Another IO360 with hosed Lifters/CAM

[ArtVandelay]

Is this Not reasonable?

It’s not unreasonable and frankly I would be shocked otherwise , I was pointing out the silliness of expecting a oil additive to cure years of neglect.


Tom

[PT20J]

Sorry to hear about that, but you have company. I'm curious what oil has been used. I've heard that Aeroshell 15W50 doesn't seem to work so well in these engines even though it has the LW-16702 additive.

Skip

[Sabremech]

12 minutes ago, RogueOne said:

Probably need to block me because that post is garbage.

Block you because you don’t agree with my observations and experience? Nah. You actually might teach me something in the future. 

What part of my previous post is garbage? That IO-360’s have more problems than O-360’s or that Camguard will not keep your camshaft and lifters from spalling? 

[RogueOne]

36 minutes ago, Sabremech said:

Block you because you don’t agree with my observations and experience? Nah. You actually might teach me something in the future. 

What part of my previous post is garbage? That IO-360’s have more problems than O-360’s or that Camguard will not keep your camshaft and lifters from spalling? 

My take from the original poster was that he bought the engine/plane in 2017.  The plane had an overhaul in 1994  or 23 years before the purchase.  You can not confirm usage of CamGuard if you didn’t own use for duration.  So many factors on operation.  How can you come to the conclusion that CamGuard would be at fault for issue within an engine that was overhauled 25 years previous of unknown operation for 23 of the 25 years?  I can only evaluate my engine experience as I have not seen any “large” database comparison of 0-360 vs. I0-360 regarding overhauls on hours vs. time.  25 years seems “overdue” on a time basis.  If less than 100 hours/year plane is sitting.  A LOT.

[Sabremech]

1 minute ago, RogueOne said:

My take from the original poster was that he bought the engine/plane in 2017.  The plane had an overhaul in 1994  or 23 years before the purchase.  You can not confirm usage of CamGuard if you didn’t own use for duration.  So many factors on operation.  How can you come to the conclusion that CamGuard would be at fault for issue within an engine that was overhauled 25 years previous of unknown operation for 23 of the 25 years?  I can only evaluate my engine experience as I have not seen any “large” database comparison of 0-360 vs. I0-360 regarding overhauls on hours vs. time.  25 years seems “overdue” on a time basis.  If less than 100 hours/year plane is sitting.  A LOT.

Too many engines listed on MS with camshaft issues and using Camguard with the same result, camshaft or lifters failed. In the OP’s post, I was picking at Camguard as I believe it’s a great marketing product with little benefit to our engines. I’m not telling anyone not to use it if it makes them comfortable, but I won’t recommend it if I’m asked for my opinion. 

I’ve been searching the MS threads tonight with the keyword camshaft and it’s enlightening so far that most issues are in IO-360’s with an O-360 here and there. There are currently 2 threads one in general and one in vintage of IO-360 cam failures. 

[Guest]

I hope my IO720 isn’t twice a likely to fail a camshaft!  The last time I looked it was almost $10K for the cam alone.

Clarence

[Sabremech]

26 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I hope my IO720 isn’t twice a likely to fail a camshaft!  The last time I looked it was almost $10K for the cam alone.

Clarence

Ouch, saw that price in my Camshaft research. I think that would make me get out of airplane ownership.

[cliffy]

m20Doc   Well you bought it  :-)  I remember when that 8 cyl behemoth came out new!  Heck, weld it and any car machinist can regrind it!  :-)

Used to have to move one in and out of the hangar as I was stacking 6 new Learjets in there every night at the same time AND I was still in high school at the time. That was a LONG time ago.  

Bob Minnis had some interesting observations on Lycoming cams last week when I had a one on one with him in Longview. 

Edited June 12, 2019 by cliffy

[Yetti]

On 6/10/2019 at 10:29 AM, Stephen said:

p 1100 hrs SMOH on 1994 Firewall Fwd Overhaul

Supports the 1990s to early 2000s bad metallurgy line of thinking

[RogueOne]

10 hours ago, Sabremech said:

Too many engines listed on MS with camshaft issues and using Camguard with the same result, camshaft or lifters failed. In the OP’s post, I was picking at Camguard as I believe it’s a great marketing product with little benefit to our engines. I’m not telling anyone not to use it if it makes them comfortable, but I won’t recommend it if I’m asked for my opinion. 

I’ve been searching the MS threads tonight with the keyword camshaft and it’s enlightening so far that most issues are in IO-360’s with an O-360 here and there. There are currently 2 threads one in general and one in vintage of IO-360 cam failures. 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I disagree and that’s O.K.  Good chatting.

[Sabremech]

31 minutes ago, RogueOne said:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I disagree and that’s O.K.  Good chatting.

Yep. I choose to save the money I don’t spend on Camguard and put it in an engine maintenance fund for the day I’ll need it. 

[Stephen]

On 6/10/2019 at 7:06 PM, Aerodon said:

First I've heard of it, but its all about the force and area.  The earlier O320H2AD engines had smaller lifters, then the T mode came along to make the lifters larger.  In my experience, its more about the regular use of the engine than the T mod.

Now for the O360 vs IO360 - I assume the same cam / lifter arrangement?  So same bearing pressure on the face of the cam/lifter?  Anything different about the valves / springs?

If not, I'd put it all on the lack of use rather than the engine time.

 

Aerodon

 

 

Entirely possible. BUT.... I wanted to go with the DLC to at least try to introduce a new variable. When the midwest ice machine fires up in the late fall and winter, I try to let it have the sky all to itself so I can run into extended WX grounding out there. I  just do monthly ground runs. 

[Stephen]

18 hours ago, RogueOne said:

Is this Not reasonable?

I think it is reasonable. Not blaming cam guard, just included use of Camguard because it was done. I didn't have metal in my early flying in the filter and the finger screen was also clean. So perhaps if the aircraft sets the damage is done, but interestingly that the damage was done was not indicated in the filter until my Jan 2018 oil change and monitored very closely thereafter with very frequent oil changes.... So, perhaps a conclusion is, if non-use corrosion has compromised the outer layer, the engine is doomed Camguard not withstanding (reasonable)...even if you don't currently see particles in the filter (interesting). That last part is the head scratcher for me. 

[Stephen]

17 hours ago, PT20J said:

Sorry to hear about that, but you have company. I'm curious what oil has been used. I've heard that Aeroshell 15W50 doesn't seem to work so well in these engines even though it has the LW-16702 additive.

Skip

Started out with XC and then switched to Aeroshell 100

[pinerunner]

https://generalaviationnews.com/2013/03/20/how-to-prevent-cam-and-lifter-wear/

This article made some sense. It makes me think that maybe oil temperature is a more important parameter than I had thought before. It would be relatively easy to implement. 

[Tcraft938]

I probably will get shot for this, but my recent readings on Lycoming recommendation for overhaul is 2000 hours OR 12 years.  A good example, I know someone that had a mid time engine running fine, no metal in the oil good compressions etc.  Had a very minor prop strike with a rubber construction cone.  Damage to the prop was enough that it had to be pulled and overhauled.  There's an AD that triggers in this instance that basically equates to might as well landed gear up, the engine needs to be pulled and tear down inspected.  If it goes to a Lycoming certified shop they are going to say, "it needs to be overhauled because of the Lycoming Service Bulletin that says 12 years and your last OH was in 2001".  So now he had a big decision, take it to a non Lycoming center for just the tear down inspection, get most of it covered by insurance, or put about $10,000 of his own money into it now and get a fresh factory new limits OH with 3 year warranty.  What would you do?  For him, he went with the overhaul and probably good he did because issues with the case and cam were found that would not likely have made it anywhere near TBO.  In looking back through the logs there was 8 years of spiritic little use, some years with no use, then him purchasing and flying on average 80 hours per year for 3 years..  Could that be the culprit?  No one knows for sure, but it didn't do the engine any favors.  In the end it worked out for him, fresh OH engine for less than half price.  More importantly maybe saved from a potential engine failure.  However fresh overhauls seem to fail more often than regularly flown mid-time ones, but a discussion for another day.

[ArtVandelay]

https://generalaviationnews.com/2013/03/20/how-to-prevent-cam-and-lifter-wear/
This article made some sense. It makes me think that maybe oil temperature is a more important parameter than I had thought before. It would be relatively easy to implement. 

I make it a habit of pulling the dipstick to allow water vapor to escape after a flight, don’t know if it helps, but it can’t hurt.


Tom

[cliffy]

2 comments-

1) Ground running is more detrimental to the engine than sitting. It puts water (condensation) back into the engine case to combine with acids there and eat away at the inside of the engine. One rally needs to fly the engine for 1/2 hr to heat it enough to get rid of the water. 

2) Nothing in the Lycoming  prop strike AD requires a complete tear down or an overhaul. What it does require is looking at the crank shaft end gear and its dowel and replacing the bolt and lock washer that holds it on to the crank shaft. You can do this by removing the rear case only. Most insurance companies pay for a tear down to avoid any call backs if something goes wrong after the work.  

[Prior owner]

I have wondered about slipping desiccant devices on the exhaust stack and at the crankcase breather tube after shutdown in an effort to prevent moisture from being drawn into the engine as things begin to cool down.

[Stephen]

If letting it set per Cliffy is superior to ground running ... would like a reference on that but is plausible...I wonder if for extended periods of idleness, like I face in the winter due to WX and my occupational travel, if it would be a useful approach to use a desiccant strategy to dehydrate the atmosphere in the engine and then seal it air tight....??? thoughts? Kind of atmospheric "pickeling" of the engine. 

[Stephen]

http://www.barkeraircraft.com/EngineDryerSportAvi.pdf  

DIY de-humidifier.

 

I would like one that doesn't use desiccant media as it seems that stuff is going to saturate quickly unless you use a ginormous media reservoir. 

[Bolter]

13 minutes ago, PilotCoyote said:

I have wondered about slipping desiccant devices on the exhaust stack and at the crankcase breather tube after shutdown in an effort to prevent moisture from being drawn into the engine as things begin to cool down.

You would need to seal the area around the engine compartment to some level, or else the desiccant is also exposed to the environment and will saturate faster than needed to protect the engine.  

[Bolter]

3 minutes ago, Stephen said:

If letting it set per Cliffy is superior to ground running ... would like a reference on that but is plausible...I wonder if for extended periods of idleness, like I face in the winter due to WX and my occupational travel, if it would be a useful approach to use a desiccant strategy to dehydrate the atmosphere in the engine and then seal it air tight....??? thoughts? Kind of atmospheric "pickeling" of the engine. 

Does this stuff work as advertised?

https://www.skygeek.com/phillips-66-20w-50-aviation-antirust-oill.html

[jaylw314]

8 minutes ago, PilotCoyote said:

I have wondered about slipping desiccant devices on the exhaust stack and at the crankcase breather tube after shutdown in an effort to prevent moisture from being drawn into the engine as things begin to cool down.

They have one of those at aircraft spruce.  It has a fan that blows dry air into the breather tube, and, in theory, comes out through the pistons rings, into the cylinders and out the intake/exhaust pipes, so you don't need to do anything to the exhaust stack.

Realistically, I'm not sure how much moisture the engine will suck in as it cools down, I suspect typical ambient air has much less moisture in it than the hot, humid air in the motor.   In addition, the normal expansion and contraction of air would only bring ambient air into the exhaust pipe but not the cylinders.  As such, I suspect you could run this for a few hours, and then turn it off.

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/engsaver.php?clickkey=5570

[Guitarmaster]

Overhauled in 1994.  Wasn't that the timeframe for the poor metallurgy cams and lifters?