I don't believe it is a matter of skin in the game. It's more of changes in policy come slowly in our industry, specially when the FAA is involved, and of course there are hard heads that will do nothing their grand fathers didn't teach them.And engineers, too. And you have no skin in the game. That math is easy to figure.
I would too, you are not dealing with after market cylinders like the conversation was about.Within a month or so I’ll be breaking in a factory new Lycoming. I plan to do it by Lycoming specs.
And tell us how much oil they used during break in?I Heck, I have Millenniums on my Cessna sitting out front, too. Try harder.
Thank you.Very little,
Already made my reply. did you read it? post 3 & 6Very little, because I know how to break in an engine. The OP asked a very valid question for a new aviation guy who doesn’t have a lot of knowledge of the topic. Why not put some of your (self proclaimed) vast knowledge to work and help the guy rather than try to confuse the audience with your revolving door of replies? If the motor was properly broken in the results will be high compressions and low oil consumption. Can you agree with that?
Well... that said if you quote anything from saavy... that guy is a great salesman the rest is suspect.I was never under the impression that the scratches needed to be "heavy or deep", especially since the reference cited indicated flattening the peaks was the reason for break-in.
I appreciate the rest of your reply.
Edit- perhaps you should have stopped here, instead of making the post below.
I would too, you are not dealing with after market cylinders like the conversation was about.
Here is an instruction from Superior, the last line says it all.
https://www.superiorairparts.com/downloads/serviceletters/L96-08.pdf
Which contradicts your statement:CAUTION: Break-in of an engine in frigid conditions can lead to cylinder glazing and failed break-in due to low oil temperature. It is recommended that oil temperature be maintained between 180° and 190° F.
The reason for all this is that running a freshly honed cylinder at low power for any significant length of time can cause a condition known as glazing, in which a tough residue of carbonized oil builds up on the cylinder walls and stops the break-in process dead in its tracks
Simply because the temper in the rings is gone and they can't scrape as they should, WHY? they were over heated.
As compared to what we have been getting from this thread?Well... that said if you quote anything from saavy... that guy is a great salesman the rest is suspect.
No it doesn't.Which contradicts your statement:
Thank you for your input.I can add some real world (to me) break in experience. Just had to replace one cylinder on a Continental TSIO520NB. Replaced with a new Continental nickel cylinder. I wanted to do it “right” so I minimized the first taxi and runup time. I took off and ran at high power (75%+) for 45 minutes. I have a JPI engine monitor and the CHT never went up. I’m confused and concerned. Did another high power run for 45 minutes, and again no CHT rise. As a matter of fact I believe it was the coolest CHT of the 6.
Flew it 13 hours to Colorado and back. No oil consumption to speak of. Flew it 5 hours to Sun n Fun and back. No oil consumption to speak of.
So my experience was that the break in probably was finished after the first take off.
YRMV
Tom, when everyone says one thing, and you say something else, I won’t take your word for it.No it doesn't.
The only thing you need to get from this threads this. These new type cylinders do not need to be run as the old rough honed cylinder. They are made different and should be treated different.
I base my opinion on what I see in actual experience, And You?
I see you won't comment on my three types of cylinders and how they should be treated. I'll take that as basic lack of knowledge of the subject.
Nickel runs cooler and seals up better than any of the others.I can add some real world (to me) break in experience. Just had to replace one cylinder on a Continental TSIO520NB. Replaced with a new Continental nickel cylinder. I wanted to do it “right” so I minimized the first taxi and runup time. I took off and ran at high power (75%+) for 45 minutes. I have a JPI engine monitor and the CHT never went up. I’m confused and concerned. Did another high power run for 45 minutes, and again no CHT rise. As a matter of fact I believe it was the coolest CHT of the 6.
Flew it 13 hours to Colorado and back. No oil consumption to speak of. Flew it 5 hours to Sun n Fun and back. No oil consumption to speak of.
So my experience was that the break in probably was finished after the first take off.
YRMV
just did a brand new Nickel top OH on a TSIO-520D....mine cooled off 20-30 deg after 25 minutes of orbiting the airport at 80% HP. I sat there watching the engine monitor while my buddy flew the plane....now that I have +25 hrs....it uses about a quart every 10 hrs.I can add some real world (to me) break in experience. Just had to replace one cylinder on a Continental TSIO520NB. Replaced with a new Continental nickel cylinder. I wanted to do it “right” so I minimized the first taxi and runup time. I took off and ran at high power (75%+) for 45 minutes. I have a JPI engine monitor and the CHT never went up. I’m confused and concerned. Did another high power run for 45 minutes, and again no CHT rise. As a matter of fact I believe it was the coolest CHT of the 6.
Flew it 13 hours to Colorado and back. No oil consumption to speak of. Flew it 5 hours to Sun n Fun and back. No oil consumption to speak of.
So my experience was that the break in probably was finished after the first take off.
YRMV
And this seems like reasonable informationWhen it comes to break in recommendations, tradition often runs deep, even amongst engineers who should know better.
I work for an engine OEM. We spend millions of dollars researching cylinder finishes, pistons, and rings in a quest to find what works best and minimizes oil consumption. Many of the engineers will tell you directly that the modern materials and finishes don’t require break in.
Yet we still do a similar run in to what Lycoming specifies. Why do we do it if it doesn’t need it? Because it makes some of the engineers feel better, and it provides an opportunity to record a little data prior to starting a test.
I’m undecided what to think about break in requirements for aircraft cylinders. Based on my personal observations from breaking in quite a few engines, I believe the manufacturer recommendations for break in are pretty conservative. I would not deviate from the manufacturer recommendation, nor tell someone to though, even if I don’t think it is necessary. When things are done in the factory prescribed method that is one less thing the manufacturer can say caused a problem, should one arise.
LolAs compared to what we have been getting from this thread?
When it comes to break in recommendations, tradition often runs deep, even amongst engineers who should know better.
I work for an engine OEM. We spend millions of dollars researching cylinder finishes, pistons, and rings in a quest to find what works best and minimizes oil consumption. Many of the engineers will tell you directly that the modern materials and finishes don’t require break in.
Yet we still do a similar run in to what Lycoming specifies. Why do we do it if it doesn’t need it? Because it makes some of the engineers feel better, and it provides an opportunity to record a little data prior to starting a test.
I’m undecided what to think about break in requirements for aircraft cylinders. Based on my personal observations from breaking in quite a few engines, I believe the manufacturer recommendations for break in are pretty conservative. I would not deviate from the manufacturer recommendation, nor tell someone to though, even if I don’t think it is necessary. When things are done in the factory prescribed method that is one less thing the manufacturer can say caused a problem, should one arise.