A good discussion on oils

This one?

attachment.php
 
The worlds absolute most effective aircraft oil that will give you the best chance at the engine going to or beyond TBO is to use the cheapest oil you can lay your hands on and fly it at least once a week...
Corrosion is the major killer of engines... Hot engines don't corrode...
Wearing of moving parts is a far distant second place finisher...

If the money spent on chrome cylinders and Camguard, and on, and on, was spent on avgas instead, mechanics would have a lot less work in their shops...
 
I thought that Aeroshell 15W-50 contains the relevant Camguard additives.

Incidentally I tried to buy Camguard here in the UK, without success.

But maybe there is no point, as I fly every week, for a minimum of 1hr.
 
peter-h said:
I thought that Aeroshell 15W-50 contains the relevant Camguard additives.

Incidentally I tried to buy Camguard here in the UK, without success.

But maybe there is no point, as I fly every week, for a minimum of 1hr.
Click to expand...

Negative sir, Ed, the inventor of Camguard called me one day and we had a great conversation on oil. He was tasked by Exxon to develop the best engine oil. Turned out to be too expensive so they copied th AEroshell 15-50 formula. These oils are the WORST for aircraft engines due to the synthetic base stock being inappropriate for use with 100LL fuel. His recommendation is to use any of the straight weights or Phillips multi-vis with Camguard.
 
I fly twice a week and use shell 15/50 .Have used aero shell on three aircraft a never had a problem . price works out about the same as the oils without an additive.
 
For a couple of years I used to alternate between Aeroshell 15W/50 and Exxon Elite, doing oil analysis (avlab.com) and never saw any statistically significant difference.

Is there evidence that Camguard does anything useful - on engines that are run regularly? I've never seen it.
 
peter-h said:
For a couple of years I used to alternate between Aeroshell 15W/50 and Exxon Elite, doing oil analysis (avlab.com) and never saw any statistically significant difference.

Is there evidence that Camguard does anything useful - on engines that are run regularly? I've never seen it.
Click to expand...

That is because Exxon Elite and Aeroshell 15-50 are the same formulation. Exxon decide not to make the best oil, just one they could market competitively in price and quality. See if you can send a PM to Ed Collins I believe his last name is, I think his username here is TJ1, he is quite generous with his time and knowledge and can explain it exactly. The main issue is controlling and neutralizing the corrosive byproducts in 100LL which are different from those in automotive fuels which are a considerably different compound top to bottom. The synthetic base stock is designed for auto fuel and is the same base stock that Mobil used in Mobil 1 Av which they had to withdraw from the market because it destroyed several engines, Mobil also replace a lot of Continental 520s at the time to mitigate future liability, cost them a bundle. The Shell made it because it was only a 'semisynthetic' and had enough regular fossil oil stock to allow it to not leave the bottoms of the pistons caked with crap. Try using straight weight Aeroshell or Phillips XC and and see if you find a difference in your oil analysis.
 
peter-h said:
For a couple of years I used to alternate between Aeroshell 15W/50 and Exxon Elite, doing oil analysis (avlab.com) and never saw any statistically significant difference.

Is there evidence that Camguard does anything useful - on engines that are run regularly? I've never seen it.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are three.
1) No deposit formation see figure 1, clean piston 540 hours from our aerobatic certification engine
2) Reduced wear an average of 30% lower iron, nickel and chromium Fig.2 wear test
3) Reduced weeping of seals. Reduces oil weeping over the first oil change.

You can check our website for details.

Ed

Edward Kollin
Technical Director
Aircraft Specialties Lubricants
 

Attachments

  • clean piston.jpg
    clean piston.jpg
    29.5 KB · Views: 19
  • Wear reduction.pdf
    110.9 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
peter-h said:
I thought that Aeroshell 15W-50 contains the relevant Camguard additives.

Incidentally I tried to buy Camguard here in the UK, without success.

But maybe there is no point, as I fly every week, for a minimum of 1hr.
Click to expand...

Shell oils do contain any of the additives in Camguard.

As soon as Camguard was certified, Shell asked to have a meeting. The wanted exclusive rights to put Camguard technology in there oil. However, they didn't want to pay for it and we declined their offer.

Camguard is available in the UK from:
LAS Aerospace Ltd.

Okehampton Point, Exeter Rd. Ind. Estate
Okehampton, Devon, EX20 1UA, UK
Contact: Scott Powell
Phone: +44 (0) 1837 658081
Fax: +44 (0) 1837 58080
http://lasaero.com

Ed

Edward Kollin
Technical Director
Aircraft Specialties Lubricants
 
charlie said:
Those roller tappets sure don't stop rust!
Click to expand...

This picture freaked out the 15 Lycoming engineers that saw it during a 3 hour lecture I gave them. This was from an engine that had 300 hours over a year and a half. The engine was torn down because of a prop strike. Roller cams are not the solution to the Lycoming valve-train problem.

Ed

Edward Kollin
Technical Director
Aircraft Specialties Lubricants
 
frfly172 said:
I fly twice a week and use shell 15/50 .Have used aero shell on three aircraft a never had a problem . price works out about the same as the oils without an additive.
Click to expand...
If you always fly 2-3 times per week you could probably get by with mineral oil provided you changed it every month or 20 hrs whichever came first. But if you're like the vast majority of owner/pilots who get an hour or two per month on the average with several long periods of inactivity during the winter, something like Camguard is likely to pay huge dividends.
 
gismo said:
If you always fly 2-3 times per week you could probably get by with mineral oil provided you changed it every month or 20 hrs whichever came first. But if you're like the vast majority of owner/pilots who get an hour or two per month on the average with several long periods of inactivity during the winter, something like Camguard is likely to pay huge dividends.
Click to expand...

I never could understand not flying in winter months. No bugs, thick air, engine runs great with lots of O2, little to no traffic, pretty scenery after a fresh snow, and no thermals! :goofy:
 
Edward Kollin said:
This picture freaked out the 15 Lycoming engineers that saw it during a 3 hour lecture I gave them. This was from an engine that had 300 hours over a year and a half. The engine was torn down because of a prop strike. Roller cams are not the solution to the Lycoming valve-train problem.

Ed

Edward Kollin
Technical Director
Aircraft Specialties Lubricants
Click to expand...

Roller cams are the answer to lift profiles, if you aren't looking for a faster ramping to max lift, a roller has little benefit. If you are looking for increased volumetric efficiency especially in naturally aspirated or maximum performance supercharged engines, rollers are the answer but only because they allow for more aggressive grinds. They also allow for a broader torque band because you can get the same duration between .010 lift with about 7-10 degrees less total duration than with a flat tappet which also allows for a lower, smoother idle.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
I never could understand not flying in winter months. No bugs, thick air, engine runs great with lots of O2, little to no traffic, pretty scenery after a fresh snow, and no thermals! :goofy:
Click to expand...


When I lived in New Mexico I thought the same way. Even better there was the lower density altitude in winter. Now I live in the US Midwest...Indiana. I own my own plane and while I planned to fly last winter the weather sucked bad enough that there were few flyable days that I could fly. Not just cold weather but murky, windy, miserable days. I'd like to fly in the winter but its not always possible. . .

Frank
 
Interesting reply, Edward, with the oil analysis claim which is pretty amazing. Halving of most of the oil analysis metals would be very good.

How much Camguard would one put into an IO540?

It costs $30 here in the UK, plus shipping.
 
gismo said:
If you always fly 2-3 times per week you could probably get by with mineral oil provided you changed it every month or 20 hrs whichever came first. But if you're like the vast majority of owner/pilots who get an hour or two per month on the average with several long periods of inactivity during the winter, something like Camguard is likely to pay huge dividends.
Click to expand...

Last year I tore down a C-145-A that had never been torn down since it was new in 1949, it had run for the same family from day one, and it did not have a speck of corrosion, and the crank measured standard new.

the owner used nothing but Straight 40 or 50 weight "M" its whole life. on 25 hour schedule.

ETT was 3400+ at tare down.
 
Edward Kollin said:
This picture freaked out the 15 Lycoming engineers that saw it during a 3 hour lecture I gave them.
Ed

Edward Kollin
Technical Director
Aircraft Specialties Lubricants
Click to expand...

It probably dawned on them what bad metallurgy can look like.
 
Henning said:
Roller cams are the answer to lift profiles, if you aren't looking for a faster ramping to max lift, a roller has little benefit. If you are looking for increased volumetric efficiency especially in naturally aspirated or maximum performance supercharged engines, rollers are the answer but only because they allow for more aggressive grinds. They also allow for a broader torque band because you can get the same duration between .010 lift with about 7-10 degrees less total duration than with a flat tappet which also allows for a lower, smoother idle.
Click to expand...

It' a shame that Lycoming used exactly the same profile as the flat tappet cam.

Ed

Edward Kollin
Technical Director
Aircraft Specialties Lubricants
 
peter-h said:
Interesting reply, Edward, with the oil analysis claim which is pretty amazing. Halving of most of the oil analysis metals would be very good.

How much Camguard would one put into an IO540?

It costs $30 here in the UK, plus shipping.
Click to expand...

While the wear reduction is great but I have found keeping the ring grooves and valve guides free of deposits even more valuable, after preventing rust.

Add Camguard at 5% or 1.6 ounces per quart of oil. One bottle (16oz) treats 10 quarts of oil. I also preblend 1.5-2 ounces into quarts of makeup oil so I have additized oil as I need it.

Ed

Edward Kollin
 
Edward Kollin said:
It' a shame that Lycoming used exactly the same profile as the flat tappet cam.

Ed

Edward Kollin
Technical Director
Aircraft Specialties Lubricants
Click to expand...

Yep, what a waste, although if you're experimental, Iskendarian will regrind them for you, at least they would when Ed was still alive.
 
I've bought 3 bottles of Camguard and will see if it improves the metals in the oil analysis.

My engine takes 10qts (max) so I will make that 9 and put 1 bottle of CG in there.
 
peter-h said:
I've bought 3 bottles of Camguard and will see if it improves the metals in the oil analysis.

My engine takes 10qts (max) so I will make that 9 and put 1 bottle of CG in there.
Click to expand...
FWIW, the CG bottles are half a quart each. But like many owners, I never fill my engine sumps with oil. If I were you I'd probably go with eight quarts of oil and one pint of CG. You could even save 1.6 oz of the CG for use with 2 qt of make-up oil.
 
Not sure I understand... are you referring to anything more than 10qts in an IO540-C4 going straight out of the breather?

After a service on which the oil filter was changed, I put in 10qts, of which 1qt "vanishes" and I see "9" on the dipstick.

ISTM that 1 bottle of CG would be about right.

During a typical service interval (30-40hrs) I topup ~4 qts so the dilution rate is not much.
 
peter-h said:
Not sure I understand... are you referring to anything more than 10qts in an IO540-C4 going straight out of the breather?

After a service on which the oil filter was changed, I put in 10qts, of which 1qt "vanishes" and I see "9" on the dipstick.
Click to expand...

Why not start with 9 or even 8 quarts of fresh oil? About the only advantage of a full oil sump is the ability to fly longer if something starts to dump the oil overboard. More oil won't keep the engine cooler nor does it
lubricate the engine any better. In fact, when the level is high enough much of the oil turns into foam which doesn't do anything any good.

ISTM that 1 bottle of CG would be about right.

During a typical service interval (30-40hrs) I topup ~4 qts so the dilution rate is not much.
Click to expand...
9 qt and one bottle of CG would be fine but after you've added 4 more quarts of oil the CG would be more dilute than Ed recommends.
 
peter-h said:
After a service on which the oil filter was changed, I put in 10qts, of which 1qt "vanishes" and I see "9" on the dipstick.
Click to expand...

It's not vanishing. How long has it been since you scrubbed the belly?

Ask me how I know. ;)
 
All the airplanes that I have owned will run a quart low. When filled to the "full" mark, one quart will go away. Then it will run many hours at a quart low.
Don't know why, or where it goes. belly is clean. Just the nature of the beast I guess.
 
Interesting point about mixing up some topup oil with CG, in the right %, so topups don't dilute the CG :thumbsup:

I have put the whole bottle in so the next oil analysis will be interesting.

BTW the max for mine is 12 but I never fill above 10. Above 10 it really goes out of the breather quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top