideas - - - - old yes, but not contrite. Are what got us to where WE are today. I know you were amazed at what McGiver could do with a bobby pin and a book of matches. If you can't relate to Mcgiver maybe the 'A' Team impressed you.
What I do like about a bore scope - AND - Wish I had one last Wednesday - As I said: Is to LQQK up under the dash. Will I spend $150 for one? Nope... But I will ask Santa.
Barry
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Mel Beckman <mel(at)becknet.com (mel(at)becknet.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | Barry,
We can agree to disagree, but my practice is in line with manufacturers' recommendations. Your arguments seem a little contrived, what with old-school widgets such as grain-of-wheat bulbs and tiny mirrors.
I never said a borescope is a panacea; you should use all the tools at your disposal, selecting the best one for a particular task A borescope will often be the fastest way to get information about the inside of the cylinder. For example, you can't detect corrosion reliably by listening to compression sounds, which I would consider to be an important preventative maintenance inspection. A borescope gives you great data immediately.
Why not just get a borescope and take advantage of modern technology at a great price? Perhaps you'll "tare" down fewer engines
-mel
On Nov 7, 2011, at 9:34 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
| Quote: | Mel:
In aviation it always comes down to opinions. You surely have the right to disagree, but, I as an A&P also have never had a problem that a bore scope solved.
Does anyone do a bore scope after each flight?
That is the only way a bore scope would qualify as a Preventive Maintenance device.
So something has had to happen to bring up the need to do a bore scope.
What would a bore scope do that investigative research could not do?
Show scratches on the cylinder walls? OK - Then what... You tare the cylinder down.
Just putting a Grain of Wheat Light Bulb on a variable power supply and dropping it down the spark plug hole would show the same thing.
OK - Then what... You tare the cylinder down.
So, you can't see the valves. Well yes you can with a simple mirror on a wand. What is the bore scope going to show... Well, yes, much better picture than a 3/8" Dia. mirror.
But, why are you looking at the valves - Maybe because they are leaking!
A compression check will show that also. OK - Then what.. You tare the cylinder down.
A bore scope will not show valve wobble... SB388. A bit of time and a good dial indicator and fixture will do that better than a bore scope.
The only good argument for getting a bore scope would be as Ralph says... "General Inspection" - Yes, there sure are areas that are just a royal PITA to see. Inside fuel tanks, up under <--- I just love that oxymoron - the dash.
Now what I did not realize is the drastic price drop - I would NEVER pay $500... But for LQQKing up under (LOL) the dash or in the tail cone... Now there you have a argument that holds water. <--- Tong in cheek.
So, Ralph... If you can get a real good camera (hate the term bore scope) at a real good price - - - Go for it. Just don't expect it to solve problems inside the engine.
Barry
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Mel Beckman <mel(at)becknet.com (mel(at)becknet.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | Barry,
As an A&P, I could not disagree more. First, the price-point of $500 is high -- even high quality video borescopes today cost well under half that. I've seen very good units for under $150. For example, Fry Electronics sells one for $120 with excellent depth of field, illumination, and resolution, and includes on-board mirror, magnet, and hook attachments. Yes, you can spend big bucks on units with integrated laser measurement tools, wireless video screens, and motion recording capability, but you don't need that for aircraft engine work.
Although you can infer internal cylinder condition from other measurements, such as engine compression sounds, a visual inspection is still valuable and, I believe, highly recommended on a routine basis. Engine manufacturers such as Lycoming recommend borescoping cylinders on ALL its engines every 100 hours, or at least annually. And engine service bulletins offer useful guidance in analyzing borescope imagery (e.g. http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB03-3.pdf). Most video borescopes today have image capture capabilities that let you compare suspect areas year to year.
There's just no substitute for seeing cylinder conditions first hand. A borescope lets you better identify the cause of engine compression problems. For example, a borescope will instantly reveal corrosion, and the location of the corrosion (top vs bottom) will help you identify its cause. Cylinder wall scoring, impossible to detect any other way, is instantly visible with a borescope. The image capture capability makes it easy to email images to an experienced mechanic for a second opinion, and even a pilot can gain valuable insight by comparing image changes over time.
Borescopes can be invaluable at other times as well Have you ever dropped a screw in the belly of an aircraft? You can't leave it there -- it could jam a control during flight. WIthout a borescope you might face hours of searching with a magnet; with a borescope you can likely find the part in minutes -- I have, on several occasions.
In my opinion, every aircraft owner should have at least an inexpensive borescope on hand at all times. It's a very cheap way to stay on top of internal engine conditions, and you'll find other uses for it as well.
Why perform the equivalent of seeing-eye dog maintenance when you can have a high quality visual record of what's going on in your engine, at a very low cost?
-mel
On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:39 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
| Quote: | Ralph:
Two questions:
1 - What do you think you have done that justifies a bore scope inspection?
2 - What do you expect to find?
The reason for these questions are: Your time and money could be better spent with standard diagnostic (common sense) testing. I am not a fan of bore scopes because they REALLY do not show anything that either the pilot knows they did wrong or they just repeat what common sense testing already shows. When a problem show itself in such a way as to be noticed in flying, a bore scope ONLY confirms what you already KNOW. Seriously I have never seen anything that a bore scope shows that was not diagnosed previously without it. Better to use the $500 on a new cylinder than on a bore scope.
Bore Scopes are better for a Colonoscopy.
Barry
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralph <hooverra(at)comcast.net (hooverra(at)comcast.net)> wrote:
|
|
|
|
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics LycomingEngines-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:23 am Post subject: Borescope |
|
|
p { margin: 0; }List
I helped install a Cont. IO-360 a year or two ago and the warranty Required a borescope inspection at 100 hr.
just my $.02 worth.
Also on a prebuy inspection of an engine that had been sitting a while we discovered it had serious rust above where the rings were at rest on all cylinders. It saved pulling a cylinder which we did not have time to do
Bobby
Jacksonville, Fl.
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics LycomingEngines-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
