Ok y'all - what is this??

[1524J]

1 hour ago, Raptor05121 said:

Short of throwing a handful of gravel down the intake, you're not going to get an engine failure because of it. For my truck, I can see it. but for an airplane engine that costs 5x more than my pick-up, I'll use the cleanest air element available.

 

Not doubting your research and it may be apples to oranges, but when we raced motocross, I used K&N filters exclusively. I never pulled a filter and found the slightest bit of dirt or film in the airbox. Granted, I pulled,cleaned, and reoiled the filters quite often, but motocross is a good test environment for air filters. I don't know there's an equivalent aviation filter in your chart other than K&N. I would be interested in how stock aviation filters compare.

[carusoam]

The chart only illustrates half the story...

1) it is nice to keep dirt out of the engine.

2) the cost is often a restriction of the air flow.  Limiting the power.

The text may be indicating all other things being equal.  I would want to know.

Best regards,

-a-

[Raptor05121]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

2) the cost is often a restriction of the air flow.  Limiting the power.

 

In my experience, no. K&N claims that the cold air intake on my truck gives me 12-15rwhp gain. So I took it to a buddy's shop and I did three dyno pulls with my stock F-150 air filter and then installed my K&N and did three more pulls. All 6 runs were within +/-4rwhp, which is a small enough window to attribute to shifting meteorological changes (day getting hotter, shop warming up, less wind, etc).

I highly doubt if one were to dyno an O-360 that installing a Challenger air filter is going to give you any more power or more MP. Don't the -E guys see ~1" MP gain by bypassing the filter altogether? Filter vs filter you won't see anything. So if performance is the same, the only difference is filtering potential. So why install the filter that lets in more dirt?

Just my $0.02

[Vance Harral]

15 minutes ago, Raptor05121 said:

Don't the -E guys see ~1" MP gain by bypassing the filter altogether?

In our F model, the MP gain from opening the ram air vs. closed with a Brackett filter is even less than that.  I can see the gauge move a smidge, but not a full inch.  And some of that benefit isn't even from filter vs. no filter.  The ram-air-open path goes efficiently straight into the intake (hence the "ram" in ram-air), whereas the normal path through the filter requires the air to follow an S-shaped path to the intake.  So I'm pretty sure if I just took the Bracket filter off altogether, I'd see 1/2" MP or less vs. having the filter installed.  A "better" filter can't improve on that, so not worth the cost IMO.

I'm not saying you couldn't win a drag race by a quarter knot in otherwise identical airframes with a K&R filter.  But it's not going to get you to a destination any meaningful amount of time faster, nor be the difference in clearing that tree at the end of the runway.

[Sabremech]

5 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

In my experience, no. K&N claims that the cold air intake on my truck gives me 12-15rwhp gain. So I took it to a buddy's shop and I did three dyno pulls with my stock F-150 air filter and then installed my K&N and did three more pulls. All 6 runs were within +/-4rwhp, which is a small enough window to attribute to shifting meteorological changes (day getting hotter, shop warming up, less wind, etc).

I highly doubt if one were to dyno an O-360 that installing a Challenger air filter is going to give you any more power or more MP. Don't the -E guys see ~1" MP gain by bypassing the filter altogether? Filter vs filter you won't see anything. So if performance is the same, the only difference is filtering potential. So why install the filter that lets in more dirt?

Just my $0.02

Unless you have testing data at altitude and different airspeeds it's hard to claim that no performance will be gained. Using your experience with a truck is hardly an apples to apples comparison with filter performance in an airplane. 

[Bob - S50]

FWIW, we switched from a Brackett air filter to a Donaldson air filter.  I swear we got an extra inch or more of MP at altitude.  That should equate to at least 3% more power available for cruise at altitude.  Plus it has no messy oil involved.  And I saw a report somewhere that showed it did a better job of filtering the air.

[Raptor05121]

2 hours ago, Sabremech said:

Unless you have testing data at altitude and different airspeeds it's hard to claim that no performance will be gained. Using your experience with a truck is hardly an apples to apples comparison with filter performance in an airplane. 

And this is exactly true, but I have doubts that lower air pressure is going to increase the performance, measureable or not.

All I know is it is documented for a fact K&N filters (Challenger), have a substantial increase in particulate by-pass compared to most other (automotive) filters.

If you guys were getting another 10 knots, or 1.0gph less, I'd be willing to compromise, but I highly doubt any of you are getting that, so protection wins for me.

[Pictreed]

The chin on my E is stickier than a kids fingers on November 1.  (Halloween). 

I see almost 3/4" MP when opening the ram air vent. 

[Supercop0184]

WOAH - MY POST - - ITS MY PLANE that gets experimented ...... Your C is RIGHT HERE!! HAHA

[Sabremech]

9 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

And this is exactly true, but I have doubts that lower air pressure is going to increase the performance, measureable or not.

All I know is it is documented for a fact K&N filters (Challenger), have a substantial increase in particulate by-pass compared to most other (automotive) filters.

If you guys were getting another 10 knots, or 1.0gph less, I'd be willing to compromise, but I highly doubt any of you are getting that, so protection wins for me.

Raptor, you're killing me. Our airplanes do not operate in the particulate environment that you're overly concerned about. I myself want the more open K&N air filter that will lose less airflow as the filter starts to clog, from bugs etc. Your restrictive filter will clog sooner and you'll lose performance sooner with no real protection from damaging your engine from particulate, which is slim to none of ever happening. 

I'm not going to say that I get increased performance. I'm going to say I get the same performance longer. 

The mod is slowly moving forward. Working on drawings for each and every part in CAD. Fun stuff. 

David

[Bob - S50]

Here's link to a video comparing all three filters:

http://www.avweb.com/videos/Video-Aircraft-Air-Filter-Comparison-222376-1.html

The Donaldson for our J cost about $106.  However, it's good for 3 years or 500 hours or 5 cleaning, whichever comes first.  If the Bracket filter elements cost about $20 each, that's $60 over the same three year period.  That's only about $40 - $50 difference for an extra inch or two of MP at altitude.  AND no messy oil.  Worth it to me.

[DaV8or]

2 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

Here's link to a video comparing all three filters:

http://www.avweb.com/videos/Video-Aircraft-Air-Filter-Comparison-222376-1.html

The Donaldson for our J cost about $106.  However, it's good for 3 years or 500 hours or 5 cleaning, whichever comes first.  If the Bracket filter elements cost about $20 each, that's $60 over the same three year period.  That's only about $40 - $50 difference for an extra inch or two of MP at altitude.  AND no messy oil.  Worth it to me.

I might try a Donaldson this year at annual. I don't like the higher cost, but I have to say I am sick of the gooey, sticky mess the Brackets make. They completely soak the lower cowl and nose gear. I sometimes even get drips on the nose tire.

[jetdriven]

3 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

Here's link to a video comparing all three filters:

http://www.avweb.com/videos/Video-Aircraft-Air-Filter-Comparison-222376-1.html

The Donaldson for our J cost about $106.  However, it's good for 3 years or 500 hours or 5 cleaning, whichever comes first.  If the Bracket filter elements cost about $20 each, that's $60 over the same three year period.  That's only about $40 - $50 difference for an extra inch or two of MP at altitude.  AND no messy oil.  Worth it to me.

It's not an inch of MP, it's about 1/4 to 1/3 of an inch, but it's still two horsepower. You also save the  15 minutes every hundred hours changing the filter, which offsets most of the extra cost of running the Donaldson filter n

[RLCarter]

We’re talking about particulates that are in microns (0.00004”) on engine designs that are almost as old as the dirt we’re trying to keep out. Chances of a properly installed and serviced K&N air filter taking out an engine of any kind is slim to none. My diesel is pushing 240K miles with no signs of premature wear due to dirt ingestion. I would be willing to bet that an engine failure do to dirt getting past the filter was either a damaged filter and/or an improperly installed/serviced filter. The reason my E doesn’t have a Challenger (K&N) filter is cost and paperwork, it already had the Brakett filter which the replacement foam is $20.00 vs $235.00 for the K&N. Any time you can get more air there is the potential for more power. Aircraft are unique in the fact that we can change the mixture relatively easy compared to ground based counter parts which must be re-jetted on carbureted or re-mapped if fuel injected to see the full gain. At altitude the amount of dust is minimal compared to on the ground so un-filtered air doesn’t bother me one bit. Everyone is entitled to their opinions & beliefs and I find it hard to believe that K&N would still in business after 45+ years if in fact they were making an inferior product. Also my guess if your seeing minimal MP increase with the Boost Air opened, is that the door isn’t sealing to begin with, I have rebuilt my door/seal and it’s a pain hand fitting the seal.

[Bob - S50]

19 hours ago, jetdriven said:

It's not an inch of MP, it's about 1/4 to 1/3 of an inch, but it's still two horsepower. You also save the  15 minutes every hundred hours changing the filter, which offsets most of the extra cost of running the Donaldson filter n

Maybe, maybe not.  Depends on whether you believe the graph in the video or not.  For the C172 filter they show, the difference between the Brackett and the Donaldson is about a full inch.  If I calculate correctly, my IO360 turning at 2700 RPM sucks in about 280 CFM of air.  According the the graph, at that flow rate the difference is about 1.5".  As for personal experience, I swear we saw at least a full inch increase in MP when cruising WOT.

Believe it or not (even though my name isn't Ripley)

[jetdriven]

All I know is I have ran a Donaldson filter for about 4 years now, and about 500 hours.  Even switched back to the brackett filter for a few hours when trying to track down a silicon in oil issue. I've done extensive amounts of WOT 2700 RPM air racing which is done at 1000 AGL, and sometimes less.

The J intake is quite optimized, which is why ram air doesnt do much, also the ram air doesnt help much because it doesnt seal the airbox off from the ram air tube, so the ram effect is wasted.  But ram air doesnt give you more than a half inch of MP, and that is basically no filter.

Anyways, if the MP shows 30" on the ground, its 29" at 1000' and with the Brackett its 28.5" or 28.6" at the lowest, if that. Other airplanes and other filters may be different, but the J is already pretty good. I still run the Donladson filter because its the same or better cost over its life cycle, its better filtration, and it does provide a small boost in MP. 1-2 HP at most, but I'll take it.

[DXB]

Beyond it's cost, the K&N seems like a bit of a pain to maintain.  Donaldson sounds appealing, but appears there isn't one for the old carb'd Mooneys? Guess I'm sticking with Brackett.

[Andy95W]

Dev- I didn't see it on Aircraft Spruce's site, but the Donaldson documentation does (found thru the AS website). The ones I didn't  see were for the E/F models.

[DXB]

On 5/9/2016 at 5:26 PM, N1395W said:

Dev- I didn't see it on Aircraft Spruce's site, but the Donaldson documentation does (found thru the AS website). The ones I didn't  see were for the E/F models.

Ah - I see now, thanks.  Part # P10-7172 listed under C170/172 on Spruce is also approved for all the carb'd Mooneys per the Donaldson lit, but nothing for the E/F.  At $112 with ability to use for 3 yrs/500 hrs and simply blow it out periodically with compressed air, it's certainly competitive with the Brackett from a value standpoint.  I will pick one up before next annual.  I assume install and cleaning is a tad more work because you have to remove the entire housing for the lower cowl to put in the rigid frame for the filter, rather than just stuffing in a new sponge on the Brackett?

[Andy95W]

For that price, I think I may do the same at my annual this month.  Good thing I haven't ordered the Brackett yet.

Yes, you will have to remove all the small sheet metal screws that hold the sheet metal around the air intake.  After that, it's only 4 machine screws that hold the Brackett bracket (!?) to the air intake itself.