Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:47 AM - Engine Oil Ring Fush (Jim Combs)
2. 07:42 AM - Re: Engine Oil Ring Fush (Kelly McMullen)
3. 09:46 AM - Re: Engine Oil Ring Fush (Jim Combs)
4. 09:47 AM - Re: Engine Oil Ring Fush (Tim Olson)
5. 10:24 AM - Re: Engine Oil Ring Fush (Lenny Iszak)
6. 08:06 PM - Re: Engine Oil Ring Fush (Kelly McMullen)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Engine Oil Ring Fush |
I am running a Lycoming IO540-C4B5 on my 10. At the last condition
inspection, the number one and two cylinders failed the compression test
with numbers of 58/80. To date it now has about 750 additional hours on
it over six years of flying.
A little history. I put this engine on the airplane in 2009 with a first
flight in 2010. It had 982 SMOH and had all chrome cylinders. I had the
fuel system overhauled and added a light speed ignition on installation.
After some running, I replaced three of the cylinders (1 and 2 were in that
three). Over the next five years of operation two more cylinders were
replaced. Looking back at the condition inspections I see that the
compression numbers on 1 and 2 were steadily dropping by about 5 points per
year. Had not really noticed anything until these two failed. Oil
consumption took a large hike just before the last condition inspection
too. So now I was looking for a problem.
I had resigned myself to remove those two cylinders and see what was going
on. Bore scope inspection showed the valves to be OK. I had the cowling
off and was getting ready for a removal and got a visit from another pilot
on the airport who has a long history of flying and racing IO-540 engines
and currently flies a Piper Malibu (Twin turbo IO-540 engine). After
talking with him, he suggested I do an oil ring wash on the two cylinders
using the procedure in the attached document. He said it had saved two
engines in the past and that he now does this on the Malibu at each
annual. So what the heck, I had nothing to loose by trying this.
After doing the oil ring wash, changing the oil, and and flying for a
couple of hours, I checked the cylinders again. 78/80 on both cylinders
and oil consumption is back to low numbers.
Engine is running great now (35+ hours) and at the next condition
inspection I will do the other four cylinders.
So my question: Has anyone ever heard of this? I was very skeptical but
the results have been way beyond my expectations.
Jim Combs
N312F
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine Oil Ring Fush |
You need to explore further what a compression test is and isn't.
There is no such thing as "failing" a compression test if there is not
leakage through the valves. While you may have suffered some oil ring
sticking that would account for oil consumption. Your compressions are
not the issue that you think. You likely would have seen an improvement
just from flying and testing compression while cylinders were hot.
Mike Busch has some articles on the web on the issue.
Kelly
On 8/15/2017 6:46 AM, Jim Combs wrote:
> I am running a Lycoming IO540-C4B5 on my 10. At the last condition
> inspection, the number one and two cylinders failed the compression test
> with numbers of 58/80. To date it now has about 750 additional hours
> on it over six years of flying.
>
> A little history. I put this engine on the airplane in 2009 with a
> first flight in 2010. It had 982 SMOH and had all chrome cylinders. I
> had the fuel system overhauled and added a light speed ignition on
> installation. After some running, I replaced three of the cylinders (1
> and 2 were in that three). Over the next five years of operation two
> more cylinders were replaced. Looking back at the condition inspections
> I see that the compression numbers on 1 and 2 were steadily dropping by
> about 5 points per year. Had not really noticed anything until these
> two failed. Oil consumption took a large hike just before the last
> condition inspection too. So now I was looking for a problem.
>
> I had resigned myself to remove those two cylinders and see what was
> going on. Bore scope inspection showed the valves to be OK. I had the
> cowling off and was getting ready for a removal and got a visit from
> another pilot on the airport who has a long history of flying and racing
> IO-540 engines and currently flies a Piper Malibu (Twin turbo IO-540
> engine). After talking with him, he suggested I do an oil ring wash on
> the two cylinders using the procedure in the attached document. He said
> it had saved two engines in the past and that he now does this on the
> Malibu at each annual. So what the heck, I had nothing to loose by
> trying this.
>
> After doing the oil ring wash, changing the oil, and and flying for a
> couple of hours, I checked the cylinders again. 78/80 on both cylinders
> and oil consumption is back to low numbers.
>
> Engine is running great now (35+ hours) and at the next condition
> inspection I will do the other four cylinders.
>
> So my question: Has anyone ever heard of this? I was very skeptical but
> the results have been way beyond my expectations.
>
> Jim Combs
> N312F
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine Oil Ring Fush |
I had major leakage into the crankcase during the compression testing on
those two cylinders. It was not there in previous condition inspections.
I did my follow on compression testing at the same conditions as well. So
whatever this has done has resulted in significant improvement.
I do oil analysis as well. It will be interesting to see what shows up in
the next oil change analysis.
Jim C
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
wrote:
>
> You need to explore further what a compression test is and isn't. There
> is no such thing as "failing" a compression test if there is not leakage
> through the valves. While you may have suffered some oil ring sticking that
> would account for oil consumption. Your compressions are not the issue that
> you think. You likely would have seen an improvement just from flying and
> testing compression while cylinders were hot.
> Mike Busch has some articles on the web on the issue.
> Kelly
>
> On 8/15/2017 6:46 AM, Jim Combs wrote:
>
>> I am running a Lycoming IO540-C4B5 on my 10. At the last condition
>> inspection, the number one and two cylinders failed the compression test
>> with numbers of 58/80. To date it now has about 750 additional hours on
>> it over six years of flying.
>>
>> A little history. I put this engine on the airplane in 2009 with a first
>> flight in 2010. It had 982 SMOH and had all chrome cylinders. I had the
>> fuel system overhauled and added a light speed ignition on installation.
>> After some running, I replaced three of the cylinders (1 and 2 were in that
>> three). Over the next five years of operation two more cylinders were
>> replaced. Looking back at the condition inspections I see that the
>> compression numbers on 1 and 2 were steadily dropping by about 5 points per
>> year. Had not really noticed anything until these two failed. Oil
>> consumption took a large hike just before the last condition inspection
>> too. So now I was looking for a problem.
>>
>> I had resigned myself to remove those two cylinders and see what was
>> going on. Bore scope inspection showed the valves to be OK. I had the
>> cowling off and was getting ready for a removal and got a visit from
>> another pilot on the airport who has a long history of flying and racing
>> IO-540 engines and currently flies a Piper Malibu (Twin turbo IO-540
>> engine). After talking with him, he suggested I do an oil ring wash on the
>> two cylinders using the procedure in the attached document. He said it had
>> saved two engines in the past and that he now does this on the Malibu at
>> each annual. So what the heck, I had nothing to loose by trying this.
>>
>> After doing the oil ring wash, changing the oil, and and flying for a
>> couple of hours, I checked the cylinders again. 78/80 on both cylinders
>> and oil consumption is back to low numbers.
>>
>> Engine is running great now (35+ hours) and at the next condition
>> inspection I will do the other four cylinders.
>>
>> So my question: Has anyone ever heard of this? I was very skeptical but
>> the results have been way beyond my expectations.
>>
>> Jim Combs
>> N312F
>>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine Oil Ring Fush |
Kelly,
I'm just wanting to clarify and interpret your reply.
I for one read Jim's post and thought about it a little and
thought "man, this could actually be a good tip for
an older engine". But, to make sure the whole world knows,
let me state, "I am no expert!". I just picture it being
perhaps a good thing if you de-gum the rings and cylinder
at some point if you have high oil consumption. Maybe it's
not, and maybe I'm being led down a rabbit hole. But, if
someone were to do the procedure he attached, I would think
that if done carefully it should be a fairly non-issue,
and if it worked, could be a positive thing.
Then, to your point about compression, I do personally
understand that, and would myself just have flown it
another bit of time to see if the compression improved.
I would also make sure to do the test while warm/hot.
So I agree with your reply from that standpoint.
That said, he did see decreasing compression in steps,
so perhaps there is something that could have benefited
the engine from the procedure.
I just can't separate wives tale from truth on this
particular issue. I can see how it may be worth the
effort....if done carefully...but not sure I'm game
for doing it myself at this point. I certainly won't
throw the email away however, because I would try this
before I bought a top overhaul if the valves were good.
If you have more comments, Kelly, I'd love to have you
expand on the topic.
Tim
On 8/15/2017 9:41 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> You need to explore further what a compression test is and isn't.
> There is no such thing as "failing" a compression test if there is not
> leakage through the valves. While you may have suffered some oil ring
> sticking that would account for oil consumption. Your compressions are
> not the issue that you think. You likely would have seen an improvement
> just from flying and testing compression while cylinders were hot.
> Mike Busch has some articles on the web on the issue.
> Kelly
>
> On 8/15/2017 6:46 AM, Jim Combs wrote:
>> I am running a Lycoming IO540-C4B5 on my 10. At the last condition
>> inspection, the number one and two cylinders failed the compression
>> test with numbers of 58/80. To date it now has about 750 additional
>> hours on it over six years of flying.
>>
>> A little history. I put this engine on the airplane in 2009 with a
>> first flight in 2010. It had 982 SMOH and had all chrome cylinders.
>> I had the fuel system overhauled and added a light speed ignition on
>> installation. After some running, I replaced three of the cylinders
>> (1 and 2 were in that three). Over the next five years of operation
>> two more cylinders were replaced. Looking back at the condition
>> inspections I see that the compression numbers on 1 and 2 were
>> steadily dropping by about 5 points per year. Had not really noticed
>> anything until these two failed. Oil consumption took a large hike
>> just before the last condition inspection too. So now I was looking
>> for a problem.
>>
>> I had resigned myself to remove those two cylinders and see what was
>> going on. Bore scope inspection showed the valves to be OK. I had
>> the cowling off and was getting ready for a removal and got a visit
>> from another pilot on the airport who has a long history of flying and
>> racing IO-540 engines and currently flies a Piper Malibu (Twin turbo
>> IO-540 engine). After talking with him, he suggested I do an oil ring
>> wash on the two cylinders using the procedure in the attached
>> document. He said it had saved two engines in the past and that he
>> now does this on the Malibu at each annual. So what the heck, I had
>> nothing to loose by trying this.
>>
>> After doing the oil ring wash, changing the oil, and and flying for a
>> couple of hours, I checked the cylinders again. 78/80 on both
>> cylinders and oil consumption is back to low numbers.
>>
>> Engine is running great now (35+ hours) and at the next condition
>> inspection I will do the other four cylinders.
>>
>> So my question: Has anyone ever heard of this? I was very skeptical
>> but the results have been way beyond my expectations.
>>
>> Jim Combs
>> N312F
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine Oil Ring Fush |
It looks like this flush method, or rather a similar one with added MEK was developed
by Ed Kollin, the developer of Camguard. I trust Ed's judgement on that,
and it looks like Mike Busch endorses him too.
Attaching a pdf with his method, note the warning on the bottom, that the flush
might soften the oil quickdrain o-ring.
Lenny
Tim Olson wrote:
> Kelly,
>
> I'm just wanting to clarify and interpret your reply.
> I for one read Jim's post and thought about it a little and
> thought "man, this could actually be a good tip for
> an older engine". But, to make sure the whole world knows,
> let me state, "I am no expert!". I just picture it being
> perhaps a good thing if you de-gum the rings and cylinder
> at some point if you have high oil consumption. Maybe it's
> not, and maybe I'm being led down a rabbit hole. But, if
> someone were to do the procedure he attached, I would think
> that if done carefully it should be a fairly non-issue,
> and if it worked, could be a positive thing.
>
> Then, to your point about compression, I do personally
> understand that, and would myself just have flown it
> another bit of time to see if the compression improved.
> I would also make sure to do the test while warm/hot.
> So I agree with your reply from that standpoint.
>
> That said, he did see decreasing compression in steps,
> so perhaps there is something that could have benefited
> the engine from the procedure.
>
> I just can't separate wives tale from truth on this
> particular issue. I can see how it may be worth the
> effort....if done carefully...but not sure I'm game
> for doing it myself at this point. I certainly won't
> throw the email away however, because I would try this
> before I bought a top overhaul if the valves were good.
>
> If you have more comments, Kelly, I'd love to have you
> expand on the topic.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> On 8/15/2017 9:41 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > You need to explore further what a compression test is and isn't.
> > There is no such thing as "failing" a compression test if there is not
> > leakage through the valves. While you may have suffered some oil ring
> > sticking that would account for oil consumption. Your compressions are
> > not the issue that you think. You likely would have seen an improvement
> > just from flying and testing compression while cylinders were hot.
> > Mike Busch has some articles on the web on the issue.
> > Kelly
> >
> > On 8/15/2017 6:46 AM, Jim Combs wrote:
> > > I am running a Lycoming IO540-C4B5 on my 10. At the last condition
> > > inspection, the number one and two cylinders failed the compression
> > > test with numbers of 58/80. To date it now has about 750 additional
> > > hours on it over six years of flying.
> > >
> > > A little history. I put this engine on the airplane in 2009 with a
> > > first flight in 2010. It had 982 SMOH and had all chrome cylinders.
> > > I had the fuel system overhauled and added a light speed ignition on
> > > installation. After some running, I replaced three of the cylinders
> > > (1 and 2 were in that three). Over the next five years of operation
> > > two more cylinders were replaced. Looking back at the condition
> > > inspections I see that the compression numbers on 1 and 2 were
> > > steadily dropping by about 5 points per year. Had not really noticed
> > > anything until these two failed. Oil consumption took a large hike
> > > just before the last condition inspection too. So now I was looking
> > > for a problem.
> > >
> > > I had resigned myself to remove those two cylinders and see what was
> > > going on. Bore scope inspection showed the valves to be OK. I had
> > > the cowling off and was getting ready for a removal and got a visit
> > > from another pilot on the airport who has a long history of flying and
> > > racing IO-540 engines and currently flies a Piper Malibu (Twin turbo
> > > IO-540 engine). After talking with him, he suggested I do an oil ring
> > > wash on the two cylinders using the procedure in the attached
> > > document. He said it had saved two engines in the past and that he
> > > now does this on the Malibu at each annual. So what the heck, I had
> > > nothing to loose by trying this.
> > >
> > > After doing the oil ring wash, changing the oil, and and flying for a
> > > couple of hours, I checked the cylinders again. 78/80 on both
> > > cylinders and oil consumption is back to low numbers.
> > >
> > > Engine is running great now (35+ hours) and at the next condition
> > > inspection I will do the other four cylinders.
> > >
> > > So my question: Has anyone ever heard of this? I was very skeptical
> > > but the results have been way beyond my expectations.
> > >
> > > Jim Combs
> > > N312F
> >
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=471884#471884
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/oil_control_ring_solvent_flush_procedure_ed_kollin_camguard_157.pdf
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine Oil Ring Fush |
Tim,
I don't doubt that any procedure that manages to free stuck rings will
improve both oil consumption and compression. I really wasn't commenting
on the effectiveness, short or long term of such a procedure.
What I was commenting on is the unreliability of compression tests...a
position that has been advocated by both Continental and Mike Busch for
some time. Continental has proved that an engine that only tests at
30/80 due to large ring gaps, absent valve problems will make full rated
power. Far too many cylinders are removed for "repair" that are not
justified. Yes, they make get better compression with a hone and fresh
rings, but at what cost? Does it do anything but marginally improve oil
consumption? How much oil can you buy compared to cost of removing,
repairing and re-installing said cylinder?
Kelly
On 8/15/2017 9:47 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Kelly,
>
> I'm just wanting to clarify and interpret your reply.
> I for one read Jim's post and thought about it a little and
> thought "man, this could actually be a good tip for
> an older engine". But, to make sure the whole world knows,
> let me state, "I am no expert!". I just picture it being
> perhaps a good thing if you de-gum the rings and cylinder
> at some point if you have high oil consumption. Maybe it's
> not, and maybe I'm being led down a rabbit hole. But, if
> someone were to do the procedure he attached, I would think
> that if done carefully it should be a fairly non-issue,
> and if it worked, could be a positive thing.
>
> Then, to your point about compression, I do personally
> understand that, and would myself just have flown it
> another bit of time to see if the compression improved.
> I would also make sure to do the test while warm/hot.
> So I agree with your reply from that standpoint.
>
> That said, he did see decreasing compression in steps,
> so perhaps there is something that could have benefited
> the engine from the procedure.
>
> I just can't separate wives tale from truth on this
> particular issue. I can see how it may be worth the
> effort....if done carefully...but not sure I'm game
> for doing it myself at this point. I certainly won't
> throw the email away however, because I would try this
> before I bought a top overhaul if the valves were good.
>
> If you have more comments, Kelly, I'd love to have you
> expand on the topic.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> On 8/15/2017 9:41 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>> You need to explore further what a compression test is and isn't.
>> There is no such thing as "failing" a compression test if there is not
>> leakage through the valves. While you may have suffered some oil ring
>> sticking that would account for oil consumption. Your compressions are
>> not the issue that you think. You likely would have seen an
>> improvement just from flying and testing compression while cylinders
>> were hot.
>> Mike Busch has some articles on the web on the issue.
>> Kelly
>>
>> On 8/15/2017 6:46 AM, Jim Combs wrote:
>>> I am running a Lycoming IO540-C4B5 on my 10. At the last condition
>>> inspection, the number one and two cylinders failed the compression
>>> test with numbers of 58/80. To date it now has about 750 additional
>>> hours on it over six years of flying.
>>>
>>> A little history. I put this engine on the airplane in 2009 with a
>>> first flight in 2010. It had 982 SMOH and had all chrome cylinders.
>>> I had the fuel system overhauled and added a light speed ignition on
>>> installation. After some running, I replaced three of the cylinders
>>> (1 and 2 were in that three). Over the next five years of operation
>>> two more cylinders were replaced. Looking back at the condition
>>> inspections I see that the compression numbers on 1 and 2 were
>>> steadily dropping by about 5 points per year. Had not really noticed
>>> anything until these two failed. Oil consumption took a large hike
>>> just before the last condition inspection too. So now I was looking
>>> for a problem.
>>>
>>> I had resigned myself to remove those two cylinders and see what was
>>> going on. Bore scope inspection showed the valves to be OK. I had
>>> the cowling off and was getting ready for a removal and got a visit
>>> from another pilot on the airport who has a long history of flying
>>> and racing IO-540 engines and currently flies a Piper Malibu (Twin
>>> turbo IO-540 engine). After talking with him, he suggested I do an
>>> oil ring wash on the two cylinders using the procedure in the
>>> attached document. He said it had saved two engines in the past and
>>> that he now does this on the Malibu at each annual. So what the
>>> heck, I had nothing to loose by trying this.
>>>
>>> After doing the oil ring wash, changing the oil, and and flying for a
>>> couple of hours, I checked the cylinders again. 78/80 on both
>>> cylinders and oil consumption is back to low numbers.
>>>
>>> Engine is running great now (35+ hours) and at the next condition
>>> inspection I will do the other four cylinders.
>>>
>>> So my question: Has anyone ever heard of this? I was very skeptical
>>> but the results have been way beyond my expectations.
>>>
>>> Jim Combs
>>> N312F
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|