Metal in the Oil Filter

[KSMooniac]

OK, Pete, I'll drag out the Aviation Consumer report for you to show it, but let's see your data that shows AS 15W50 and Exxon Elite outperform Camguard/philips for rust protection.

I would love to see this too.  In exchange, I'll show you the Lycoming guidance to use STP during engine assembly in case you don't believe that.  

[PTK]

http://www.reiffpreheat.com/Article-Sutton.pdf

Pg 8 on.

[jetdriven]

Here's one. And a Google search shows this is the same argument we all had in 2013. Need a few more trashed engines to tell us that somehow we still aren't taking care of them properly.

http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/oil_myths_debunked_197096-1.html

From: http://mooneyspace.com/topic/8067-camguardand-lop-operations-really-help-clean-and-seal-up-a-engine/

I like this picture. Hey it's even an ATSM approved test.

[Guest]

Thanks to all you who have sent good wishes. Worry not. I am confident Ute and I will be flying the Caravan.

Flanders.

Ned, Ron says that parts are arriving for re assembly, I may well have an engine before the prop.

http://reliablehorsepower.com The engine is the one in my old E model.

Clarence

[KSMooniac]

Interesting article!  It certainly shows the value of a deyhdrator rig.  The rust performance in his "garage" experiment doesn't jive with other tests that I believe Av Consumer ran with Exxon Elite.  Elite does have some corrosion-preventing additives, but in very, very small quantities IIRC.  Phillips + Camguard has a lot more corrosion prevention additive, and costs much less than Exxon Elite as well.

[jetdriven]

http://www.reiffpreheat.com/Article-Sutton.pdf

Pg 8 on.

That's s good article. Elite made it 2 days longer than Philips/ Camguard. Both lasted two weeks longer than oil with no additives. Still think Camguard does nothing? . Where is aeroshell 15W 50 in that article?

[PTK]

Aeroshell 15w50 is very similar to elite.

[jetdriven]

Yeah they're both wet. NEXT

[PTK]

...Still think Camguard does nothing? ...

Slow down Byron! I didn't say it does nothing. I said it hasn't made any difference in offering any protection over and above a high quality purposefully formulated aircraft piston engine oil.

Engines on a camguard diet are still making metal and their cams and lifters are still disintegrating.

The latest one here on this thread. It had camguard at every oil change! EVERY OIL CHANGE!

Do you think it made a difference?

I don't know why they're making metal. Apparently it's more involved than pretty colorful bar graphs! And a lot more than metallurgy.

I think the answer lies in controlling the relative humidity inside the engine from shutdown all the way to the next startup.

I think we can agree to disagree on camguard and hope for the best.

[N201MKTurbo]

Can't we just accept that sometimes bad things happen to good people.

 

It seems we need to find something that somebody did wrong to account for what happened so we can sleep at night knowing that we are not dumb enough to let that happen to us.

 

I can tell you after 30 years of airplane ownership that eventually something expensive will go wrong. You can do everything in your power to reduce the chances , but you cannot reduce it to zero. 

[Tommy]

Hey guys! No need to fight over this "which oil + additive is better than which". Mike Busch made it absolutely simple on how to take care of your engine!

 

1) Use the right kind of oil (ambient temperature + frequency of flying). And this is probably why different owners have different result on the same oil + additive

2) Frequent change of oil (25 hour to 30 hours or evrey 4 months whichever is earliest)

3) Install an engine monitor + keep CHTs low

4) Baroscope inspection on every annual

5) Fly more!

 

Don't just run the engines for few minutes thinking it will lubricate and protect it from rusting. It actaully does quite the opposite. A cold start is most abusive to the engine and a few minutes of running will only trap in the moisture.

 

The rest is depending on manufacturing (and hence luck)! Continenetal sacked a lot of experienced workers back in 90s and replaced them with inexperience crew. Majority of the engines manufactured during this time didn't even go pass half of its TBO!

[M20F]

FWIW, I bought my plane in early 2007 with almost 1400 SMOH (factory overhaul done in 1991 at Lycoming).

Was a new cam installed when it was overhauled?

[Yetti]

Let's back it up a bit.  The premise is that by preventing rusting and resulting pits, components have less a chance of spalling and failing.   I would like to suggest that sticky valves and the resulting added pressure would cause more damage to a lifter and a cam than some rust.   Did anyone asses the condition of the valves on the engines that spalled?   Since the exhaust valves stick more, which of the valves failed?

[KSMooniac]

Was a new cam installed when it was overhauled?

Not sure...I don't have the detailed records but I would assume so. I don't think the rampant cost cutting and outsourcing had taken root in 1991, but I could be mistaken. It was an exchange performed at the Lycoming factory after the first owner flew there from WI.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[N201MKTurbo]

This looks like an effective system that even a CB could love.

 

I would think way more bang for the buck then Camgaurd...

 

http://www.barkeraircraft.com/files/Engine_Dryer_Sport_Avi.pdf

 

Rich...

[Guest]

Let's back it up a bit.  The premise is that by preventing rusting and resulting pits, components have less a chance of spalling and failing.   I would like to suggest that sticky valves and the resulting added pressure would cause more damage to a lifter and a cam than some rust.   Did anyone asses the condition of the valves on the engines that spalled?   Since the exhaust valves stick more, which of the valves failed?

Good point, but in both Continenetal and Lycoming engines the intake valves are operated by the common lobe. Intake lobes therefore do double the work of exhaust lobes, most though not all the failures I have seen are the intake lobes, this is the case with Ned's engine.

Clarence

[N601RX]

When we overhauled my engine 3 years ago I looked at both the Ney Nozzels and Centrilub mod. I decided to do something extra to possibly help. I ended up with the Centrilub cam mod. One of the things they mention as possible causes of early failure is the reduced lead that today's fuel has vs the amount of lead present in the early 90's. I will probably never know if it actually saved the cam or not, but their arguments seems to follow good logic to me. At any rate it is providing extra oil to the cam and the engine oil pressure did not seem to suffer as a result. They have a 4 year unlimited hr warrenty against spalling.

http://thenewfirewallforward.com/linked/centri_lube_info.pdf

[Yetti]

Good point, but in both Continenetal and Lycoming engines the intake valves are operated by the common lobe. Intake lobes therefore do double the work of exhaust lobes, most though not all the failures I have seen are the intake lobes, this is the case with Ned's engine.

Clarence

Good information.  How were the intake valves functioning on the lobe that failed?  In spec?  Watching a valve (it was an exhaust) being  driven out with a punch and a hammer, kind of makes you wonder.  It was tight enough that it did not move when taking the keepers off.

[PTK]

Question about engine dehumidifiers. Seems like there are two varieties.

One that runs dry air into the engine via the breather and returns air back to the bottle typically from the oil filler.

The other is simpler. It runs dry air into engine via breather with no return. They claim it bathes the entire engine and exits through valves. They tell you to block the exhaust pipe leaving only a small orifice for air to exit.

Any idea which would be better?

[Guest]

I dont know if it makes a difference which way the air enters the engine. From the oil filler tube on your Lycoming air would enter the engine lower and exit from the breather which is near the top of the engine.

Clarence

[Cyril Gibb]

After hearing about Yves awful experience, I'm busy building an engine dryer.  I had thought that Camguard would save me... maybe not totally.

When I shutdown, I unscrew the dipstick in an attempt to vent water.  I see some type of vapour leaving the oil filler when I do that.

I had assumed that "helping" convection would be best by pumping dry air in the breather and sucking moist air out of the oil filler.

Clarences' comment about the breather venting from a point higher in the engine has me wondering.

Does it make any difference?

[yvesg]

Cyril, the poor fellow that is living an awful experience is not Yves... it is Ned. Just for the record.

My engine is fine (so far)

Yves

[DonMuncy]

In my opinion, the most important drying takes place immediately after flight. When I hook up my dehumidifier after flying I see large amounts of water vapor coming out of the oil filler opening. With the engine hot, it seems to me that feeding air in the bottom and vent out the top is most efficient. This is the way I have mine hooked up. I devised a "check-valve" to put on the outlet to prevent air (and dirt) from coming back in, but this may be overkill.

Although in theory, it would seem that it might be more efficient to recirculate the air, rather than having to continually dry "new" air coming in, this increases the complexity of the device and I find that I only have regenerate my dehumidifying material every 3 months or so. I'm sure this is highly dependent on the ambient relative humidity.

To me, a pertinent question is how much volume is being pushed through the engine. I have seen units using a small pump (like an aquarium pump) running continuously. I use a much larger compressor and a timer running 5 minutes daily. (After flight I manually override the timer and run it for about the time it takes to unload the plane.) The 5 minutes is admittedly a number I made up, and I have never seen anything to prove or disprove this is a good number.

[DXB]

Here's one. And a Google search shows this is the same argument we all had in 2013. Need a few more trashed engines to tell us that somehow we still aren't taking care of them properly.

http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/oil_myths_debunked_197096-1.html

From: http://mooneyspace.com/topic/8067-camguardand-lop-operations-really-help-clean-and-seal-up-a-engine/

I like this picture. Hey it's even an ATSM approved test.image.jpg

I already use Camguard but hadn't seen this study before- it's compelling. What's striking to me is its superiority to storage oil- makes me wonder why one would ever use the latter.  HOWEVER, I wonder if it's been repeated independently by others at different humidities, varied ambient temperature changes causing high condensation, and different metal compositions (e.g. cam vs. lifter metal composition) - fairly cheap and simple to do.   If the product is really this robust, it would certainly be in the company's benefit to put this stuff out there in exhaustive detail, but I haven't seen it.  As a scientist, I know all too well how easy it is to select a piece of data derived under very narrow conditions and use it to argue for a generalized reality that doesn't exist. The number of times this failed in the lab under a variety of subtly different conditions often says way more than any one successful experiment.

[PTK]

What also says way more than one experiment is real practical experience in the field. And that message is that engines on camguard are making metal. It doesn't work any better than a high quality aircraft piston engine oil used as directed. Controlling the relative humidity in the engine should be our focus it seems.

 

In fact one experiment concluded that Elite worked better.