Engines-Archive.digest.vol-ap
January 19, 2007 - March 21, 2007
For what it cost to develop, the customer could have bought a
brand new
O-360 engine and then some.
Archie
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Warlick" <timwarlick(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | 161 hp @ 2700 rpm 0200 |
Ok Archie, how did you increase the bhp from 100 to 161? If you
turbocharged it you should call it a TS0200.
Tim
Mobile, AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 161 hp @ 2700 rpm 0200 |
That would be cheating. Both engines were normally aspirated.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Warlick
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 7:10 PM
Subject: Engines-List: 161 hp @ 2700 rpm 0200
Ok Archie, how did you increase the bhp from 100 to 161? If you
turbocharged it you should call it a TS0200.
Tim
Mobile, AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 161 hp @ 2700 rpm 0200 |
He increased the compression, increased the intake velocity, reduced the
exhaust backpressure, and jacked the rpm way up.
JimC
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Warlick
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 6:10 PM
Subject: Engines-List: 161 hp @ 2700 rpm 0200
Ok Archie, how did you increase the bhp from 100 to 161? If you
turbocharged it you should call it a TS0200.
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Archie -- stroked O-200? |
Monty, if you wanted to increase the power output of an O-200 in the
2700-2800 rpm range (for durations of about 1 minute), with continuous
cruise rpm to be in the 2100-2300 rpm range, what modifications would
you consider feasible?
JimC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gosh2Fly(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: lycoming dual mag D engine alternative mag question |
Skip' I presently fly an Acro Sport with a 0320H2AD. I have used both the
crank sensor with the elecr. unit. and 3000 series dual mag. The 3000 series
mag was rebuilt and has not given me any trouble. I also use the SilverHawk
fuel injection system on the 0320H2AD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob & Toodie Marshall" <rtmarshall(at)osbtown.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 01/21/07 |
Hi Archie and or others, there was some discussion on the list last week
about the C-0200 and 0360 cylinders to make 240 cubes. In order to
accomplish this on the 0200 would one have to bore the case. What other
issues occur ? Isn't the C 0240 a completely new engine? Thanks for any and
all input. Bob ----- Original Message -----
From: "Engines-List Digest Server" <engines-list(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 11:56 PM
Subject: Engines-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 01/21/07
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete Engines-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the Engines-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 07-01-21&Archive=Engines
>
> Text Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 07-01-21&Archive=Engines
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Engines-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Sun 01/21/07: 0
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 01/21/07 |
The O-240 and IO-240 are essentially a new engine. Some parts and
accessories do interchange.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob & Toodie Marshall" <rtmarshall(at)osbtown.com>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:39 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 01/21/07
>
>
> Hi Archie and or others, there was some discussion on the list last week
> about the C-0200 and 0360 cylinders to make 240 cubes. In order to
> accomplish this on the 0200 would one have to bore the case. What other
> issues occur ? Isn't the C 0240 a completely new engine? Thanks for any
> and all input. Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 01/21/07 |
As I recall, the IO-240 was developed for Cessna aircraft, then was put
aside
when Cessna went with the Lycoming.
The are/were available for sale, but have never worked on one, other than
the
purchase of an OH and parts manual.
I have never fitted O-360 cylinders to an O-200 case, so cannot help in that
regard.
Stopped R & D on aircraft engines inasmuch as I lost interest, and
accomplished
the original intent. My suspicions were correct in almost all cases.
Strictly racing now.
Archie
==================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 01/21/07
>
> The O-240 and IO-240 are essentially a new engine. Some parts and
> accessories do interchange.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob & Toodie Marshall" <rtmarshall(at)osbtown.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:39 AM
> Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 01/21/07
>
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Archie and or others, there was some discussion on the list last week
>> about the C-0200 and 0360 cylinders to make 240 cubes. In order to
>> accomplish this on the 0200 would one have to bore the case. What other
>> issues occur ? Isn't the C 0240 a completely new engine? Thanks for any
>> and all input. Bob
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Induction leak |
| From: | "john beirne" <jmcb(at)oceanfree.net> |
An Induction leak will cause that cylinder to run leaner, have a look in the exhaust
ports and see if one or more of them is less blackened than the rest
what you are looking for is grey/whiteish coating or any sign of over heating
This is not conclusive but should point you in the right direction.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=89619#89619
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Continental 0200 engine |
Any one out there know what a Teledyne Continental 0200 engine weighs
with all accessories including the oil and
exhaust?..............Thanks..................Gene Smith.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Continental 0200 engine |
I don't know with accessories. Its dry weight is listed at 166,
compared to the lightest of O-300 is 270.
On 2/8/07, Gene Smith wrote:
>
> Any one out there know what a Teledyne Continental 0200 engine weighs with
> all accessories including the oil and
> exhaust?..............Thanks..................Gene
> Smith.
> - The Engines-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> page,
> Photoshare, and much much more:
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> the Web Forums!
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Continental 0200 engine |
Depends upon which mags you're running, which exhaust, which accessories
(light weight or stock, generator or alternator, vacuum pump, etc.)
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Smith
To: engines-list
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Continental 0200 engine
Any one out there know what a Teledyne Continental 0200 engine weighs
with all accessories including the oil and
exhaust?..............Thanks..................Gene Smith.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Rogers <drogers(at)maf.org> |
Hi Gary,
Some long time ago, you wrote the quote below.
I am trying to find the cause of rough running in a Lyc O360A4M that has
good compression, good mags, good timing. It has about 1400 smoh over
about 12 years. There were times during those years in which it sat for
over a year at a time. Also, for most of that time, the oil cooler
hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive cam lobe wear without
tearing it all down??
Thanks,
Dan
Gary Casey wrote:
> Often the first sign of cam wear is a rough
> engine and inspection will show that the cam lobe is gone. For some
> time the engine tolerated that much iron and didn't fail.
> Gary Casey
>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cam Lobe wear |
Dan,
Yes, a compression test will not indicate that you have a problem
with the cam. If it is really bad a cranking compression
("differential" compression test) might show the problem. Crank the
engine with the mags and fuel off and note the difference between
compression strokes - it is quite easy to tell if one cylinder is
really low. You can pull the valve covers and measure the valve lift
and that is one way to get a reasonable picture of cam lobe wear.
You have to be careful about the hydraulic lifters as if one is
collapsed you won't get an accurate measurement, but I don't know how
to accommodate that, I'm afraid. From what I've heard, by the time
the engine is running rough and is low on power the lobe will be
essentially wiped off, making this method very effective - and it
only takes a few minutes. I've used a simple steel scale, but a dial
indicator would be more accurate. However, if you want to get a real
look at the cam lobes the only way is to remove a cylinder - I'm told
that on a 4-cylinder you can remove just one and get a peak at all
the lobes, but I've never tried. Removing a cylinder isn't a huge
deal, but it is a pain. It might take a day's labor to get it apart,
inspected and put all back together. If the engine had no symptoms
and looking in the valve covers showed no obvious problem, but showed
metal in the filter then one has to look inside. With metal in the
filter something is going to have to come apart anyway.
Gary Casey
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> Some long time ago, you wrote the quote below.
>
> I am trying to find the cause of rough running in a Lyc O360A4M
> that has
> good compression, good mags, good timing. It has about 1400 smoh over
> about 12 years. There were times during those years in which it
> sat for
> over a year at a time. Also, for most of that time, the oil cooler
> hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
>
> How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive cam lobe wear without
> tearing it all down??
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 02/11/07 |
Dan,
One easy check you can make is to remove the rocker box covers and make
a comparison check of each valve rocker arm amount of travel(in other
words, the valve stem total travel)as the engine is turned by hand
through at least two full engine revolutions in firing order. If one or
more cam lobes are seriously worn more than others, the associated valve
will not open as fully as it should, compared to those with less or no wear.
Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engines-List Digest Server wrote:
> I am trying to find the cause of rough running in a Lyc O360A4M that has
> good compression, good mags, good timing. It has about 1400 smoh over
> about 12 years. There were times during those years in which it sat for
> over a year at a time. Also, for most of that time, the oil cooler
> hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
>
> How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive cam lobe wear without
> tearing it all down??
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
>
>
> Gary Casey wrote:
>
>> Often the first sign of cam wear is a rough
>>engine and inspection will show that the cam lobe is gone. For some
>>time the engine tolerated that much iron and didn't fail.
>>Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cam Lobe wear |
Yes, remove a cylinder and use a strong bright light and look up in
there...I removed #2, and you can see the lobes...The other choice (and the
best) is to buy one of the oil analysis kits (around $10) and send off a
sample of your oil, and through a Spectroanalysis system (S.O.A.P.) they can
tell you which component is wearing excessively by the type and amount of
metal in your oil...As you know the different internal parts of your engine
has a different type of metal...i.e: bearings, crankshaft journals, valve
guides, cam lobes and etc.
Interesting thing here as to the importance of this test, the USAF takes a
S.O.A.P. sample after each flight of a Jet Fighter, (esp. if it is single
engine) and the aircraft will not be released for the next mission until the
analysis is complete and deemed safe......................Hope this
helps...Good luck.............................CHEERS!!!!
Gene Smith
RV-4
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:45 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
> Dan,
> Yes, a compression test will not indicate that you have a problem
> with the cam. If it is really bad a cranking compression
> ("differential" compression test) might show the problem. Crank the
> engine with the mags and fuel off and note the difference between
> compression strokes - it is quite easy to tell if one cylinder is
> really low. You can pull the valve covers and measure the valve lift
> and that is one way to get a reasonable picture of cam lobe wear.
> You have to be careful about the hydraulic lifters as if one is
> collapsed you won't get an accurate measurement, but I don't know how
> to accommodate that, I'm afraid. From what I've heard, by the time
> the engine is running rough and is low on power the lobe will be
> essentially wiped off, making this method very effective - and it
> only takes a few minutes. I've used a simple steel scale, but a dial
> indicator would be more accurate. However, if you want to get a real
> look at the cam lobes the only way is to remove a cylinder - I'm told
> that on a 4-cylinder you can remove just one and get a peak at all
> the lobes, but I've never tried. Removing a cylinder isn't a huge
> deal, but it is a pain. It might take a day's labor to get it apart,
> inspected and put all back together. If the engine had no symptoms
> and looking in the valve covers showed no obvious problem, but showed
> metal in the filter then one has to look inside. With metal in the
> filter something is going to have to come apart anyway.
>
> Gary Casey
> >
> > Hi Gary,
> >
> > Some long time ago, you wrote the quote below.
> >
> > I am trying to find the cause of rough running in a Lyc O360A4M
> > that has
> > good compression, good mags, good timing. It has about 1400 smoh over
> > about 12 years. There were times during those years in which it
> > sat for
> > over a year at a time. Also, for most of that time, the oil cooler
> > hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
> >
> > How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive cam lobe wear without
> > tearing it all down??
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Rogers <drogers(at)maf.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cam Lobe wear |
Thanks to Gary, Jim, Aaron,and Gene.
Actually, I already have one cyl off for other reasons and didn't even
think to try and look inside!!! The only real symptom right now casting
a question on the cam is roughness that is not explained by anything
else. We did and oil analysis about 8 hours ago and some metals were
high but not real bad. There has not been any visible metal in the filter.
Thanks again, everybody,
Dan
Dan Rogers wrote:
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> Some long time ago, you wrote the quote below.
>
> I am trying to find the cause of rough running in a Lyc O360A4M that has
> good compression, good mags, good timing. It has about 1400 smoh over
> about 12 years. There were times during those years in which it sat for
> over a year at a time. Also, for most of that time, the oil cooler
> hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
>
> How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive cam lobe wear without
> tearing it all down??
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> Gary Casey wrote:
>> Often the first sign of cam wear is a rough engine and inspection
>> will show that the cam lobe is gone. For some time the engine
>> tolerated that much iron and didn't fail. Gary Casey
>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cam Lobe wear |
Disagree on the oil analysis. Cam and lifters spall off relatively
large chunks of metal, that are not microscopic and never burned in
the spectrograph. You may see slightly elevated iron, but nothing
startling, but you will see specks of iron in the oil filter. Went
through this on my own IO-360 in 2001.
KM,
A&P/IA
On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
>
> Yes, remove a cylinder and use a strong bright light and look up in
> there...I removed #2, and you can see the lobes...The other choice (and the
> best) is to buy one of the oil analysis kits (around $10) and send off a
> sample of your oil, and through a Spectroanalysis system (S.O.A.P.) they can
> tell you which component is wearing excessively by the type and amount of
> metal in your oil...As you know the different internal parts of your engine
> has a different type of metal...i.e: bearings, crankshaft journals, valve
> guides, cam lobes and etc.
>
> Interesting thing here as to the importance of this test, the USAF takes a
> S.O.A.P. sample after each flight of a Jet Fighter, (esp. if it is single
> engine) and the aircraft will not be released for the next mission until the
> analysis is complete and deemed safe......................Hope this
> helps...Good luck.............................CHEERS!!!!
>
> Gene Smith
> RV-4
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:45 AM
> Subject: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
>
> >
> > Dan,
> > Yes, a compression test will not indicate that you have a problem
> > with the cam. If it is really bad a cranking compression
> > ("differential" compression test) might show the problem. Crank the
> > engine with the mags and fuel off and note the difference between
> > compression strokes - it is quite easy to tell if one cylinder is
> > really low. You can pull the valve covers and measure the valve lift
> > and that is one way to get a reasonable picture of cam lobe wear.
> > You have to be careful about the hydraulic lifters as if one is
> > collapsed you won't get an accurate measurement, but I don't know how
> > to accommodate that, I'm afraid. From what I've heard, by the time
> > the engine is running rough and is low on power the lobe will be
> > essentially wiped off, making this method very effective - and it
> > only takes a few minutes. I've used a simple steel scale, but a dial
> > indicator would be more accurate. However, if you want to get a real
> > look at the cam lobes the only way is to remove a cylinder - I'm told
> > that on a 4-cylinder you can remove just one and get a peak at all
> > the lobes, but I've never tried. Removing a cylinder isn't a huge
> > deal, but it is a pain. It might take a day's labor to get it apart,
> > inspected and put all back together. If the engine had no symptoms
> > and looking in the valve covers showed no obvious problem, but showed
> > metal in the filter then one has to look inside. With metal in the
> > filter something is going to have to come apart anyway.
> >
> > Gary Casey
> > >
> > > Hi Gary,
> > >
> > > Some long time ago, you wrote the quote below.
> > >
> > > I am trying to find the cause of rough running in a Lyc O360A4M
> > > that has
> > > good compression, good mags, good timing. It has about 1400 smoh over
> > > about 12 years. There were times during those years in which it
> > > sat for
> > > over a year at a time. Also, for most of that time, the oil cooler
> > > hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
> > >
> > > How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive cam lobe wear without
> > > tearing it all down??
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cam Lobe wear |
Kelly,
You seem like you have experience in this area and are knowledgeable about
the subject....Educate me about this, if an engine sets up unpickled for a
year, I understand from friends of mine that rust forms on the lobes, and
when started again, rust flakes off and contaminates the oil system, then
acts as pumice...Does this rust not show up on a spectrograph sample?..One
Tripacer owner neglected to change oil very often (if at all) and complained
of the engine not running right...I later saw the camshaft and there was
only "nubbins" left...I don't see how the valves functioned at all...I've
said this before, so will use this opportunity to mention it again, the
cheapest thing you can buy for your engine is OIL, and change it often...I
know the book says change at 50 hours, but I take a good look at mine at 25
hours and if it exhibits the slightest darkness, then out it goes...One step
further, I use a 50/50 mix of Aeroshell and Mobil-I 15/w50, and after 1500
hours, have had no problems at all...I do not advocate any of you out there
to use this mixture, especially certified aircraft...It is a personal thing
with me..........Kelly, thanks for your inputs...............CHEERS!!!!
Gene Smith
RV-4
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
> Disagree on the oil analysis. Cam and lifters spall off relatively
> large chunks of metal, that are not microscopic and never burned in
> the spectrograph. You may see slightly elevated iron, but nothing
> startling, but you will see specks of iron in the oil filter. Went
> through this on my own IO-360 in 2001.
> KM,
> A&P/IA
>
> On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
> >
> > Yes, remove a cylinder and use a strong bright light and look up in
> > there...I removed #2, and you can see the lobes...The other choice (and
the
> > best) is to buy one of the oil analysis kits (around $10) and send off a
> > sample of your oil, and through a Spectroanalysis system (S.O.A.P.) they
can
> > tell you which component is wearing excessively by the type and amount
of
> > metal in your oil...As you know the different internal parts of your
engine
> > has a different type of metal...i.e: bearings, crankshaft journals,
valve
> > guides, cam lobes and etc.
> >
> > Interesting thing here as to the importance of this test, the USAF takes
a
> > S.O.A.P. sample after each flight of a Jet Fighter, (esp. if it is
single
> > engine) and the aircraft will not be released for the next mission until
the
> > analysis is complete and deemed safe......................Hope this
> > helps...Good luck.............................CHEERS!!!!
> >
> > Gene Smith
> > RV-4
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:45 AM
> > Subject: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dan,
> > > Yes, a compression test will not indicate that you have a problem
> > > with the cam. If it is really bad a cranking compression
> > > ("differential" compression test) might show the problem. Crank the
> > > engine with the mags and fuel off and note the difference between
> > > compression strokes - it is quite easy to tell if one cylinder is
> > > really low. You can pull the valve covers and measure the valve lift
> > > and that is one way to get a reasonable picture of cam lobe wear.
> > > You have to be careful about the hydraulic lifters as if one is
> > > collapsed you won't get an accurate measurement, but I don't know how
> > > to accommodate that, I'm afraid. From what I've heard, by the time
> > > the engine is running rough and is low on power the lobe will be
> > > essentially wiped off, making this method very effective - and it
> > > only takes a few minutes. I've used a simple steel scale, but a dial
> > > indicator would be more accurate. However, if you want to get a real
> > > look at the cam lobes the only way is to remove a cylinder - I'm told
> > > that on a 4-cylinder you can remove just one and get a peak at all
> > > the lobes, but I've never tried. Removing a cylinder isn't a huge
> > > deal, but it is a pain. It might take a day's labor to get it apart,
> > > inspected and put all back together. If the engine had no symptoms
> > > and looking in the valve covers showed no obvious problem, but showed
> > > metal in the filter then one has to look inside. With metal in the
> > > filter something is going to have to come apart anyway.
> > >
> > > Gary Casey
> > > >
> > > > Hi Gary,
> > > >
> > > > Some long time ago, you wrote the quote below.
> > > >
> > > > I am trying to find the cause of rough running in a Lyc O360A4M
> > > > that has
> > > > good compression, good mags, good timing. It has about 1400 smoh
over
> > > > about 12 years. There were times during those years in which it
> > > > sat for
> > > > over a year at a time. Also, for most of that time, the oil cooler
> > > > hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
> > > >
> > > > How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive cam lobe wear
without
> > > > tearing it all down??
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cam Lobe wear |
What happens is a bit of rust or imperfection in the nitride layer
causes a breakthrough to softer metal, on either cam or follower or
both. Once that happens metal comes off quickly in relatively large
particles..ones you can see. Oil analysis only detects metals at the
microscopic size, that are vaporized in the spectrograph. Larger
particles don't make it from the bottom of the sump, typically. My cam
disintegrated, and luckily I was cutting the filter and saw the metal,
and had to pull the oil pump for the AD on that and found it badly
scored from the metal, so it was tear down time. I kept the cam and
lifters as examples. I got to buy a replacement crank, new cam and
lifters, and a new prop hub out of that episode...not all because of
the cam, but from what I found on teardown. The good part is new prop
hub I bought in 2002 is exempt from the current AD just issued this
year. One gets very intimate with the details when you are building an
engine for a type certified plane that you plan to fly, and may
eventually sell to someone else, who will have your name in the
logbooks as the mechanic that authorized its return to service, and
may sue you 20 years later because it quit on them, even though they
are 8 years and who knows how many hours past TBO.
On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
>
> Kelly,
> You seem like you have experience in this area and are knowledgeable about
> the subject....Educate me about this, if an engine sets up unpickled for a
> year, I understand from friends of mine that rust forms on the lobes, and
> when started again, rust flakes off and contaminates the oil system, then
> acts as pumice...Does this rust not show up on a spectrograph sample?..One
> Tripacer owner neglected to change oil very often (if at all) and complained
> of the engine not running right...I later saw the camshaft and there was
> only "nubbins" left...I don't see how the valves functioned at all...I've
> said this before, so will use this opportunity to mention it again, the
> cheapest thing you can buy for your engine is OIL, and change it often...I
> know the book says change at 50 hours, but I take a good look at mine at 25
> hours and if it exhibits the slightest darkness, then out it goes...One step
> further, I use a 50/50 mix of Aeroshell and Mobil-I 15/w50, and after 1500
> hours, have had no problems at all...I do not advocate any of you out there
> to use this mixture, especially certified aircraft...It is a personal thing
> with me..........Kelly, thanks for your inputs...............CHEERS!!!!
>
> Gene Smith
> RV-4
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 3:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
>
> >
> > Disagree on the oil analysis. Cam and lifters spall off relatively
> > large chunks of metal, that are not microscopic and never burned in
> > the spectrograph. You may see slightly elevated iron, but nothing
> > startling, but you will see specks of iron in the oil filter. Went
> > through this on my own IO-360 in 2001.
> > KM,
> > A&P/IA
> >
> > On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, remove a cylinder and use a strong bright light and look up in
> > > there...I removed #2, and you can see the lobes...The other choice (and
> the
> > > best) is to buy one of the oil analysis kits (around $10) and send off a
> > > sample of your oil, and through a Spectroanalysis system (S.O.A.P.) they
> can
> > > tell you which component is wearing excessively by the type and amount
> of
> > > metal in your oil...As you know the different internal parts of your
> engine
> > > has a different type of metal...i.e: bearings, crankshaft journals,
> valve
> > > guides, cam lobes and etc.
> > >
> > > Interesting thing here as to the importance of this test, the USAF takes
> a
> > > S.O.A.P. sample after each flight of a Jet Fighter, (esp. if it is
> single
> > > engine) and the aircraft will not be released for the next mission until
> the
> > > analysis is complete and deemed safe......................Hope this
> > > helps...Good luck.............................CHEERS!!!!
> > >
> > > Gene Smith
> > > RV-4
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:45 AM
> > > Subject: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Dan,
> > > > Yes, a compression test will not indicate that you have a problem
> > > > with the cam. If it is really bad a cranking compression
> > > > ("differential" compression test) might show the problem. Crank the
> > > > engine with the mags and fuel off and note the difference between
> > > > compression strokes - it is quite easy to tell if one cylinder is
> > > > really low. You can pull the valve covers and measure the valve lift
> > > > and that is one way to get a reasonable picture of cam lobe wear.
> > > > You have to be careful about the hydraulic lifters as if one is
> > > > collapsed you won't get an accurate measurement, but I don't know how
> > > > to accommodate that, I'm afraid. From what I've heard, by the time
> > > > the engine is running rough and is low on power the lobe will be
> > > > essentially wiped off, making this method very effective - and it
> > > > only takes a few minutes. I've used a simple steel scale, but a dial
> > > > indicator would be more accurate. However, if you want to get a real
> > > > look at the cam lobes the only way is to remove a cylinder - I'm told
> > > > that on a 4-cylinder you can remove just one and get a peak at all
> > > > the lobes, but I've never tried. Removing a cylinder isn't a huge
> > > > deal, but it is a pain. It might take a day's labor to get it apart,
> > > > inspected and put all back together. If the engine had no symptoms
> > > > and looking in the valve covers showed no obvious problem, but showed
> > > > metal in the filter then one has to look inside. With metal in the
> > > > filter something is going to have to come apart anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Gary Casey
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Gary,
> > > > >
> > > > > Some long time ago, you wrote the quote below.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am trying to find the cause of rough running in a Lyc O360A4M
> > > > > that has
> > > > > good compression, good mags, good timing. It has about 1400 smoh
> over
> > > > > about 12 years. There were times during those years in which it
> > > > > sat for
> > > > > over a year at a time. Also, for most of that time, the oil cooler
> > > > > hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
> > > > >
> > > > > How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive cam lobe wear
> without
> > > > > tearing it all down??
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Becker" <wbecker(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cam Lobe wear |
Why not just use Aeroshell 15/50, which is 50% synthetic ? Bill B
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
> Kelly,
> You seem like you have experience in this area and are knowledgeable about
> the subject....Educate me about this, if an engine sets up unpickled for a
> year, I understand from friends of mine that rust forms on the lobes, and
> when started again, rust flakes off and contaminates the oil system, then
> acts as pumice...Does this rust not show up on a spectrograph sample?..One
> Tripacer owner neglected to change oil very often (if at all) and
> complained
> of the engine not running right...I later saw the camshaft and there was
> only "nubbins" left...I don't see how the valves functioned at all...I've
> said this before, so will use this opportunity to mention it again, the
> cheapest thing you can buy for your engine is OIL, and change it often...I
> know the book says change at 50 hours, but I take a good look at mine at
> 25
> hours and if it exhibits the slightest darkness, then out it goes...One
> step
> further, I use a 50/50 mix of Aeroshell and Mobil-I 15/w50, and after 1500
> hours, have had no problems at all...I do not advocate any of you out
> there
> to use this mixture, especially certified aircraft...It is a personal
> thing
> with me..........Kelly, thanks for your inputs...............CHEERS!!!!
>
> Gene Smith
> RV-4
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 3:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
>
>>
>> Disagree on the oil analysis. Cam and lifters spall off relatively
>> large chunks of metal, that are not microscopic and never burned in
>> the spectrograph. You may see slightly elevated iron, but nothing
>> startling, but you will see specks of iron in the oil filter. Went
>> through this on my own IO-360 in 2001.
>> KM,
>> A&P/IA
>>
>> On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, remove a cylinder and use a strong bright light and look up in
>> > there...I removed #2, and you can see the lobes...The other choice (and
> the
>> > best) is to buy one of the oil analysis kits (around $10) and send off
>> > a
>> > sample of your oil, and through a Spectroanalysis system (S.O.A.P.)
>> > they
> can
>> > tell you which component is wearing excessively by the type and amount
> of
>> > metal in your oil...As you know the different internal parts of your
> engine
>> > has a different type of metal...i.e: bearings, crankshaft journals,
> valve
>> > guides, cam lobes and etc.
>> >
>> > Interesting thing here as to the importance of this test, the USAF
>> > takes
> a
>> > S.O.A.P. sample after each flight of a Jet Fighter, (esp. if it is
> single
>> > engine) and the aircraft will not be released for the next mission
>> > until
> the
>> > analysis is complete and deemed safe......................Hope this
>> > helps...Good luck.............................CHEERS!!!!
>> >
>> > Gene Smith
>> > RV-4
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:45 AM
>> > Subject: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Dan,
>> > > Yes, a compression test will not indicate that you have a problem
>> > > with the cam. If it is really bad a cranking compression
>> > > ("differential" compression test) might show the problem. Crank the
>> > > engine with the mags and fuel off and note the difference between
>> > > compression strokes - it is quite easy to tell if one cylinder is
>> > > really low. You can pull the valve covers and measure the valve lift
>> > > and that is one way to get a reasonable picture of cam lobe wear.
>> > > You have to be careful about the hydraulic lifters as if one is
>> > > collapsed you won't get an accurate measurement, but I don't know how
>> > > to accommodate that, I'm afraid. From what I've heard, by the time
>> > > the engine is running rough and is low on power the lobe will be
>> > > essentially wiped off, making this method very effective - and it
>> > > only takes a few minutes. I've used a simple steel scale, but a dial
>> > > indicator would be more accurate. However, if you want to get a real
>> > > look at the cam lobes the only way is to remove a cylinder - I'm told
>> > > that on a 4-cylinder you can remove just one and get a peak at all
>> > > the lobes, but I've never tried. Removing a cylinder isn't a huge
>> > > deal, but it is a pain. It might take a day's labor to get it apart,
>> > > inspected and put all back together. If the engine had no symptoms
>> > > and looking in the valve covers showed no obvious problem, but showed
>> > > metal in the filter then one has to look inside. With metal in the
>> > > filter something is going to have to come apart anyway.
>> > >
>> > > Gary Casey
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi Gary,
>> > > >
>> > > > Some long time ago, you wrote the quote below.
>> > > >
>> > > > I am trying to find the cause of rough running in a Lyc O360A4M
>> > > > that has
>> > > > good compression, good mags, good timing. It has about 1400 smoh
> over
>> > > > about 12 years. There were times during those years in which it
>> > > > sat for
>> > > > over a year at a time. Also, for most of that time, the oil cooler
>> > > > hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
>> > > >
>> > > > How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive cam lobe wear
> without
>> > > > tearing it all down??
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > >
>> > > > Dan
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cam Lobe wear |
Bill B.,
I am not familiar with that oil, and did not know it was 50% synthetic, but
thanks for the info, I certainly will investigate the Aeroshell...I get the
Mobil I for $4.00 a quart...Is there a significant difference in price, not
that it makes much difference when you are dealing with an aircraft engine,
you always want the best...I am reluctant to say this, but with all the
fraud and lying going on in almost all aspects of our lives now days, I know
for sure I'm getting 50% synthetic when I measure and mix it myself...In no
way am I accusing Shell or any other aspect of aviation of wrong doing...I
run Mobil I in everything I have, including the lawn mower...I have one auto
that the manufacturer requires it...Another reason I use the Aeroshell in
the aircraft mixture is because I'm not sure Mobil I has enough detergent,
otherwise, I would use 100% Mobil I which is 100% synthetic..That is one
slick stuff.......Thanks for the info......................CHEERS!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Becker" <wbecker(at)centurytel.net>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
> Why not just use Aeroshell 15/50, which is 50% synthetic ? Bill B
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
>
> >
> > Kelly,
> > You seem like you have experience in this area and are knowledgeable
about
> > the subject....Educate me about this, if an engine sets up unpickled for
a
> > year, I understand from friends of mine that rust forms on the lobes,
and
> > when started again, rust flakes off and contaminates the oil system,
then
> > acts as pumice...Does this rust not show up on a spectrograph
sample?..One
> > Tripacer owner neglected to change oil very often (if at all) and
> > complained
> > of the engine not running right...I later saw the camshaft and there was
> > only "nubbins" left...I don't see how the valves functioned at
all...I've
> > said this before, so will use this opportunity to mention it again, the
> > cheapest thing you can buy for your engine is OIL, and change it
often...I
> > know the book says change at 50 hours, but I take a good look at mine at
> > 25
> > hours and if it exhibits the slightest darkness, then out it goes...One
> > step
> > further, I use a 50/50 mix of Aeroshell and Mobil-I 15/w50, and after
1500
> > hours, have had no problems at all...I do not advocate any of you out
> > there
> > to use this mixture, especially certified aircraft...It is a personal
> > thing
> > with me..........Kelly, thanks for your inputs...............CHEERS!!!!
> >
> > Gene Smith
> > RV-4
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 3:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Disagree on the oil analysis. Cam and lifters spall off relatively
> >> large chunks of metal, that are not microscopic and never burned in
> >> the spectrograph. You may see slightly elevated iron, but nothing
> >> startling, but you will see specks of iron in the oil filter. Went
> >> through this on my own IO-360 in 2001.
> >> KM,
> >> A&P/IA
> >>
> >> On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Yes, remove a cylinder and use a strong bright light and look up in
> >> > there...I removed #2, and you can see the lobes...The other choice
(and
> > the
> >> > best) is to buy one of the oil analysis kits (around $10) and send
off
> >> > a
> >> > sample of your oil, and through a Spectroanalysis system (S.O.A.P.)
> >> > they
> > can
> >> > tell you which component is wearing excessively by the type and
amount
> > of
> >> > metal in your oil...As you know the different internal parts of your
> > engine
> >> > has a different type of metal...i.e: bearings, crankshaft journals,
> > valve
> >> > guides, cam lobes and etc.
> >> >
> >> > Interesting thing here as to the importance of this test, the USAF
> >> > takes
> > a
> >> > S.O.A.P. sample after each flight of a Jet Fighter, (esp. if it is
> > single
> >> > engine) and the aircraft will not be released for the next mission
> >> > until
> > the
> >> > analysis is complete and deemed safe......................Hope this
> >> > helps...Good luck.............................CHEERS!!!!
> >> >
> >> > Gene Smith
> >> > RV-4
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
> >> > To:
> >> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:45 AM
> >> > Subject: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Dan,
> >> > > Yes, a compression test will not indicate that you have a problem
> >> > > with the cam. If it is really bad a cranking compression
> >> > > ("differential" compression test) might show the problem. Crank
the
> >> > > engine with the mags and fuel off and note the difference between
> >> > > compression strokes - it is quite easy to tell if one cylinder is
> >> > > really low. You can pull the valve covers and measure the valve
lift
> >> > > and that is one way to get a reasonable picture of cam lobe wear.
> >> > > You have to be careful about the hydraulic lifters as if one is
> >> > > collapsed you won't get an accurate measurement, but I don't know
how
> >> > > to accommodate that, I'm afraid. From what I've heard, by the time
> >> > > the engine is running rough and is low on power the lobe will be
> >> > > essentially wiped off, making this method very effective - and it
> >> > > only takes a few minutes. I've used a simple steel scale, but a
dial
> >> > > indicator would be more accurate. However, if you want to get a
real
> >> > > look at the cam lobes the only way is to remove a cylinder - I'm
told
> >> > > that on a 4-cylinder you can remove just one and get a peak at all
> >> > > the lobes, but I've never tried. Removing a cylinder isn't a huge
> >> > > deal, but it is a pain. It might take a day's labor to get it
apart,
> >> > > inspected and put all back together. If the engine had no symptoms
> >> > > and looking in the valve covers showed no obvious problem, but
showed
> >> > > metal in the filter then one has to look inside. With metal in the
> >> > > filter something is going to have to come apart anyway.
> >> > >
> >> > > Gary Casey
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Hi Gary,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Some long time ago, you wrote the quote below.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I am trying to find the cause of rough running in a Lyc O360A4M
> >> > > > that has
> >> > > > good compression, good mags, good timing. It has about 1400 smoh
> > over
> >> > > > about 12 years. There were times during those years in which it
> >> > > > sat for
> >> > > > over a year at a time. Also, for most of that time, the oil
cooler
> >> > > > hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive cam lobe wear
> > without
> >> > > > tearing it all down??
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Dan
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cam Lobe wear |
Don't let that Mobil 1 get anywhere near the airport. There was a big
class action and AD against Mobil 1 aircraft oil, lots of folks didn't
get the full cost of repairing damage that oil caused to engines,
props, governors. Exxon Elite or AeroShell 15-50 are both semi
synthetic. Both around 50-55 a case on sale. Exxon does on-line sale
for every major aviation event like SnF and OSH and AOPA Expo with
rebate of some sort to reach that price. They pay shipping(drop
shipped from closest distributor).
On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
>
> Bill B.,
> I am not familiar with that oil, and did not know it was 50% synthetic, but
> thanks for the info, I certainly will investigate the Aeroshell...I get the
> Mobil I for $4.00 a quart...Is there a significant difference in price, not
> that it makes much difference when you are dealing with an aircraft engine,
> you always want the best...I am reluctant to say this, but with all the
> fraud and lying going on in almost all aspects of our lives now days, I know
> for sure I'm getting 50% synthetic when I measure and mix it myself...In no
> way am I accusing Shell or any other aspect of aviation of wrong doing...I
> run Mobil I in everything I have, including the lawn mower...I have one auto
> that the manufacturer requires it...Another reason I use the Aeroshell in
> the aircraft mixture is because I'm not sure Mobil I has enough detergent,
> otherwise, I would use 100% Mobil I which is 100% synthetic..That is one
> slick stuff.......Thanks for the info......................CHEERS!!!!
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Becker" <wbecker(at)centurytel.net>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
>
>
> >
> > Why not just use Aeroshell 15/50, which is 50% synthetic ? Bill B
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Kelly,
> > > You seem like you have experience in this area and are knowledgeable
> about
> > > the subject....Educate me about this, if an engine sets up unpickled for
> a
> > > year, I understand from friends of mine that rust forms on the lobes,
> and
> > > when started again, rust flakes off and contaminates the oil system,
> then
> > > acts as pumice...Does this rust not show up on a spectrograph
> sample?..One
> > > Tripacer owner neglected to change oil very often (if at all) and
> > > complained
> > > of the engine not running right...I later saw the camshaft and there was
> > > only "nubbins" left...I don't see how the valves functioned at
> all...I've
> > > said this before, so will use this opportunity to mention it again, the
> > > cheapest thing you can buy for your engine is OIL, and change it
> often...I
> > > know the book says change at 50 hours, but I take a good look at mine at
> > > 25
> > > hours and if it exhibits the slightest darkness, then out it goes...One
> > > step
> > > further, I use a 50/50 mix of Aeroshell and Mobil-I 15/w50, and after
> 1500
> > > hours, have had no problems at all...I do not advocate any of you out
> > > there
> > > to use this mixture, especially certified aircraft...It is a personal
> > > thing
> > > with me..........Kelly, thanks for your inputs...............CHEERS!!!!
> > >
> > > Gene Smith
> > > RV-4
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 3:23 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> > >
> > >
>
> > >>
> > >> Disagree on the oil analysis. Cam and lifters spall off relatively
> > >> large chunks of metal, that are not microscopic and never burned in
> > >> the spectrograph. You may see slightly elevated iron, but nothing
> > >> startling, but you will see specks of iron in the oil filter. Went
> > >> through this on my own IO-360 in 2001.
> > >> KM,
> > >> A&P/IA
> > >>
> > >> On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
>
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, remove a cylinder and use a strong bright light and look up in
> > >> > there...I removed #2, and you can see the lobes...The other choice
> (and
> > > the
> > >> > best) is to buy one of the oil analysis kits (around $10) and send
> off
> > >> > a
> > >> > sample of your oil, and through a Spectroanalysis system (S.O.A.P.)
> > >> > they
> > > can
> > >> > tell you which component is wearing excessively by the type and
> amount
> > > of
> > >> > metal in your oil...As you know the different internal parts of your
> > > engine
> > >> > has a different type of metal...i.e: bearings, crankshaft journals,
> > > valve
> > >> > guides, cam lobes and etc.
> > >> >
> > >> > Interesting thing here as to the importance of this test, the USAF
> > >> > takes
> > > a
> > >> > S.O.A.P. sample after each flight of a Jet Fighter, (esp. if it is
> > > single
> > >> > engine) and the aircraft will not be released for the next mission
> > >> > until
> > > the
> > >> > analysis is complete and deemed safe......................Hope this
> > >> > helps...Good luck.............................CHEERS!!!!
> > >> >
> > >> > Gene Smith
> > >> > RV-4
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> > From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
> > >> > To:
> > >> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:45 AM
> > >> > Subject: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> > >> >
> > >> >
>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Dan,
> > >> > > Yes, a compression test will not indicate that you have a problem
> > >> > > with the cam. If it is really bad a cranking compression
> > >> > > ("differential" compression test) might show the problem. Crank
> the
> > >> > > engine with the mags and fuel off and note the difference between
> > >> > > compression strokes - it is quite easy to tell if one cylinder is
> > >> > > really low. You can pull the valve covers and measure the valve
> lift
> > >> > > and that is one way to get a reasonable picture of cam lobe wear.
> > >> > > You have to be careful about the hydraulic lifters as if one is
> > >> > > collapsed you won't get an accurate measurement, but I don't know
> how
> > >> > > to accommodate that, I'm afraid. From what I've heard, by the time
> > >> > > the engine is running rough and is low on power the lobe will be
> > >> > > essentially wiped off, making this method very effective - and it
> > >> > > only takes a few minutes. I've used a simple steel scale, but a
> dial
> > >> > > indicator would be more accurate. However, if you want to get a
> real
> > >> > > look at the cam lobes the only way is to remove a cylinder - I'm
> told
> > >> > > that on a 4-cylinder you can remove just one and get a peak at all
> > >> > > the lobes, but I've never tried. Removing a cylinder isn't a huge
> > >> > > deal, but it is a pain. It might take a day's labor to get it
> apart,
> > >> > > inspected and put all back together. If the engine had no symptoms
> > >> > > and looking in the valve covers showed no obvious problem, but
> showed
> > >> > > metal in the filter then one has to look inside. With metal in the
> > >> > > filter something is going to have to come apart anyway.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Gary Casey
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Hi Gary,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Some long time ago, you wrote the quote below.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I am trying to find the cause of rough running in a Lyc O360A4M
> > >> > > > that has
> > >> > > > good compression, good mags, good timing. It has about 1400 smoh
> > > over
> > >> > > > about 12 years. There were times during those years in which it
> > >> > > > sat for
> > >> > > > over a year at a time. Also, for most of that time, the oil
> cooler
> > >> > > > hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive cam lobe wear
> > > without
> > >> > > > tearing it all down??
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Dan
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cam Lobe wear |
Kelly.......... Guess there is no end to this...Those so called damaged
engines were all replaced by Mobil...It was a sludge problem so the
operators said...They were all very large engines and commercial operators
in Ca...Mobil was going to fight it, but because of Barrister costs and
dragging it through the courts they decided it was cheaper to settle it by
replacing the engines, and settling down time...They then removed the
aviation oil from the market because they said they weren't making any money
off it, but were just doing it for the convenience of general aviation, so
it was removed...(Now Exxon and Shell are making 50% synthetic, is their
syn. any better than Mobil's?)..Mobil then came out with the 15W50, but for
autos only...I used the Mobil 1 Aviation Oil for years in a C-150 and never
had any sludge problem...The engine went over 2000 hours before each of two
overhauls and the inside of the case and moving parts were golden, not even
black, and obviously no sludge...I now have an RV-4 with a Lycoming
0320(160HP) with 1500 hours using the synthetic as mentioned in the earlier
thread...I popped a cylinder to see what was going on, and inside it was
just as golden as the Cessna...I know because you are an A&P/IA you are
concerned about certified aircraft owners using it...I advocate none of that
at all...Remember, I am EXPERIMENTAL, and operate under different rules.
Questions for you...Does a certified aircraft and engine have to use an
"approved" oil like Exxon and Shell, or can they use any oil of their
choice?..I know break-in oil is straight mineral oil, correct?..Why is this
necessary for break-in?
Enjoyed discussing this with you, and wish you all the luck in the
world...Thanks for all your info and time, you are very knowledgeable, and
informative...........CHEERS!!!!
Gene Smith
RV-4
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
> Don't let that Mobil 1 get anywhere near the airport. There was a big
> class action and AD against Mobil 1 aircraft oil, lots of folks didn't
> get the full cost of repairing damage that oil caused to engines,
> props, governors. Exxon Elite or AeroShell 15-50 are both semi
> synthetic. Both around 50-55 a case on sale. Exxon does on-line sale
> for every major aviation event like SnF and OSH and AOPA Expo with
> rebate of some sort to reach that price. They pay shipping(drop
> shipped from closest distributor).
>
> On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
> >
> > Bill B.,
> > I am not familiar with that oil, and did not know it was 50% synthetic,
but
> > thanks for the info, I certainly will investigate the Aeroshell...I get
the
> > Mobil I for $4.00 a quart...Is there a significant difference in price,
not
> > that it makes much difference when you are dealing with an aircraft
engine,
> > you always want the best...I am reluctant to say this, but with all the
> > fraud and lying going on in almost all aspects of our lives now days, I
know
> > for sure I'm getting 50% synthetic when I measure and mix it myself...In
no
> > way am I accusing Shell or any other aspect of aviation of wrong
doing...I
> > run Mobil I in everything I have, including the lawn mower...I have one
auto
> > that the manufacturer requires it...Another reason I use the Aeroshell
in
> > the aircraft mixture is because I'm not sure Mobil I has enough
detergent,
> > otherwise, I would use 100% Mobil I which is 100% synthetic..That is one
> > slick stuff.......Thanks for the info......................CHEERS!!!!
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "William Becker" <wbecker(at)centurytel.net>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Why not just use Aeroshell 15/50, which is 50% synthetic ? Bill B
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:54 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Kelly,
> > > > You seem like you have experience in this area and are knowledgeable
> > about
> > > > the subject....Educate me about this, if an engine sets up unpickled
for
> > a
> > > > year, I understand from friends of mine that rust forms on the
lobes,
> > and
> > > > when started again, rust flakes off and contaminates the oil system,
> > then
> > > > acts as pumice...Does this rust not show up on a spectrograph
> > sample?..One
> > > > Tripacer owner neglected to change oil very often (if at all) and
> > > > complained
> > > > of the engine not running right...I later saw the camshaft and there
was
> > > > only "nubbins" left...I don't see how the valves functioned at
> > all...I've
> > > > said this before, so will use this opportunity to mention it again,
the
> > > > cheapest thing you can buy for your engine is OIL, and change it
> > often...I
> > > > know the book says change at 50 hours, but I take a good look at
mine at
> > > > 25
> > > > hours and if it exhibits the slightest darkness, then out it
goes...One
> > > > step
> > > > further, I use a 50/50 mix of Aeroshell and Mobil-I 15/w50, and
after
> > 1500
> > > > hours, have had no problems at all...I do not advocate any of you
out
> > > > there
> > > > to use this mixture, especially certified aircraft...It is a
personal
> > > > thing
> > > > with me..........Kelly, thanks for your
inputs...............CHEERS!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Gene Smith
> > > > RV-4
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 3:23 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Disagree on the oil analysis. Cam and lifters spall off relatively
> > > >> large chunks of metal, that are not microscopic and never burned in
> > > >> the spectrograph. You may see slightly elevated iron, but nothing
> > > >> startling, but you will see specks of iron in the oil filter. Went
> > > >> through this on my own IO-360 in 2001.
> > > >> KM,
> > > >> A&P/IA
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Yes, remove a cylinder and use a strong bright light and look up
in
> > > >> > there...I removed #2, and you can see the lobes...The other
choice
> > (and
> > > > the
> > > >> > best) is to buy one of the oil analysis kits (around $10) and
send
> > off
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > sample of your oil, and through a Spectroanalysis system
(S.O.A.P.)
> > > >> > they
> > > > can
> > > >> > tell you which component is wearing excessively by the type and
> > amount
> > > > of
> > > >> > metal in your oil...As you know the different internal parts of
your
> > > > engine
> > > >> > has a different type of metal...i.e: bearings, crankshaft
journals,
> > > > valve
> > > >> > guides, cam lobes and etc.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Interesting thing here as to the importance of this test, the
USAF
> > > >> > takes
> > > > a
> > > >> > S.O.A.P. sample after each flight of a Jet Fighter, (esp. if it
is
> > > > single
> > > >> > engine) and the aircraft will not be released for the next
mission
> > > >> > until
> > > > the
> > > >> > analysis is complete and deemed safe......................Hope
this
> > > >> > helps...Good luck.............................CHEERS!!!!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Gene Smith
> > > >> > RV-4
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> > From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
> > > >> > To:
> > > >> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:45 AM
> > > >> > Subject: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Dan,
> > > >> > > Yes, a compression test will not indicate that you have a
problem
> > > >> > > with the cam. If it is really bad a cranking compression
> > > >> > > ("differential" compression test) might show the problem.
Crank
> > the
> > > >> > > engine with the mags and fuel off and note the difference
between
> > > >> > > compression strokes - it is quite easy to tell if one cylinder
is
> > > >> > > really low. You can pull the valve covers and measure the
valve
> > lift
> > > >> > > and that is one way to get a reasonable picture of cam lobe
wear.
> > > >> > > You have to be careful about the hydraulic lifters as if one is
> > > >> > > collapsed you won't get an accurate measurement, but I don't
know
> > how
> > > >> > > to accommodate that, I'm afraid. From what I've heard, by the
time
> > > >> > > the engine is running rough and is low on power the lobe will
be
> > > >> > > essentially wiped off, making this method very effective - and
it
> > > >> > > only takes a few minutes. I've used a simple steel scale, but
a
> > dial
> > > >> > > indicator would be more accurate. However, if you want to get
a
> > real
> > > >> > > look at the cam lobes the only way is to remove a cylinder -
I'm
> > told
> > > >> > > that on a 4-cylinder you can remove just one and get a peak at
all
> > > >> > > the lobes, but I've never tried. Removing a cylinder isn't a
huge
> > > >> > > deal, but it is a pain. It might take a day's labor to get it
> > apart,
> > > >> > > inspected and put all back together. If the engine had no
symptoms
> > > >> > > and looking in the valve covers showed no obvious problem, but
> > showed
> > > >> > > metal in the filter then one has to look inside. With metal in
the
> > > >> > > filter something is going to have to come apart anyway.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Gary Casey
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Hi Gary,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Some long time ago, you wrote the quote below.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I am trying to find the cause of rough running in a Lyc
O360A4M
> > > >> > > > that has
> > > >> > > > good compression, good mags, good timing. It has about 1400
smoh
> > > > over
> > > >> > > > about 12 years. There were times during those years in which
it
> > > >> > > > sat for
> > > >> > > > over a year at a time. Also, for most of that time, the oil
> > cooler
> > > >> > > > hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive cam lobe
wear
> > > > without
> > > >> > > > tearing it all down??
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Dan
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cam Lobe wear |
First, the Mobil 1 problem was not isolated to large engines. There
were a lot of private, non-commercial operators. A friend had a
Continental TSIO360 damaged. Mobil fought every claim through
so-called court "masters". A lot of owners suffered uncompensated
losses.
The problem is that synthetic oil does not hold sludge in suspension
the way mineral oil does. That sludge centrifuges out in the worst
places like prop hubs, bottom and top end of the engine, sticking
valves, etc. That is why the approved oils are at least 50% mineral
oil. Whether break-in oil is needed or not is a separate subject.
While you can use what you want in an experimental engine, keep in
mind that a lot of experimentals are flying behind certified engines,
and a lot of evidence supports sticking with approved oils. The
technology for air-cooled aircraft engines hasn't changed in 50 years,
even if you have a few ignition or fuel system improvements. Unless
you are burning true unleaded auto fuel, pure synthetic oil is an
unnecessary risk, in my opinion. The only "aircraft" engine approved
for use of Mobil 1 was the Porsche PFM engine, and it had a lot of
automotive features, since that was its origin. All the other
aircraft use of that oil was by STC approval, which has been revoked.
Certified aircraft must use manufacturer approved oil or STC approved oil.
On 2/13/07, Gene Smith wrote:
>
> Kelly.......... Guess there is no end to this...Those so called damaged
> engines were all replaced by Mobil...It was a sludge problem so the
> operators said...They were all very large engines and commercial operators
> in Ca...Mobil was going to fight it, but because of Barrister costs and
> dragging it through the courts they decided it was cheaper to settle it by
> replacing the engines, and settling down time...They then removed the
> aviation oil from the market because they said they weren't making any money
> off it, but were just doing it for the convenience of general aviation, so
> it was removed...(Now Exxon and Shell are making 50% synthetic, is their
> syn. any better than Mobil's?)..Mobil then came out with the 15W50, but for
> autos only...I used the Mobil 1 Aviation Oil for years in a C-150 and never
> had any sludge problem...The engine went over 2000 hours before each of two
> overhauls and the inside of the case and moving parts were golden, not even
> black, and obviously no sludge...I now have an RV-4 with a Lycoming
> 0320(160HP) with 1500 hours using the synthetic as mentioned in the earlier
> thread...I popped a cylinder to see what was going on, and inside it was
> just as golden as the Cessna...I know because you are an A&P/IA you are
> concerned about certified aircraft owners using it...I advocate none of that
> at all...Remember, I am EXPERIMENTAL, and operate under different rules.
>
> Questions for you...Does a certified aircraft and engine have to use an
> "approved" oil like Exxon and Shell, or can they use any oil of their
> choice?..I know break-in oil is straight mineral oil, correct?..Why is this
> necessary for break-in?
>
> Enjoyed discussing this with you, and wish you all the luck in the
> world...Thanks for all your info and time, you are very knowledgeable, and
> informative...........CHEERS!!!!
>
> Gene Smith
> RV-4
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
>
> >
> > Don't let that Mobil 1 get anywhere near the airport. There was a big
> > class action and AD against Mobil 1 aircraft oil, lots of folks didn't
> > get the full cost of repairing damage that oil caused to engines,
> > props, governors. Exxon Elite or AeroShell 15-50 are both semi
> > synthetic. Both around 50-55 a case on sale. Exxon does on-line sale
> > for every major aviation event like SnF and OSH and AOPA Expo with
> > rebate of some sort to reach that price. They pay shipping(drop
> > shipped from closest distributor).
> >
> > On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill B.,
> > > I am not familiar with that oil, and did not know it was 50% synthetic,
> but
> > > thanks for the info, I certainly will investigate the Aeroshell...I get
> the
> > > Mobil I for $4.00 a quart...Is there a significant difference in price,
> not
> > > that it makes much difference when you are dealing with an aircraft
> engine,
> > > you always want the best...I am reluctant to say this, but with all the
> > > fraud and lying going on in almost all aspects of our lives now days, I
> know
> > > for sure I'm getting 50% synthetic when I measure and mix it myself...In
> no
> > > way am I accusing Shell or any other aspect of aviation of wrong
> doing...I
> > > run Mobil I in everything I have, including the lawn mower...I have one
> auto
> > > that the manufacturer requires it...Another reason I use the Aeroshell
> in
> > > the aircraft mixture is because I'm not sure Mobil I has enough
> detergent,
> > > otherwise, I would use 100% Mobil I which is 100% synthetic..That is one
> > > slick stuff.......Thanks for the info......................CHEERS!!!!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "William Becker" <wbecker(at)centurytel.net>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:20 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Why not just use Aeroshell 15/50, which is 50% synthetic ? Bill B
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:54 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> > > >
> > > >
>
> > > > >
> > > > > Kelly,
> > > > > You seem like you have experience in this area and are knowledgeable
> > > about
> > > > > the subject....Educate me about this, if an engine sets up unpickled
> for
> > > a
> > > > > year, I understand from friends of mine that rust forms on the
> lobes,
> > > and
> > > > > when started again, rust flakes off and contaminates the oil system,
> > > then
> > > > > acts as pumice...Does this rust not show up on a spectrograph
> > > sample?..One
> > > > > Tripacer owner neglected to change oil very often (if at all) and
> > > > > complained
> > > > > of the engine not running right...I later saw the camshaft and there
> was
> > > > > only "nubbins" left...I don't see how the valves functioned at
> > > all...I've
> > > > > said this before, so will use this opportunity to mention it again,
> the
> > > > > cheapest thing you can buy for your engine is OIL, and change it
> > > often...I
> > > > > know the book says change at 50 hours, but I take a good look at
> mine at
> > > > > 25
> > > > > hours and if it exhibits the slightest darkness, then out it
> goes...One
> > > > > step
> > > > > further, I use a 50/50 mix of Aeroshell and Mobil-I 15/w50, and
> after
> > > 1500
> > > > > hours, have had no problems at all...I do not advocate any of you
> out
> > > > > there
> > > > > to use this mixture, especially certified aircraft...It is a
> personal
> > > > > thing
> > > > > with me..........Kelly, thanks for your
> inputs...............CHEERS!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Gene Smith
> > > > > RV-4
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 3:23 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Disagree on the oil analysis. Cam and lifters spall off relatively
> > > > >> large chunks of metal, that are not microscopic and never burned in
> > > > >> the spectrograph. You may see slightly elevated iron, but nothing
> > > > >> startling, but you will see specks of iron in the oil filter. Went
> > > > >> through this on my own IO-360 in 2001.
> > > > >> KM,
> > > > >> A&P/IA
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Yes, remove a cylinder and use a strong bright light and look up
> in
> > > > >> > there...I removed #2, and you can see the lobes...The other
> choice
> > > (and
> > > > > the
> > > > >> > best) is to buy one of the oil analysis kits (around $10) and
> send
> > > off
> > > > >> > a
> > > > >> > sample of your oil, and through a Spectroanalysis system
> (S.O.A.P.)
> > > > >> > they
> > > > > can
> > > > >> > tell you which component is wearing excessively by the type and
> > > amount
> > > > > of
> > > > >> > metal in your oil...As you know the different internal parts of
> your
> > > > > engine
> > > > >> > has a different type of metal...i.e: bearings, crankshaft
> journals,
> > > > > valve
> > > > >> > guides, cam lobes and etc.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Interesting thing here as to the importance of this test, the
> USAF
> > > > >> > takes
> > > > > a
> > > > >> > S.O.A.P. sample after each flight of a Jet Fighter, (esp. if it
> is
> > > > > single
> > > > >> > engine) and the aircraft will not be released for the next
> mission
> > > > >> > until
> > > > > the
> > > > >> > analysis is complete and deemed safe......................Hope
> this
> > > > >> > helps...Good luck.............................CHEERS!!!!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Gene Smith
> > > > >> > RV-4
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >> > From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
> > > > >> > To:
> > > > >> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:45 AM
> > > > >> > Subject: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Dan,
> > > > >> > > Yes, a compression test will not indicate that you have a
> problem
> > > > >> > > with the cam. If it is really bad a cranking compression
> > > > >> > > ("differential" compression test) might show the problem.
> Crank
> > > the
> > > > >> > > engine with the mags and fuel off and note the difference
> between
> > > > >> > > compression strokes - it is quite easy to tell if one cylinder
> is
> > > > >> > > really low. You can pull the valve covers and measure the
> valve
> > > lift
> > > > >> > > and that is one way to get a reasonable picture of cam lobe
> wear.
> > > > >> > > You have to be careful about the hydraulic lifters as if one is
> > > > >> > > collapsed you won't get an accurate measurement, but I don't
> know
> > > how
> > > > >> > > to accommodate that, I'm afraid. From what I've heard, by the
> time
> > > > >> > > the engine is running rough and is low on power the lobe will
> be
> > > > >> > > essentially wiped off, making this method very effective - and
> it
> > > > >> > > only takes a few minutes. I've used a simple steel scale, but
> a
> > > dial
> > > > >> > > indicator would be more accurate. However, if you want to get
> a
> > > real
> > > > >> > > look at the cam lobes the only way is to remove a cylinder -
> I'm
> > > told
> > > > >> > > that on a 4-cylinder you can remove just one and get a peak at
> all
> > > > >> > > the lobes, but I've never tried. Removing a cylinder isn't a
> huge
> > > > >> > > deal, but it is a pain. It might take a day's labor to get it
> > > apart,
> > > > >> > > inspected and put all back together. If the engine had no
> symptoms
> > > > >> > > and looking in the valve covers showed no obvious problem, but
> > > showed
> > > > >> > > metal in the filter then one has to look inside. With metal in
> the
> > > > >> > > filter something is going to have to come apart anyway.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Gary Casey
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Hi Gary,
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Some long time ago, you wrote the quote below.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I am trying to find the cause of rough running in a Lyc
> O360A4M
> > > > >> > > > that has
> > > > >> > > > good compression, good mags, good timing. It has about 1400
> smoh
> > > > > over
> > > > >> > > > about 12 years. There were times during those years in which
> it
> > > > >> > > > sat for
> > > > >> > > > over a year at a time. Also, for most of that time, the oil
> > > cooler
> > > > >> > > > hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive cam lobe
> wear
> > > > > without
> > > > >> > > > tearing it all down??
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Dan
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cam Lobe wear |
| From: | "Monty Barrett Sr" <MONTY(at)bpaengines.com> |
Sorry, Guys. Camshafts in Lycomings anc Continentals are NOT nitrided.
The Lycoming is AISI 8620 and is carborized, about .030 deep.
Don't know what the material is in TCM but it looks like and acts like a
1080 forging in which case it has enough carbon to harden without
carborizing.
Monty Barrett
BPE, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
What happens is a bit of rust or imperfection in the nitride layer
causes a breakthrough to softer metal, on either cam or follower or
both. Once that happens metal comes off quickly in relatively large
particles..ones you can see. Oil analysis only detects metals at the
microscopic size, that are vaporized in the spectrograph. Larger
particles don't make it from the bottom of the sump, typically. My cam
disintegrated, and luckily I was cutting the filter and saw the metal,
and had to pull the oil pump for the AD on that and found it badly
scored from the metal, so it was tear down time. I kept the cam and
lifters as examples. I got to buy a replacement crank, new cam and
lifters, and a new prop hub out of that episode...not all because of
the cam, but from what I found on teardown. The good part is new prop
hub I bought in 2002 is exempt from the current AD just issued this
year. One gets very intimate with the details when you are building an
engine for a type certified plane that you plan to fly, and may
eventually sell to someone else, who will have your name in the
logbooks as the mechanic that authorized its return to service, and
may sue you 20 years later because it quit on them, even though they
are 8 years and who knows how many hours past TBO.
On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
>
> Kelly,
> You seem like you have experience in this area and are knowledgeable
about
> the subject....Educate me about this, if an engine sets up unpickled
for a
> year, I understand from friends of mine that rust forms on the lobes,
and
> when started again, rust flakes off and contaminates the oil system,
then
> acts as pumice...Does this rust not show up on a spectrograph
sample?..One
> Tripacer owner neglected to change oil very often (if at all) and
complained
> of the engine not running right...I later saw the camshaft and there
was
> only "nubbins" left...I don't see how the valves functioned at
all...I've
> said this before, so will use this opportunity to mention it again,
the
> cheapest thing you can buy for your engine is OIL, and change it
often...I
> know the book says change at 50 hours, but I take a good look at mine
at 25
> hours and if it exhibits the slightest darkness, then out it
goes...One step
> further, I use a 50/50 mix of Aeroshell and Mobil-I 15/w50, and after
1500
> hours, have had no problems at all...I do not advocate any of you out
there
> to use this mixture, especially certified aircraft...It is a personal
thing
> with me..........Kelly, thanks for your
inputs...............CHEERS!!!!
>
> Gene Smith
> RV-4
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 3:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
>
> >
> > Disagree on the oil analysis. Cam and lifters spall off relatively
> > large chunks of metal, that are not microscopic and never burned in
> > the spectrograph. You may see slightly elevated iron, but nothing
> > startling, but you will see specks of iron in the oil filter. Went
> > through this on my own IO-360 in 2001.
> > KM,
> > A&P/IA
> >
> > On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, remove a cylinder and use a strong bright light and look up
in
> > > there...I removed #2, and you can see the lobes...The other choice
(and
> the
> > > best) is to buy one of the oil analysis kits (around $10) and send
off a
> > > sample of your oil, and through a Spectroanalysis system
(S.O.A.P.) they
> can
> > > tell you which component is wearing excessively by the type and
amount
> of
> > > metal in your oil...As you know the different internal parts of
your
> engine
> > > has a different type of metal...i.e: bearings, crankshaft
journals,
> valve
> > > guides, cam lobes and etc.
> > >
> > > Interesting thing here as to the importance of this test, the USAF
takes
> a
> > > S.O.A.P. sample after each flight of a Jet Fighter, (esp. if it is
> single
> > > engine) and the aircraft will not be released for the next mission
until
> the
> > > analysis is complete and deemed safe......................Hope
this
> > > helps...Good luck.............................CHEERS!!!!
> > >
> > > Gene Smith
> > > RV-4
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:45 AM
> > > Subject: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Dan,
> > > > Yes, a compression test will not indicate that you have a
problem
> > > > with the cam. If it is really bad a cranking compression
> > > > ("differential" compression test) might show the problem. Crank
the
> > > > engine with the mags and fuel off and note the difference
between
> > > > compression strokes - it is quite easy to tell if one cylinder
is
> > > > really low. You can pull the valve covers and measure the valve
lift
> > > > and that is one way to get a reasonable picture of cam lobe
wear.
> > > > You have to be careful about the hydraulic lifters as if one is
> > > > collapsed you won't get an accurate measurement, but I don't
know how
> > > > to accommodate that, I'm afraid. From what I've heard, by the
time
> > > > the engine is running rough and is low on power the lobe will be
> > > > essentially wiped off, making this method very effective - and
it
> > > > only takes a few minutes. I've used a simple steel scale, but a
dial
> > > > indicator would be more accurate. However, if you want to get a
real
> > > > look at the cam lobes the only way is to remove a cylinder - I'm
told
> > > > that on a 4-cylinder you can remove just one and get a peak at
all
> > > > the lobes, but I've never tried. Removing a cylinder isn't a
huge
> > > > deal, but it is a pain. It might take a day's labor to get it
apart,
> > > > inspected and put all back together. If the engine had no
symptoms
> > > > and looking in the valve covers showed no obvious problem, but
showed
> > > > metal in the filter then one has to look inside. With metal in
the
> > > > filter something is going to have to come apart anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Gary Casey
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Gary,
> > > > >
> > > > > Some long time ago, you wrote the quote below.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am trying to find the cause of rough running in a Lyc
O360A4M
> > > > > that has
> > > > > good compression, good mags, good timing. It has about 1400
smoh
> over
> > > > > about 12 years. There were times during those years in which
it
> > > > > sat for
> > > > > over a year at a time. Also, for most of that time, the oil
cooler
> > > > > hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
> > > > >
> > > > > How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive cam lobe wear
> without
> > > > > tearing it all down??
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Becker" <wbecker(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cam Lobe wear |
Gene,
I'm no oil expert by any means, but I read a column by Ben Visser in
General Aviation News www.generalaviationnews.com , he is an oil and fuel
expert. Ben says that automotive oils use detergents and aviation oils use
ashless dispersants. Both are for keeping the engine clean, but the
detergents can cause carbon in aircraft engines, which could cause
preignition. Might be a reason not to use an automotive oil, even a great
one like Mobile 1 in aircraft. You can email Ben, maybe he could give his
opinion,
visser(at)GeneralAviationNews.com
By the way I used the aircraft Mobile 1 for years in a banner tow aircraft,
and it went past TBO, never had a cylinder off. Now I use AeroShell 15/50
semisynthetic
Bill Becker.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
> Bill B.,
> I am not familiar with that oil, and did not know it was 50% synthetic,
> but
> thanks for the info, I certainly will investigate the Aeroshell...I get
> the
> Mobil I for $4.00 a quart...Is there a significant difference in price,
> not
> that it makes much difference when you are dealing with an aircraft
> engine,
> you always want the best...I am reluctant to say this, but with all the
> fraud and lying going on in almost all aspects of our lives now days, I
> know
> for sure I'm getting 50% synthetic when I measure and mix it myself...In
> no
> way am I accusing Shell or any other aspect of aviation of wrong doing...I
> run Mobil I in everything I have, including the lawn mower...I have one
> auto
> that the manufacturer requires it...Another reason I use the Aeroshell in
> the aircraft mixture is because I'm not sure Mobil I has enough detergent,
> otherwise, I would use 100% Mobil I which is 100% synthetic..That is one
> slick stuff.......Thanks for the info......................CHEERS!!!!
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Becker" <wbecker(at)centurytel.net>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
>
>
>>
>> Why not just use Aeroshell 15/50, which is 50% synthetic ? Bill B
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:54 PM
>> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Kelly,
>> > You seem like you have experience in this area and are knowledgeable
> about
>> > the subject....Educate me about this, if an engine sets up unpickled
>> > for
> a
>> > year, I understand from friends of mine that rust forms on the lobes,
> and
>> > when started again, rust flakes off and contaminates the oil system,
> then
>> > acts as pumice...Does this rust not show up on a spectrograph
> sample?..One
>> > Tripacer owner neglected to change oil very often (if at all) and
>> > complained
>> > of the engine not running right...I later saw the camshaft and there
>> > was
>> > only "nubbins" left...I don't see how the valves functioned at
> all...I've
>> > said this before, so will use this opportunity to mention it again, the
>> > cheapest thing you can buy for your engine is OIL, and change it
> often...I
>> > know the book says change at 50 hours, but I take a good look at mine
>> > at
>> > 25
>> > hours and if it exhibits the slightest darkness, then out it goes...One
>> > step
>> > further, I use a 50/50 mix of Aeroshell and Mobil-I 15/w50, and after
> 1500
>> > hours, have had no problems at all...I do not advocate any of you out
>> > there
>> > to use this mixture, especially certified aircraft...It is a personal
>> > thing
>> > with me..........Kelly, thanks for your inputs...............CHEERS!!!!
>> >
>> > Gene Smith
>> > RV-4
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 3:23 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>> >
>> >
>
>> >>
>> >> Disagree on the oil analysis. Cam and lifters spall off relatively
>> >> large chunks of metal, that are not microscopic and never burned in
>> >> the spectrograph. You may see slightly elevated iron, but nothing
>> >> startling, but you will see specks of iron in the oil filter. Went
>> >> through this on my own IO-360 in 2001.
>> >> KM,
>> >> A&P/IA
>> >>
>> >> On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
>
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, remove a cylinder and use a strong bright light and look up in
>> >> > there...I removed #2, and you can see the lobes...The other choice
> (and
>> > the
>> >> > best) is to buy one of the oil analysis kits (around $10) and send
> off
>> >> > a
>> >> > sample of your oil, and through a Spectroanalysis system (S.O.A.P.)
>> >> > they
>> > can
>> >> > tell you which component is wearing excessively by the type and
> amount
>> > of
>> >> > metal in your oil...As you know the different internal parts of your
>> > engine
>> >> > has a different type of metal...i.e: bearings, crankshaft journals,
>> > valve
>> >> > guides, cam lobes and etc.
>> >> >
>> >> > Interesting thing here as to the importance of this test, the USAF
>> >> > takes
>> > a
>> >> > S.O.A.P. sample after each flight of a Jet Fighter, (esp. if it is
>> > single
>> >> > engine) and the aircraft will not be released for the next mission
>> >> > until
>> > the
>> >> > analysis is complete and deemed safe......................Hope this
>> >> > helps...Good luck.............................CHEERS!!!!
>> >> >
>> >> > Gene Smith
>> >> > RV-4
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
>> >> > To:
>> >> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:45 AM
>> >> > Subject: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>> >> >
>> >> >
>
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Dan,
>> >> > > Yes, a compression test will not indicate that you have a problem
>> >> > > with the cam. If it is really bad a cranking compression
>> >> > > ("differential" compression test) might show the problem. Crank
> the
>> >> > > engine with the mags and fuel off and note the difference between
>> >> > > compression strokes - it is quite easy to tell if one cylinder is
>> >> > > really low. You can pull the valve covers and measure the valve
> lift
>> >> > > and that is one way to get a reasonable picture of cam lobe wear.
>> >> > > You have to be careful about the hydraulic lifters as if one is
>> >> > > collapsed you won't get an accurate measurement, but I don't know
> how
>> >> > > to accommodate that, I'm afraid. From what I've heard, by the
>> >> > > time
>> >> > > the engine is running rough and is low on power the lobe will be
>> >> > > essentially wiped off, making this method very effective - and it
>> >> > > only takes a few minutes. I've used a simple steel scale, but a
> dial
>> >> > > indicator would be more accurate. However, if you want to get a
> real
>> >> > > look at the cam lobes the only way is to remove a cylinder - I'm
> told
>> >> > > that on a 4-cylinder you can remove just one and get a peak at all
>> >> > > the lobes, but I've never tried. Removing a cylinder isn't a huge
>> >> > > deal, but it is a pain. It might take a day's labor to get it
> apart,
>> >> > > inspected and put all back together. If the engine had no
>> >> > > symptoms
>> >> > > and looking in the valve covers showed no obvious problem, but
> showed
>> >> > > metal in the filter then one has to look inside. With metal in
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > filter something is going to have to come apart anyway.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Gary Casey
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Hi Gary,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Some long time ago, you wrote the quote below.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I am trying to find the cause of rough running in a Lyc O360A4M
>> >> > > > that has
>> >> > > > good compression, good mags, good timing. It has about 1400
>> >> > > > smoh
>> > over
>> >> > > > about 12 years. There were times during those years in which it
>> >> > > > sat for
>> >> > > > over a year at a time. Also, for most of that time, the oil
> cooler
>> >> > > > hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive cam lobe wear
>> > without
>> >> > > > tearing it all down??
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Thanks,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Dan
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jfs" <jfs(at)wildblue.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cam Lobe wear |
I asked my lil' brother for his take on this thread. His response follows:
"Some of these guys are really misguided on many things, and some of them
appear to be playing alchemist by mixing on their own volition. This is a
strict no-no for many reasons. No time this morning for a full response,
but a few points:
Mobil 1 is an automotive oil, not approved for any Lyc or Continental
as every other automotive oil is not... they contain detergents which
can foul spark plugs in aircraft engines, particularly. the bottom plug.
This is why only ashless oils are recommended, like Exxon Elite or the
Aeroshell M/G. There is only one exception I can think of where Mobil 1
is used, in fact the only oil recommended... the Mooney Porsche, which
the Germans at Porsche recommended only 1 oil for... 2 different
viscosities of M1 depending on the ambient temp. I have heard of folks
using M1 or someone else's auto oil in a Lycoming or Continental... all
I can say is that they are fools and in violation of the OEM's, all of
whom recommend only aviation oils. Aircraft engines are run under
relatively slow speed, steady speed conditions for hours at a time...
perfect conditions for deposits to form on spark plugs, Using detergent
auto oils is therefore a safety of flight issue, and therefore the
reason only ashless dispersant oils are approved.
There is no better wear protection oil in the marketplace than Mobil
1... one of the reasons it is used by so many NASCAR teams and in F1,
IRL, LeMans and so many other race classes. ExxonMobil has run it a
million miles in a BMW under severe conditions... miniscule wear and an
engine that was super clean at test end.
The Mobil 1 that the writer below is probably referring to was Mobil AV
1, not Mobil 1. It was removed from the market many years ago, but the
press and some of the trade rags got it way overblown w/ mistruths. It
worked wonderfully in Lycomings and most Continentals, but when flown
infrequently in certain big bore Continentals, there were a few ring
sticking incidents. This can occur with all oils when moisture and
infrequent flying get together, esp at altitude where some of the high
flyers have to operate at richer mixtures to keep things cool. Avgas
has a lot of lead, and the extra lead at rich mixture settings, and
moisture get together to form a lead paste. This is the stuff that can
stick ring/s or accumulate in props (which are when you think of it,
perfect centrifuges)
I saw a ton of engines flown to TBO that operated on Mobil AV1... that
thing got real political and emotional. Mobil ended up paying bogus
claims... we saw falsified logbooks etc... it was ugly, what some pilots
will do to get $$$ out of any big pocket supplier. I hate lawyers and
anybody related to one.
There are still a number of pilots using Mobil AV1 with great
satisfaction, altho' it was removed from the market many years ago (some
loaded up on supply near the end) Believe me, when flown under the
right conditions, you can't believe how clean those engines were. Go
into the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum sometime, look up at the Voyager
and notice the Mobil AV 1 decal... that around the world, non-stop
flight used only Mobil AV1. Again, a good oil that got a bad rap...
The reason ExxonMobil and Shell use partial synthetics (again, ashless)
for their premium offerings is that the mineral oil portion has good
natural "solvency" for keeping unwanted material in fine suspension, to
be later drained out during the oil change. The synthetic portion gives
the low temp performance and the high temp thermal and oxidative
stability plus great wear protection... the additives used are key in
enhancing the performance, especially w.r.t. wear & anti-rust
performance
One last comment about the guy who mixes... don't, especially an
automotive with an aircraft oil. Your friends seem to have no idea what
an oil like Exxon Elite has to go through... for starters, a series of
lab tests... if successful (reviewed by the SAE Technical Committee 8
(chaired by the USN)), then a 150 hour endurance test (a real engine (we
ran a Lyc TIO-540J2BD, a Piper Chieftain powerplant), run in a test cell
under a variety of climb. descent and cruise profiles). If you get
through that , you go to a 500 hour flight eval in 2 different engines.
We chose the 2 most difficult, higher temp T/C engines... the Lyc
previously mentioned & for the Continental, the TSIO520-BCE (used in a
Cessna 402). All engines are disassembled and pre-measured for wear,
then flown (both in test cell and on wing), then disassembled again and
inspected/post measured for wear... all oil wetted parts... cams, valve
guides, crank, cylinders, pistons, bearings etc... The engines are also
sludge & deposit rated, so that in addition to wear performance, the oil
needs to demonstrate excellent cleanliness. This rigor of approval is
exactly why ExxonMobil's, Shell's, Phillip's etc stance on using
additives of any kind is the way it is... one simply can't test all the
possible combinations of "mouse milk" additives out there. It is
usually wasted money spent. Stick to a great oil like Elite and be done
with it. We look at a ton of cams that have been flown to TBO, and with
Elite especially they look good with very minimal wear. The key is to
fly as regular as possible, and use an oil with the highest level of
rust protection available... these are most always the multi-grades, and
among those, the Elite really stands out (we designed it that way, as
statistics show that the average pilot in the US flies less than ~50
hours per year. We have a lot of data to back up this claim, both rust
and wear protection is unsurpassed with Elite. You don't need to pass
this along, as in re-reading it sounds like a commercial, but it's my
life, and as an Engineer, I've seen too much data and too many engines.
Can I go to work now?"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
> Don't let that Mobil 1 get anywhere near the airport. There was a big
> class action and AD against Mobil 1 aircraft oil, lots of folks didn't
> get the full cost of repairing damage that oil caused to engines,
> props, governors. Exxon Elite or AeroShell 15-50 are both semi
> synthetic. Both around 50-55 a case on sale. Exxon does on-line sale
> for every major aviation event like SnF and OSH and AOPA Expo with
> rebate of some sort to reach that price. They pay shipping(drop
> shipped from closest distributor).
>
> On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
...
..
.
JF Schaefer, Sr.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Cam Lobe wear |
I know one guy who drops a bit of Aeroshell semi synthetic into his car a
couple of hundred miles before an oil change. He swears it cleans out any
sludge in his engine.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> William Becker
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 4:23 PM
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
>
>
>
> Gene,
> I'm no oil expert by any means, but I read a column by
> Ben Visser in
> General Aviation News www.generalaviationnews.com , he is an
> oil and fuel
> expert. Ben says that automotive oils use detergents and
> aviation oils use
> ashless dispersants. Both are for keeping the engine clean, but the
> detergents can cause carbon in aircraft engines, which could cause
> preignition. Might be a reason not to use an automotive oil,
> even a great
> one like Mobile 1 in aircraft. You can email Ben, maybe he
> could give his
> opinion,
> visser(at)GeneralAviationNews.com
> By the way I used the aircraft Mobile 1 for years in a banner
> tow aircraft,
> and it went past TBO, never had a cylinder off. Now I use
> AeroShell 15/50
> semisynthetic
> Bill Becker.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 10:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
>
>
> >
> > Bill B.,
> > I am not familiar with that oil, and did not know it was
> 50% synthetic,
> > but
> > thanks for the info, I certainly will investigate the
> Aeroshell...I get
> > the
> > Mobil I for $4.00 a quart...Is there a significant
> difference in price,
> > not
> > that it makes much difference when you are dealing with an aircraft
> > engine,
> > you always want the best...I am reluctant to say this, but
> with all the
> > fraud and lying going on in almost all aspects of our lives
> now days, I
> > know
> > for sure I'm getting 50% synthetic when I measure and mix
> it myself...In
> > no
> > way am I accusing Shell or any other aspect of aviation of
> wrong doing...I
> > run Mobil I in everything I have, including the lawn
> mower...I have one
> > auto
> > that the manufacturer requires it...Another reason I use
> the Aeroshell in
> > the aircraft mixture is because I'm not sure Mobil I has
> enough detergent,
> > otherwise, I would use 100% Mobil I which is 100%
> synthetic..That is one
> > slick stuff.......Thanks for the
> info......................CHEERS!!!!
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "William Becker" <wbecker(at)centurytel.net>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Why not just use Aeroshell 15/50, which is 50% synthetic ?
> Bill B
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:54 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> >>
> >>
>
> >> >
> >> > Kelly,
> >> > You seem like you have experience in this area and are
> knowledgeable
> > about
> >> > the subject....Educate me about this, if an engine sets
> up unpickled
> >> > for
> > a
> >> > year, I understand from friends of mine that rust forms
> on the lobes,
> > and
> >> > when started again, rust flakes off and contaminates the
> oil system,
> > then
> >> > acts as pumice...Does this rust not show up on a spectrograph
> > sample?..One
> >> > Tripacer owner neglected to change oil very often (if at all) and
> >> > complained
> >> > of the engine not running right...I later saw the
> camshaft and there
> >> > was
> >> > only "nubbins" left...I don't see how the valves functioned at
> > all...I've
> >> > said this before, so will use this opportunity to
> mention it again, the
> >> > cheapest thing you can buy for your engine is OIL, and change it
> > often...I
> >> > know the book says change at 50 hours, but I take a good
> look at mine
> >> > at
> >> > 25
> >> > hours and if it exhibits the slightest darkness, then
> out it goes...One
> >> > step
> >> > further, I use a 50/50 mix of Aeroshell and Mobil-I
> 15/w50, and after
> > 1500
> >> > hours, have had no problems at all...I do not advocate
> any of you out
> >> > there
> >> > to use this mixture, especially certified aircraft...It
> is a personal
> >> > thing
> >> > with me..........Kelly, thanks for your
> inputs...............CHEERS!!!!
> >> >
> >> > Gene Smith
> >> > RV-4
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> >> > To:
> >> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 3:23 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Disagree on the oil analysis. Cam and lifters spall off
> relatively
> >> >> large chunks of metal, that are not microscopic and
> never burned in
> >> >> the spectrograph. You may see slightly elevated iron,
> but nothing
> >> >> startling, but you will see specks of iron in the oil
> filter. Went
> >> >> through this on my own IO-360 in 2001.
> >> >> KM,
> >> >> A&P/IA
> >> >>
> >> >> On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, remove a cylinder and use a strong bright light
> and look up in
> >> >> > there...I removed #2, and you can see the lobes...The
> other choice
> > (and
> >> > the
> >> >> > best) is to buy one of the oil analysis kits (around
> $10) and send
> > off
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > sample of your oil, and through a Spectroanalysis
> system (S.O.A.P.)
> >> >> > they
> >> > can
> >> >> > tell you which component is wearing excessively by
> the type and
> > amount
> >> > of
> >> >> > metal in your oil...As you know the different
> internal parts of your
> >> > engine
> >> >> > has a different type of metal...i.e: bearings,
> crankshaft journals,
> >> > valve
> >> >> > guides, cam lobes and etc.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Interesting thing here as to the importance of this
> test, the USAF
> >> >> > takes
> >> > a
> >> >> > S.O.A.P. sample after each flight of a Jet Fighter,
> (esp. if it is
> >> > single
> >> >> > engine) and the aircraft will not be released for the
> next mission
> >> >> > until
> >> > the
> >> >> > analysis is complete and deemed
> safe......................Hope this
> >> >> > helps...Good luck.............................CHEERS!!!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Gene Smith
> >> >> > RV-4
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> > From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
> >> >> > To:
> >> >> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:45 AM
> >> >> > Subject: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Dan,
> >> >> > > Yes, a compression test will not indicate that you
> have a problem
> >> >> > > with the cam. If it is really bad a cranking compression
> >> >> > > ("differential" compression test) might show the
> problem. Crank
> > the
> >> >> > > engine with the mags and fuel off and note the
> difference between
> >> >> > > compression strokes - it is quite easy to tell if
> one cylinder is
> >> >> > > really low. You can pull the valve covers and
> measure the valve
> > lift
> >> >> > > and that is one way to get a reasonable picture of
> cam lobe wear.
> >> >> > > You have to be careful about the hydraulic lifters
> as if one is
> >> >> > > collapsed you won't get an accurate measurement,
> but I don't know
> > how
> >> >> > > to accommodate that, I'm afraid. From what I've
> heard, by the
> >> >> > > time
> >> >> > > the engine is running rough and is low on power the
> lobe will be
> >> >> > > essentially wiped off, making this method very
> effective - and it
> >> >> > > only takes a few minutes. I've used a simple steel
> scale, but a
> > dial
> >> >> > > indicator would be more accurate. However, if you
> want to get a
> > real
> >> >> > > look at the cam lobes the only way is to remove a
> cylinder - I'm
> > told
> >> >> > > that on a 4-cylinder you can remove just one and
> get a peak at all
> >> >> > > the lobes, but I've never tried. Removing a
> cylinder isn't a huge
> >> >> > > deal, but it is a pain. It might take a day's
> labor to get it
> > apart,
> >> >> > > inspected and put all back together. If the engine had no
> >> >> > > symptoms
> >> >> > > and looking in the valve covers showed no obvious
> problem, but
> > showed
> >> >> > > metal in the filter then one has to look inside.
> With metal in
> >> >> > > the
> >> >> > > filter something is going to have to come apart anyway.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Gary Casey
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Hi Gary,
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Some long time ago, you wrote the quote below.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > I am trying to find the cause of rough running in
> a Lyc O360A4M
> >> >> > > > that has
> >> >> > > > good compression, good mags, good timing. It has
> about 1400
> >> >> > > > smoh
> >> > over
> >> >> > > > about 12 years. There were times during those
> years in which it
> >> >> > > > sat for
> >> >> > > > over a year at a time. Also, for most of that
> time, the oil
> > cooler
> >> >> > > > hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive
> cam lobe wear
> >> > without
> >> >> > > > tearing it all down??
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Thanks,
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Dan
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Red Hamilton" <redswing(at)mcn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cam Lobe wear |
Thanks for the straight scoop Monty.
Red Hamilton
----- Original Message -----
From: Monty Barrett Sr
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:37 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
Sorry, Guys. Camshafts in Lycomings and Continentals are NOT
nitrided.
The Lycoming is AISI 8620 and is carborized, about .030 deep.
Don't know what the material is in TCM but it looks like and acts like
a
1080 forging in which case it has enough carbon to harden without
carborizing.
Monty Barrett
BPE, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:47 PM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
What happens is a bit of rust or imperfection in the nitride layer
causes a breakthrough to softer metal, on either cam or follower or
both. Once that happens metal comes off quickly in relatively large
particles..ones you can see. Oil analysis only detects metals at the
microscopic size, that are vaporized in the spectrograph. Larger
particles don't make it from the bottom of the sump, typically. My cam
disintegrated, and luckily I was cutting the filter and saw the metal,
and had to pull the oil pump for the AD on that and found it badly
scored from the metal, so it was tear down time. I kept the cam and
lifters as examples. I got to buy a replacement crank, new cam and
lifters, and a new prop hub out of that episode...not all because of
the cam, but from what I found on teardown. The good part is new prop
hub I bought in 2002 is exempt from the current AD just issued this
year. One gets very intimate with the details when you are building an
engine for a type certified plane that you plan to fly, and may
eventually sell to someone else, who will have your name in the
logbooks as the mechanic that authorized its return to service, and
may sue you 20 years later because it quit on them, even though they
are 8 years and who knows how many hours past TBO.
On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
>
> Kelly,
> You seem like you have experience in this area and are knowledgeable
about
> the subject....Educate me about this, if an engine sets up unpickled
for a
> year, I understand from friends of mine that rust forms on the
lobes,
and
> when started again, rust flakes off and contaminates the oil system,
then
> acts as pumice...Does this rust not show up on a spectrograph
sample?..One
> Tripacer owner neglected to change oil very often (if at all) and
complained
> of the engine not running right...I later saw the camshaft and there
was
> only "nubbins" left...I don't see how the valves functioned at
all...I've
> said this before, so will use this opportunity to mention it again,
the
> cheapest thing you can buy for your engine is OIL, and change it
often...I
> know the book says change at 50 hours, but I take a good look at
mine
at 25
> hours and if it exhibits the slightest darkness, then out it
goes...One step
> further, I use a 50/50 mix of Aeroshell and Mobil-I 15/w50, and
after
1500
> hours, have had no problems at all...I do not advocate any of you
out
there
> to use this mixture, especially certified aircraft...It is a
personal
thing
> with me..........Kelly, thanks for your
inputs...............CHEERS!!!!
>
> Gene Smith
> RV-4
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 3:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
>
>
> >
> > Disagree on the oil analysis. Cam and lifters spall off relatively
> > large chunks of metal, that are not microscopic and never burned
in
> > the spectrograph. You may see slightly elevated iron, but nothing
> > startling, but you will see specks of iron in the oil filter. Went
> > through this on my own IO-360 in 2001.
> > KM,
> > A&P/IA
> >
> > On 2/12/07, Gene Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, remove a cylinder and use a strong bright light and look up
in
> > > there...I removed #2, and you can see the lobes...The other
choice
(and
> the
> > > best) is to buy one of the oil analysis kits (around $10) and
send
off a
> > > sample of your oil, and through a Spectroanalysis system
(S.O.A.P.) they
> can
> > > tell you which component is wearing excessively by the type and
amount
> of
> > > metal in your oil...As you know the different internal parts of
your
> engine
> > > has a different type of metal...i.e: bearings, crankshaft
journals,
> valve
> > > guides, cam lobes and etc.
> > >
> > > Interesting thing here as to the importance of this test, the
USAF
takes
> a
> > > S.O.A.P. sample after each flight of a Jet Fighter, (esp. if it
is
> single
> > > engine) and the aircraft will not be released for the next
mission
until
> the
> > > analysis is complete and deemed safe......................Hope
this
> > > helps...Good luck.............................CHEERS!!!!
> > >
> > > Gene Smith
> > > RV-4
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:45 AM
> > > Subject: Engines-List: Re: Cam Lobe wear
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Dan,
> > > > Yes, a compression test will not indicate that you have a
problem
> > > > with the cam. If it is really bad a cranking compression
> > > > ("differential" compression test) might show the problem.
Crank
the
> > > > engine with the mags and fuel off and note the difference
between
> > > > compression strokes - it is quite easy to tell if one cylinder
is
> > > > really low. You can pull the valve covers and measure the
valve
lift
> > > > and that is one way to get a reasonable picture of cam lobe
wear.
> > > > You have to be careful about the hydraulic lifters as if one
is
> > > > collapsed you won't get an accurate measurement, but I don't
know how
> > > > to accommodate that, I'm afraid. From what I've heard, by the
time
> > > > the engine is running rough and is low on power the lobe will
be
> > > > essentially wiped off, making this method very effective - and
it
> > > > only takes a few minutes. I've used a simple steel scale, but
a
dial
> > > > indicator would be more accurate. However, if you want to get
a
real
> > > > look at the cam lobes the only way is to remove a cylinder -
I'm
told
> > > > that on a 4-cylinder you can remove just one and get a peak at
all
> > > > the lobes, but I've never tried. Removing a cylinder isn't a
huge
> > > > deal, but it is a pain. It might take a day's labor to get it
apart,
> > > > inspected and put all back together. If the engine had no
symptoms
> > > > and looking in the valve covers showed no obvious problem, but
showed
> > > > metal in the filter then one has to look inside. With metal
in
the
> > > > filter something is going to have to come apart anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Gary Casey
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Gary,
> > > > >
> > > > > Some long time ago, you wrote the quote below.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am trying to find the cause of rough running in a Lyc
O360A4M
> > > > > that has
> > > > > good compression, good mags, good timing. It has about 1400
smoh
> over
> > > > > about 12 years. There were times during those years in
which
it
> > > > > sat for
> > > > > over a year at a time. Also, for most of that time, the oil
cooler
> > > > > hoses were connected wrong so the oil ran quite hot.
> > > > >
> > > > > How can I prove that there is or isn't excessive cam lobe
wear
> without
> > > > > tearing it all down??
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
It's time to read the Matronics Rules of Engagement (again?).
The last engines-list digest displays a thousand unneeded repeat lines, some
messages repeating up to nine previous messages - each.
Read what you write - first - then send.
Ferg Kyle
Europa A064 914 Classic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Engines-lack of usage |
I'm not sure that I actually heard an answer to the question posed the other
day (feel free to kick me if I read right by it) so the real question still
remains.... is an engine that has been sitting for a couple years in a
hangar going to suffer from internal corrosion problems and have to be torn
down before starting?
How about a worst case scenario where a newly assembled engine is delivered
to the tropics and stored in a hangar that is not climate controlled. The
engine is pickled and plastic plugs have been installed in the openings but
some of them don't seal very well and there are no dessicant plugs
installed. Would a couple years under these conditions cause enough
corrosion that the engine would have problems if one were to just fill it
with oil and go fly it?
What kind of problems would one expect?
Is there any way to tell the extent of damage without major teardown or
cylinder removal?
What would you expect to see corroded inside (cam, rods, gears, crank) and
would you recommend not running the engine before an internal inspection?
Would there be a pre-start procedure you'd recommend before starting an
engine that has been subjected to these conditions?
Anybody done any testing of this sort and is there any data available on
just how bad it gets?
Would you trust such an engine not to fail in a short period of time if some
unsuspecting pilot just put it on his airplane and flew it?
What sort of failure mode would you expect and do you think the outcome
would be catastrophic (engine destroyed)?
Any words of wisdom here Monty Barrett (or anyone else with experience in
this area)? Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
Bought an aircraft, sight unseen, from Arizona with a Lyc 0 290 D2 wi
th
some 200 hours on a chrome major. After flying it for two years, could
never get the oil consumption down so decided to give it a top. When the
IA
opened it up, found a bad cam, lots of internal rust and a $15,000 major.
Don't know if Lyc is prone to these problems but will never trust another
purchase without a good internal inspection. Would have saved me thousan
ds.
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Engines-lack of usage |
I think a lot has to do with how the engines were mothballed for storage.
Properly mothballed there should be no problems. Returning to service will
not just be a matter of pouring in some oil and heading out to the great
blue yonder. Cylinders should have had desiccant plugs and the base should
have been filled with preservative oil. The oil must be drained the engine
turned over with out the sparkplugs several times and then you can think
about putting fresh oil in. Installing plugs, possibly mags, carbs etc and
then there may, for a new engine, be a break in.
Best thing is to check the MM for the engine and any return to use
instructions that may have come with the engine. Pay particular attention
to the Maintenance Manual if you mothball the engine later.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> DEAN PSIROPOULOS
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:53 AM
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Engines-List: Engines-lack of usage
>
>
>
>
> I'm not sure that I actually heard an answer to the question
> posed the other
> day (feel free to kick me if I read right by it) so the real
> question still
> remains.... is an engine that has been sitting for a couple years in a
> hangar going to suffer from internal corrosion problems and
> have to be torn
> down before starting?
>
> How about a worst case scenario where a newly assembled
> engine is delivered
> to the tropics and stored in a hangar that is not climate
> controlled. The
> engine is pickled and plastic plugs have been installed in
> the openings but
> some of them don't seal very well and there are no dessicant plugs
> installed. Would a couple years under these conditions cause enough
> corrosion that the engine would have problems if one were to
> just fill it
> with oil and go fly it?
>
> What kind of problems would one expect?
>
> Is there any way to tell the extent of damage without major
> teardown or
> cylinder removal?
>
> What would you expect to see corroded inside (cam, rods,
> gears, crank) and
> would you recommend not running the engine before an internal
> inspection?
>
> Would there be a pre-start procedure you'd recommend before
> starting an
> engine that has been subjected to these conditions?
>
> Anybody done any testing of this sort and is there any data
> available on
> just how bad it gets?
>
> Would you trust such an engine not to fail in a short period
> of time if some
> unsuspecting pilot just put it on his airplane and flew it?
>
> What sort of failure mode would you expect and do you think
> the outcome
> would be catastrophic (engine destroyed)?
>
> Any words of wisdom here Monty Barrett (or anyone else with
> experience in
> this area)? Thanks.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JIM AITKEN <matrix02(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines-lack of usage |
My comment is on the storage of an engine or an airplane or any machinery in an
unventilated hanger or garage. If there is no provision for vents under the ceiling
or roof moisture collects from the dinural temperature variations and corrosion
is worse than leaving the item outside where the moisture will dissipate.
A hangar with uninsulated steel siding and a dirt floor compounds the situation.
I have seen airplanes in unventilated closed hangars dripping with condensation.
The old wives tale that putting a car in a closed garage after washing it creates
rusting is quite true. Domestic garages do not provide for any ventilation
and the moisture does not dissipate allowing it to seep into crevasses and enhance
corrosion.
Jim Aitken
----- Original Message -----
From: DEAN PSIROPOULOS <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Date: Thursday, February 15, 2007 0:23 am
Subject: Engines-List: Engines-lack of usage
>
> I'm not sure that I actually heard an answer to the question posed
> the other
> day (feel free to kick me if I read right by it) so the real
> question still
> remains.... is an engine that has been sitting for a couple years
> in a
> hangar going to suffer from internal corrosion problems and have
> to be torn
> down before starting?
>
> How about a worst case scenario where a newly assembled engine is
> deliveredto the tropics and stored in a hangar that is not climate
> controlled. The
> engine is pickled and plastic plugs have been installed in the
> openings but
> some of them don't seal very well and there are no dessicant plugs
> installed. Would a couple years under these conditions cause enough
> corrosion that the engine would have problems if one were to just
> fill it
> with oil and go fly it?
>
> What kind of problems would one expect?
>
> Is there any way to tell the extent of damage without major
> teardown or
> cylinder removal?
>
> What would you expect to see corroded inside (cam, rods, gears,
> crank) and
> would you recommend not running the engine before an internal
> inspection?
>
> Would there be a pre-start procedure you'd recommend before
> starting an
> engine that has been subjected to these conditions?
>
> Anybody done any testing of this sort and is there any data
> available on
> just how bad it gets?
>
> Would you trust such an engine not to fail in a short period of
> time if some
> unsuspecting pilot just put it on his airplane and flew it?
>
> What sort of failure mode would you expect and do you think the
> outcomewould be catastrophic (engine destroyed)?
>
> Any words of wisdom here Monty Barrett (or anyone else with
> experience in
> this area)? Thanks.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Costly mistake |
In a message dated 2/15/2007 10:15:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rfg842(at)cox.net writes:
Bought an aircraft, sight unseen, from Arizona with a Lyc 0 290 D2 with
some 200 hours on a chrome major. After flying it for two years, could never
get the oil consumption down so decided to give it a top. When the IA opened it
up, found a bad cam, lots of internal rust and a $15,000 major.
Don't know if Lyc is prone to these problems but will never trust another
purchase without a good internal inspection. Would have saved me thousands.
Bob, Wichita
Bob,
How bad was the oil consumption? I had a Grumman with chrome cylinders
(O-235) that would use a quart in 4 to 6 hours. I took the cylinders off and had
them honed. The engine had zero rust inside, it looked like new in fact.
After putting new rings in it and breaking it in using the best information I
could get from many web searches -- kept temps down, power up, etc. -- it was
exactly the same! Chrome doesn't rust, but it may take 300 hours for the rings
to
seat. Maybe the rough pattern of the chrome surface holds the oil and the
engine consumes oil even after the rings seat. My RV has Cerminil (c) cylinders
and seems to be much better.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Butch" <kmodairy(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Costly mistake |
You guys are not makeing me feel very good. I have a Colt sitting in a
hanger for a little over a year now, was a great running 235 may not be
now.
Anybody had one that has sat for a while and was not damaged ? (I
hope)
----- Original Message -----
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
In a message dated 2/15/2007 10:15:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rfg842(at)cox.net writes:
Bought an aircraft, sight unseen, from Arizona with a Lyc 0 290
D2 with some 200 hours on a chrome major. After flying it for two
years, could never get the oil consumption down so decided to give it a
top. When the IA opened it up, found a bad cam, lots of internal rust
and a $15,000 major.
Don't know if Lyc is prone to these problems but will never trust
another purchase without a good internal inspection. Would have saved
me thousands.
Bob, Wichita
Bob,
How bad was the oil consumption? I had a Grumman with chrome
cylinders (O-235) that would use a quart in 4 to 6 hours. I took the
cylinders off and had them honed. The engine had zero rust inside, it
looked like new in fact. After putting new rings in it and breaking it
in using the best information I could get from many web searches -- kept
temps down, power up, etc. -- it was exactly the same! Chrome doesn't
rust, but it may take 300 hours for the rings to seat. Maybe the rough
pattern of the chrome surface holds the oil and the engine consumes oil
even after the rings seat. My RV has Cerminil (c) cylinders and seems
to be much better.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Becker" <wbecker(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Costly mistake |
I bought a project airplane a few years ago. The engine was in a
hanger about 1 1/2 years with no special care, didn't even have the
plugs in it. When I got it home I put Aeoshell fluid 2F in it and
rotated the whole engine around a couple times, put in dehydrator plugs,
then it sat for 2 years while I rebuilt the airplane. It has been a
great engine, now has over 300 hrs since I bought the project.
I would never suggest treating an engine that way. I would always
use Aeroshell fluid2F if an engine was to be stored for over 2 month or
so. If you can run the engine, I would run it, drain the oil and put in
the Aeroshell fluid2F then run it again and put it away.
The big worry as far as I am concerned is the cam and lifters, they
will not tolerate rust. You can remove a cylinder and look inside to
verify that no rust is present, no need for a tear down.
My 2 pennies. Bill Becker
----- Original Message -----
From: Butch
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
You guys are not makeing me feel very good. I have a Colt sitting in a
hanger for a little over a year now, was a great running 235 may not be
now.
Anybody had one that has sat for a while and was not damaged ? (I
hope)
----- Original Message -----
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
In a message dated 2/15/2007 10:15:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rfg842(at)cox.net writes:
Bought an aircraft, sight unseen, from Arizona with a Lyc 0 290
D2 with some 200 hours on a chrome major. After flying it for two
years, could never get the oil consumption down so decided to give it a
top. When the IA opened it up, found a bad cam, lots of internal rust
and a $15,000 major.
Don't know if Lyc is prone to these problems but will never trust
another purchase without a good internal inspection. Would have saved
me thousands.
Bob, Wichita
Bob,
How bad was the oil consumption? I had a Grumman with chrome
cylinders (O-235) that would use a quart in 4 to 6 hours. I took the
cylinders off and had them honed. The engine had zero rust inside, it
looked like new in fact. After putting new rings in it and breaking it
in using the best information I could get from many web searches -- kept
temps down, power up, etc. -- it was exactly the same! Chrome doesn't
rust, but it may take 300 hours for the rings to seat. Maybe the rough
pattern of the chrome surface holds the oil and the engine consumes oil
even after the rings seat. My RV has Cerminil (c) cylinders and seems
to be much better.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
1/18/2007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
________________________________
From:
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:48 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Costly mistake
You know one of the best preserving ideas I ever heard was to buy some
cheap oil for your car and completly fill the crankcase...I.e drive out
all the oil.
When you get it half full turn it over slowly a couple of times, then
finish filling it up.
The fill up the cylinders as well if you have some scrap plugs , of
course you will need to remove the rocker arms to keep the valves closed
but that can't be too difficult. .
No way it can rust now and you can use the oil in your car
afterwards...
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Becker
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
I bought a project airplane a few years ago. The engine was in a
hanger about 1 1/2 years with no special care, didn't even have the
plugs in it. When I got it home I put Aeoshell fluid 2F in it and
rotated the whole engine around a couple times, put in dehydrator plugs,
then it sat for 2 years while I rebuilt the airplane. It has been a
great engine, now has over 300 hrs since I bought the project.
I would never suggest treating an engine that way. I would always
use Aeroshell fluid2F if an engine was to be stored for over 2 month or
so. If you can run the engine, I would run it, drain the oil and put in
the Aeroshell fluid2F then run it again and put it away.
The big worry as far as I am concerned is the cam and lifters, they
will not tolerate rust. You can remove a cylinder and look inside to
verify that no rust is present, no need for a tear down.
My 2 pennies. Bill Becker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Costly mistake |
Do not feel too badly, Bob
Some have been there, and others will be.
Tough lesson learned.
Archie
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:13 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Costly mistake
Bought an aircraft, sight unseen, from Arizona with a Lyc 0
290 D2 with some 200 hours on a chrome major. After flying it for two
years, could never get the oil consumption down so decided to give it a
top. When the IA opened it up, found a bad cam, lots of internal rust
and a $15,000 major.
Don't know if Lyc is prone to these problems but will never
trust another purchase without a good internal inspection. Would have
saved me thousands.
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines-lack of usage |
It takes about 2 hours to pull and replace a cylinder so you can look inside
the engine. That's a good investment of time.
----- Original Message -----
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:23 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Engines-lack of usage
>
>
> I'm not sure that I actually heard an answer to the question posed the
> other
> day (feel free to kick me if I read right by it) so the real question
> still
> remains.... is an engine that has been sitting for a couple years in a
> hangar going to suffer from internal corrosion problems and have to be
> torn
> down before starting?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dacha" <tstaley(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Costly mistake |
Any Soob drivers out there? What kind of oil consumption are you
experiencing? Mine is about one quart for 3 hours. Also know of anyone
in Missouri that can tune it up or rebuild one?
LeRoy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines-lack of usage |
It shouldn't even take that long. And I agree, it's an excellent
investment of time. We had two off and inspected in a half hour:
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~jboatri/magicbus/engine_teardown.htm
>
>It takes about 2 hours to pull and replace a cylinder so you can
>look inside the engine. That's a good investment of time.
--
_____________________________________________________________
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
Associate Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA, USA
Senior Editor, Molecular Vision, http://www.molvis.org/molvis
mailto:jboatri(at)emory.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Costly mistake |
I thought since oil floats on water, the condensation will get "under"
the oil and bingo, rust.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:02 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Costly mistake
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From:
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:48 PM
To: 'engines-list(at)matronics.com'
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Costly mistake
You know one of the best preserving ideas I ever heard was to buy some
cheap oil for your car and completly fill the crankcase...I.e drive out
all the oil.
When you get it half full turn it over slowly a couple of times, then
finish filling it up.
The fill up the cylinders as well if you have some scrap plugs , of
course you will need to remove the rocker arms to keep the valves closed
but that can't be too difficult. .
No way it can rust now and you can use the oil in your car
afterwards...
Frank
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Becker
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:20 PM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
I bought a project airplane a few years ago. The engine was in a
hanger about 1 1/2 years with no special care, didn't even have the
plugs in it. When I got it home I put Aeoshell fluid 2F in it and
rotated the whole engine around a couple times, put in dehydrator plugs,
then it sat for 2 years while I rebuilt the airplane. It has been a
great engine, now has over 300 hrs since I bought the project.
I would never suggest treating an engine that way. I would always
use Aeroshell fluid2F if an engine was to be stored for over 2 month or
so. If you can run the engine, I would run it, drain the oil and put in
the Aeroshell fluid2F then run it again and put it away.
The big worry as far as I am concerned is the cam and lifters,
they will not tolerate rust. You can remove a cylinder and look inside
to verify that no rust is present, no need for a tear down.
My 2 pennies. Bill Becker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Becker" <wbecker(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Costly mistake |
Well then the water would be at the bottom of the sump, so no harm to
the engine parts. Right? Bill B
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Sweet
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
I thought since oil floats on water, the condensation will get "under"
the oil and bingo, rust.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:02 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Costly mistake
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From:
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:48 PM
To: 'engines-list(at)matronics.com'
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Costly mistake
You know one of the best preserving ideas I ever heard was to buy
some cheap oil for your car and completly fill the crankcase...I.e drive
out all the oil.
When you get it half full turn it over slowly a couple of times,
then finish filling it up.
The fill up the cylinders as well if you have some scrap plugs , of
course you will need to remove the rocker arms to keep the valves closed
but that can't be too difficult. .
No way it can rust now and you can use the oil in your car
afterwards...
Frank
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Becker
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:20 PM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
I bought a project airplane a few years ago. The engine was in a
hanger about 1 1/2 years with no special care, didn't even have the
plugs in it. When I got it home I put Aeoshell fluid 2F in it and
rotated the whole engine around a couple times, put in dehydrator plugs,
then it sat for 2 years while I rebuilt the airplane. It has been a
great engine, now has over 300 hrs since I bought the project.
I would never suggest treating an engine that way. I would
always use Aeroshell fluid2F if an engine was to be stored for over 2
month or so. If you can run the engine, I would run it, drain the oil
and put in the Aeroshell fluid2F then run it again and put it away.
The big worry as far as I am concerned is the cam and lifters,
they will not tolerate rust. You can remove a cylinder and look inside
to verify that no rust is present, no need for a tear down.
My 2 pennies. Bill Becker
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
1/18/2007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick" <wingsdown(at)verizon.net> |
Say Leroy a quart in 3 hours is a sure sign that either it is blowing it
out he breather or rings. Does it slow down after the first quart?
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dacha
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
Any Soob drivers out there? What kind of oil consumption are you
experiencing? Mine is about one quart for 3 hours. Also know of anyone
in Missouri that can tune it up or rebuild one?
LeRoy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dacha" <tstaley(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Costly mistake |
No Rick it doesnt slow down on the consumption after the first quart.
Doesnt seem to be blowing it out, bottom of the plane stays pretty
clean. Guess it is the rings but the compresion isnt too low, around
160-170.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | john koning <fltrbg(at)yahoo.com> |
Taken one step further,I bought my A-75 flipped upside down, the crankcase filled
through the drain plug, the cylinders filled through the bottom plugs,the exhaust
ports filled,removed the carb and filled the intake spider.The rockers
can then stay on,rocker boxes also fill up with oil,guides and all are submurged.Just
remember to plug the crancase vent.
John.
"Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" wrote:
---------------------------------
From:
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:48 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Costly mistake
You know one of the best preserving ideas I ever heard was to buy some cheap
oil for your car and completly fill the crankcase...I.e drive out all the oil.
When you get it half full turn it over slowly a couple of times, then finish
filling it up.
The fill up the cylinders as well if you have some scrap plugs , of course you
will need to remove the rocker arms to keep the valves closed but that can't
be too difficult. .
No way it can rust now and you can use the oil in your car afterwards...
Frank
---------------------------------
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Becker
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
I bought a project airplane a few years ago. The engine was in a hanger about
1 1/2 years with no special care, didn't even have the plugs in it. When
I got it home I put Aeoshell fluid 2F in it and rotated the whole engine around
a couple times, put in dehydrator plugs, then it sat for 2 years while I rebuilt
the airplane. It has been a great engine, now has over 300 hrs since I bought
the project.
I would never suggest treating an engine that way. I would always use Aeroshell
fluid2F if an engine was to be stored for over 2 month or so. If you can
run the engine, I would run it, drain the oil and put in the Aeroshell fluid2F
then run it again and put it away.
The big worry as far as I am concerned is the cam and lifters, they will
not tolerate rust. You can remove a cylinder and look inside to verify that no
rust is present, no need for a tear down.
My 2 pennies. Bill Becker
---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail -
---------------------------------
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dacha" <tstaley(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Costly mistake |
Ben,
The engine is non turbo. Cruise between 4000-4200 rpm. All instruments
are in the green, the only time it registers any excessive heat is full
throttle and climbing. Not sure how the crankcase breather set up is but
the belly isnt excessively dirty. Bought the plane from the builder.
LeRoy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Yes but the air (carrying the water) can't get into the case in the
first place. Typically the rust appears on the cam i.e at the top of the
case. The air inside the case is hot and moist when shutdown, then cools
below its dewpoint and then the water condenses on the cam etc.
Thus if it is full of oil there can be no air, therefore no moisture.
Thats the theory at least.
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
Sweet
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
I thought since oil floats on water, the condensation will get "under"
the oil and bingo, rust.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:02 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Costly mistake
________________________________
From:
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:48 PM
To: 'engines-list(at)matronics.com'
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Costly mistake
You know one of the best preserving ideas I ever heard was to
buy some cheap oil for your car and completly fill the crankcase...I.e
drive out all the oil.
When you get it half full turn it over slowly a couple of times,
then finish filling it up.
The fill up the cylinders as well if you have some scrap plugs ,
of course you will need to remove the rocker arms to keep the valves
closed but that can't be too difficult. .
No way it can rust now and you can use the oil in your car
afterwards...
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Becker
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:20 PM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
I bought a project airplane a few years ago. The engine was
in a hanger about 1 1/2 years with no special care, didn't even have the
plugs in it. When I got it home I put Aeoshell fluid 2F in it and
rotated the whole engine around a couple times, put in dehydrator plugs,
then it sat for 2 years while I rebuilt the airplane. It has been a
great engine, now has over 300 hrs since I bought the project.
I would never suggest treating an engine that way. I would
always use Aeroshell fluid2F if an engine was to be stored for over 2
month or so. If you can run the engine, I would run it, drain the oil
and put in the Aeroshell fluid2F then run it again and put it away.
The big worry as far as I am concerned is the cam and
lifters, they will not tolerate rust. You can remove a cylinder and look
inside to verify that no rust is present, no need for a tear down.
My 2 pennies. Bill Becker
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
n
ics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cowan/Cameron" <cowcam(at)pipcom.com> |
Someone asked about anyone not having problems with unpickled engine.
Several years ago I removed an 0360 Lycoming for an airframe re-build
and left it hanging in a leaky barn. Everytime I walked by it I kicked
myself for how I was treating it: no oil added anywhere and no plugs in
the exhaust or intake. After maybe 4 years I decided that since I was
going to sell the project it would best to send the engine into a shop
to check for corrosion and top it. No problems anywhere.
I live in southern Ontario Can. so see a variety of weather.
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
Thought I had all the bases covered with that 0 290-D2. Although I bough
t
the plane from an individual, I talked to the fixed base operator, a very
reputable person, who had recovered the aircraft and majored the engine.
Problem was lack of use. Sat for too many years without running regularl
y
and even in the dry air of Arizona, rust happens.
And by the way, consumption was about a quart every four hours. Had to h
ave
the crank turned down to its last grinding. Really should have ditched t
he
engine and replaced it with a 150 hp Lyc.
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dacha" <tstaley(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Costly mistake |
It is an EA81. What is the fix?
LeRoy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Ahh!..It could have significant blowby on the piston rings. What happens
is the cylinders are bored and then the heads torqued. this flexes the
bore. The solution is to have it bored with a "boring plate" bolted down
first. This simulates the torque of the head bolts.
Now of course this is only one possibility and it requires an engine
strip to sort it out. The EA 81 is a pretty simple engine to strip and
reassemble so its not the end of the world but not something you want to
do more than once.
My advice is to speak with the top engine guru as far as EA81's are
concerned. That would be Ron Carr at Ram Performance. A number of (so
called) rebuilt Soobs had valve giudes dropping out of their heads, mine
included. Ron was the only guy that came up with a permanent fix. IF you
end up stripping your engine I would have him install the stepped valve
guides.
http://www.ramengines.com/
he is exceptionally knowlegable..
And tell him Frank said Hi....
Frank
Zodiac 601HDS 400 hours
RV7a 75 hours.
________________________________
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dacha
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
It is an EA81. What is the fix?
LeRoy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Butch" <kmodairy(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine storage |
Thanks for the good news that not every engine goes bad. If I were to
pull a jug which one would give the best view of the cam and would that
screw up the ring seat for that cylinder, Thanks again
----- Original Message -----
From: Cowan/Cameron
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Engine storage
Someone asked about anyone not having problems with unpickled engine.
Several years ago I removed an 0360 Lycoming for an airframe re-build
and left it hanging in a leaky barn. Everytime I walked by it I kicked
myself for how I was treating it: no oil added anywhere and no plugs in
the exhaust or intake. After maybe 4 years I decided that since I was
going to sell the project it would best to send the engine into a shop
to check for corrosion and top it. No problems anywhere.
I live in southern Ontario Can. so see a variety of weather.
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine storage |
I had a maintenance shop look at my engine that was sitting for two
years; they said to pull #1 and #4. That would allow to see all the cam
lobes.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: Butch
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine storage
Thanks for the good news that not every engine goes bad. If I were to
pull a jug which one would give the best view of the cam and would that
screw up the ring seat for that cylinder, Thanks again
----- Original Message -----
From: Cowan/Cameron
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Engine storage
Someone asked about anyone not having problems with unpickled
engine. Several years ago I removed an 0360 Lycoming for an airframe
re-build and left it hanging in a leaky barn. Everytime I walked by it I
kicked myself for how I was treating it: no oil added anywhere and no
plugs in the exhaust or intake. After maybe 4 years I decided that since
I was going to sell the project it would best to send the engine into a
shop to check for corrosion and top it. No problems anywhere.
I live in southern Ontario Can. so see a variety of weather.
Peter
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
If all the parts are wet with oil first there is no way for any water to
get
under the oil. Yes there is no point in oiling an engine that has been
immersed in water That is one way that you can get water under the oil.
For engines that have been immersed in water the best thing you can do
is
disassemble the engine to a point that you can dry the engine very
quickly
then oil for storage.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
Sweet
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
I thought since oil floats on water, the condensation will get "under"
the
oil and bingo, rust.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: Hinde, Frank <mailto:frank.hinde(at)hp.com> George (Corvallis)
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:02 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Costly mistake
_____
From:
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:48 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Costly mistake
You know one of the best preserving ideas I ever heard was to buy some
cheap
oil for your car and completly fill the crankcase...I.e drive out all
the
oil.
When you get it half full turn it over slowly a couple of times, then
finish
filling it up.
The fill up the cylinders as well if you have some scrap plugs , of
course
you will need to remove the rocker arms to keep the valves closed but
that
can't be too difficult. .
No way it can rust now and you can use the oil in your car
afterwards...
Frank
_____
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Becker
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
I bought a project airplane a few years ago. The engine was in a
hanger
about 1 1/2 years with no special care, didn't even have the plugs in
it.
When I got it home I put Aeoshell fluid 2F in it and rotated the whole
engine around a couple times, put in dehydrator plugs, then it sat for 2
years while I rebuilt the airplane. It has been a great engine, now has
over
300 hrs since I bought the project.
I would never suggest treating an engine that way. I would always
use
Aeroshell fluid2F if an engine was to be stored for over 2 month or so.
If
you can run the engine, I would run it, drain the oil and put in the
Aeroshell fluid2F then run it again and put it away.
The big worry as far as I am concerned is the cam and lifters, they
will
not tolerate rust. You can remove a cylinder and look inside to verify
that
no rust is present, no need for a tear down.
My 2 pennies. Bill Becker
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
nics.
com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dacha" <tstaley(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Costly mistake |
Talked to Ram this morning and when I have it overhauled they will be
the ones to do it. Sounded very professional and knowledgeable. Not
cheap but what is?
LeRoy
Ps. thanks to everyone who responded to my request, great list like to
meet the guys sometime.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engine storage |
In a message dated 2/16/2007 1:13:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kmodairy(at)centurytel.net writes:
Thanks for the good news that not every engine goes bad. If I were to pull a
jug which one would give the best view of the cam and would that screw up the
ring seat for that cylinder,
Thanks again
No, you don't have to unseat the rings. Put the piston at top center. Pull
the cylinder off far enough to just clear the wrist pin. Push the pin out and
leave the piston in the cylinder. This is a two man job. You will need help
getting the pin out, and also to help you to not drop the rod and mar the
case.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
When your engine literally eats a chunk of valve guide and your
convinced it is trying to kill you, cheap is not a consideration....When
it does THREE times and the supplier still gives you a bunch of baloney
about how it is your fault (namely you get the bill) then you will see
that a Ram engine is very good value for money indeed.
Yes Ron is bar far the most knowlegable Ea 81 guy out there.
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dacha
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
Talked to Ram this morning and when I have it overhauled they will be
the ones to do it. Sounded very professional and knowledgeable. Not
cheap but what is?
LeRoy
Ps. thanks to everyone who responded to my request, great list like to
meet the guys sometime.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Costly mistake |
Pretty close to nil on my ej22 with psru and an average 4200rpm cruise.
I added a half liter of 5W50 synthetic in the last 40 hours but much of
that was/is a small leak.
Ken
n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
> Sooo.
>
> Lets get back to the original question. Frank and Joe and any other
> soob flyer. What is your oil consumption???????????????????????
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Southern Reflections" <purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Costly mistake |
What kind of synth. are you using? and for how long ? Joe N101HD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
>
> Pretty close to nil on my ej22 with psru and an average 4200rpm cruise.
> I added a half liter of 5W50 synthetic in the last 40 hours but much of
> that was/is a small leak.
> Ken
>
> n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
>
>> Sooo.
>>
>> Lets get back to the original question. Frank and Joe and any other
>> soob flyer. What is your oil consumption???????????????????????
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Costly mistake |
Hi Joe
I suspect that Mobil 1 is no longer a superior product so I use the
cheaper and easier to obtain Castrol Syntec and unleaded fuel. Soob does
specify 50 weight oil for this engine for heavy duty applications and it
works a lot harder than it ever does in a car. My oil pan temp will get
up to 120 C (250 F) on hot weather climbs and the 5W50 is also
comfortable for sub freezing start ups. I only have about 65 hours on
the engine since new but I'm aware of others that have run similar for a
few hundred hours now.
Ken
Southern Reflections wrote:
>
>
> What kind of synth. are you using? and for how long ? Joe N101HD
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken" <klehman(at)albedo.net>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Costly mistake
>
>
>>
>> Pretty close to nil on my ej22 with psru and an average 4200rpm
>> cruise. I added a half liter of 5W50 synthetic in the last 40 hours
>> but much of that was/is a small leak.
>> Ken
>>
>> n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
>>
>>> Sooo.
>>>
>>> Lets get back to the original question. Frank and Joe and any other
>>> soob flyer. What is your oil consumption???????????????????????
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Running Rough |
Please don't all of you shoot me at once................I have a
suggestion for all of you who think your "rough" engine may be caused by
internal problems...Before you spend a lot of time, labor, and money, I
would install new spark plugs, new spark plug wires, and check the mags
if you have mags...(I know almost all of you did this first, but maybe
someone out there didn't?)...Above all, have a Pro. prop shop BALANCE
your PROP while it is on the aircraft.
I thought I had a problem with many of the symptoms some of you
mentioned, then had that rascal prop balanced, and I really have trouble
believing it is the same aircraft, it is sooo smooth, why didn't I have
that done many hours ago...It cut the "worry factor" by at least
60%...........Hope I didn't insult
anyone........................................CHEERS!!!!
Gene Smith
RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
I cannot agree more; this has been exactly my experience with my
MustangII. Particularily aircraft standard spark plugs; seems a lead
fouled plug makes a Lycoming so sick, it runs as if two cylinders went
on vacation.
With CDI's and auto plugs (why would anyone run mags and "those plug"),
smooth is the operative word. :-)))
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Smith
To: engines-list
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 5:28 PM
Subject: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
Please don't all of you shoot me at once................I have a
suggestion for all of you who think your "rough" engine may be caused by
internal problems...Before you spend a lot of time, labor, and money, I
would install new spark plugs, new spark plug wires, and check the mags
if you have mags...(I know almost all of you did this first, but maybe
someone out there didn't?)...Above all, have a Pro. prop shop BALANCE
your PROP while it is on the aircraft.
I thought I had a problem with many of the symptoms some of you
mentioned, then had that rascal prop balanced, and I really have trouble
believing it is the same aircraft, it is sooo smooth, why didn't I have
that done many hours ago...It cut the "worry factor" by at least
60%...........Hope I didn't insult
anyone........................................CHEERS!!!!
Gene Smith
RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Engine Running Rough |
The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger carrying aircraft.
They
require redundancy and separate powered ignition systems that won't go
black
in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On the other hand
yes
there are some great CDI ignitions that help the engines run better than
they were designed to. For amateur built aircraft I doubt there is
anything
better.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
Sweet
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
I cannot agree more; this has been exactly my experience with my
MustangII.
Particularily aircraft standard spark plugs; seems a lead fouled plug
makes
a Lycoming so sick, it runs as if two cylinders went on vacation.
With CDI's and auto plugs (why would anyone run mags and "those plug"),
smooth is the operative word. :-)))
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene <mailto:esmith6(at)satx.rr.com> Smith
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 5:28 PM
Subject: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
Please don't all of you shoot me at once................I have a
suggestion
for all of you who think your "rough" engine may be caused by internal
problems...Before you spend a lot of time, labor, and money, I would
install
new spark plugs, new spark plug wires, and check the mags if you have
mags...(I know almost all of you did this first, but maybe someone out
there
didn't?)...Above all, have a Pro. prop shop BALANCE your PROP while it
is on
the aircraft.
I thought I had a problem with many of the symptoms some of you
mentioned,
then had that rascal prop balanced, and I really have trouble believing
it
is the same aircraft, it is sooo smooth, why didn't I have that done
many
hours ago...It cut the "worry factor" by at least 60%...........Hope I
didn't insult anyone........................................CHEERS!!!!
Gene Smith
RV-4
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
nics.
com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.061.014).
http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.061.014).
http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
MessageWithout bursting bubbles. or offending the beaurocratic FAA,
there is nothing better currently for any internal combustion engine
than electronic ignition.
Just try firing a .080 gap plug with a current magneto.(just one reason)
Archie Frangoudis
Archie's Racing Service
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel Loveys
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger carrying aircraft.
They require redundancy and separate powered ignition systems that won't
go black in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On the
other hand yes there are some great CDI ignitions that help the engines
run better than they were designed to. For amateur built aircraft I
doubt there is anything better.
Noel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
MessageForgot to mention, dual CDI systems, as in my case, usually have
a small battery charging from the alternator, dedicated solely to one
CDI. In my plane there is a switch that in the event of primary buss
failure (alternator failure is one example), this battery will run the
one CDI. I have lost an alternator 45 minutes outbound from my home
base. After turning off all but the transponder, the main batter still
had 12.4 volts after return to home base and the backup was not needed.
If one cannot find an airport in an hour flight time, then the backup
will extend the range beyond a reasonable time. Of course if a buss were
to fail, then the backup would power the CDI, again in my case for at
least two hours. Oh, one other item, mag checks demonstrate that only
one CDI is really needed, since no RPM drop is experienced when one CDI
is turned off. Another checklist item; warn any right-seat pilot that no
"mag drop" does not mean trouble; it means things are working fine.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: Archie
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
Without bursting bubbles. or offending the beaurocratic FAA,
there is nothing better currently for any internal combustion engine
than electronic ignition.
Just try firing a .080 gap plug with a current magneto.(just one
reason)
Archie Frangoudis
Archie's Racing Service
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel Loveys
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger carrying aircraft.
They require redundancy and separate powered ignition systems that
won't go black in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On
the other hand yes there are some great CDI ignitions that help the
engines run better than they were designed to. For amateur built
aircraft I doubt there is anything better.
Noel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
Depends on your definition of better. There isn't an electronic
ignition made that will fire without a power source. Lose your
electrics and the engine WILL quit. OK in a car, not okay in a plane.
A magneto provides plenty of voltage to fire the proper gaps for
aircraft plugs at all engine speeds above idle. Bureaucracy has
nothing to do with it. Reliability is the prime issue with aircraft,
and there simply isn't an ignition made that is more reliable than a
pair of magnetos when you consider electrical failure a reasonable
possibility.
On 2/18/07, Archie wrote:
>
>
> Without bursting bubbles. or offending the beaurocratic FAA,
> there is nothing better currently for any internal combustion engine
> than electronic ignition.
> Just try firing a .080 gap plug with a current magneto.(just one reason)
> Archie Frangoudis
> Archie's Racing Service
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Noel Loveys
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:47 AM
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
>
> The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger carrying aircraft. They
> require redundancy and separate powered ignition systems that won't go black
> in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On the other hand yes
> there are some great CDI ignitions that help the engines run better than
> they were designed to. For amateur built aircraft I doubt there is anything
> better.
>
>
> Noel
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Grant Piper" <grant.piper(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
Electronic ignition is OK,but try hand-swinging when the battery is flat or
the starter is broken!
Also, if you get no 'mag drop' when running an EI setup, then what is the
benefit of dual EI? Why not just keep one mag and have one EI, then there
is no need for dual busses, the extra complexity and associated weight etc.
Just my simple farmer way of thinking of things....
Grant Piper
RV-4 VH-PIO
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
> Depends on your definition of better. There isn't an electronic
> ignition made that will fire without a power source. Lose your
> electrics and the engine WILL quit. OK in a car, not okay in a plane.
> A magneto provides plenty of voltage to fire the proper gaps for
> aircraft plugs at all engine speeds above idle. Bureaucracy has
> nothing to do with it. Reliability is the prime issue with aircraft,
> and there simply isn't an ignition made that is more reliable than a
> pair of magnetos when you consider electrical failure a reasonable
> possibility.
>
> On 2/18/07, Archie wrote:
>>
>>
>> Without bursting bubbles. or offending the beaurocratic FAA,
>> there is nothing better currently for any internal combustion engine
>> than electronic ignition.
>> Just try firing a .080 gap plug with a current magneto.(just one reason)
>> Archie Frangoudis
>> Archie's Racing Service
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Noel Loveys
>> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:47 AM
>> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>>
>>
>> The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger carrying aircraft.
>> They
>> require redundancy and separate powered ignition systems that won't go
>> black
>> in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On the other hand yes
>> there are some great CDI ignitions that help the engines run better than
>> they were designed to. For amateur built aircraft I doubt there is
>> anything
>> better.
>>
>>
>>
>> Noel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
With all due respect to your commentary, sir, I knew
some replies would come from traditionalists, and I concur
with your statements..
I will not deal with the semantics associated with such,
but suffice it to simply say read my original message carefully.
If people did not forward think in automotive, we would all
still be driving model "T"'s.
End.
Archie Frangoudis
Archie's Racing Service
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
> Depends on your definition of better. There isn't an electronic
> ignition made that will fire without a power source. Lose your
> electrics and the engine WILL quit. OK in a car, not okay in a plane.
> A magneto provides plenty of voltage to fire the proper gaps for
> aircraft plugs at all engine speeds above idle. Bureaucracy has
> nothing to do with it. Reliability is the prime issue with aircraft,
> and there simply isn't an ignition made that is more reliable than a
> pair of magnetos when you consider electrical failure a reasonable
> possibility.
>
> On 2/18/07, Archie wrote:
>>
>>
>> Without bursting bubbles. or offending the beaurocratic FAA,
>> there is nothing better currently for any internal combustion engine
>> than electronic ignition.
>> Just try firing a .080 gap plug with a current magneto.(just one reason)
>> Archie Frangoudis
>> Archie's Racing Service
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Noel Loveys
>> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:47 AM
>> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>>
>>
>> The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger carrying aircraft.
>> They
>> require redundancy and separate powered ignition systems that won't go
>> black
>> in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On the other hand yes
>> there are some great CDI ignitions that help the engines run better than
>> they were designed to. For amateur built aircraft I doubt there is
>> anything
>> better.
>>
>>
>>
>> Noel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Engine Running Rough |
The answer from the FAA I'll bet would be something like try firing a
.018
plug with a CDI that has no power supply.
The best answer is of course one magneto and one CDI. That would give
you a
limp home mode in case of a problem with the CDI. BTW has anyone ever
heard
of a problem with a CDI while in use??? I haven't.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Archie
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
Without bursting bubbles. or offending the beaurocratic FAA,
there is nothing better currently for any internal combustion engine
than electronic ignition.
Just try firing a .080 gap plug with a current magneto.(just one reason)
Archie Frangoudis
Archie's Racing Service
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel <mailto:noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> Loveys
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger carrying aircraft.
They
require redundancy and separate powered ignition systems that won't go
black
in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On the other hand
yes
there are some great CDI ignitions that help the engines run better than
they were designed to. For amateur built aircraft I doubt there is
anything
better.
Noel
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.061.014).
http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.061.014).
http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
MessageNo. But, I've had total power failures on two occasions.....
Was grateful for mags at the time.
I also fly a non-electric cub a good bit of the time, and think that
might present a problem for CDI.
BTW has anyone ever heard of a problem with a CDI while in use??? I
haven't.
Noel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
Yeah, right. I was using CD ignition on a car 35 years ago(and it
failed within 2 years). Show me an electronic ignition that is self
powered and stone reliable and I'll come over to your side. So far,
the automotive technology that has proven superior for aircraft, sum
total, will fit in a C-150. Porsche tried and failed. Dozens have
tried the aluminum Chevy, and failed. VW, Corvair, Subaru...all niche
curiosities that haven't made it to mainstream. Face it. There isn't
an electronic ignition that passes the dead battery test. Until that
is possible, you are just bandaiding around the problem with dual
buses and other backups.
On 2/19/07, Archie wrote:
>
> With all due respect to your commentary, sir, I knew
> some replies would come from traditionalists, and I concur
> with your statements..
> I will not deal with the semantics associated with such,
> but suffice it to simply say read my original message carefully.
> If people did not forward think in automotive, we would all
> still be driving model "T"'s.
> End.
> Archie Frangoudis
> Archie's Racing Service
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
>
> >
> > Depends on your definition of better. There isn't an electronic
> > ignition made that will fire without a power source. Lose your
> > electrics and the engine WILL quit. OK in a car, not okay in a plane.
> > A magneto provides plenty of voltage to fire the proper gaps for
> > aircraft plugs at all engine speeds above idle. Bureaucracy has
> > nothing to do with it. Reliability is the prime issue with aircraft,
> > and there simply isn't an ignition made that is more reliable than a
> > pair of magnetos when you consider electrical failure a reasonable
> > possibility.
> >
> > On 2/18/07, Archie wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Without bursting bubbles. or offending the beaurocratic FAA,
> >> there is nothing better currently for any internal combustion engine
> >> than electronic ignition.
> >> Just try firing a .080 gap plug with a current magneto.(just one reason)
> >> Archie Frangoudis
> >> Archie's Racing Service
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Noel Loveys
> >> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> >> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:47 AM
> >> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
> >>
> >>
> >> The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger carrying aircraft.
> >> They
> >> require redundancy and separate powered ignition systems that won't go
> >> black
> >> in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On the other hand yes
> >> there are some great CDI ignitions that help the engines run better than
> >> they were designed to. For amateur built aircraft I doubt there is
> >> anything
> >> better.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Noel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
Yes. I had one on my car years ago. It flat failed and left me
stranded. Something inside the box fried.
On 2/19/07, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
>
> The answer from the FAA I'll bet would be something like try firing a .018
> plug with a CDI that has no power supply.
>
> The best answer is of course one magneto and one CDI. That would give you a
> limp home mode in case of a problem with the CDI. BTW has anyone ever heard
> of a problem with a CDI while in use??? I haven't.
>
> Noel
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of Archie
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:05 PM
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
>
> Without bursting bubbles. or offending the beaurocratic FAA,
> there is nothing better currently for any internal combustion engine
> than electronic ignition.
> Just try firing a .080 gap plug with a current magneto.(just one reason)
> Archie Frangoudis
> Archie's Racing Service
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Noel Loveys
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:47 AM
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
>
> The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger carrying aircraft. They
> require redundancy and separate powered ignition systems that won't go black
> in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On the other hand yes
> there are some great CDI ignitions that help the engines run better than
> they were designed to. For amateur built aircraft I doubt there is anything
> better.
>
>
> Noel
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.061.014).
> http://www.pctools.com/anti-v
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
I had one mag and one CDI once and it worked OK. But that means keeping
those inferior aircraft plugs clean and replacing at ~$20 each. WHY? My auto
plugs cost $2.50 each and are replaced every 75 hours or so. Never gap the
plugs; why bother at those prices. Also, the power is somewhat better with
two CDI according to Klaus Savior of LSE. I cannot confirm that.
For those that have never sat behind a Lycoming running CDI's, if you do get
a chance someday, ask the owner for a ride. The smoothness of the engine
will surprise you.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grant Piper" <grant.piper(at)bigpond.com>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 12:13 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
>
> Electronic ignition is OK,but try hand-swinging when the battery is flat
> or the starter is broken!
>
> Also, if you get no 'mag drop' when running an EI setup, then what is the
> benefit of dual EI? Why not just keep one mag and have one EI, then
> there is no need for dual busses, the extra complexity and associated
> weight etc. Just my simple farmer way of thinking of things....
>
> Grant Piper
> RV-4 VH-PIO
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
>
>>
>> Depends on your definition of better. There isn't an electronic
>> ignition made that will fire without a power source. Lose your
>> electrics and the engine WILL quit. OK in a car, not okay in a plane.
>> A magneto provides plenty of voltage to fire the proper gaps for
>> aircraft plugs at all engine speeds above idle. Bureaucracy has
>> nothing to do with it. Reliability is the prime issue with aircraft,
>> and there simply isn't an ignition made that is more reliable than a
>> pair of magnetos when you consider electrical failure a reasonable
>> possibility.
>>
>> On 2/18/07, Archie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Without bursting bubbles. or offending the beaurocratic FAA,
>>> there is nothing better currently for any internal combustion engine
>>> than electronic ignition.
>>> Just try firing a .080 gap plug with a current magneto.(just one reason)
>>> Archie Frangoudis
>>> Archie's Racing Service
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Noel Loveys
>>> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:47 AM
>>> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>>>
>>>
>>> The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger carrying aircraft.
>>> They
>>> require redundancy and separate powered ignition systems that won't go
>>> black
>>> in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On the other hand
>>> yes
>>> there are some great CDI ignitions that help the engines run better than
>>> they were designed to. For amateur built aircraft I doubt there is
>>> anything
>>> better.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Noel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
See my previous post.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
> Depends on your definition of better. There isn't an electronic
> ignition made that will fire without a power source. Lose your
> electrics and the engine WILL quit. OK in a car, not okay in a plane.
> A magneto provides plenty of voltage to fire the proper gaps for
> aircraft plugs at all engine speeds above idle. Bureaucracy has
> nothing to do with it. Reliability is the prime issue with aircraft,
> and there simply isn't an ignition made that is more reliable than a
> pair of magnetos when you consider electrical failure a reasonable
> possibility.
>
> On 2/18/07, Archie wrote:
>>
>>
>> Without bursting bubbles. or offending the beaurocratic FAA,
>> there is nothing better currently for any internal combustion engine
>> than electronic ignition.
>> Just try firing a .080 gap plug with a current magneto.(just one reason)
>> Archie Frangoudis
>> Archie's Racing Service
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Noel Loveys
>> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:47 AM
>> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>>
>>
>> The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger carrying aircraft.
>> They
>> require redundancy and separate powered ignition systems that won't go
>> black
>> in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On the other hand yes
>> there are some great CDI ignitions that help the engines run better than
>> they were designed to. For amateur built aircraft I doubt there is
>> anything
>> better.
>>
>>
>>
>> Noel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
You are confusing CDI's of today with 35 years ago. First, cars 35 years ago
were junk compared to cars of today. All cars today have electronic ignition
systems; i.e. CDI's.
Also the only failures I have had with alternators in my MustangII were from
wire terminal failures, partly my fault for not supporting the B-wire or the
field wire close the terminal. In 6000 hours of flying "store bought"
airplanes only had one failure (at night in a Cardinal) that cause a
complete electrical failure. If that were to happen in my plane, I would
still be flying 2 hours after the failure because of the backup battery.
BTW, I had a mag go south because of points coming apart after only 24 hours
in service; the maintenance facility that overhauled the mag said, "That
happens sometimes". WHAT!!! REALLY!!!!
Lessons learned 35 years ago no longer apply today.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
> Yeah, right. I was using CD ignition on a car 35 years ago(and it
> failed within 2 years). Show me an electronic ignition that is self
> powered and stone reliable and I'll come over to your side. So far,
> the automotive technology that has proven superior for aircraft, sum
> total, will fit in a C-150. Porsche tried and failed. Dozens have
> tried the aluminum Chevy, and failed. VW, Corvair, Subaru...all niche
> curiosities that haven't made it to mainstream. Face it. There isn't
> an electronic ignition that passes the dead battery test. Until that
> is possible, you are just bandaiding around the problem with dual
> buses and other backups.
>
> On 2/19/07, Archie wrote:
>>
>> With all due respect to your commentary, sir, I knew
>> some replies would come from traditionalists, and I concur
>> with your statements..
>> I will not deal with the semantics associated with such,
>> but suffice it to simply say read my original message carefully.
>> If people did not forward think in automotive, we would all
>> still be driving model "T"'s.
>> End.
>> Archie Frangoudis
>> Archie's Racing Service
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Depends on your definition of better. There isn't an electronic
>> > ignition made that will fire without a power source. Lose your
>> > electrics and the engine WILL quit. OK in a car, not okay in a plane.
>> > A magneto provides plenty of voltage to fire the proper gaps for
>> > aircraft plugs at all engine speeds above idle. Bureaucracy has
>> > nothing to do with it. Reliability is the prime issue with aircraft,
>> > and there simply isn't an ignition made that is more reliable than a
>> > pair of magnetos when you consider electrical failure a reasonable
>> > possibility.
>> >
>> > On 2/18/07, Archie wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Without bursting bubbles. or offending the beaurocratic FAA,
>> >> there is nothing better currently for any internal combustion engine
>> >> than electronic ignition.
>> >> Just try firing a .080 gap plug with a current magneto.(just one
>> >> reason)
>> >> Archie Frangoudis
>> >> Archie's Racing Service
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: Noel Loveys
>> >> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>> >> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:47 AM
>> >> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger carrying aircraft.
>> >> They
>> >> require redundancy and separate powered ignition systems that won't go
>> >> black
>> >> in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On the other hand
>> >> yes
>> >> there are some great CDI ignitions that help the engines run better
>> >> than
>> >> they were designed to. For amateur built aircraft I doubt there is
>> >> anything
>> >> better.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Noel
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
You will find that very few production cars today have Capacitor Discharge
Ignition systems. Most systems are still inductive discharge switched by a
transistor. (Transistors come in several forms including Bipolar, FET and IGBT.)
This system is much simpler and more reliable than a CDI system. CDI systems
are used for competition engines, though.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
15 years associated with ignition design for GM including Indy CDI systems.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Engine Running Rough |
So what should I do with my Airbus 320? It needs electric to run as do
all the new fadec powered jet engine systems. They hide this by
providing internal generators, kind of sound a little like the magneto
concept. But it's not!
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
Yeah, right. I was using CD ignition on a car 35 years ago(and it
failed within 2 years). Show me an electronic ignition that is self
powered and stone reliable and I'll come over to your side. So far,
the automotive technology that has proven superior for aircraft, sum
total, will fit in a C-150. Porsche tried and failed. Dozens have
tried the aluminum Chevy, and failed. VW, Corvair, Subaru...all niche
curiosities that haven't made it to mainstream. Face it. There isn't
an electronic ignition that passes the dead battery test. Until that
is possible, you are just bandaiding around the problem with dual
buses and other backups.
On 2/19/07, Archie wrote:
>
> With all due respect to your commentary, sir, I knew
> some replies would come from traditionalists, and I concur
> with your statements..
> I will not deal with the semantics associated with such,
> but suffice it to simply say read my original message carefully.
> If people did not forward think in automotive, we would all
> still be driving model "T"'s.
> End.
> Archie Frangoudis
> Archie's Racing Service
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
>
> >
> > Depends on your definition of better. There isn't an electronic
> > ignition made that will fire without a power source. Lose your
> > electrics and the engine WILL quit. OK in a car, not okay in a
plane.
> > A magneto provides plenty of voltage to fire the proper gaps for
> > aircraft plugs at all engine speeds above idle. Bureaucracy has
> > nothing to do with it. Reliability is the prime issue with aircraft,
> > and there simply isn't an ignition made that is more reliable than a
> > pair of magnetos when you consider electrical failure a reasonable
> > possibility.
> >
> > On 2/18/07, Archie wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Without bursting bubbles. or offending the beaurocratic FAA,
> >> there is nothing better currently for any internal combustion
engine
> >> than electronic ignition.
> >> Just try firing a .080 gap plug with a current magneto.(just one
reason)
> >> Archie Frangoudis
> >> Archie's Racing Service
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Noel Loveys
> >> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> >> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:47 AM
> >> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
> >>
> >>
> >> The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger carrying
aircraft.
> >> They
> >> require redundancy and separate powered ignition systems that won't
go
> >> black
> >> in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On the other
hand yes
> >> there are some great CDI ignitions that help the engines run better
than
> >> they were designed to. For amateur built aircraft I doubt there is
> >> anything
> >> better.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Noel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
2/8/2007
--
2/8/2007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Engine Running Rough |
Well, that's why airplanes have TWO ignition systems.... If you fly
long enough you too will have a mag. failure. I have had more than 12
mags. fail, fortunately not at the same time.
Mike
Lancair Legacy w/dual LSE Plasma III ignitions and dual independent
buses "boy it's smooth; I know it will be smoother when they quit. Ant
the fuel specifics are good too."
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
Yes. I had one on my car years ago. It flat failed and left me
stranded. Something inside the box fried.
--
2/8/2007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Engine Running Rough |
That would qualify as a problem with a CDI in use for me.
What would you think of having one CDI and one back up magneto? Possibly
using different plugs.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jrc
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
No. But, I've had total power failures on two occasions.....
Was grateful for mags at the time.
I also fly a non-electric cub a good bit of the time, and think that might
present a problem for CDI.
BTW has anyone ever heard of a problem with a CDI while in use??? I
haven't.
Noel
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.061.014).
http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.061.014).
http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Engine Running Rough |
| From: | "Monty Barrett Sr" <MONTY(at)bpaengines.com> |
NASCAR runs some type of EI. I have noticed 2 ea. MSD units in some of
the TV shots. Do you reckon there is a reason for that ? I know they
are not using 2 sparkplugs per chamber.
Monty Barrett
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel
Loveys
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:53 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
That would qualify as a problem with a CDI in use for me.
What would you think of having one CDI and one back up magneto?
Possibly using different plugs.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jrc
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:18 AM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
No. But, I've had total power failures on two occasions.....
Was grateful for mags at the time.
I also fly a non-electric cub a good bit of the time, and think
that might present a problem for CDI.
BTW has anyone ever heard of a problem with a CDI while
in use??? I haven't.
Noel
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
n
ics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.061.014).
http://www.pctools.com/anti-v
<http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/>
<http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/>
<http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/>
<http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/>
<http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/>
<http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/>
<http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/>
<http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/>
<http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Engine Running Rough |
The more I read the more I think there is a case for the single mag and a
single CDI. Two different technologies, two different weaknesses but when
combined they could offer more protection from an engine out.
One thing is for certain in the very near future there will be a big push on
to clean up GA engines. Whether you start installing at least one CDI with
variable timing or junk the whole lot and switch to Diesel only the future
will tell. Be prepared for big changes!
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Wayne Sweet
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 11:43 AM
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
>
>
>
> You are confusing CDI's of today with 35 years ago. First,
> cars 35 years ago
> were junk compared to cars of today. All cars today have
> electronic ignition
> systems; i.e. CDI's.
> Also the only failures I have had with alternators in my
> MustangII were from
> wire terminal failures, partly my fault for not supporting
> the B-wire or the
> field wire close the terminal. In 6000 hours of flying
> "store bought"
> airplanes only had one failure (at night in a Cardinal) that cause a
> complete electrical failure. If that were to happen in my
> plane, I would
> still be flying 2 hours after the failure because of the
> backup battery.
> BTW, I had a mag go south because of points coming apart
> after only 24 hours
> in service; the maintenance facility that overhauled the mag
> said, "That
> happens sometimes". WHAT!!! REALLY!!!!
> Lessons learned 35 years ago no longer apply today.
> Wayne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 6:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
>
>
> >
> > Yeah, right. I was using CD ignition on a car 35 years ago(and it
> > failed within 2 years). Show me an electronic ignition that is self
> > powered and stone reliable and I'll come over to your side. So far,
> > the automotive technology that has proven superior for aircraft, sum
> > total, will fit in a C-150. Porsche tried and failed. Dozens have
> > tried the aluminum Chevy, and failed. VW, Corvair,
> Subaru...all niche
> > curiosities that haven't made it to mainstream. Face it. There isn't
> > an electronic ignition that passes the dead battery test. Until that
> > is possible, you are just bandaiding around the problem with dual
> > buses and other backups.
> >
> > On 2/19/07, Archie wrote:
>
> >>
> >> With all due respect to your commentary, sir, I knew
> >> some replies would come from traditionalists, and I concur
> >> with your statements..
> >> I will not deal with the semantics associated with such,
> >> but suffice it to simply say read my original message carefully.
> >> If people did not forward think in automotive, we would all
> >> still be driving model "T"'s.
> >> End.
> >> Archie Frangoudis
> >> Archie's Racing Service
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:49 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Depends on your definition of better. There isn't an electronic
> >> > ignition made that will fire without a power source. Lose your
> >> > electrics and the engine WILL quit. OK in a car, not
> okay in a plane.
> >> > A magneto provides plenty of voltage to fire the proper gaps for
> >> > aircraft plugs at all engine speeds above idle. Bureaucracy has
> >> > nothing to do with it. Reliability is the prime issue
> with aircraft,
> >> > and there simply isn't an ignition made that is more
> reliable than a
> >> > pair of magnetos when you consider electrical failure a
> reasonable
> >> > possibility.
> >> >
> >> > On 2/18/07, Archie wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Without bursting bubbles. or offending the beaurocratic FAA,
> >> >> there is nothing better currently for any internal
> combustion engine
> >> >> than electronic ignition.
> >> >> Just try firing a .080 gap plug with a current
> magneto.(just one
> >> >> reason)
> >> >> Archie Frangoudis
> >> >> Archie's Racing Service
> >> >>
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: Noel Loveys
> >> >> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> >> >> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:47 AM
> >> >> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger
> carrying aircraft.
> >> >> They
> >> >> require redundancy and separate powered ignition
> systems that won't go
> >> >> black
> >> >> in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On
> the other hand
> >> >> yes
> >> >> there are some great CDI ignitions that help the
> engines run better
> >> >> than
> >> >> they were designed to. For amateur built aircraft I
> doubt there is
> >> >> anything
> >> >> better.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Noel
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.061.014).
> http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.061.014).
http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Running Rough |
I am surprised no one has yet mentioned E-mags in this thread.
http://www.emagair.com/Intro.htm
I have no experience with them but the reports of their product and service
have been excellent. In essence it is an electronic ignition that is a
bolt-on replacement for a mag. One model requires outside power, but the
other has its own built-in electrical source.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 7:58 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
Well, that's why airplanes have TWO ignition systems.... If you fly
long enough you too will have a mag. failure. I have had more than 12
mags. fail, fortunately not at the same time.
Mike
Lancair Legacy w/dual LSE Plasma III ignitions and dual independent
buses "boy it's smooth; I know it will be smoother when they quit. Ant
the fuel specifics are good too."
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
Yes. I had one on my car years ago. It flat failed and left me
stranded. Something inside the box fried.
--
2/8/2007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Engine Running Rough |
They also have more than one generator. More than one engine. %They can
sustain flight on one engine. If they have a massive electrical failure in
flight the engines won't just stop and become huge anchors. If the lights
in the cockpit wouldn't tell the crew they wouldn't even know about the
power loss.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 12:20 PM
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
>
>
> So what should I do with my Airbus 320? It needs electric to
> run as do
> all the new fadec powered jet engine systems. They hide this by
> providing internal generators, kind of sound a little like the magneto
> concept. But it's not!
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
> McMullen
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 7:13 AM
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
>
>
> Yeah, right. I was using CD ignition on a car 35 years ago(and it
> failed within 2 years). Show me an electronic ignition that is self
> powered and stone reliable and I'll come over to your side. So far,
> the automotive technology that has proven superior for aircraft, sum
> total, will fit in a C-150. Porsche tried and failed. Dozens have
> tried the aluminum Chevy, and failed. VW, Corvair, Subaru...all niche
> curiosities that haven't made it to mainstream. Face it. There isn't
> an electronic ignition that passes the dead battery test. Until that
> is possible, you are just bandaiding around the problem with dual
> buses and other backups.
>
> On 2/19/07, Archie wrote:
>
> >
> > With all due respect to your commentary, sir, I knew
> > some replies would come from traditionalists, and I concur
> > with your statements..
> > I will not deal with the semantics associated with such,
> > but suffice it to simply say read my original message carefully.
> > If people did not forward think in automotive, we would all
> > still be driving model "T"'s.
> > End.
> > Archie Frangoudis
> > Archie's Racing Service
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:49 PM
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
> >
> >
>
> > >
> > > Depends on your definition of better. There isn't an electronic
> > > ignition made that will fire without a power source. Lose your
> > > electrics and the engine WILL quit. OK in a car, not okay in a
> plane.
> > > A magneto provides plenty of voltage to fire the proper gaps for
> > > aircraft plugs at all engine speeds above idle. Bureaucracy has
> > > nothing to do with it. Reliability is the prime issue
> with aircraft,
> > > and there simply isn't an ignition made that is more
> reliable than a
> > > pair of magnetos when you consider electrical failure a reasonable
> > > possibility.
> > >
> > > On 2/18/07, Archie wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Without bursting bubbles. or offending the beaurocratic FAA,
> > >> there is nothing better currently for any internal combustion
> engine
> > >> than electronic ignition.
> > >> Just try firing a .080 gap plug with a current magneto.(just one
> reason)
> > >> Archie Frangoudis
> > >> Archie's Racing Service
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: Noel Loveys
> > >> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> > >> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:47 AM
> > >> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger carrying
> aircraft.
> > >> They
> > >> require redundancy and separate powered ignition systems
> that won't
> go
> > >> black
> > >> in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On the other
> hand yes
> > >> there are some great CDI ignitions that help the engines
> run better
> than
> > >> they were designed to. For amateur built aircraft I
> doubt there is
> > >> anything
> > >> better.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Noel
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> 2/8/2007
>
>
> --
> 2/8/2007
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.061.014).
> http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/
>
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.061.014).
http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Yeah, right. I was using CD ignition on a car 35 years ago(and it
> failed within 2 years). Show me an electronic ignition that is self
> powered and stone reliable and I'll come over to your side. So far,
> the automotive technology that has proven superior for aircraft, sum
> total, will fit in a C-150. Porsche tried and failed. Dozens have
> tried the aluminum Chevy, and failed. VW, Corvair, Subaru...all niche
> curiosities that haven't made it to mainstream. Face it. There isn't
> an electronic ignition that passes the dead battery test. Until that
> is possible, you are just bandaiding around the problem with dual
> buses and other backups.
For those who don't know yet and are trying to learn:
Mags fail.
Mags fail with some frequency.
There's typically only one carb or injection controller, but there are
almost always 2 mags. It ain't just about better combustion.
If standalone ignition floats your boat, google 'p-mag' & 'e-mag' to
come close to the 'ideal'.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
No, no confusion. Also had later factory electronic ignition leave me
stranded at -40. They have several points of failure. Can't tell you
how many engine management CPUs get changed out regularly. Alternators
are no more reliable than they ever were. All fine for cars. Not so
fine for aviation. A mag failure shortly after overhaul indicates a
shop that is incompetent. I have yet to have a mag actually fail in 35
years of flying. Had P-lead short a mag to ground, but no mag failure.
You are welcome to go complex electronics. Your choice. That is what
experimental is all about.
On 2/19/07, Wayne Sweet wrote:
>
> You are confusing CDI's of today with 35 years ago. First, cars 35 years ago
> were junk compared to cars of today. All cars today have electronic ignition
> systems; i.e. CDI's.
> Also the only failures I have had with alternators in my MustangII were from
> wire terminal failures, partly my fault for not supporting the B-wire or the
> field wire close the terminal. In 6000 hours of flying "store bought"
> airplanes only had one failure (at night in a Cardinal) that cause a
> complete electrical failure. If that were to happen in my plane, I would
> still be flying 2 hours after the failure because of the backup battery.
> BTW, I had a mag go south because of points coming apart after only 24 hours
> in service; the maintenance facility that overhauled the mag said, "That
> happens sometimes". WHAT!!! REALLY!!!!
> Lessons learned 35 years ago no longer apply today.
> Wayne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 6:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
>
> >
> > Yeah, right. I was using CD ignition on a car 35 years ago(and it
> > failed within 2 years). Show me an electronic ignition that is self
> > powered and stone reliable and I'll come over to your side. So far,
> > the automotive technology that has proven superior for aircraft, sum
> > total, will fit in a C-150. Porsche tried and failed. Dozens have
> > tried the aluminum Chevy, and failed. VW, Corvair, Subaru...all niche
> > curiosities that haven't made it to mainstream. Face it. There isn't
> > an electronic ignition that passes the dead battery test. Until that
> > is possible, you are just bandaiding around the problem with dual
> > buses and other backups.
> >
> > On 2/19/07, Archie wrote:
> >>
> >> With all due respect to your commentary, sir, I knew
> >> some replies would come from traditionalists, and I concur
> >> with your statements..
> >> I will not deal with the semantics associated with such,
> >> but suffice it to simply say read my original message carefully.
> >> If people did not forward think in automotive, we would all
> >> still be driving model "T"'s.
> >> End.
> >> Archie Frangoudis
> >> Archie's Racing Service
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:49 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Depends on your definition of better. There isn't an electronic
> >> > ignition made that will fire without a power source. Lose your
> >> > electrics and the engine WILL quit. OK in a car, not okay in a plane.
> >> > A magneto provides plenty of voltage to fire the proper gaps for
> >> > aircraft plugs at all engine speeds above idle. Bureaucracy has
> >> > nothing to do with it. Reliability is the prime issue with aircraft,
> >> > and there simply isn't an ignition made that is more reliable than a
> >> > pair of magnetos when you consider electrical failure a reasonable
> >> > possibility.
> >> >
> >> > On 2/18/07, Archie wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Without bursting bubbles. or offending the beaurocratic FAA,
> >> >> there is nothing better currently for any internal combustion engine
> >> >> than electronic ignition.
> >> >> Just try firing a .080 gap plug with a current magneto.(just one
> >> >> reason)
> >> >> Archie Frangoudis
> >> >> Archie's Racing Service
> >> >>
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: Noel Loveys
> >> >> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> >> >> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:47 AM
> >> >> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger carrying aircraft.
> >> >> They
> >> >> require redundancy and separate powered ignition systems that won't go
> >> >> black
> >> >> in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On the other hand
> >> >> yes
> >> >> there are some great CDI ignitions that help the engines run better
> >> >> than
> >> >> they were designed to. For amateur built aircraft I doubt there is
> >> >> anything
> >> >> better.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Noel
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
MessageThere is an interior switch that will run one or the other. (just
in case)
----- Original Message -----
From: Monty Barrett Sr
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 12:03 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
NASCAR runs some type of EI. I have noticed 2 ea. MSD units in some
of the TV shots. Do you reckon there is a reason for that ? I know
they are not using 2 sparkplugs per chamber.
Monty Barrett
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel
Loveys
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:53 AM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
That would qualify as a problem with a CDI in use for me.
What would you think of having one CDI and one back up magneto?
Possibly using different plugs.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jrc
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:18 AM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
No. But, I've had total power failures on two occasions.....
Was grateful for mags at the time.
I also fly a non-electric cub a good bit of the time, and think that
might present a problem for CDI.
BTW has anyone ever heard of a problem with a CDI while in use???
I haven't.
Noel
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Engines-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http:
//forums.matronics.com
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.061.014).
http://www.pctools.com/anti-v
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-Listhttp://forums.matronics.co
m
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
Kelly,
No wholly true.
P Mags (emagair.com) is an electronic ignition that has its own internal
generator such that should the electrics fail, it can continue running at speeds
above idle (about 700 rpm) therefore performing essentially like a mag. When
power is available, it enjoys the advantages of electronic ignition.
Stan Sutterfield
There isn't an electronic
ignition made that will fire without a power source. Lose your
electrics and the engine WILL quit. OK in a car, not okay in a plane.
A magneto provides plenty of voltage to fire the proper gaps for
aircraft plugs at all engine speeds above idle.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Running Rough |
Yes, I was aware of PMag and it probably is as good an alternative as
you can get for a 4 cyl engine. However, it isn't available for a 6
cylinder yet, and:
"Even the P-MAG model needs some source of outside power at start-up.
If you are prop starting because the battery is "low", there is plenty
of power for the ignition. If you're battery is "almost" dead (you
only get a faint glow from the cabin light) you probably have enough
power for the ignition. However if you're battery is removed or is
absolutely/totally dead, you cannot prop start with the electronic
ignition and "no" outside power. "
On 2/19/07, Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Kelly,
> No wholly true.
> P Mags (emagair.com) is an electronic ignition that has its own internal
> generator such that should the electrics fail, it can continue running at
> speeds above idle (about 700 rpm) therefore performing essentially like a
> mag. When power is available, it enjoys the advantages of electronic
> ignition.
> Stan Sutterfield
>
> There isn't an electronic
> ignition made that will fire without a power source. Lose your
> electrics and the engine WILL quit. OK in a car, not okay in a plane.
> A magneto provides plenty of voltage to fire the proper gaps for
> aircraft plugs at all engine speeds above idle.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Dodson" <douglas.dodson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Running Rough |
There are many more benefits to a dual electrical system than just the
ignition system. If a required vacuum system is replaced by a second
battery and/or alternator, then failure of a primary (electric) gyro is
reduced dramatically. The additional cost, weight and complexity is
negligible (and for some designs, even negative).
Magnetos are far more failure prone than CDI ignition systems. One mag, one
EI means you will be spending time and money on the mag for to keep the
redundancy. Parts commonality is a benefit of two identical systems.
Douglas L. Dodson, Jr.
Glasair II-S FT
Flight Test Engineer, CFI-A,G
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Grant Piper
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 12:13 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
Electronic ignition is OK,but try hand-swinging when the battery is flat or
the starter is broken!
Also, if you get no 'mag drop' when running an EI setup, then what is the
benefit of dual EI? Why not just keep one mag and have one EI, then there
is no need for dual busses, the extra complexity and associated weight etc.
Just my simple farmer way of thinking of things....
Grant Piper
RV-4 VH-PIO
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>
> Depends on your definition of better. There isn't an electronic
> ignition made that will fire without a power source. Lose your
> electrics and the engine WILL quit. OK in a car, not okay in a plane.
> A magneto provides plenty of voltage to fire the proper gaps for
> aircraft plugs at all engine speeds above idle. Bureaucracy has
> nothing to do with it. Reliability is the prime issue with aircraft,
> and there simply isn't an ignition made that is more reliable than a
> pair of magnetos when you consider electrical failure a reasonable
> possibility.
>
> On 2/18/07, Archie wrote:
>>
>>
>> Without bursting bubbles. or offending the beaurocratic FAA,
>> there is nothing better currently for any internal combustion engine
>> than electronic ignition.
>> Just try firing a .080 gap plug with a current magneto.(just one reason)
>> Archie Frangoudis
>> Archie's Racing Service
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Noel Loveys
>> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:47 AM
>> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine Running Rough
>>
>>
>> The reasons are laid out, basically for passenger carrying aircraft.
>> They
>> require redundancy and separate powered ignition systems that won't go
>> black
>> in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. On the other hand yes
>> there are some great CDI ignitions that help the engines run better than
>> they were designed to. For amateur built aircraft I doubt there is
>> anything
>> better.
>>
>>
>>
>> Noel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
Didn't have time to read all of the last comments but how does an engine
act
with firing auto plugs with a magneto?
At the cost of aviation shielded plugs, changing to auto plugs is an
incentive. Any need to change plug gaps?
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)netzero.com> |
NOPE !!!!!!
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Bob" wrote:
Didn't have time to read all of the last comments but how does an engine
act with firing auto plugs with a magneto? At the cost of aviation shie
lded plugs, changing to auto plugs is an incentive. Any need to change
========================
========================
========================
========================
=======
NOPE !!!!!!
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair
.com
-- "Bob" <rfg842(at)cox.net> wrote:
|
Didn't have time to read all of the last comments but how does an e
ngine act with firing auto plugs with a magneto?
At the cost of aviation shielded plugs, changing to auto plugs is a
n incentive. Any need to change plug gaps?
Bob, Wichita |
http://www2.incre
dimail.com/contents/stamps/imstp_heads_en.gif" align=baseline border=
0>