Just can't restrain myself from asking the question-------which is better/why/& will it truly extend the life of my engine?
I am of the opinion that an oil filter will filter the oil better than an oil screen. No argument there. Cleaning dirt, etc out of the engine is one function of the oil and thus keeping that matter out of the oil is desirable. However----oil filters have been available for many years. Why didn't Continental choose to put them on the lower hp engines in the beginning? They could have done so. Lycoming did. Do Lycoming engines (of comparable hp) with oil filters (on average) get to TBO more often than Continentals without oil filters? Aside from the "mess" we get when cleaning the oil screen, is there any demonstrated advantage to the oil filter vs the oil screen? If is is reasonable to expect 1800 hrs from a Cont O300 without a filter, will an aftermarket add on filter reasonably extend this TBO to 2000 hrs? 2200 hrs? 2500 hrs? No argument that overhauls are unacceptably expensive, but if I spend $300 + dollars for the add on/ after market oil filter adapter, and $15 incl tax for each of 72 oil filters ($1,080)--1800 hr TBO divided by 25 hr oil changes for an estimate of $1380 can I reasonally expect my engine to have a longer TBO than if I purchase the $36.00 crush washers (72 oil changes with 72 $.50 crush washers) and continue using the factory oil screen?
Naturally I don't expect an owner who has invested $300 + for the adapter in addition to the cost of oil filters and the oil filter cutter (to look at what the filter removed from the oil) to tell me he wasted his money. I am not arguing that we should not go with the oil filter vs the oil screen------as matter of fact I have vasilated a number of times and have almost gone the filter route myself and may yet do so, but I just haven't been convinced (yet) that I would gain anything except less $$ after spending the added cost of the filter deal. I know about the lower oil temp deal with the extra quart of oil in the filter.
What do you experienced folks think?
Frank N6888A
Oil Filter vs Oil Screen
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
-
planepilot1
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2002 1:02 am
Oil Filter vs Oil Screen
Frank Stephenson
-
doug8082a
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 2:06 am
I'm an oil filter advocate. My 170 came with the adaptor already installed. Interesting tidbit - my owner's manual for my '52 lists an oil filter as "optional equipment". Hhhmmmm... I would think you'd WANT you oil as clean as possible. I agree, I can't imagine why it wasn't standard equipment.
Doug
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
1)I've seen some Lycoming 235's,290's & 320's that had only a screen,not a real filter. Could be that maybe the Lycoming filter kits were cheaper,therefore more of us "frugal" owners put them on. My old 150 had a factory cannister-type filter installed. What a mess that was to change! The spin-on I have now is WAY easier.
$300 is pretty cheap for a filter adapter (F&M/El Reno),how much is an Airwolf or similar remote filter?
2) Don't forget,you can extend oil changes from 25 hours with a screen to the recommended 50. That way,the $14 cost of the filter is about a push versus the cost of 7 quarts of oil.
3) The next time you're out over the middle of a bad place (for me it's the 20 miles of salt water between home base & the San Juan Islands,or the Cascade Mountains wilderness),think about that unfiltered oil running thru the engine,doing it's grit-filled thing. That 300 bucks doesn't seem like all that much. According to my friends,I'm one cheap S-O-B (I prefer the word thrifty!) but I invested in a filter--that should tell you something!
Eric
$300 is pretty cheap for a filter adapter (F&M/El Reno),how much is an Airwolf or similar remote filter?
2) Don't forget,you can extend oil changes from 25 hours with a screen to the recommended 50. That way,the $14 cost of the filter is about a push versus the cost of 7 quarts of oil.
3) The next time you're out over the middle of a bad place (for me it's the 20 miles of salt water between home base & the San Juan Islands,or the Cascade Mountains wilderness),think about that unfiltered oil running thru the engine,doing it's grit-filled thing. That 300 bucks doesn't seem like all that much. According to my friends,I'm one cheap S-O-B (I prefer the word thrifty!) but I invested in a filter--that should tell you something!
Eric
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
Oh,I forgot about the oil filter cutter. I don't have one. Just looked in the Spruce catalog,looks like they're about a hundred bucks. Save your money.
I drill a hole in the filter just above the base,and use my aviation snips (greens & reds) to cut a swath around the filter can just above the base. This frees the filter element/base assembly. Then I use a serated hunting-type (sheath) knife to cut the corrugated filter media off the base,so I can unfurl it to check for debris. Even if you don't already have a set of snips,they're only about $30-35 for the pair and can be used for lots more than just cutting open a filter! Even an old junk set --someone else's discards--can be used for this job.
Eric
I drill a hole in the filter just above the base,and use my aviation snips (greens & reds) to cut a swath around the filter can just above the base. This frees the filter element/base assembly. Then I use a serated hunting-type (sheath) knife to cut the corrugated filter media off the base,so I can unfurl it to check for debris. Even if you don't already have a set of snips,they're only about $30-35 for the pair and can be used for lots more than just cutting open a filter! Even an old junk set --someone else's discards--can be used for this job.
Eric
-
N170BP
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 7:24 pm
Typical Aircraft Spruce gouging.... Wicks has oil filter cutters for about
half that ($100 bucks, so $50 something). You can find them for
even less than that if you shop at a "non-aviation" place (marine
and/or hot-rod / automotive performance shop).
Of course, sheet metal snips work too! (gotta say, I fall on
the "frugal" side of the fence as well....).
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
half that ($100 bucks, so $50 something). You can find them for
even less than that if you shop at a "non-aviation" place (marine
and/or hot-rod / automotive performance shop).
Of course, sheet metal snips work too! (gotta say, I fall on
the "frugal" side of the fence as well....).
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
-
GAHorn
- Posts: 21290
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm
Awwwright now! No cussin' my favorite supplier, Aircraft Spruce! They happen to sell an oil filter cutter that I am very happy with, their PN 12-21395 for $44.50. Replacement cutters are only $5.90, but even tho' I bought a spare, the original is holding up just fine and has never needed replacement. (I think people who try to cut the can with too much pressure fracture their first cutter-wheels. They then learn to simply make a couple more rotations with the thing with lighter pressure and no more problems.)
Frank, that's an interesting thought (re: cost effectiveness over TBO). If you continue to do oil changes at 25 hours then you'll likely just increase the cost of oil service on your engine. I personally do not believe any claim of any product that says it'll extend TBO. TBO is a goal to reach, in my opinion, not exceed. (But I don't take issue with those to do so,... don't think I'm trying to start anything here.)
I am more confident that my engine will reach TBO with a filter than without one and staying with the original screen. The reason the screens were issued originally is that back when these engines were first designed the most common oil used was a straight-mineral oil. The oil was so cheap (.45 qt) that no one took issue with frequent oil changes. The screen kept large chunks from damaging an engine, but smaller stuff was allowed to circulate until the engine was shut down. Then it dropped to the bottom of the sump and settled out. Most of it stayed there until overhaul. Dispersant oil was invented to keep the small stuff suspended so as to drain out with the oil, the idea being to extend engine life and reduce crud remaining in the engines and subject to being dislodged and sent through the system. That is when filter elements came into popular useage, in order to filter out the stuff that was now re-circulating with the dispersant type oil.
So,...if you're using AD type oil (Such as 99% of us do) then an oil filter is necessary to keep that dirt from recirculating. If you use straight-mineral oil and do 25 hour oil changes (necessary because mineral oil has no additives to prevent corrosion or wear) then you'll likely see no benefit to adding a filter.
Personally, I only fly about 75-100 hours a year. I do 25 hour oil changes even tho' I have a filter because of chronological time...not engine time. I feel that oil should be changed either at 50 hours or quarterly whichever comes first. (But notice that Continental recommends 100 hours or quarterly on factory filter-equipped engines.)
The A and C-series and O200/300 series engines are not considered current-production. That is why the mfr. hasn't specified filters for them. But if you're using AD oil, you probably should be using filters.
Frank, that's an interesting thought (re: cost effectiveness over TBO). If you continue to do oil changes at 25 hours then you'll likely just increase the cost of oil service on your engine. I personally do not believe any claim of any product that says it'll extend TBO. TBO is a goal to reach, in my opinion, not exceed. (But I don't take issue with those to do so,... don't think I'm trying to start anything here.)
I am more confident that my engine will reach TBO with a filter than without one and staying with the original screen. The reason the screens were issued originally is that back when these engines were first designed the most common oil used was a straight-mineral oil. The oil was so cheap (.45 qt) that no one took issue with frequent oil changes. The screen kept large chunks from damaging an engine, but smaller stuff was allowed to circulate until the engine was shut down. Then it dropped to the bottom of the sump and settled out. Most of it stayed there until overhaul. Dispersant oil was invented to keep the small stuff suspended so as to drain out with the oil, the idea being to extend engine life and reduce crud remaining in the engines and subject to being dislodged and sent through the system. That is when filter elements came into popular useage, in order to filter out the stuff that was now re-circulating with the dispersant type oil.
So,...if you're using AD type oil (Such as 99% of us do) then an oil filter is necessary to keep that dirt from recirculating. If you use straight-mineral oil and do 25 hour oil changes (necessary because mineral oil has no additives to prevent corrosion or wear) then you'll likely see no benefit to adding a filter.
Personally, I only fly about 75-100 hours a year. I do 25 hour oil changes even tho' I have a filter because of chronological time...not engine time. I feel that oil should be changed either at 50 hours or quarterly whichever comes first. (But notice that Continental recommends 100 hours or quarterly on factory filter-equipped engines.)
The A and C-series and O200/300 series engines are not considered current-production. That is why the mfr. hasn't specified filters for them. But if you're using AD oil, you probably should be using filters.
-
Jeff Matthews
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 12:44 am
Our towplane (Scout w/ O-360 and gravel strainer) is just about to TBO with good oil pressure and compression. Don't know what we'll find when the crank comes out. The last thousand hours have been full throttle 65 mph climbs and 105 mph 2200 rpm descents. One cracked cylinder 500 hours ago, due to a loose exhaust stack--I detest a cowling that can't be opened wide for preflight.
I suspect that inactivity, improper use of crankcase heaters, running too rich, etc. have at least as much impact on longevity as oil filters. That said, I picked up a filter for Ol' Snort, but the firewall got in the way so I couldn't install it. Next time around, maybe a firewall-mounted filter.
In favor of strainers, they don't crack. I presume some of the filter adapters do, as the one on my 170 needs to be checked every change. It's a big overhung load. Some aren't.
I'm hoping that the 145 will make it until no-lead gas is available widely. I've heard opinions in the automotive world that leaded gasoline was a big culprit in engine wear. Don't know for sure whether it's an abrasive or chemical problem--a filter would only address the former.
I suspect that inactivity, improper use of crankcase heaters, running too rich, etc. have at least as much impact on longevity as oil filters. That said, I picked up a filter for Ol' Snort, but the firewall got in the way so I couldn't install it. Next time around, maybe a firewall-mounted filter.
In favor of strainers, they don't crack. I presume some of the filter adapters do, as the one on my 170 needs to be checked every change. It's a big overhung load. Some aren't.
I'm hoping that the 145 will make it until no-lead gas is available widely. I've heard opinions in the automotive world that leaded gasoline was a big culprit in engine wear. Don't know for sure whether it's an abrasive or chemical problem--a filter would only address the former.
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
-
Jeff Matthews
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 12:44 am
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
I fill mine at a station about 4 miles from my airport for local flying,but usually have to make do with that funny blue stuff on trips. I have seen "mogas" pumps at some airports but since they seem to charge about halfway between cargas price & 100LL price,I usually just get the blue stuff. I like to run some 100LL along with the cargas anyway,I probably average about 15% 100LL mixed in with the good stuff.
Eric
Eric
-
GAHorn
- Posts: 21290
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm
Eric, ....if car gas is so good, why do you corrupt it with leaded avgas? The only non-price reason avgas has problems (with regard to our O-300's) is lead. It seems to me that by deliberately mixing the two you are getting the worst of both worlds.zero.one.victor wrote:I fill mine at a station about 4 miles from my airport for local flying,but usually have to make do with that funny blue stuff on trips. I have seen "mogas" pumps at some airports but since they seem to charge about halfway between cargas price & 100LL price,I usually just get the blue stuff. I like to run some 100LL along with the cargas anyway,I probably average about 15% 100LL mixed in with the good stuff.
Eric
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
George,how does your filter-cutter work? Is it sorta like a big tubing cutter--around & around,tightening the cutter every rotation?
On another note,if you research the car gas STC's (instead of blindly condemming it,due to being stuck in that there paradigm that yer buddy Joe's always talking about!),you might learn a few things.
I have the EAA STC for my 170,their STC paperwork doesn't mention continuing use of 100LL but they do recommend it's use for approximately the first 10 hours after any valve work,to allow a protective coating of lead to form on the valve & seat.
Petersen Aviation's STC paperwork recommends 25 hours use of 100LL after overhaul or cylinder replacement "in order to supply lead during the break-in process". They also recommend one tank of 100LL every 75 hours to maintain the coating of the valve/seat. They also state that a mixture of 75% unleaded/25% 100LL yields a lead content equivalent to 80/87 octane avgas (1/2 gram per gallon).
Car gas is kinda like whiskey,it doesn't hurt to "corrupt" it a little now & then,sometimes it's even a good thing.
Eric
On another note,if you research the car gas STC's (instead of blindly condemming it,due to being stuck in that there paradigm that yer buddy Joe's always talking about!),you might learn a few things.
I have the EAA STC for my 170,their STC paperwork doesn't mention continuing use of 100LL but they do recommend it's use for approximately the first 10 hours after any valve work,to allow a protective coating of lead to form on the valve & seat.
Petersen Aviation's STC paperwork recommends 25 hours use of 100LL after overhaul or cylinder replacement "in order to supply lead during the break-in process". They also recommend one tank of 100LL every 75 hours to maintain the coating of the valve/seat. They also state that a mixture of 75% unleaded/25% 100LL yields a lead content equivalent to 80/87 octane avgas (1/2 gram per gallon).
Car gas is kinda like whiskey,it doesn't hurt to "corrupt" it a little now & then,sometimes it's even a good thing.
Eric
-
GAHorn
- Posts: 21290
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm
Let me get this right, Eric. You are quoting people who are trying to sell you on the idea of using car gas in airplanes as if they are some kind of expert?zero.one.victor wrote:George,how does your filter-cutter work? Is it sorta like a big tubing cutter--around & around,tightening the cutter every rotation?
On another note,if you research the car gas STC's (instead of blindly condemming it,due to being stuck in that there paradigm that yer buddy Joe's always talking about!),you might learn a few things.
I have the EAA STC for my 170,their STC paperwork doesn't mention continuing use of 100LL but they do recommend it's use for approximately the first 10 hours after any valve work,to allow a protective coating of lead to form on the valve & seat.
Petersen Aviation's STC paperwork recommends 25 hours use of 100LL after overhaul or cylinder replacement "in order to supply lead during the break-in process". They also recommend one tank of 100LL every 75 hours to maintain the coating of the valve/seat. They also state that a mixture of 75% unleaded/25% 100LL yields a lead content equivalent to 80/87 octane avgas (1/2 gram per gallon).
Car gas is kinda like whiskey,it doesn't hurt to "corrupt" it a little now & then,sometimes it's even a good thing.
Eric
Seriously....if lead is good for valves.....then why would anyone ever promote TCP? If lead is good for valves....then why does absolutely no car maker make us use it for break-in on these new cars that go 200,000 miles without a single drop of the stuff?
Forget what EAA and Petersen says about using leaded fuel. The only thing tetraethyl-lead is good for is delaying the onset of detonation in high compression engines. Period.
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
"FORGET WHAT EAA & PETERSEN SAYS ABOUT USING LEADED FUEL"
George,after reading what EAA & Petersen recommend after all their research & documentation of car gas use with regards to reliability & longevity,I'm glad you were able to straighten me out,in only ten words no less!
I think the lead issue is similar to seeing your in-laws,a little bit is good,but that little bit goes a long way! Kinda like 3 point landings versus wheelers--it's not an all-or-nothing show. That's the trouble with your darn paradigm's,they're black & white but we live in a very grey world.
How about a similar brief answer to my question about your filter cutter?
Eric
George,after reading what EAA & Petersen recommend after all their research & documentation of car gas use with regards to reliability & longevity,I'm glad you were able to straighten me out,in only ten words no less!
I think the lead issue is similar to seeing your in-laws,a little bit is good,but that little bit goes a long way! Kinda like 3 point landings versus wheelers--it's not an all-or-nothing show. That's the trouble with your darn paradigm's,they're black & white but we live in a very grey world.
How about a similar brief answer to my question about your filter cutter?
Eric
-
planepilot1
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2002 1:02 am
Oil Filter vs Oil Screen
Hey guys, I appreciate your input. Hard to fault any of your opinions. The jury is still out for now, but I will continue to watch for more input and "think" about whether or not to get one (oil filter adapter) Of I do I would continue to change the oil at 25 hours. Oil is a cheap commodity when it comes to the cost of an engine-------any engine, even a lawn mower engine. The most recent oil I purchased was in late September 2002. Both Aeroshell 100w & 80w were $2.10 per quart (including tax) by the case.
The auto fuel vs that ugly stuff (100HL--High Lead) is also most interesting. I know quite a number of folks who use mogas and not a one has had any reported problems relating to its use. I know it doesn't store as well as avgas and it either doesn't stain as bad or else its stains are less offensive than mogas. There are a lot of arguments that the older mogas (unleaded) was much better for our engines (both aircraft and auto) than the "formulated" crap the current mogas has in it. I don't really know. Just know the stuff they put in the formulated mogas is a hoax. It doesn't get rid of or reduce the pollution problem according to what I have read. Even the government apparently admits to that. I know some mechanics who won't work on or annual a plane that uses mogas. I think that is overkill and an example of having seen a problem or heard of a problem that someone "said" was a result of using mogas. I used it almost exclusively in my C-140A (C-90 engine) and up until overhaul in my C-0300B with no ill effects that I could identify. I haven't had but one 32 gallon fillup of mogas (in route to Shelbyville in 2001) since overhaul. However that is only because the warranty on my ECI cylinders is supposedly voided if mogas is used in them. I asked an ECI rep at an EAA flyin why they chose that approach and he told me he didn't really know. He knew of no ill effects mogas had on ECI jugs--just a policy and he felt they should remove it. I have heard the arguments about the tanker trucks having to be steamed out or otherwise cleaned after hauling Diesel, mogas, Jet A or other fuels prior to hauling avgas while if they had just hauled any of the aforementioned fuels and were going to pick up a load of mogas the process wasn't required. Thus the avgas "should" be cleaner. With the continued increase in operating costs, especially avgas, I may have to go back to mogas----and I might also choose the oil filer. We will see!!
N6888A
The auto fuel vs that ugly stuff (100HL--High Lead) is also most interesting. I know quite a number of folks who use mogas and not a one has had any reported problems relating to its use. I know it doesn't store as well as avgas and it either doesn't stain as bad or else its stains are less offensive than mogas. There are a lot of arguments that the older mogas (unleaded) was much better for our engines (both aircraft and auto) than the "formulated" crap the current mogas has in it. I don't really know. Just know the stuff they put in the formulated mogas is a hoax. It doesn't get rid of or reduce the pollution problem according to what I have read. Even the government apparently admits to that. I know some mechanics who won't work on or annual a plane that uses mogas. I think that is overkill and an example of having seen a problem or heard of a problem that someone "said" was a result of using mogas. I used it almost exclusively in my C-140A (C-90 engine) and up until overhaul in my C-0300B with no ill effects that I could identify. I haven't had but one 32 gallon fillup of mogas (in route to Shelbyville in 2001) since overhaul. However that is only because the warranty on my ECI cylinders is supposedly voided if mogas is used in them. I asked an ECI rep at an EAA flyin why they chose that approach and he told me he didn't really know. He knew of no ill effects mogas had on ECI jugs--just a policy and he felt they should remove it. I have heard the arguments about the tanker trucks having to be steamed out or otherwise cleaned after hauling Diesel, mogas, Jet A or other fuels prior to hauling avgas while if they had just hauled any of the aforementioned fuels and were going to pick up a load of mogas the process wasn't required. Thus the avgas "should" be cleaner. With the continued increase in operating costs, especially avgas, I may have to go back to mogas----and I might also choose the oil filer. We will see!!
N6888A
Frank Stephenson
Cessna® is a registered trademark of Textron Aviation, Inc. The International Cessna® 170 Association is an independent owners/operators association dedicated to C170 aircraft and early O-300-powered C172s. We are not affiliated with Cessna® or Textron Aviation, Inc. in any way.