Camguard....and LOP operations really help clean and seal up a engine?!?

[Hank]

I think that logic holds true if you set your cruise power based on a % of total HP, regardless of altitude/RPM/etc.

 

When I set my cruise power, I just alter the RPM and lean out the mixture as appropriate.  I take whatever % HP I get at that point.  For a given altitude, my cruise A/S will be higher in the winter (cold air) than in the summer (hot air) using this method, because my motor is actually producing more HP at a given altitude. 

 

If you set the same %HP at a common pressure altitude, but there will probably be a KT or two difference between the two.  I don't know many NA pilots that set their cruise power based primarily on %HP alone (although you are most certainly altering it), that's more of a turbo management technique.  In the NA world, leaving the throttle full open and just dialing back the RPM seems to be a more widely used technique.

 

My Performance Tables give %Power for each MP/RPM setting, with a further notation:

 

Note that each 10ºF increase above standard temperature will cause a one percent reduction in horsepower, while each 10ºF decrease below standard temperature will cause a one percent increase in horsepower.

 

ISA temperature for sea level is, of course, 59ºF, and WOT/2700 produces 99.5% power. If I depart sea level at 95ºF, I only have 96% power; making the same trip in winter at 29ºF, I have 102.5% power, a difference of 6.5 percentage points or 6.8% more power. Thus shorter ground rolls and  faster climbs in the winter. What do the notes to your Performance Tables say? Mine are on the last page before the charts start, but after all the Takeoff and Landing distances, climb rates, altitude compensation, etc.

[RJBrown]

This weekend I flew to SLC and back and then yesterday just for fun. The plane sure loves those single digit temps. Better climbs and faster speed. I am breaking in a new engine so yesterdays flight at 7000-8000' ,knobs forward leaned to 50*C rich, around the area showed the highest TAS and ground speeds in no wind  I have ever seen in this bird.

[Marauder]

This weekend I flew to SLC and back and then yesterday just for fun. The plane sure loves those single digit temps. Better climbs and faster speed. I am breaking in a new engine so yesterdays flight at 7000-8000' ,knobs forward leaned to 50*C rich, around the area showed the highest TAS and ground speeds in no wind I have ever seen in this bird.

I'm glad I am not the only one who saw this phenomenon this week! Wasn't breaking in a new engine, but even though I have flown in cold weather before, the plane was just scrambling. I had the ASI rebuilt, wonder if that had anything to do with it.

[Dale]

For those of you that may be interested in reviewing additional discussions about the use of Camguard, there is a very good ongoing discussion currently taking place on the Beechtalk website. The website is www.beechtalk.com. Look for engine talk / camguard in their forum section. Ed Kollin the inventor of Camguard responds to some tough questioning by the Beechtalk members. He has some interesting observations about aircraft engine oil in general and use of Camguard. For those that have a strong interest in learning more about engine oil and Camguard this may be something you may be interested in reading.

[fantom]

For those that have a strong interest in learning more about engine oil and Camguard this may be something you may be interested in reading.

 

Thanks, Dale. That's a half hour of my life I'll never get back. A very good read, indeed!

[PTK]

The use of oil additives is like a religion. The brainwashed will follow; no questions asked! And when someone dares to ask a simple question,he/she is demonized!

"Religion is the opium of the people" ...Karl Marx

Quotes from ASL Camguard literature:

"...CamGuard Aviation contains powerful multi-metal corrosion inhibitors that prevent rust and corrosion..."

"...CamGuard Aviation utilizes unique ashless deposit control additives that prevent

the formation of deposits throughout the engine."

I have asked before and I ask again: is there any data to support these outrageous claims on Camguard or any other additive? Show me the data please!

[fantom]

Show me the data please!

 

 

Even if you got it, you wouldn't accept or understand it. Suggest you stick with your buddy, Karl Marx, and your opium.

[jetdriven]

The use of oil additives is like a religion. The brainwashed will follow; no questions asked! And when someone dares to ask a simple question,he/she is demonized!

"Religion is the opium of the people" ...Karl Marx

Quotes from ASL Camguard literature:

"...CamGuard Aviation contains powerful multi-metal corrosion inhibitors that prevent rust and corrosion..."

"...CamGuard Aviation utilizes unique ashless deposit control additives that prevent

the formation of deposits throughout the engine."

I have asked before and I ask again: is there any data to support these outrageous claims on Camguard or any other additive? Show me the data please!

Aviation Consumer did a test where Camguard modified oil took longer to rust than straight oil. Thats good enough to spring for 60$ a year. Straight  Aeroshell W100 oil coupons showed a "bright bloom of corrosion" in three days.

[201er]

I have asked before and I ask again: is there any data to support these outrageous claims on Camguard or any other additive? Show me the data please!

 

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

 

Just one of many articles about this if you even bother to look at evidence. But if you prefer to believe in the Easter Bunny, by all means go ahead.

[PTK]

 

Even if you got it,...

I thought so. Precisely my point. No such data exists. Thank you for validating my point.

[gregwatts]

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

 

Just one of many articles about this if you even bother to look at evidence. But if you prefer to believe in the Easter Bunny, by all means go ahead.

 

 

What are you talking about.............? The Easter Bunny is REAL!!

[PTK]

Wow! Way to go Mike! You found the "evidence!" Bet you had a real Eureka moment with that!!

Sorry to break it to you bud, but marketing literature doesn't qualify as independent scientific studies! Not very convincing! I know you can do better than that if you try harder! And don't come back with the Busch "study" either! (Just one precaution, don't hold your breath because real proper independent studies don't exist!)

But I'm in no particular hurry, I can wait! Take your time!

Btw, I believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy. They are very real!! The tooth fairy is one drop dead gorgeous babe!

[Marauder]

I have asked before and I ask again: is there any data to support these outrageous claims on Camguard or any other additive? Show me the data please!

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

Just one of many articles about this if you even bother to look at evidence. But if you prefer to believe in the Easter Bunny, by all means go ahead.

Hi 201er,

I think it would help if you could provide some of the data for this discussion. I am neutral either way on the topic. I have seen way too many wife's tales about the pro or con on so many topics, I'm just tired of looking. I think the bottom line is that we all want to make or exceed TBO. These engine overhauls are not cheap and anything I can do to extend it, I'm willing, if not lazy to listen to.

For my Missouri friends, "show me"...

[jetdriven]

Well where did that graph come from?

[Dale]

Here are some some tough questions posed to Ed Kollins, creator of Camguard, on the Beechtalk site and his responses. You may find this interesting reading.

John wrote:

In this discussion, we are not talking about parts for the Mars Rover, or brass for a nuclear sub, we are talking about rust. Not some infinitesimal corrosion reaction between two barely dissimilar metals, rust. Not the corrosion properties of materials subjected to 10,000 degree reentry temperatures of the space shuttle, but rust; plain everyday rust.

We have a product, Camguard that makes some fairly (in my opinion) excessive marketing claims. To quote from their literature:

"dramatically reduces wear"

Ed's answer:

A fleet-wide 35% reduction in wear (oil analysis provided to us by our customers) is dramatic, especially when considering these engines were designed in the 1940’s with large cross sectional areas on the highly loaded parts and running viscous oils. You can chose not believe these results.

Quote:

"prevents rust and corrosion in infrequently used engines"

Ed's answer:

The Aviation product states Camguard “Fights Corrosion” which it does quite effectively in surrogate bench tests and in engines of various ages when inspected. Our Certification engine sat for almost four months (landing gear issues) with 30-hour (dirty) oil in the summer in Oklahoma without a spec of corrosion on any part in the motor. And while this is only one test (someone forgot to change the oil), and by no means conclusive it is a valid data point nonetheless. I might also add that have extensive experience (20 years) in formulating various rust preventative products such as CorrosionX and Cortec products.

You chose to highlight the verbiage from our Automotive, Marine and Small Engine products. With the inclusion of overbased detergents, to neutralize acids formed in the crankcase and found in all automotive, marine and small engine oils, I feel perfectly comfortable in using the wording "prevents rust and corrosion in infrequently used engines". To me, this means it will prevent the initiation of corrosion in these engine when they are infrequently used (once every 3 months) or seasonally (6 month on 6 months off).

Quote:

"contains seal conditioners that nullify the effects of heat and time to keep seals supple, flexible, and performing like new."

Ed's answer:

I am very proud of the ability of Camguard to achieve not only the “seal conditioning” of aged and hardened seals, but it also protects the seals from attack from the phosphate ester anti-wear found in the Aeroshell 15W-50 and Plus oils. The picture on our website http://aslcamguard.com/aircraft/test-da ... nditioning shows a degraded push-rod tube seal. This was a new seal placed in a jar with 200ml of Aeroshell 15W-50, a piece of copper and 10 drops of water. The jar was sealed and the oil shaken. The oil was heated to 210 degrees F for 24 hours. The picture is of that seal when it was stretched. The phosphate ester is hydrolytically unstable and breaks down in the presence of heat, moisture and metal….like in an operating engine, to an oil soluble form of phosphoric acid. This acid attacks copper and seals. Shell put in additional copper inhibitor. Camguard protects the seals from this chemical attack.

When I informed my contacts at Shell, they did admit they were aware of the problem but blamed it on the use of the Lycoming additive with their oil. And everyone knows that airplanes leak.

.

Quote:

"Dramatic", "prevents", "nullify". Those are pretty strong adjectives, I think.

Ed's answer

We strongly agree.

Quote:

Notice it says "prevents" rust and corrosion, not reduces.

Ed's answer

See above.

Quote:

So, I am suppose to believe that a product that provides such "dramatic" results would not want itself tested by any of a score (perhaps) hundreds of sophisticated testing labs to prove that the marketing claims are fact?

And, I have another question? Does Camguard have any patented component? Any component that would not be available to any oil manufacturer should that manufacturer wish to improve his product?

Ed's answer:

I chose not to patent Camguard although we clearly have a number of aspects that could be patented. It would be expensive to take it apart the formulation. All the components are commercially available.

Quote:

Of all the marketing statements of Camguard's literature, the following is the one I find most disturbing.

"Because of FAA Regulations and costs, even the newest commercial aircraft oil technology is antiquated."

Really !! So Exxon can't afford to address those regulations but Ed Kollin can?

Ed's answer:

Regulations make it very difficult (time and money) to add or change any ingredient(s) in a certified product. Several million dollars and 3-4 years are typical. When the EPA told Shell that they had to remove their anti-wear,TCP, from their formulation because it was a neurotoxin, the only thing they could do without recertifying their oil, was to use a similar phosphate ester to TCP. Both phosphate esters were grandfathered in so they could be used interchangeably. What they didn’t know was that the ester they went to suffered this stability problem and when they made the change in the 1990’s peoples copper went from 10ppm to 350pp in their oil analysis. The FAA let them add some additional copper inhibitor without recertifying.

Aeroshell 15W-50 is a 1970’s technology (50% PAO synthetic base oil, 1% anti-wear, 0.05% rust inhibitor and 0.05% copper corrosion inhibitor) and the Exxon Elite is vintage 1980’s (26% PAO synthetic base oil, 1.5% anti-wear, a multi-functional dispersant viscosity modifier, 0.05% rust inhibitor and 0.05 % copper corrosion inhibitor) that qualifies as antiquated. But so are our aircraft. And our aircraft engines suffer from premature failures that can often be attributed to rust. No one would tolerate the cam and lifter failures or cylinder problems we have in our aircraft, in their cars.

Automotive oils are reformulated every 4-6 years as dictated by the OEMs and emissions regulations. Commercial aircraft oils are simple products whose only real requirement is that they do no harm. Even non-dispersant mineral oil passes the certification testing.

Since the Mobil AV1 debacle, no major oil company is going to put forth the resources and liability to develop a state of the art oil for such a small market, hence we are presented with Exxon Elite. And the market for Camguard.

Quote:

Is Camguard a valuable product or a marketing phenomenon? I DON'T KNOW, but in my mind, nothing speaks more clearly than the fact that Mr. Kollin is not actively and aggressively seeking a legitimate, independent, and public testing of the product that he so successfully merchandises.

Ed's answer:

We have differing opinions as to what is legitimate.

I guess I'll wait on your order.

Ed

[201er]

"What about CamGuard? At $25 a pint at each oil change, is it worth it? Considering just its rust inhibitor properties, using it will add a buck an hour to your operating costs, if you change oil at 25 hour intervals. If you're worried about corrosion due to disuse, we think the data - both ours and CamGuard's own detailed test results - suggest it has merit." 14 Day Oil Shootout, Aviation Consumer February 2005

 

Attached another study I've seen, not sure who put it out but looks like an amateur. Although the non-manufacturer studies are weak, they all agree. On the other hand, I have not seen a single third party study that disagrees or even observes harm in CamGuard. As I previously stated, on this basis alone and the price it's a gamble already worth taking.

0411-CORRODION-COMPARISONS.pdf

[PTK]

The above excerpt from Beechtalk illustrates one key characteristic of a cult. They aren't interested in a logical discussion. Their only objective is to ensnare more followers!
It is very dangerous to blindly follow a "group mentality." It will cloud one's better judgement.

What flavor Kool-Aid is that you're drinking again Mike? Hope it's not grape!
I'm still waiting for that data!

[jetdriven]

You may not like the results, but this is certainly data.

 

Our engine was rumored to have failed because of corrosion from disuse by the previous owners, although it did fly 25 or so hours during the last year, and then 5 more for a ferry flight to the broker. Then we put 250 hours on it, and then sudden death.  Wear isnt the problem, its corrosion. 

 

Ed Kollin also developed Corrosion-X, BTW. Nobody doubts that.

32-11-Results-1.pdf

[fantom]

It is very dangerous to blindly follow a "group mentality."

 

Something you seem expert in. As I recall you were all for King steam gauges, until you were an early convert to a GTN-750. Then you became a Garmin cultist, to the point of bashing Aspen with no real data, while raving about, and planning for, a G-500. Need I point out your $15+K paint job and your $1K scheme design with zero, before the fact, discussion on MooneyTalk. I've pointed out the folly of your often claimed 'expertise' after you just call one or two suppliers, again with zero real experience or the factual data you demand of others. Your continued tirades against All-American like your mindless, and fact-less, attacks on CamGuard and those who use it, further support your lack of credibility.

 

Me thinks your just a silly, attention seeking, antagonist who attempts to proliferate tension and drama for the thrill of confrontation, doing to us the same thing you do in your office......wasting our time and causing pain.

 

 

Otherwise I   your many informative posts.

 

 

[TTaylor]

[img=http://www.avweb.com/newspics/camguard_humidity_cabinet_test.gif]

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

 

Just one of many articles about this if you even bother to look at evidence. But if you prefer to believe in the Easter Bunny, by all means go ahead.

Was that an article or an ad?

[PTK]

There goes Fantom again on one of his confused rampages! He has no answers so he bursts into rants! Apparent Kool-Aid OD! Seems to have suffered irreversible chronic damage too! That's too bad, there's no antidote!

That's ok Fantom! Continue to do what you do best! Take a couple of deep breaths. It'll pass!
As far as your engine you are free to do what you like! Really. It's your business what you do! We're only having a discussion. That's all!

Getting back to the point and please allow me to rephrase my original question:
Do you have anything other than opinionated marketing material that supports Camguard or any other additive is beneficial to my very expensive engine, above and beyond regular oil changes with an approved oil? Yes or no?

[DonMuncy]

Allsmiles, do you contend that Aviation Consumer's reports are "marketing material". 

[PTK]

The particular Aviation Consumer report is not a Randomized Controlled Trial. It presents no scientific evidence of benefit or harm. Reliable conclusions can't be drawn, therefore it is of no value.

Quoting Aviation Consumer:
"We found that CamGuard did measurably improve W100's corrosion performance, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily worth the expense of adding it. The Shell package is an effective anti-corrosion package to begin with, so adding CamGuard, may have no realistic impact on the life of the engine."

[Rwsavory]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am curious about how folks go about picking engine oils and additives.  

 

Assuming that the only valid evidence regarding oils and additives is derived from a Randomized Controlled Trial, per allsmiles, is there existing independent testing of that quality comparing the benefits/detriments of 100W against, say, Exxon Elite?

[PTK]

Rwsavory, I didn't exactly say that! What I said was that a Randomized Controlled Trial is a type of scientific experiment. It is typically how proper clinical trials are done. It is used, for example, to test the efficacy of a medication or a procedure in a patient population. Among other things, it is statistically very powerful and allows for reliable conclusions to be drawn.