Metal in the Oil Filter

[Cyril Gibb]

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

Oops, sorry Yves.  And REALLY REALLY SORRY Ned.

Maybe Ned is Clarences one-millionth customer and he'll do it for free?

[DXB]

What also says way more than one experiment is real practical experience in the field. Engines on camguard are making metal.

 

High quality aircraft piston oil like Aeroshell 15W50 and Elite work better.

Practical experience is certainly that cams and tappets can spall well before TBO,  particularly in low use engines, with or without Camguard.  But the factors leading to these outcomes are multiple and complex- only proves the additive is not a magic potion that cures all problems.   Until you clone both the plane and the pilot and have the two guys fly and store it under identical conditions, with or without the additive, there will no absolutely definitive answer. But you could get closer to a real answer by some independent repeats of the study Byron cites, using varied conditions.  This is relatively cheap to do, and the question is important enough to the average owner who can't fly every week that I wonder if an organization like AOPA or EAA would fund some studies like this so we can have more independent data to make decisions.There's perhaps more science behind Camguard than the other additives, just not nearly as much as there should be. 

[bonal]

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. 

 

well put.

 

PPI no PPI Cam guard no Cam Guard this oil that oil we do the best we can to take care of our birds some go forever some give up too soon. But honestly all my years of engines prior to airplanes and I have never encountered or heard of such weak ass cam shafts are they made out of cheese or something.  I hope I have good luck with mine for many years but all I can say is after all I have learned looking into that oil screen (yes I know I should get the spin off) is the ultimate suspension thriller. 

[PTK]

I really think common sense should prevail.

Personally I don't buy into the "scamguard" marketing hype that oil drips off our engine parts totally leaving bare metal open unprotected.

It's not that easy. We're talking about sticky oil aren't we? My experience tells me it just doesn't drip off so readily leaving a clean surface!

It drips off initially on engine shut down. But there will always be a film of oil left behind no matter what. Even on pressured cam lifter interface.

Common sense dictates that something else is at work here with low use engines. That something else has to be temperatute and relative humidity cycles.

[Guest]

Oops, sorry Yves.  And REALLY REALLY SORRY Ned.

Maybe Ned is Clarences one-millionth customer and he'll do it for free?

Cyril,

I'm saving the "Free" one for my 720, but really hoping I never need it.

Clarence

[Gone]

Oops, sorry Yves. And REALLY REALLY SORRY Ned.

Maybe Ned is Clarences one-millionth customer and he'll do it for free?

Such good wishes are always welcome. No need to be sorry. We did cross the continent this year in my bird. That was a win in my book.

Eyes wide open. We all know what the chances are. So far, I am good. Les' just see how it plays out. Got some really good people on the team. Y'all know some of them.

Ned Gravel

Lucky steward of C-FSWR, a '65 E model at Rockcliffe, Ontario, (CYRO)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Shadrach]

I really think common sense should prevail.

Personally I don't buy into the "scamguard" marketing hype that oil drips off our engine parts totally leaving bare metal open unprotected.

Pete, the very reference that you posted to support your use of Exxon Elite also extols the virtues of camguard. I understand why you've chosen to use Elite, but I have now seen 2 humidity cabinet tests that demonstrate the efficacy of camguard.

[Shadrach]

well put.

PPI no PPI Cam guard no Cam Guard this oil that oil we do the best we can to take care of our birds some go forever some give up too soon. But honestly all my years of engines prior to airplanes and I have never encountered or heard of such weak ass cam shafts are they made out of cheese or something. I hope I have good luck with mine for many years but all I can say is after all I have learned looking into that oil screen (yes I know I should get the spin off) is the ultimate suspension thriller.

Because of spalling concerns, we had our original engine oh'd at 1800hrs and 32 years calandar time. IIRC, our MX thought it had a bad cam. As it turned out, it was actually a bad lifter that would not pressurize. When the cam was removed, it did have a few lobes that we're starting to show signs of spalling, but we were able to have it sent out for machining. Keep in mind this was an engine that flew a lot in its early life and then seldom in its last 10 years. It went as much as 3 years without getting 25hours and less that 5 hrs some years. Considering the lack of use, I think it held up quite well. The engine was opened again at 10 years and 800hrs SMOH to repair a case crack; there were no signs of cam spalling. 2 of the lifters showed slight evidence of pitting and were replaced, but the builder said they'd have likely made it to TBO at current usage.

I give these data points for 2 reasons:

1) I want folks to know that the valve-train on a Lyc aircraft engine isn't necessarily a time bomb and in some cases will withstand what I and many others would consider mistreatment.

2) It seems that the metallurgy in the 60's may have been more consistent than it was in later years.

Whatever year the engine in your aircraft was made, if it makes it to TBO or beyond without munching a cam, it may not be wise to go factory new or exchange. The main reason we have had all of our engine work done locally is so we could be involved in the process, and ensure we retained the time proven components that the aircraft was delivered with.

[PTK]

Ross, I use Aeroshell 15W50 although Elite is similar chemistry.

[jetdriven]

Ross, I use Aeroshell 15W50 although Elite is similar chemistry.

Sure, Aeroshell 15W50 is 50% PAO synthetic oil and Triphenyl phosphate anti-scuff additive

         Exxon Elite is 26% PAO and Tricresyl phosphate anti-scuff. 

 

Just the same, Amirite? Why won't Peter explain why the copper is 3 times any other oil if that TPP additive wasnt eating the copper flash plating off the cam and accessory gears.

 

Here's my Blackstone report if you dont believe it. E81071.pdfE39449.pdf

 

 

 

 

here's what Ed had to say about these things:( source: http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=58932&start=15   )

 

"First problem;

Polyalpha olefin (PAO), is the synthetic basestock used in AeroShell 15W-50 (at 50%) and Exxon Elite (at 26%) and the defunct Mobil AV1 (at 100%). It has excellent high and low temperature viscometric properties, high viscosity index (doesn't’t thin as much with increasing temp) and (low temp pour point) and good high temperature stability (when used with the proper antioxidant package). However, NONE OF THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR AIR-COOLED AIRCRAFT ENGINES! PAO has terrible solvency characteristics. It is so bad, that most additives will not dissolve in it. It needs to be combined with an ester (10-20%), alkylated naphthalene (5-25%) or mineral basestock (40-75% Aeroshell and Elite) just to get the additives to dissolve. This is fine for a heavily additized passenger car motor oil but NOT for a low additive treat rate oil used in a very high blow-by, leaded fuel aircraft engine. The ability to keep an engine clean by keeping combustion by-products in suspension is essential for an aircraft oil and the basestock works hand in hand with the dispersant to achieve this.

In my opinion PAO is the worst possible choice of basestock for piston aviation oils, and Exxon and Shell did not learn anything from Mobil’s AV1 spectacular failure. Mineral oils (non dispersant) by themselves, have difficulty solubizing the blow-by for long (witness the engine varnish with the use of non-dispersant oils) but it is nothing compared to the problem PAO has with it. The problem with Mobil AV1 was never the lead bromide (lead salt) particles, it has always been the partially combusted blow-by fuel in the crankcase that forms resinous varnish and captures the lead particles making a thicker deposit that is the problem. It was that way with Mobil AV1 and it remains so with the semi-synthetics.

The second problem;

There are two phosphate anti-scuff additives that meet the requirements of AD-80-04-03, and they can be used interchangeably with both of them having been sold as LW16702. One is butylated triphenyl phosphate (bTPP) and is currently used in the AeroShell 15W-50, W100 Plus and the Lycoming LW16702. The other is tricresyl phosphate (TCP) or methylated triphenyl phosphate, and it is used in the Exxon Elite. While they are used interchangeably to satisfy the AD, they act very differently in an engine.

bTPP, used by Shell and Lycoming, is a moderately good anti-wear owing to its ready decomposition and formation of sacrificial phosphate films on the surfaces of cams and lifters. The problem is that bTPP ALSO decomposes another way, in the presence of heat, water and metal all found in an engine crankcase. This decomposition is called hydrolysis and the breakdown products are oil soluble phosphoric acid derivatives that are corrosive to copper and elastomer seals. When Shell changed from TCP to bTPP in the 90’s people freaked that the copper levels in their oil analysis shot up. Shell responded by putting additional copper corrosion inhibitor in the oil. This protected the copper but left the offending acid products in the oil which left the seals vulnerable to attack. High silicon numbers in an oil analysis can be caused by the acid attack on silicone seals. Push-rod tube seals and valve cover gaskets are often silicone and prone to weeping problems. While no means a catastrophic situation, weeping seals, increased silicon in oil analysis reports, Retarded timing changes on Lycomings (from magneto pad degradation) have all been observed by the public, Shell and Lycoming.

Shell and Lycoming also say it is the addition of the Lycoming additive, bTTP, to oils already containing bTPP (AeroShell) that’s their story and their sticking to it.

bTTP is also a good friction modifier that can make marginal Continental adapters slip. It is NOT the PAO synthetic basestock that causes the slippage.

TCP, used in the Exxon oil, on the other hand is a much more stable molecule and as such, is completely ineffective as an anti-scuff/anti-wear. TCP is often used as an Extreme Pressure (EP) additive in grease but is never used as a primary anti-wear. Anti-wear conditions are much milder than EP conditions. For example, put TCP in an automotive engine as the only anti-wear, and the cam will quickly fail.

Ed"

[jetdriven]

Pete, the very reference that you posted to support your use of Exxon Elite also extols the virtues of camguard. I understand why you've chosen to use Elite, but I have now seen 2 humidity cabinet tests that demonstrate the efficacy of camguard.

I finally found all 3 Aviation Consumer articles. 

 

Nah, Camguard is snake oil.

Aviation Consumer Camguard Testing.pdf

[bonal]

Now I'm confused looking at the results it looks like there is a big difference in the cam guard samples and the aero shell does a really poor job of preventing corrosion I read your analysis above and found it very interesting but in looking at the testing it don't look like snake oil or am I missing something

based on the example I should be running Phillips 20/50 w Cam Guard.

[Andy95W]

Now I'm confused looking at the results it looks like there is a big difference in the cam guard samples and the aero shell does a really poor job of preventing corrosion I read your analysis above and found it very interesting but in looking at the testing it don't look like snake oil or am I missing something

based on the example I should be running Phillips 20/50 w Cam Guard.

That's how I read it, too. The second article recommends Lenkite AvBlend.

I've been alternating between AvBlend (anecdotal evidence that it helps with preventing valve sticking) and CamGuard (whose name says it all).

The right choice? Not a clue.

[MB65E]

Both, I like it! That's an awesome idea! I have always liked avblend for the valves and cylinders in general. Lycoming cam corrosion scares me. After a personal connection with an engine rebuild, I started using Camguard to "help" prevent the cam corrosion. However, I really believe the avblend works well in the valves.

Side note:

Just last week-I've been having rough cold starts in my old Bmw 318 (close to 200k mi). A pint of Avblend in the oil and it all went away.

Cheers!

-Matt

[Yetti]

So the first problem with the Aviation consumer article is in the title.  "mild steel" is not what your cam is made of.  How well will the oil stick to a hardened steel polished surface is the question.  Are there impurities that become higher in the oil that cause it to stick more or less. 

These are more the questions:

Do cams/lifters spall during start up? camguard/preoilers could be an answer

Do cams/lifters spall during normal operation? Lubricating properties of oil at temperature. This could be a multiweight oil thing

Do sticky valves cause cams/lifters to fail?

Are older cams or newer cams or cams of certain range of years have more failures?

Are there lack of lubrication issues when the oil thins at running temps?

Do northern based planes have a worse cam failure rate compared to southern based planes?

Is there uneven cooling of the engine (yes that is why the number 3 cylinder exhaust valves have issue) hence where single CHT probe is installed.

 

 

Testing oils is fun internet fodder, but it would be better to know which cylinders cams lobes fail the most and how and where the engine was operated.

[jetdriven]

So the first problem with the Aviation consumer article is in the title.  "mild steel" is not what your cam is made of.  How well will the oil stick to a hardened steel polished surface is the question.  Are there impurities that become higher in the oil that cause it to stick more or less. 

These are more the questions:

Do cams/lifters spall during start up? camguard/preoilers could be an answer

Do cams/lifters spall during normal operation? Lubricating properties of oil at temperature. This could be a multiweight oil thing

Do sticky valves cause cams/lifters to fail?

Are older cams or newer cams or cams of certain range of years have more failures?

Are there lack of lubrication issues when the oil thins at running temps?

Do northern based planes have a worse cam failure rate compared to southern based planes?

Is there uneven cooling of the engine (yes that is why the number 3 cylinder exhaust valves have issue) hence where single CHT probe is installed.

 

 

Testing oils is fun internet fodder, but it would be better to know which cylinders cams lobes fail the most and how and where the engine was operated.

 

Do cams/lifters spall during start up? camguard/preoilers could be an answer.

  I think it more likely happens on startup than from usage. There are two theories, rust pits form which spall out, and the metal doesnt meet the specs so it spalls. To prevent the first, fly often. In the latter, its going to happen no matter what, and it ususally does around 1200-1400 SMOH.  

--However, flying daily and using your oil and/or additive of choice is the best for prevention.  Camguard helps it when it does have to sit.  A preoiler does nohing to help the cam during startup, unless you have the FWF Centrilube mod or the Ney nozzle mod, then it helps some some but it doesnt get the whole cam and lifter wet before starting up. Plus you introduce more hoses and components under the cowl which can fail and cause oil loss.  

 

Here's where the roller cam is beneficial, it rolls instead of slides. Not to say the cam wont rust and get pits, but it may run a long time to failure.

 

Are older cams or newer cams or cams of certain range of years have more failures?

From what I've seen, reground lifters and any cam made after around 1995 are bad ones.  I generally oppose using reground camshafts but I think Ross is onto something, old cams dont fail like this. In fact, old engines dont fail like this. My boss's Piper Arrow has an engine built in 1989, 2200 SMOH. We pulled a jug to rework it, the cam looks flawless. Same with another friend of mine who own an M20E. 1980's overhaul, the engine is runout. Not making metal either.  However, AaronK25 is on his third engine, the second lasted 2 years and 300 hours, new cam and regorund lifters, spalled out.  the plane never sat more than a couple days, camguard, etc etc etc.

[Andy95W]

Yetti- I agree completely. But in the absence of the data that you talk about, what's the average Mooney owner to do?

Are additives snake oil (or as Peter calls it, "scamguard")? Possibly.

Do I feel better when I add them? DEFINITELY.

[Andy95W]

Are older cams or newer cams or cams of certain range of years have more failures?

From what I've seen, reground lifters and any cam made after around 1995 are bad ones.  I generally oppose using reground camshafts but I think Ross is onto something, old cams dont fail like this. In fact, old engines dont fail like this. My boss's Piper Arrow has an engine built in 1989, 2200 SMOH. We pulled a jug to rework it, the cam looks flawless. Same with another friend of mine who own an M20E. 1980's overhaul, the engine is runout. Not making metal either.  However, AaronK25 is on his third engine, the second lasted 2 years and 300 hours, new cam and regorund lifters, spalled out.  the plane never sat more than a couple days, camguard, etc etc etc.

Is it possible we're looking at 2 different problems?

1.) the potential for rust due to infrequent usage and humidity in the case, in which case CamGuard or an additive could help

2.) bad metallurgy, in which case it doesn't matter what you do, you're just screwed

[AndyFromCB]

Do cams/lifters spall during start up? camguard/preoilers could be an answer.

  I think it more likely happens on startup than from usage. There are two theories, rust pits form which spall out, and the metal doesnt meet the specs so it spalls. To prevent the first, fly often. In the latter, its going to happen no matter what, and it ususally does around 1200-1400 SMOH.  

--However, flying daily and using your oil and/or additive of choice is the best for prevention.  Camguard helps it when it does have to sit.  A preoiler does nohing to help the cam during startup, unless you have the FWF Centrilube mod or the Ney nozzle mod, then it helps some some but it doesnt get the whole cam and lifter wet before starting up. Plus you introduce more hoses and components under the cowl which can fail and cause oil loss.  

 

Here's where the roller cam is beneficial, it rolls instead of slides. Not to say the cam wont rust and get pits, but it may run a long time to failure.

 

Are older cams or newer cams or cams of certain range of years have more failures?

From what I've seen, reground lifters and any cam made after around 1995 are bad ones.  I generally oppose using reground camshafts but I think Ross is onto something, old cams dont fail like this. In fact, old engines dont fail like this. My boss's Piper Arrow has an engine built in 1989, 2200 SMOH. We pulled a jug to rework it, the cam looks flawless. Same with another friend of mine who own an M20E. 1980's overhaul, the engine is runout. Not making metal either.  However, AaronK25 is on his third engine, the second lasted 2 years and 300 hours, new cam and regorund lifters, spalled out.  the plane never sat more than a couple days, camguard, etc etc etc.

 

Piston aircraft engine world is the only place where metallurgy and tolerances have gotten more sloppy over the years. Look at Lycoming cams and Continental valve guide drilling…Tells you all you need to know…The best thing you can do to a brand spanking new IO550 is to do a top overhaul at shop with a proper drill press…

[Yetti]

As I was cleaning the rust off my older than me Rockwell Table saw top. (don't tell my grandfather he would shoot me) The top is hardened machine surface much like a cam shaft.   It does not rust and pit at the same rate as mild steel.  It takes a lot longer to get past surface rust and pit as in years vs months for mild steel.   When you steel wool it, it just comes clean and is still good.  The action of the lifter would just clean off the surface rust if it has rust.  My last understanding (this may be for automobiles) of cam shafts and crank shafts was they are ground, then heat treated to form the outer layer harden surface.  Regrinding them would remove the harden surface so that would need to be heat treated again. (So yes Jet Driven)     I have read some of my grandfathers blacksmith books and realize that heat treating is an art form.  There are probably better controls now that instrumentation is better. I think the manufacturing process history would also have to be examined.

 

I only have a business degree and a PPL, but have managed the installation of maintenance management systems so your mileage will vary greatly

[PTK]

Yetti- I agree completely. But in the absence of the data that you talk about, what's the average Mooney owner to do?

Are additives snake oil (or as Peter calls it, "scamguard")? Possibly.

Do I feel better when I add them? DEFINITELY.

I think what the average Mooney owner should do is follow Lycoming's instructions. Fly the plane, use an approved piston engine oil, e.g. Aeroshell 15W50, and change it as directed.

If plane will not be flown SL180B spells out what we should do.

The problem arises when plane is not flown and the average owner looks for an easy quick fix. Sure it's much easier to dump an additive in the oil vs. pickle the engine. Problem is it doesn't work.

Incidentally the additive manufacturers also recommend fly the airplane, change oil regularly and use our additive! Why not! Guaranteed repeat sales!!

[Andy95W]

Yes, Peter, I get it. If the airplane will be inactive for more than 30 days, it should be pickled IAW Lycoming instructions.

And everyone agrees we should fly regularly. But how often is that? Every 4 days? Every week? Every 10 days? Or, to use Lycoming's criteria, if I fly every 29 days I'm good to go?

Please share any data you have showing that any of the additives we've discussed are damaging to Lycoming engines, in which case I'm sure we will all stop using them.

In the meantime, I'll keep flying my airplane as often as I can (about every 7-10 days, depending on weather) and I'll keep wasting money on an approved additive just 'cause it makes me feel better.

[jetdriven]

I think what the average Mooney owner should do is follow Lycoming's instructions. Fly the plane, use an approved piston engine oil, e.g. Aeroshell 15W50, and change it as directed.

If plane will not be flown SL180B spells out what we should do.

The problem arises when plane is not flown and the average owner looks for an easy quick fix. Sure it's much easier to dump an additive in the oil vs. pickle the engine. Problem is it doesn't work.

Incidentally the additive manufacturers also recommend fly the airplane, change oil regularly and use our additive! Why not! Guaranteed repeat sales!!

 

 

Thats exactly what I and perhaps 30 other people I have met in person, and about 30 more members of this board have been doing, and they all had an early demise from spalled lifters and camshafts. Some in as soon as 300 hours. Thirty grand....BOOM.    So clearly status quo isnt working.

 

some of these approved oils show the same rust coverage in 14 days as an untreated sample. Your esteemed Aeroshell 15W50 shows 66% corrosion coverage in a 14 day test.  So does Philips, etc.  However, Camguard mixed in with 15W50 only shows 37% coverage with rust, and Philips XC 20W50 is 12%.   Yet, you proclaim from the mountain that "additives dont work".  Just fly it often. That's enough.

 

I dont know your beef with Ed Kollin, but in the face of pretty compelling evidence this stuff works, you stick to your preconceived notion.  How many hours on your IO-360? When was it built?   Start saving that Camguard money for a new engine. when they tear it down and inspect the insides of it, can you post the photos of the cam and lifters here?

 

[PTK]

...in the face of pretty compelling evidence this stuff works...

But it doesn't work!

Go tell folks like Ned that it works!

By the way, I have no beef with anyone. What's your beef with Aeroshell?

Is this your compelling evidence?

"...Blackstone Labs took a look for us across the board for wear metals in Lycoming O-360-A4Ms using CamGuard versus those that don’t (they can see CamGuard in the oil). The results were inconclusive..."

Inconclusive is far from compelling!

This is compelling to me:

"...Once again, our tests showed that Exxon Elite and AeroShell 15W50 were the top performers in preventing corrosion. Our experiments show that Elite enjoyed a slight margin over AeroShell, which tends to support Exxon’s claim that its tests showed superior corrosion protection over other oils. However, the advantage is slight enough that we consider the two essentially equal."

[Andy95W]

Kind of like prayer. May not do any good, but if it makes folks feel better, what's the harm?