The International Cessna^® 170 Association

gahorn wrote: This is exactly the point made in the Aviation Consumer and the TBO Advisor reports, ... that these additives actually do more harm than good. Those articles demonstrate that the best protection against rust for airplanes that sit is not additives, but instead is actually straight-weight oil.

OK. If you learned of this from the above sources why not just say so in the first place rather than come up with a questionable anecdotal example?

gahorn wrote:This is exactly the point made in the Aviation Consumer and the TBO Advisor reports, ... that these additives actually do more harm than good. Those articles demonstrate that the best protection against rust for airplanes that sit is not additives, but instead is actually straight-weight oil.

Which additives were they referring to? This is interesting because Kas Thomas (writer of TBO Advisor) was very hot on the use of AvBlend at one time.

Showboatsix wrote:...(we have) a carburetor off of an Allis Chalmers tractor, magnetos from an old Oliver tractor, and spark plugs that have not changed since the first one was ever produced![/i], so as I fly I can not help wonder which one of these "fine Aircraft Kuality" parts is going fail first and do me in?...), the reason we have 60 year old engines instead of modern ones are two reasons "the FAA and LAWYERS"! Porsche tried to make a modern airplane engine, and many others from Europe have also, (remember the "Voyager water cooled engines) all of them have pulled their attempt from the USA market, (again the FAA and LAWYERS hampered them).

As long as we have LAWYERS and the FAA making it absolutely impossible to bring into the "certified" market a new engine design we will always be flying behind 60 year old engine designs!

And that is my opinion!

radial-9.gif

The other side of that coin is.... my 1939 Ford Tractor with it's Marvel Scheblber carburetor and magneto are still running and keeping my grass runway mowed. Why change?

Actually, I see it the other way around... One of the most well-respected auto manufactureres, using the latest engine technology,... failed to make a modern aero engine that was reliable and marketable. Seems to me that underscores the validity of keeping proven designs in operation. (Although I gotta admit, the ignition systems are antiquated. Unison is addressing those issues, however. Why, heck....they're almost duplicating the same split-system that was created decades ago on the Jacobs radials! Combination of battery and magneto!)

As for lawyers and FAA: They are also the ones that keep dangerous unproven designs out of aviaiton, while allowing experimental designs to flourish.

gahorn wrote:

Showboatsix wrote:...

The other side of that coin is.... my 1939 Ford Tractor with it's Marvel Scheblber carburetor and magneto are still running and keeping my grass runway mowed. Why change?

Actually, I see it the other way around... One of the most well-respected auto manufacturers, using the latest engine technology,... failed to make a modern aero engine that was reliable and marketable. Seems to me that underscores the validity of keeping proven designs in operation. (Although I gotta admit, the ignition systems are antiquated. Unison is addressing those issues, however. Why, heck....they're almost duplicating the same split-system that was created decades ago on the Jacobs radials! Combination of battery and magneto!)

As for lawyers and FAA: They are also the ones that keep dangerous unproven designs out of aviation, while allowing experimental designs to flourish.

Tractors have changed, aviation has not...... one has the FAA, the other does not, I disagree with your statement that Porsche could not build an aviation engine, they did quite well, however the cost of product liability insurance, the countless millions to prove to the FAA that this engine was far superior to anything on the market was not achievable, the same reason that Continental abandoned it's water cooled Voyager engines. There is NO reason for an aircraft engine cylinder to cost $1000.00 dollars a hole other than $900.00 of it is product liability insurance!

For instance take my wife's 2001 Mustang's 3.8L engine, it has 80K miles (3180 hours) and it STILL has the ORIGINAL spark plugs in it that came from Ford, hell you can't even get 200 hours out of a set of aviation spark plugs! It's ignition system produces 70,000 volts to the plugs instead of barely 20,000 from a mag and it is a distributor less ignition system too, electronic fuel injection, (altitude compensating) unlike the manual choke it down leaning system that airplane still use today after 95 years use!

Now "G" a question ... you stated: "The other side of that coin is.... my 1939 Ford Tractor with it's Marvel Scheblber carburetor and magneto are still running and keeping my grass runway mowed. Why change?"

Medicine has changed since 1939, why are you not asking for the same doctoring that was available then.....today!

lowNslow wrote:...OK. If you learned of this from the above sources why not just say so in the first place rather than come up with a questionable anecdotal example?
....

Perhaps you missed my comments in one of my earliests posts in this thread? Where I wrote:

gahorn wrote:...Aviation Consumer, who had no dog in the fight, tested all these products and concluded that single-grade Aeroshell AD oils (not the "Plus") was the best performer of all the oils tested....

My subsequent comments were not anecdotal. They were first-hand involvment with laboratory results submitted by a fellow member.

I've never seen any endorsement by Kas Thomas on AvBlend. If you have a copy I'd love to read it. (Not saying he's an authority without question, mind you. I don't subscribe to every opinion he holds. I've got plenty of my own.)

Showboatsix wrote:...Tractors have changed, aviation has not...... one has the FAA, the other does not, I disagree with your statement that Porsche could not build an aviation engine, they did quite well, however the cost of product liability insurance, the countless millions to prove to the FAA that this engine was far superior to anything on the market was not achievable, the same reason that Continental abandoned it's water cooled Voyager engines. There is NO reason for an aircraft engine cylinder to cost $1000.00 dollars a hole other than $900.00 of it is product liability insurance!

For instance take my wife's 2001 Mustang's 3.8L engine, it has 80K miles (3180 hours) and it STILL has the ORIGINAL spark plugs in it that came from Ford, hell you can't even get 200 hours out of a set of aviation spark plugs! It's ignition system produces 70,000 volts to the plugs instead of barely 20,000 from a mag and it is a distributor less ignition system too, electronic fuel injection, (altitude compensating) unlike the manual choke it down leaning system that airplane still use today after 95 years use!

Now "G" a question ... you stated: "The other side of that coin is.... my 1939 Ford Tractor with it's Marvel Scheblber carburetor and magneto are still running and keeping my grass runway mowed. Why change?"

Medicine has changed since 1939, why are you not asking for the same doctoring that was available then.....today!

I disagree.

Firstly, the problem with Porsche is they could not support their own design! They were reduced to having one, full-time specialist running all-around the world trying to keep that failed design operational, until they finally gave up on their own product. It was NOT a certification problem. That was already a certificated design! It was a lousy turn-an-auto-engine-into-an-airplane-engine design problem. That engine never got anywhere NEAR it's claimed TBO. It weighed more than promised. It was SLOWER (despite more horsepower) compared to it's stablemates. And it's cooling system (a fan...in an airplane! jeesh!) didn't work as promised and it regularly broke it's engine mounts. Your attack on the FAA (who had issued Porsche every approval they asked for) on that subject defies logic and ignores facts. The engine was a financial failure because it was a complicated and unreliable mechanical failure, unsuited to the aircraft it was adapted for. It's own manufacturer pulled the plug on it. Same story for the Voyager. No one wants a liquid cooled engine and it's complications.

Your wife's Mustang operates on UN-leaded fuel. THAT's why spark plugs last in it. (Plus the fact that you probably ran it until it quit rather than practice preventive maintenance on it such as we do with airplanes. If those plugs were removed every few hundred hours they'd doubtless have been tossed into the trash after 30K miles or so, too!) As for the cost "per hole".... your comparison is totally invalidated when you consider the actual NUMBERS of engines produced. The cost of a Mustang engine is spread over incredible numbers of automobiles produced. Ford made 30 thousand Mustangs each year for 30 years. Continental only made that many engines in the entire timeframe. How 'bout keeping it apples to apples instead of moonpies-to-cowpies?

And aircraft leaning systems do not "choke it down". There are no "manual" chokes on aircraft.

As for medicine, compared to aircraft design: We DO take advantage of modern advancements in aviation similar to medicine. We use RADAR, GPS, TCAS, and GPWS, which are all modern advancements in technology just like CTScans and angiograms. But we KEEP things like wings and propellers because, like aspirin and antiseptics..... Some things still reliably work in medicine AND in aviation.

"Which brand of oil" can be a tricky and hotly contested subject. Sometimes oil preferences are absolutely and illogically more like religion than science,.... it can demonstrate how marketing can make us consumers into religious crusaders (even for mediocre or downright poor, products.)

Refering to: "And aircraft leaning systems do not "choke it down". There are no "manual" chokes on aircraft. "

I was refering to the antiquated method of leaning, IE pulling a cable which inturn is connected to a barrel valve which simply "chokes" off the amount of fuel to the engine via making the fuel nozzle flow less gas, ....hence the "choke it down" comment.

It is an unbelievable way to lean an engine.... lets see... is this enough for this temp, this altitude, this RPM? Thisnk if you still had to do this in your car today!

In another post there is a comment left about an FAA guy who was hassleing a member because he complied with an AD! Another example is the old Q-tip propellor prop stike gounding of aircraft by the highly trained FAA guy who taked 13 aircraft with "do not fly" tags because he thought that all these props had prop strikes!

Oh and how some seem to think the FAA is GOD!

The induction system of the standard engine is indeed pretty crude. I don't see how a more sophisticated leaning system would offer any advantage. How much more sophistication or instrumentation does a fixed pitch, carbureted installation need than to watch the effect it has on the tachometer?

While I'm amazed at an inspector who thinks a cigar lighter is required equipment, it's most likely the result of a minor failure of the educational system rather than an inspector's misplaced zeal or confusion about an AD note. The owner also didn't know about the AD note, so the owner didn't have an explanation for the curious inspector. (Since the topic surrounded a GPS installation...doubtless the inspector was thinking about how many GPS's are powered by such devices, so it's logical that he'd notice such a common device was missing.) Hardly a reason to condemn the inspector who'd been invited into the matter.

I think the stories heard at the airport get a little out of hand. That Q-tip prop story seems to get passed around and enlarged every time I hear it, and that story is at least 25 years old. I'm pretty certain that guy is either no longer with FAA or is a bit more knowlegeable by now, so we can quit tossing ALL the inspectors into the same barrel over it. I think things have improved over the years. I work with inspectors at my workplace fairly regularly and my experience is that they are very professional and knowlegeable, and when they don't know something, they are quite willing to admit it and learn about it.

ECI recommends Phillips 20w-50.

I've never seen any endorsement by Kas Thomas on AvBlend. If you have a copy I'd love to read it.

Here you go, for what it's worth ...

http://www.avblend.com/faa/kas_thomas_lenckite.html

My apologies for keeping this thread alive.

My friend Duane had a pet Tiger. Gruman, that is. He dearly loved that Tiger, but it somewhat frequently roquired use of the "Rope Trick" to free up sticking valves. Along came "AV BLEND" to solve his sticking valve problems. He used it judiciously according to instructions and became a real fan and dealer of the product. He is an A&P with IA and had a convincing story. He was sold! And then a valve stuck--again. And then again. To say that he was devastated would be a gross understatement. The treatment is not cheap and it didn't work. Period. Just more snake oil.

Has anyone looked at or tried the fairly new "ECi Titan steel cylinder" with the Roto Coil to help prevent sticky valves?

Willie

I have 110 hours on new ECI cylinders with exhaust valve rotators. No sticking valves yet using Phillips XC 20w-50 oil only, no additives, as required by their warranty.

I also have a Jacobs R755-A2 300 hp 7 cylinder radial engine on a C-195. At 450 hours smoh, 5 cylinders out of 7 were plagued with sticking valves using Aeroshell 100 and no additives. I think the rotators were worn out on those 5 cylinders.

The cylinders were exchanged with o/h cylinders with new valve rotators. In another 250 hours, no stuck valves using Phillips 25w-60 radial engine oil without any extra additives. I think rotators have more to do with preventing stuck valves than any snake oil. Every time the valve opens, it rotates to a new position before it closes so the buildups never get a chance to form.

Well, You'd think I'd have noticed that it was Kas Thomas who wrote the AvBlend endorsement for the company. HIs byline at the beginning of the article did not get my attention until it was linked here. Doh.

But I'm not swayed. Here's why:
The development of the article/argument/endorsement spends a great deal of time explaining that valve failures occur due to heat-transfer problems, and that those problems are largely due to Lycoming's poor valve design (sodium-filled valves) and/or valve-seat-contact failures.... then the endorsement makes a leap-of-faith to how the product solves start-up lubrication problems....which it never proved or supported as a problem. (We should attack Korea because of Pearl Harbor argument. And most of us here do not operate Lycomings.*)
Secondly, the endorsement uses race-car engines to support the proposition regarding aircraft engines....which, in many of his Aviation Consumer and TBO Advisor articles, ... Kas has correctly accused others of making an apples-to-oranges comparison. (Race-car engines have almost nothing in common with aircraft engines, and they are overhauled/replaced so frequently as to make longevity-benefits of additives poor "evidence".)
The endorsement also gives high-marks to the "cleaning" effects of the product, which is exactly contrary to the propositions Kas has supported in other articles, in which he denounces "solvents that clean." (See his "Oil Myths" article.) It makes me wonder how much he was paid for this endorsement.

Finally, in an effort to support his endorsement he quotes:
"Gary Greenwood, formerly of Engine Components Inc., wrote an article in a recent issue of the EC Flyer stating that valve sticking is more likely in engines with fouled spark plugs, in part because single-spark flame initiation takes longer and is less likely to produce complete combustion."

I have to say, I find that a ridiculous and irrelevant piece of "evidence" to support an oil-lubrication-additive. Fouled spark plugs are not necessarily the CAUSE of incomplete combustion... They can be EVIDENCE of incomplete combustion.... especially if LEAD is the reason they are fouled. Kas virtually BEGAN his AvBlend endorsement/article by using the fact that TCP was an additive with proven value of reducing lead-fouling, and noted it's beneficial effect of promoting spark plug life. I believe that TCP is indeed the only additive I personally can endorse.

I did note that all the swell commentary he gives in support of the product, mentions that the only oil used in those fantastic-performing engines was straight-50 Aeroshell.

*If you operate a Lycoming, I believe it's probably better for you to use the oils with phosphate additives that meet the Lycoming requirement (and accept the poor effects it has on copper) rather than risk valve-lifter/cam damage which will definitely make the copper problem take a back-seat. If you operate a Continental, I do not recommend such oils.

George, I agree with you. That endorsement bears no resemblance whatever to an engineering analysis. That's what I thought when I first read it in TBO Advisor about 10 years ago. The phrase "pure lubricant" is particularly silly.

If you operate a Lycoming, I believe it's probably better for you to use the oils with phosphate additives that meet the Lycoming requirement (and accept the poor effects it has on copper) rather than risk valve-lifter/cam damage which will definitely make the copper problem take a back-seat.

Looks like we agree on fancy oils then, because I do fly a Lycoming.

To answer your earlier question, I ran A/S 100 for about two years before the Elite, but reviewing my old records I see that we did run A/S 15W50 in the winter, so copper may already have been elevated by the time I switched. The analysis numbers for copper were all 8-10 ppm, but the AOA lab used flame instead of mass spectrometry, or is it the other way around?

blueldr wrote:My friend Duane had a pet Tiger. Gruman, that is. ... The treatment is not cheap and it didn't work. Period. Just more snake oil.

I'm no fan of AvBlend, but to be fair, must valve sticking go to zero for the stuff to be considered effective? What if it reduced stuck valves by 90%? 50%? If I were plagued by stuck valves I'd consider those good results.