Camguard Cylinder Glazing?

[GeeBee]

24 minutes ago, PT20J said:

Lycoming requires AD oil for break-in of its turbocharged engines and mineral oil for its normally aspirated engines.

What’s different about the cylinders of turbocharged vs normally aspirated?

Pressure. You want maximum pressure against the rings such that they expand against the cylinder walls. In a turbo you can do that all the way up to critical altitude. If you notice in the turbo break in instructions they tell you to do just that. If you could maintain maximum pressure in a NA engine, oil would not make a difference.

[N201MKTurbo]

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1014N Lubricating Oil Recommendations.pdf

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/Lycoming Reciprocating engine Break-In and Oil Consumption.pdf

Lycoming specifically says 1014N that AD oil will inhibit proper break in.

 

[A64Pilot]

You can maintain pressure in a non turbo engine first by compression ratio and secondly by operating it so that the max cylinder pressure is kept high.hence high power.

‘But that’s not cylinders, and he asked what’s the difference in the cylinders, so I suspect he’s asking if there is a physical difference 

[A64Pilot]

4 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1014N Lubricating Oil Recommendations.pdf

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/Lycoming Reciprocating engine Break-In and Oil Consumption.pdf

Lycoming specifically says 1014N that AD oil will inhibit proper break in.

 

First I agree, especially if it was a Lycoming overhaul. do whatever it is they say, they are providing the warranty and you don’t want to screw that up.

‘Most of you guys like Mike Busch, see what he has to say about it.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/january/pilot/savvy-maintenance-breaking-good

On edit, me personally I have used straight oil, because why not?

Edited June 13, 2021 by A64Pilot

[N201MKTurbo]

Just now, A64Pilot said:

First I agree, especially if it was a Lycoming overhaul. do whatever it is they say, they are providing the warranty and you don’t want to screw that up.

‘Most of you guys like Mike Busch, see what he has to say about it.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/january/pilot/savvy-maintenance-breaking-good

What Mike says is pretty mech in line with the service instructions.

[A64Pilot]

7 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

What Mike says is pretty mech in line with the service instructions.

Pretty much,except where he says many shops have moved away from the primitive oil, and his comment that he prefers to break in with AD oil.

But again, there is no logical argument that I can think of to not follow Lycomings directive. the few engines I have overhauled stabilized oil consumption pretty quickly, but then I have always been at low altitude, pretty much sea level.

‘I woud assume guys who are on the ground at 5,000 MSL or higher would have more problem 

Edited June 13, 2021 by A64Pilot

[Shadrach]

On 6/13/2021 at 11:12 AM, A64Pilot said:

But the first thing you have to buy into for these additives is to believe that major oil companies like Shell or engine manufacturers like Lycoming are stupid, or maybe lazy or maybe cheap, and I don’t believe that.

Shockingly, your premise does not hold up to scrutiny.  The only thing you need to buy into is that the guy who was largely responsible for the formulation of Exxon Elite (Ed Kollin) thought he could improve upon his previous additive packages and/or have more freedom to formulate a superior additive blend (CamGaurd) without being encumbered by the policies of the marketing and accounting departments. I’m not beating up on corporations but sometimes good ideas don’t fit into the boxes created by corporate policy. Understanding this does not mean you think oil or engine manufacturers are stupid, it merely means that you understand that sometimes innovation doesn’t thrive under corporate policy.

Do you think Ed should have dropped his mic and walked off stage after Exxon Elite? No chance he could do any better? Or is it just that he went out on his own that discredits his work on camguard?

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Shadrach

[Will.iam]

5 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

That is indeed Ed’s stated reason for developing CamGuard, and I think those of us who use his product tend to believe him.  He is a pretty credible and qualified guy, but you have to take a few minutes to research him.
 

All of that having been said, Camguard’s primary purpose is not to reduce engine wear per se.  It is to reduce internal engine corrosion in infrequently flown engines, which is defined at something like 10 days between flights.  Aviation Consumer has anecdotally confirmed that it works and, at least to the extent that they ever do, recommends it with that single caveat.  Who among us doesn’t go that long between flights at least occasionally?  I do, and that is why I use it.  Not because I think it is going to increase my engine’s TBO.  

But doesn’t inhibiting corrosion indirectly increase an engines TBO when people say engines are more likely to rust (a.k.a corrode) out before they wear out with owner planes because we can’t consistently fly once every 10 days? 

[Will.iam]

9 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Why do any of you believe someone woud be stupid to use Camguard or any other additive during break-in? Never seen a bottle of Camguard myself, does it say that on the bottle?

I don’t believe in additives, I’ve heard so many times, it’s FAA approved, it must do what it says,which is not true, all the FAA cares about is proof that it does no harm.

 

On edit, I don’t believe non detergent oil is specified for break in because it allows more wear, I believe during times of excessive oil use the detergent can cause combustion chamber deposits, it’s not to allow more wear or faster wear, turbo motors run detergent oil for break-in. why? to keep the turbo center section bearing clean, but they break-in just as well. Detergent additives are not a lubricant additive.

The whole “good oil” is too slippery to allow break in is not true, but you hear it every day, “don’t use synthetic oil in your car for 10,000 miles” etc., but higher performance GM cars factory fill has been synthetic forever, and many new cars require 0W-20, which I believe is only available as a synthetic.

I wish there was an oil that was so good that it prevented wear so well that it wouldn’t allow break-in, imagine how long a motor might last?

The difference between car engines and airplane engines is that you are running lead through our engines and not cars. Mike Busch goes over this very point. And says the synthetic oil is great at lubrication but poor in suspending blow-by in the oil compared to mineral oil thus the fate of mobile oil that sold aviation fully synthetic oil and it caused numerous problems with airplane engines that it got pulled from the market.  Mike also points out cars were suggested to change oil every 3000 miles and now the manufacturers are going as high as 7000 miles. It was more from the fact that lead free fuel is now required use then advancement in fully synthetic oil. Mike even says for airplanes certified to run on Automobile leadfree gas, you could run fully synthetic. 

[Marauder]

A year ago we bought a well-equipped, well-maintained 1966 M20E, frequently flown except in the last year of the previous owner’s final illness. The PPI was perhaps unduly cursory, given the sterling reputation of the previous owner.
Our first indications of trouble were mag-check failure, fouled plugs, and excessive oil consumption. We replaced the spark plugs, magnetos, and the fuel diverter, but nothing changed. We were advised to just keep adding oil. We ignored this advice.
After further investigation, it was found that the cylinders were glazed. The cylinders have now been replaced, and meticulous break-in with mineral oil is underway. The engine is running great now: all previous problems solved and slightly increased power output.
Camguard, reportedly beloved by the previous owner, has been blamed for the cylinder glazing.

I would be really surprised if Bob used CamGuard during his break ins. He was very careful about making sure the break in was done correctly. And adding CamGuard wasn’t a bonehead thing Bob would do.

I would be interested in what the shop finds with the installed rings. I don’t believe there were a lot of hours on his engine when he got sick. How many hours did it have when you bought it? Were the cylinders fully broken in when you bought it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[GeeBee]

17 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1014N Lubricating Oil Recommendations.pdf

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/Lycoming Reciprocating engine Break-In and Oil Consumption.pdf

Lycoming specifically says 1014N that AD oil will inhibit proper break in.

 

I believe you are mis-reading the document 1014N.  Page three, paragraph A says this

"All turbocharged engines must be broken-in and operated with ashless dispersant oil only."

It then goes on in paragraph D to say

"All other engines must be operated on non-dispersant mineral oil during the first 50 hours of operation, or until oil consumption has stabilized. Use of LW-16702, while required for certain engine models as listed in Part B above, could inhibit break-in on other engine models and therefore should not be used during break-in. Reference Service Bulletin No. 446, Service Bulletin No. 471, and/or Service Instruction No. 1409 for additional information. If an ashless dispersant oil is used in a new engine, or a newly overhauled engine, high oil consumption might possibly be experienced. The additives in some of these ashless dispersant oils may retard the break-in of the piston rings and cylinder walls. This condition can be avoided by the use of non- dispersant mineral oil until oil consumption has stabilized and then change to ashless dispersant oil. Non- dispersant mineral oil must also be used following the replacement of one or more cylinders until the oil consumption has stabilized."

IOW all engines not included in paragraphs A, B or C the use of AD "may retard the break-in of the piston rings and cylinder walls."

 

[SSimpson77]

Back in 1994, Penske racing developed the ilmor/Mercedes racing engine that won the Indy 500. There was so much power, it was actually spinning the tires on the rims! But back to the story... in order to “fool” the competition, they installed a fin behind the rear engine cowling. When Al Unser and Paul Tracy went out and set quick time after quick time, the competition all went out and had their cowlings to match the Penske. 

I don’t know why I told this story...maybe because I think it’s hilarious, or because I think open wheel racing is the best sport in America, but maybe it’s because they’re is so much more to performance than oil additives or DLC coatings, or time between runnings.
 

Consistency in maintenance and performance are what I think is the key to TBO or at least recognizing it’s not going to make TBO. Every engine, propeller, airframe , everything are all exposed to different conditions and therefore as the saying goes...your mileage may vary. 

By the way, if you want to read the book, it’s called “The Beast” pretty awesome story of Paul Morgan using his P-51 mustang to ferry parts from design to manufacturing to testing to stay on the deadline.

PSS. I believe in the snake oil too, I think that’s where this hijack all started from. 

[EchoMax]

20 hours ago, Marauder said:

I would be really surprised if Bob used CamGuard during his break ins. He was very careful about making sure the break in was done correctly. And adding CamGuard wasn’t a bonehead thing Bob would do.

I would be interested in what the shop finds with the installed rings. I don’t believe there were a lot of hours on his engine when he got sick. How many hours did it have when you bought it? Were the cylinders fully broken in when you bought it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I found this by perusing old posts:

 

Bob_Belville, Posted September 23, 2017

<<

• Aeroshell W-100 with CamGuard year round. (Preheat engine in NC winter.)
• Target to change @ 25-35 hours,
• New spin on filter and check screen,
• sample to Blackstone Labs. (sample report attached)  
• Tempest oil filter - AA48110-2 torque per filter instruction 16-18 ftlb. (New style spin on filters do not get DC4 lube.)

...

I went to a fine engineering school that offered degrees in chemistry, chemical engineering, and mechanical engineering. But I did not follow those paths, they all had afternoon labs that interfered with my golf game. (I studied math - no labs since that was pre-computer science.)

So I do not know much about oil, oil additives, or metallurgy. 2 prop strikes occasioned 2 IRAN tear downs, less than 100 hours apart. Both inspections revealed deteriorating cam/lifters. (The first engine shop had recommended Phillips multi-grade.) I'm probably smart enough but I'm definitely not educated enough to know what goes on to cause premature cam/lifter failures. So reinforced by @jetdriven's much more informed disdain for what we're working with I've followed Busch's preference for single weight, non-synthetic oil. And having heard CamGuard's presentation a couple of times at Summit, I returned to Aeroshell W100 with CamGuard and believe that combo gives me the best chance is this lottery since I fly only about 75 hours per year and sometimes the plane goes several weeks without flying. (I send a sample to Blackstone at every oil change and personally examine the screen and cut and inspect the oil filter.

...

CB admission, I have about a half a case of Phillips 20W-50 and AeroShell W100 straight mineral oil (break in oil). When I think about it I'll use one of those quarts when I add oil, just one per oil change. I'm assured all oils approved for a given engine can be safely mixed.

>>

 

***

According to the aircraft listing:  ~ 780 SMOH Triad

It seems unlikely that CamGuard was used during break-in, but what about the mixing of Phillips 20W-50 and AeroShell W100?

[A64Pilot]

On 6/14/2021 at 3:26 PM, SSimpson77 said:

Back in 1994, Penske racing developed the ilmor/Mercedes racing engine that won the Indy 500. There was so much power, it was actually spinning the tires on the rims! But back to the story... in order to “fool” the competition, they installed a fin behind the rear engine cowling. When Al Unser and Paul Tracy went out and set quick time after quick time, the competition all went out and had their cowlings to match the Penske. 

I don’t know why I told this story...maybe because I think it’s hilarious, or because I think open wheel racing is the best sport in America, but maybe it’s because they’re is so much more to performance than oil additives or DLC coatings, or time between runnings.
 

Consistency in maintenance and performance are what I think is the key to TBO or at least recognizing it’s not going to make TBO. Every engine, propeller, airframe , everything are all exposed to different conditions and therefore as the saying goes...your mileage may vary. 

By the way, if you want to read the book, it’s called “The Beast” pretty awesome story of Paul Morgan using his P-51 mustang to ferry parts from design to manufacturing to testing to stay on the deadline.

PSS. I believe in the snake oil too, I think that’s where this hijack all started from. 

You may be talking about a “Gurney flap” which does work, and works really well, a lot of helicopter manufacturers have become enamored with it.

Its one of the very few actual aerodynamic devices lately that a good ole boy developed.

They way he hid it was quite smart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurney_flap

 But maybe they were just emulating Dan

Edited June 15, 2021 by A64Pilot

[SSimpson77]

24 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

You may be talking about a “Gurney flap” which does work, and works really well, a lot of helicopter manufacturers have become enamored with it.

Its one of the very few actual aerodynamic devices lately that a good ole boy developed.

They way he hid it was quite smart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurney_flap

 But maybe they were just emulating Dan

No I’m not talking about the Gurney flap. The gurney flap was designed by Dan gurney back in the 70’s to increase performance of downforce wings at high angles of attack. Typically gurney flaps are .0875” to .250” strips of aluminum that are slid in at trailing edge of wing. Sometimes called wicker bills. We were running gurney flaps back on formula Atlantic’s and Formula fords back in the mid 80’s. 

[hammdo]

How 'bout the rudder on the helmets? That was an interesting tale too a while back...

-Don

[bradp]

On 6/13/2021 at 10:50 AM, EchoMax said:

It's just a theory, with no real evidence, that Camguard was added during break-in.  The previous owner has passed on, and he is unavailable for comment at this time, but he was reportedly very meticulous, and I find it hard to believe that he did something so stupid.

So we're left with the mystery of the four glazed cylinders.

I know Bob was struggling with high oil temps after the Sabre cowl was fitted (don’t know whether it was truly correlated or just uncovered an air:oil cooling issue).  Bob would definitely have gone by whatever the mfr recommended break in was, so it’s prob just coincidence, and I can say that Bob wouldn’t have put cam guard in during a break in.  I don’t remember if he even overhauled the E or bought it recently overhauled.  I was looking at the E (it was located in MD) at the same time as Bob and at least my criteria at the time was 200-500 hr engines. 

[jetdriven]

Bob’s plane had low hours but it was under flown. After a couple years the cam spalled and it was discovered on a prop strike. So he majored the engine then. 
From what I remember talking to him  he was struggling with high CHT’s and oil temps. The inlet/exit ratio was wrong snd it didn’t cool properly.