1TJ

There is a difference between the CX Aviation (Blue label) and the original (Red label). The Aviation had to be formulated to meet the more severe conditions of the revised Mil spec. Ed

Here is a link to a Camguard video describing the monomolecular film formation/polar bonding of corrosion inhibitors such as Camguard and CorrosionX. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwLugqd6FEj9bHZQLWpFcy1UMW8/view?usp=sharing Ed

Yes.

I am the chemist that developed CorrosionX Aviation. I formulated it to meet Mil-C-81309E. The same polar bonding, high dielectric constant chemistry is in Camguard albeit at a lower concentration for motor oil compatibility. I tested Camguard for corrosion inhibiting capabilities in an analogous fashion to testing CorrosionX. However, I did it under conditions based on ASTM D6557 (Bal Rust Test) ulilized by the automotive oil developers for obvious reasons. Ed

Send me some of the little "balls" for analysis. Are they observed in all your flight department aircraft that use Camguard? Ed

"Customers that wish to participate in the study will have very specific conditions and compliance requirements." He worded it better than I did. Ed

Here is the first official statement from Continental. Ed Mattituck Services, a subsidiary of Continental Motors, has entered into a partnership with Aircraft Specialties Lubricants to study the potential benefits of continuous long term CAMGUARD use. The study will last approximately 18 months and will be limited to specific engines overhauled or repaired by Mattituck Services. Customers that wish to participate in the study will have very specific conditions and compliance requirements. The study will not affect factory new or rebuilt engines produced by Continental Motors. No specific details of the study are available at this time. Bill Ross Director, Product Support and Mattituck Services Continental Motors

You were the one that asked "I am not so quick to jump to that conclusion. There maybe many other reasons this deal was made. I will believe the data when I see it released from Continental." Do you think all spalled tappet claims were denied because they assumed to stem from corrosion? Ask yourself why would Continental do such a thing, assuming I am not lying as PTK thinks I am. What do they have to gain? Continental gets beat up for things such as low time engines having low compressions and tappet spalling. THEN they get beat up for trying to address the issues. Ed

Again I am curios, what other reasons do you envision. Ed

I'm curious, do you feel the same way about Lycoming requiring the use of an additive (LW16702) or a more expensive oil in certain models of their engines FOR THE LIFE OF THOSE ENGINES, or is this selective outrage. Ed

Initially it will only impact Continental engines overhauled or repaired at their Mattituck facility with the Lycoming engines to follow. We will see where it goes as far as factory new and overhauled engines. We are also in discussions with other qualified engine shops to follow suit. Ed

Again, yes. I doesn't matter how many times or with how much vitriol you ask, the answer is yes. Continental told me to freely discuss this upcoming program in the forums I participate in. The formal anouncement will come at Sun n Fun with the details sometime after that as Continental has to change some of their written procedures. The situation is somewhat similar to Lycoming requiring the use of their LW16702 additive. It also raised the price of the oil(s). Ed

There is nothing in print as of yet. The details have to be finalized. The announcement will come next week in Lakeland. Ed

Correct. Ed

There is no comparison between the W100+ and the W100 with Camguard. You get 25 time the concentration of rust inhibitor, dramatically better anti-wear and Camguard is the only lube product to offer deposit control. These reasons are behind Continental's decision. Ed