Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:08 AM - Re: Oil and the M-14P (CD 2.0)
2. 12:42 AM - Re: Re: Oil and the M-14P (Eric Wobschall)
3. 05:30 AM - Carbon X (Dr. Robert Schroeder)
4. 05:50 AM - Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (dabear)
5. 06:26 AM - Re: Oil and the M-14P (Dale)
6. 06:47 AM - Re: Re: Oil and the M-14P (Warren Hill)
7. 06:53 AM - Re: M-14P & OIl (Jill Gernetzke)
8. 07:17 AM - Re: Re: M-14P & OIl (Eric Wobschall)
9. 10:10 AM - Re: Re: Oil and the M-14P (Brian Lloyd)
10. 10:38 AM - Re: Re: Oil and the M-14P (Eric Wobschall)
11. 03:18 PM - Re: Re: Oil and the M-14P (Brian Lloyd)
12. 03:24 PM - Re: Re: Oil and the M-14P (Eric Wobschall)
13. 06:17 PM - Re: M-14P & OIl (CD 2.0)
14. 06:37 PM - Re: Re: M-14P & OIl (Eric Wobschall)
15. 06:52 PM - Re: Re: M-14P & OIl (Brian Lloyd)
16. 07:14 PM - Re: Re: M-14P & OIl (Eric Wobschall)
17. 09:29 PM - Re: Oil and the M-14P (CD 2.0)
18. 09:55 PM - Re: Re: M-14P & OIl (Brian Lloyd)
19. 10:08 PM - Re: M-14P & OIl (CD 2.0)
20. 10:26 PM - Re: M-14P & OIl (CD 2.0)
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: | Re: Oil and the M-14P |
radio.. good comment.
In my experience, most of the top engine shops, radial and flat engines, recommend
that mineral oil Aeroshell 100 (without the W) be utilized for the first 25-50
hours of engine operation or after an overhaul to brake in and later on single
grade, ashless dispersant oils such as the Aeroshell w 100 should be utilized
for the remainder of the engines life.
I've heard numerous times from top engine shops, how their service history records
are much less favorable for engines that have a history of being operated
on "synthetic blends or semi-synthetic" oil products and they firmly encourage
using Mineral Based (AD) Oils only... single or multi-viscosity as conditions
require.
I remember someone, about a year and a half a go, who used Phillips XC 25-60 on
a T-6's and said it was a good oil... then changed to Aeroshell w 100 and report
it as a good oil as well... however when using the Phillips XC 25-60 it leaked
and spit oil more frequently, then after switching back to Aeroshell it considerably
reduced the leaking... Phillips XC 25-60 oil remains thinner and
more easily pourable at room temperature than single grade oil even with the latest
improvements. Certainly it's a good oil and has its advantages for cold
weather starting... but Multi vis oil would not be my preferred choice during
periods of disuse as I believe it doesn't provide nearly as good corrosion protection
as single grade oils like the Aeroshell w100 does.
So Which Oil Should we Use?... It all depends on where you fly, and how often.
If your airplane flies at least once a week... or if you operate in a low corrosion
environment such as the desert or the mountains... you probably don't have
to worry too much about corrosion. This is especially true if the airplane is
also hangared. In this case, multi-weight oil types could be a good choice.
On the other hand, if you are based in a corrosive environment... within 100 miles
of the coast, the Gulf, the Great Lakes, or a major metropolitan area with
its industrial pollution... and if your airplane sometimes goes for two weeks
or more at a time without being flown, internal corrosion should be a major concern.
This is especially true if the aircraft is not hangared. If you fall into
this category, I would suggest that you use a single weight AD oil such as
Aeroshell W 100 to provide the best possible protection against corrosion during
periods of disuse.
If you operate in a temperate climate (such as is found in much of California),
you can use single weight oil all year around. However, if you operate in sub
freezing winter temperatures, then switching to a multi-weight oil during the
cold weather months could be a good option, and then return to single-weight
oil during the remainder of the year. If your A&P tells you that it's bad to switch
from one type of oil to another... he may be misinformed.
Carl
radiopicture wrote:
> I have a few remarks about the oil for M-14P topic:
>
> Lots of good information posted recently. I would add this:
>
> Certainly, you can't go wrong with Aeroshell W80/100/120 (AD) in the M-14P, unless
you're breaking in, which would call for the straight mineral version (no
"W").
>
> Having said that, there are advantages to the Phillips XC 25-60 for radial engines
(not to be confused with XC 20-50 for flat engines): It's not an AD type
oil, so it can be used during break-in periods, and if you have to change one
cylinder, you won't have to switch oil types back and forth. Also, appropriate
for a wider temp range, of course.
>
> I noted the comments about corrosion protection in-between flights. It was definitely
true in the past that multi-weight oils wouldn't cling to engine parts
leaving them susceptible to this corrosion. Especially a problem on cam followers
in Lycomings. However, modern multi-weight oils have addressed this problem,
and have been shown to be even better than straight-weight oils in this respect.
The Aeroshell multi-grade oil gets great reviews for flat engines, but
it was found that one of the additives gums up the compressor pop-off valve on
the M-14P. At any rate, neither that one nor the Phillips 20-50 should be used
on radials. This is NOT a problem with the XC 25-60 for radials.
>
> Another thing that has been mentioned by the Russians is this: The flop tube
pivot in the oil tank has a seal that's formed by the oil itself. Of course, there's
some leakage, but it's inside the tank, so as long as pressure can be maintained,
no problem. In older planes where the pivot might have more wear, apparently
the oil pressure can be reduced in some attitudes (prolonged up-lines,
mostly). Rick Volker was sticking with the single-weight oil for this reason,
but found himself changing a jug when the ambient temps were very changeable.
For this reason, he went to the XC for the break-in. He observed no such problem
and has now switched to that oil. He flies full-power unlimited aerobatics.
>
> Regarding over-temping: Nikolay Timofeev reported that in the event of accidental
or unpreventable CHT in the red for extended periods, the practice has been
to immediately change the oil, which they feel would then be compromised. That
fried oil post from a few days ago reminded me of that.
>
> I would also point out that most of the radial engine shops seem to use and recommend
the XC 25-60, including M-14P, Inc.. It seems that most of the vintage
radials use it. I have used it in both of my 52s although I don't claim to put
it to the test with respect to climate or flying style. Anyway, I wanted to
stick up for this oil because it seems to be feature rich with few compromises.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=348056#348056
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: Oil and the M-14P |
Carl:
No, I didn't think switching oil types is a bad idea.... just inconvenient.
Actually, many top engine shops have been won over by the XC 25-60. Air Repair,
for example along with several other major ones.
The XC 25-60 is mineral based.... just not AD. It's not synthetic... but it has
additives. I'm not sure if you were saying otherwise.
I'm sure these anecdotes are true, although it's hard to know all of the circumstances.
There are many theories, procedures and rituals. I have participated
in a lot of airshows, and I would say that the XC 25-60 is used about 75% of the
time on radials.
I also forgot to mention that radial engines seem to be much less vulnerable to
these corrosion issues than flat engines. Also, there was an article in Aviation
Consumer where they tested the more recent versions on multi-grade oils, and
they were great at staying on the engine parts.
-Eric
On Jul 30, 2011, at 3:05 AM, CD 2.0 wrote:
>
> radio.. good comment.
>
> In my experience, most of the top engine shops, radial and flat engines, recommend
that mineral oil Aeroshell 100 (without the W) be utilized for the first
25-50 hours of engine operation or after an overhaul to brake in and later on
single grade, ashless dispersant oils such as the Aeroshell w 100 should be utilized
for the remainder of the engines life.
>
> I've heard numerous times from top engine shops, how their service history records
are much less favorable for engines that have a history of being operated
on "synthetic blends or semi-synthetic" oil products and they firmly encourage
using Mineral Based (AD) Oils only... single or multi-viscosity as conditions
require.
>
> I remember someone, about a year and a half a go, who used Phillips XC 25-60
on a T-6's and said it was a good oil... then changed to Aeroshell w 100 and report
it as a good oil as well... however when using the Phillips XC 25-60 it
leaked and spit oil more frequently, then after switching back to Aeroshell it
considerably reduced the leaking... Phillips XC 25-60 oil remains thinner and
more easily pourable at room temperature than single grade oil even with the
latest improvements. Certainly it's a good oil and has its advantages for cold
weather starting... but Multi vis oil would not be my preferred choice during
periods of disuse as I believe it doesn't provide nearly as good corrosion protection
as single grade oils like the Aeroshell w100 does.
>
> So Which Oil Should we Use?... It all depends on where you fly, and how often.
>
> If your airplane flies at least once a week... or if you operate in a low corrosion
environment such as the desert or the mountains... you probably don't have
to worry too much about corrosion. This is especially true if the airplane
is also hangared. In this case, multi-weight oil types could be a good choice.
>
> On the other hand, if you are based in a corrosive environment... within 100
miles of the coast, the Gulf, the Great Lakes, or a major metropolitan area with
its industrial pollution... and if your airplane sometimes goes for two weeks
or more at a time without being flown, internal corrosion should be a major
concern. This is especially true if the aircraft is not hangared. If you fall
into this category, I would suggest that you use a single weight AD oil such
as Aeroshell W 100 to provide the best possible protection against corrosion during
periods of disuse.
>
> If you operate in a temperate climate (such as is found in much of California),
you can use single weight oil all year around. However, if you operate in sub
freezing winter temperatures, then switching to a multi-weight oil during the
cold weather months could be a good option, and then return to single-weight
oil during the remainder of the year. If your A&P tells you that it's bad to
switch from one type of oil to another... he may be misinformed.
>
> Carl
>
>
> radiopicture wrote:
>> I have a few remarks about the oil for M-14P topic:
>>
>> Lots of good information posted recently. I would add this:
>>
>> Certainly, you can't go wrong with Aeroshell W80/100/120 (AD) in the M-14P,
unless you're breaking in, which would call for the straight mineral version (no
"W").
>>
>> Having said that, there are advantages to the Phillips XC 25-60 for radial engines
(not to be confused with XC 20-50 for flat engines): It's not an AD type
oil, so it can be used during break-in periods, and if you have to change one
cylinder, you won't have to switch oil types back and forth. Also, appropriate
for a wider temp range, of course.
>>
>> I noted the comments about corrosion protection in-between flights. It was definitely
true in the past that multi-weight oils wouldn't cling to engine parts
leaving them susceptible to this corrosion. Especially a problem on cam followers
in Lycomings. However, modern multi-weight oils have addressed this problem,
and have been shown to be even better than straight-weight oils in this
respect. The Aeroshell multi-grade oil gets great reviews for flat engines, but
it was found that one of the additives gums up the compressor pop-off valve
on the M-14P. At any rate, neither that one nor the Phillips 20-50 should be used
on radials. This is NOT a problem with the XC 25-60 for radials.
>>
>> Another thing that has been mentioned by the Russians is this: The flop tube
pivot in the oil tank has a seal that's formed by the oil itself. Of course,
there's some leakage, but it's inside the tank, so as long as pressure can be
maintained, no problem. In older planes where the pivot might have more wear,
apparently the oil pressure can be reduced in some attitudes (prolonged up-lines,
mostly). Rick Volker was sticking with the single-weight oil for this reason,
but found himself changing a jug when the ambient temps were very changeable.
For this reason, he went to the XC for the break-in. He observed no such problem
and has now switched to that oil. He flies full-power unlimited aerobatics.
>>
>> Regarding over-temping: Nikolay Timofeev reported that in the event of accidental
or unpreventable CHT in the red for extended periods, the practice has been
to immediately change the oil, which they feel would then be compromised.
That fried oil post from a few days ago reminded me of that.
>>
>> I would also point out that most of the radial engine shops seem to use and
recommend the XC 25-60, including M-14P, Inc.. It seems that most of the vintage
radials use it. I have used it in both of my 52s although I don't claim to
put it to the test with respect to climate or flying style. Anyway, I wanted to
stick up for this oil because it seems to be feature rich with few compromises.
>
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=348056#348056
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Carbon X is currently being marketed to the fire fighting industry. All
that Doc has offered about the performance of Nomex is right on.
ras
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: | G Tolerance and Hydration |
Jimmy flew with them last year, but not this year. That was from some of
the pilots. Don't know why.
Bear
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Herb Coussons
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: G Tolerance and Hydration
It looks like they use something heavier than the typical used military
issue. They use something heavier - like a NASCAR race type outfit.
Jimmy? Still on the list. After OSH, I'll call him.
Herb
Dr. Herb Coussons, MD
drc@wscare.com
2641 Development Drive
Green Bay, WI 54311
Cell 920-639-8434
Work 920-338-6868
Fax 920-338-6869
On Jul 27, 2011, at 11:50 PM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Herb Coussons <drc@wscare.com> wrote:
The cool shirt was also promoted by the Aeroshell team.
They also wear flight suits, but recognize the debilitating effects of heat
and dehydration on G-tolerance.
Interesting. Do they wear multiple layers of nomex? That seems to be the
key.
For grins I weighed, flew with Sergei for 1hr 10mins and re-weighed.
Lost 2.3 pounds !! Just over one liter.
(All sweat - no caca !!)
No surprise at all. Makes sense to me.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution
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: Oil and the M-14P |
I would like to add.. I talked to the Phillips people about this issue.
Quote: For a while we quite making single grade oil because of the superior properties
of multi. Phillips said the 25-60 had three times the ability to keep
valves from sticking and the multi weight did a better job of lube in all conditions.
Phillips said the only reason they still make single weight oil is that
some people refuse to change so they will just sell it to them even though
there is no reason to use it. Not what I said that is what Phillips said.
Phillip is going to do a report on the 25-60 oil and put it in the Red Star Magazine
at my request. You can still buy bias ply tires for your car also if you
want them.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=348062#348062
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: Oil and the M-14P |
Carl,
Great post!
I wonder if you, or others with insights into this have any thoughts about using
CamGuard with either straight weight or multi-viscosity oils for the M-14P.
I have heard anecdotally that for those engines in which CamGuard has been used
look better when inspected during an overhaul.
Another simple question. I'm breaking in a zero-time M-14P. At about 20 hours,
oil temps began to come down and oil consumption leveled off. What would you consider
a reasonable endpoint for the break-in period before switching from AeroShell
100 mineral oil to AeroShell 120 AD? Oil temp? Oil consumption? Minimal
number of hours?
Warren Hill
N464TW
On Jul 30, 2011, at 12:05 AM, CD 2.0 wrote:
>
> radio.. good comment.
>
> In my experience, most of the top engine shops, radial and flat engines, recommend
that mineral oil Aeroshell 100 (without the W) be utilized for the first
25-50 hours of engine operation or after an overhaul to brake in and later on
single grade, ashless dispersant oils such as the Aeroshell w 100 should be utilized
for the remainder of the engines life.
>
> I've heard numerous times from top engine shops, how their service history records
are much less favorable for engines that have a history of being operated
on "synthetic blends or semi-synthetic" oil products and they firmly encourage
using Mineral Based (AD) Oils only... single or multi-viscosity as conditions
require.
>
> I remember someone, about a year and a half a go, who used Phillips XC 25-60
on a T-6's and said it was a good oil... then changed to Aeroshell w 100 and report
it as a good oil as well... however when using the Phillips XC 25-60 it
leaked and spit oil more frequently, then after switching back to Aeroshell it
considerably reduced the leaking... Phillips XC 25-60 oil remains thinner and
more easily pourable at room temperature than single grade oil even with the
latest improvements. Certainly it's a good oil and has its advantages for cold
weather starting... but Multi vis oil would not be my preferred choice during
periods of disuse as I believe it doesn't provide nearly as good corrosion protection
as single grade oils like the Aeroshell w100 does.
>
> So Which Oil Should we Use?... It all depends on where you fly, and how often.
>
> If your airplane flies at least once a week... or if you operate in a low corrosion
environment such as the desert or the mountains... you probably don't have
to worry too much about corrosion. This is especially true if the airplane
is also hangared. In this case, multi-weight oil types could be a good choice.
>
> On the other hand, if you are based in a corrosive environment... within 100
miles of the coast, the Gulf, the Great Lakes, or a major metropolitan area with
its industrial pollution... and if your airplane sometimes goes for two weeks
or more at a time without being flown, internal corrosion should be a major
concern. This is especially true if the aircraft is not hangared. If you fall
into this category, I would suggest that you use a single weight AD oil such
as Aeroshell W 100 to provide the best possible protection against corrosion during
periods of disuse.
>
> If you operate in a temperate climate (such as is found in much of California),
you can use single weight oil all year around. However, if you operate in sub
freezing winter temperatures, then switching to a multi-weight oil during the
cold weather months could be a good option, and then return to single-weight
oil during the remainder of the year. If your A&P tells you that it's bad to
switch from one type of oil to another... he may be misinformed.
>
> Carl
>
>
> radiopicture wrote:
>> I have a few remarks about the oil for M-14P topic:
>>
>> Lots of good information posted recently. I would add this:
>>
>> Certainly, you can't go wrong with Aeroshell W80/100/120 (AD) in the M-14P,
unless you're breaking in, which would call for the straight mineral version (no
"W").
>>
>> Having said that, there are advantages to the Phillips XC 25-60 for radial engines
(not to be confused with XC 20-50 for flat engines): It's not an AD type
oil, so it can be used during break-in periods, and if you have to change one
cylinder, you won't have to switch oil types back and forth. Also, appropriate
for a wider temp range, of course.
>>
>> I noted the comments about corrosion protection in-between flights. It was definitely
true in the past that multi-weight oils wouldn't cling to engine parts
leaving them susceptible to this corrosion. Especially a problem on cam followers
in Lycomings. However, modern multi-weight oils have addressed this problem,
and have been shown to be even better than straight-weight oils in this
respect. The Aeroshell multi-grade oil gets great reviews for flat engines, but
it was found that one of the additives gums up the compressor pop-off valve
on the M-14P. At any rate, neither that one nor the Phillips 20-50 should be used
on radials. This is NOT a problem with the XC 25-60 for radials.
>>
>> Another thing that has been mentioned by the Russians is this: The flop tube
pivot in the oil tank has a seal that's formed by the oil itself. Of course,
there's some leakage, but it's inside the tank, so as long as pressure can be
maintained, no problem. In older planes where the pivot might have more wear,
apparently the oil pressure can be reduced in some attitudes (prolonged up-lines,
mostly). Rick Volker was sticking with the single-weight oil for this reason,
but found himself changing a jug when the ambient temps were very changeable.
For this reason, he went to the XC for the break-in. He observed no such problem
and has now switched to that oil. He flies full-power unlimited aerobatics.
>>
>> Regarding over-temping: Nikolay Timofeev reported that in the event of accidental
or unpreventable CHT in the red for extended periods, the practice has been
to immediately change the oil, which they feel would then be compromised.
That fried oil post from a few days ago reminded me of that.
>>
>> I would also point out that most of the radial engine shops seem to use and
recommend the XC 25-60, including M-14P, Inc.. It seems that most of the vintage
radials use it. I have used it in both of my 52s although I don't claim to
put it to the test with respect to climate or flying style. Anyway, I wanted to
stick up for this oil because it seems to be feature rich with few compromises.
>
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=348056#348056
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 7
| 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 |
|
Group,
I would like to correct Eric Wobschall's post:
"I would also point out that most of the radial engine shops seem to use and
recommend
the XC 25-60, including M-14P, Inc.. It seems that most of the vintage
radials use it. I have used it in both of my 52s although I don't claim to
put"...
To the contrary, we at M-14P, Inc. do not recommend Phillips 25W60. We are
seeing problems with stuck valves and in all cases, the customers have been
using Phillips 25W60. We have had one customer that had an exhaust valve
stick open and it broke in flight. The typical scenario is that the engine
will be running fine and then it gets rough for a spell and then clears. No
rhyme or reason as to when it may occur.
I have been researching this subject for an upcoming article. In the
meantime, I received this link from an astute customer:
http://www.precisionengines.com/pdf/oilBulletin.pdf
Additionally, customers mixing Marvel Mystery Oil or CamGuard with the
Phillips do not seem to be encountering the stuck valve problem.
Again, M-14P Inc. does not endorse the use of Phillips 25W60 in the M-14P
engine.
Jill Gernetzke
M-14P, Inc.
Message 8
| 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 |
|
Apologies, Jill.
I didn't mean to represent M-14P, Inc, or confuse anyone about this. I
do remember a conversation we had regarding break-in where I thought you
said you were using the XC 25-60. Maybe this is has changed since that
conversation.
On Jul 30, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Jill Gernetzke wrote:
> Group,
>
> I would like to correct Eric Wobschall=92s post:
>
> =93I would also point out that most of the radial engine shops seem to
use and recommend
> the XC 25-60, including M-14P, Inc.. It seems that most of the vintage
> radials use it. I have used it in both of my 52s although I don't
claim to put=94=85..
>
>
> To the contrary, we at M-14P, Inc. do not recommend Phillips 25W60.
We are seeing problems with stuck valves and in all cases, the customers
have been using Phillips 25W60. We have had one customer that had an
exhaust valve stick open and it broke in flight. The typical scenario
is that the engine will be running fine and then it gets rough for a
spell and then clears. No rhyme or reason as to when it may occur.
>
> I have been researching this subject for an upcoming article. In the
meantime, I received this link from an astute customer:
http://www.precisionengines.com/pdf/oilBulletin.pdf
>
> Additionally, customers mixing Marvel Mystery Oil or CamGuard with the
Phillips do not seem to be encountering the stuck valve problem.
>
> Again, M-14P Inc. does not endorse the use of Phillips 25W60 in the
M-14P engine.
>
> Jill Gernetzke
> M-14P, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 9
| 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: Oil and the M-14P |
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:05 AM, CD 2.0 <dbowie2007@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> radio.. good comment.
>
> In my experience, most of the top engine shops, radial and flat engines,
> recommend that mineral oil Aeroshell 100 (without the W) be utilized for
the
> first 25-50 hours of engine operation or after an overhaul to brake in an
d
> later on single grade, ashless dispersant oils such as the Aeroshell w 10
0
> should be utilized for the remainder of the engine=92s life.
>
That is true but have you ever asked why? When I have the answer always
seems to be a variation of, "that is the way we have always done it."
It is interesting to ask that question of the oil manufacturers. Since you
pay them for the oil anyway, they don't have any reason to recommend one oi
l
over another. OTOH, they test the performance of their oils in various
engines and have a surprising amount of information on what their oils do
under different circumstances. In fact, they usually have more information
than the engine overhaullers do because they do controlled testing whereas
the engine overhaullers mostly have only anecdotal evidence. (There may be
an overhaul shop that runs A/B testing between oils but I haven't
encountered it.) For them, having any engine fail early on is a warrantee
issue and they don't really want to gain experience that way.
FWIW, here is Shell's discussion sheet on their Aeroshell oils. They do
address the issues of radial engines.
http://www-static.shell.com/static/aviation/downloads/publications/aeroshel
lbook/aeroshellpeos.pdf
Here are the recommendations of Phillips on their oils:
http://www.phillips66aviation.com/lub_matrix.aspx
I find it interesting that they recommend their ordinary 20W-50 or 25W-60
for both break-in and normal operation.
I've heard numerous times from top engine shops, how their service history
> records are much less favorable for engines that have a history of being
> operated on "synthetic blends or semi-synthetic" oil products and they
> firmly encourage using Mineral Based (AD) Oils only... single or
> multi-viscosity as conditions require.
>
> I remember someone, about a year and a half a go, who used Phillips XC
> 25-60 on a T-6's and said it was a good oil... then changed to Aeroshell
w
> 100 and report it as a good oil as well... however when using the Phillip
s
> XC 25-60 it leaked and spit oil more frequently, then after switching bac
k
> to Aeroshell it considerably reduced the leaking...
That is not surprising. The higher the viscosity the less of it will flow
out through a small opening in a given period of time.
> Phillips XC 25-60 oil remains thinner and more easily pourable at room
> temperature than single grade oil even with the latest improvements.
> Certainly it's a good oil and has its advantages for cold weather
> starting... but Multi vis oil would not be my preferred choice during
> periods of disuse as I believe it doesn't provide nearly as good corrosio
n
> protection as single grade oils like the Aeroshell w100 does.
See my comments below on drain-down testing.
>
> So Which Oil Should we Use?... It all depends on where you fly, and how
> often.
>
> If your airplane flies at least once a week... or if you operate in a low
> corrosion environment such as the desert or the mountains... you probably
> don't have to worry too much about corrosion. This is especially true if
the
> airplane is also hangared. In this case, multi-weight oil types could be
a
> good choice.
>
> On the other hand, if you are based in a corrosive environment... within
> 100 miles of the coast, the Gulf, the Great Lakes, or a major metropolita
n
> area with its industrial pollution... and if your airplane sometimes goes
> for two weeks or more at a time without being flown, internal corrosion
> should be a major concern. This is especially true if the aircraft is not
> hangared. If you fall into this category, I would suggest that you use a
> single weight AD oil such as Aeroshell W 100 to provide the best possible
> protection against corrosion during periods of disuse.
>
What you are talking about is a drain-down test. This is something that the
oil companies actually perform. The magazine "Light Plane Maintenance"
actually did this test in a slightly-less-controlled manner about 25 years
ago and reported the results for the various oils. Even the
highest-viscosity mineral oils drain down completely after about 24 hours
leaving internal parts unprotected. The key to performance in this area is
to chemically increase the affinity of the oil to bond with the metal
surface, not viscosity. When last I looked at this problem, only the
synthetics and semi-synthetics had the necessary additives to increase meta
l
affinity and reduce drain-down for over a week.
But even with that, nothing eliminates drain-down. Assume it is going to
happen. The best thing you can do for your engine to eliminate the problem
is to run the engine every day. There is no magic bullet you can put in the
crankcase that will solve the problem.
> If you operate in a temperate climate (such as is found in much of
> California), you can use single weight oil all year around. However, if y
ou
> operate in sub freezing winter temperatures, then switching to a
> multi-weight oil during the cold weather months could be a good option, a
nd
> then return to single-weight oil during the remainder of the year. If you
r
> A&P tells you that it's bad to switch from one type of oil to another...
he
> may be misinformed.
>
Also you probably don't even need to switch away from multi-vis oil. Yes, i
t
will get through a tiny hole faster than will straight-weight oil but it
provides the same level of lubrication. Personally I feel that a
low-cold-viscosity oil is important in the radial engines as it flows
through the oil galleys faster when cold ensuring that the bearings receive
lubrication more quickly after start-up. Also there is less chance of the
oil to congeal in the cooler, thus maintaining oil flow.
One other thing to consider that no-one seems to be talking about is the
design operating temperature of the oil. The inlet oil temp limits on the
Huosai and M14 engines are 80C (as I recall sitting here). Turns out that i
s
the design (normal) operating temperature for most US oils. One of the
things that the oil manufacturers tell us is that you want the oil to reach
100C on its way through the engine. The purpose of that is to boil any wate
r
that is contained in the oil and get it out the breather. (There is always
water in the oil. It comes from condensation from blow-by.) Water left the
oil provides a means whereby combustion products can remain and form acid
which then slowly attacks the internal parts. Regular operation with the oi
l
reaching 100C ensures that this process is minimized. This is why I feel
that the outlet oil temperature indication in the CJ6A is far more useful
than the inlet oil temperature indication. I use outlet oil temperature as
my indication of choice and then operated the oil cooler door to maintain
engine oil outlet temperature above 100C but below 120C. This ensures that
the oil is hot enough to remove entrained water but never exceeds its
maximum design operating temperature. In my opinion inlet oil temperature i
s
not particularly useful except when there is no other indication and then
only as a secondary indication of outlet oil temperature (assuming constant
temperature rise going through the engine).
Nothing like a good controversial topic in the morning.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
Message 10
| 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: Oil and the M-14P |
I would put a huge value on people like Jill who see a lot of engines.
However, I think the letter she sited was pretty old, and when I
investigated it a while back, the multi-grade oils referred to was one
of the ones designed for flat engines, which I agree cause big problems
(specifically the Aeroshell 15W50 multi-grade). I don't think there are
the same problems with the XC 25-60, which is specifically for radial
engines. My impression is that most of the issues are centered around
the 15-50 Aeroshell. The 20-50 Phillips mentioned (as being OK for
break-in on radials) is the special type M which I think is a mineral
(non AD) multigrade, and not the commonly available XC 20-50 used in
flat engines. No idea about that unusual product.
On Jul 30, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:05 AM, CD 2.0 <dbowie2007@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> radio.. good comment.
>
> In my experience, most of the top engine shops, radial and flat
engines, recommend that mineral oil Aeroshell 100 (without the W) be
utilized for the first 25-50 hours of engine operation or after an
overhaul to brake in and later on single grade, ashless dispersant oils
such as the Aeroshell w 100 should be utilized for the remainder of the
engine=92s life.
>
> That is true but have you ever asked why? When I have the answer
always seems to be a variation of, "that is the way we have always done
it."
>
> It is interesting to ask that question of the oil manufacturers. Since
you pay them for the oil anyway, they don't have any reason to recommend
one oil over another. OTOH, they test the performance of their oils in
various engines and have a surprising amount of information on what
their oils do under different circumstances. In fact, they usually have
more information than the engine overhaullers do because they do
controlled testing whereas the engine overhaullers mostly have only
anecdotal evidence. (There may be an overhaul shop that runs A/B testing
between oils but I haven't encountered it.) For them, having any engine
fail early on is a warrantee issue and they don't really want to gain
experience that way.
>
> FWIW, here is Shell's discussion sheet on their Aeroshell oils. They
do address the issues of radial engines.
>
>
http://www-static.shell.com/static/aviation/downloads/publications/aeroshe
llbook/aeroshellpeos.pdf
>
> Here are the recommendations of Phillips on their oils:
>
> http://www.phillips66aviation.com/lub_matrix.aspx
>
> I find it interesting that they recommend their ordinary 20W-50 or
25W-60 for both break-in and normal operation.
>
>
>
> I've heard numerous times from top engine shops, how their service
history records are much less favorable for engines that have a history
of being operated on "synthetic blends or semi-synthetic" oil products
and they firmly encourage using Mineral Based (AD) Oils only... single
or multi-viscosity as conditions require.
>
> I remember someone, about a year and a half a go, who used Phillips XC
25-60 on a T-6's and said it was a good oil... then changed to Aeroshell
w 100 and report it as a good oil as well... however when using the
Phillips XC 25-60 it leaked and spit oil more frequently, then after
switching back to Aeroshell it considerably reduced the leaking...
>
> That is not surprising. The higher the viscosity the less of it will
flow out through a small opening in a given period of time.
>
> Phillips XC 25-60 oil remains thinner and more easily pourable at room
temperature than single grade oil even with the latest improvements.
Certainly it's a good oil and has its advantages for cold weather
starting... but Multi vis oil would not be my preferred choice during
periods of disuse as I believe it doesn't provide nearly as good
corrosion protection as single grade oils like the Aeroshell w100 does.
>
> See my comments below on drain-down testing.
>
>
>
> So Which Oil Should we Use?... It all depends on where you fly, and
how often.
>
> If your airplane flies at least once a week... or if you operate in a
low corrosion environment such as the desert or the mountains... you
probably don't have to worry too much about corrosion. This is
especially true if the airplane is also hangared. In this case,
multi-weight oil types could be a good choice.
>
> On the other hand, if you are based in a corrosive environment...
within 100 miles of the coast, the Gulf, the Great Lakes, or a major
metropolitan area with its industrial pollution... and if your airplane
sometimes goes for two weeks or more at a time without being flown,
internal corrosion should be a major concern. This is especially true if
the aircraft is not hangared. If you fall into this category, I would
suggest that you use a single weight AD oil such as Aeroshell W 100 to
provide the best possible protection against corrosion during periods of
disuse.
>
> What you are talking about is a drain-down test. This is something
that the oil companies actually perform. The magazine "Light Plane
Maintenance" actually did this test in a slightly-less-controlled manner
about 25 years ago and reported the results for the various oils. Even
the highest-viscosity mineral oils drain down completely after about 24
hours leaving internal parts unprotected. The key to performance in this
area is to chemically increase the affinity of the oil to bond with the
metal surface, not viscosity. When last I looked at this problem, only
the synthetics and semi-synthetics had the necessary additives to
increase metal affinity and reduce drain-down for over a week.
>
> But even with that, nothing eliminates drain-down. Assume it is going
to happen. The best thing you can do for your engine to eliminate the
problem is to run the engine every day. There is no magic bullet you can
put in the crankcase that will solve the problem.
>
>
> If you operate in a temperate climate (such as is found in much of
California), you can use single weight oil all year around. However, if
you operate in sub freezing winter temperatures, then switching to a
multi-weight oil during the cold weather months could be a good option,
and then return to single-weight oil during the remainder of the year.
If your A&P tells you that it's bad to switch from one type of oil to
another... he may be misinformed.
>
> Also you probably don't even need to switch away from multi-vis oil.
Yes, it will get through a tiny hole faster than will straight-weight
oil but it provides the same level of lubrication. Personally I feel
that a low-cold-viscosity oil is important in the radial engines as it
flows through the oil galleys faster when cold ensuring that the
bearings receive lubrication more quickly after start-up. Also there is
less chance of the oil to congeal in the cooler, thus maintaining oil
flow.
>
> One other thing to consider that no-one seems to be talking about is
the design operating temperature of the oil. The inlet oil temp limits
on the Huosai and M14 engines are 80C (as I recall sitting here). Turns
out that is the design (normal) operating temperature for most US oils.
One of the things that the oil manufacturers tell us is that you want
the oil to reach 100C on its way through the engine. The purpose of that
is to boil any water that is contained in the oil and get it out the
breather. (There is always water in the oil. It comes from condensation
from blow-by.) Water left the oil provides a means whereby combustion
products can remain and form acid which then slowly attacks the internal
parts. Regular operation with the oil reaching 100C ensures that this
process is minimized. This is why I feel that the outlet oil temperature
indication in the CJ6A is far more useful than the inlet oil temperature
indication. I use outlet oil temperature as my indication of choice and
then operated the oil cooler door to maintain engine oil outlet
temperature above 100C but below 120C. This ensures that the oil is hot
enough to remove entrained water but never exceeds its maximum design
operating temperature. In my opinion inlet oil temperature is not
particularly useful except when there is no other indication and then
only as a secondary indication of outlet oil temperature (assuming
constant temperature rise going through the engine).
>
> Nothing like a good controversial topic in the morning.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> brian@lloyd.com
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
>
>
>
Message 11
| 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: Oil and the M-14P |
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Eric Wobschall <eric@buffaloskyline.com>wrote:
> I would put a huge value on people like Jill who see a lot of engines.
> However, I think the letter she sited was pretty old, and when I
> investigated it a while back, the multi-grade oils referred to was one of
> the ones designed for flat engines, which I agree cause big problems
> (specifically the Aeroshell 15W50 multi-grade). I don't think there are the
> same problems with the XC 25-60, which is specifically for radial engines.
> My impression is that most of the issues are centered around the 15-50
> Aeroshell. The 20-50 Phillips mentioned (as being OK for break-in on
> radials) is the special type M which I think is a mineral (non AD)
> multigrade, and not the commonly available XC 20-50 used in flat engines. No
> idea about that unusual product.
>
Did you look at the Phillips and Shell links I forwarded? They are
definitely worth reading through. They make specific recommendations for
radial engines.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
Message 12
| 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: Oil and the M-14P |
Yes, and they make sense.
On Jul 30, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Eric Wobschall
<eric@buffaloskyline.com> wrote:
> I would put a huge value on people like Jill who see a lot of engines.
However, I think the letter she sited was pretty old, and when I
investigated it a while back, the multi-grade oils referred to was one
of the ones designed for flat engines, which I agree cause big problems
(specifically the Aeroshell 15W50 multi-grade). I don't think there are
the same problems with the XC 25-60, which is specifically for radial
engines. My impression is that most of the issues are centered around
the 15-50 Aeroshell. The 20-50 Phillips mentioned (as being OK for
break-in on radials) is the special type M which I think is a mineral
(non AD) multigrade, and not the commonly available XC 20-50 used in
flat engines. No idea about that unusual product.
>
> Did you look at the Phillips and Shell links I forwarded? They are
definitely worth reading through. They make specific recommendations for
radial engines.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> brian@lloyd.com
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| 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 |
|
Which oils drips faster from the engine?... The problem starts when the engine
stops leaking... if a radial engine stops leaking, then it's out of oil, and that's
not good news.
Multi grade oil drips faster from the engine parts and remains much thinner and
more easily pourable at room temperature than single grade oil, unless this has
changed recently and manufactures have come up with new a combination of ingredients
that prevents or change the existing thinner and pourable conditions
of multi grade oils at room temperature. If something new like this has been
done... I'm all ears and would look forward to some feedback from certified sources
on this.
However long it takes for the oil stripping process to occur... the slowest the
leaking process occurs the better for the engine and so far and to my knowledge,
single engine oils are thicker and drip slower than multi grade oils (in any
brand) at ordinary room temperature.
Major radial engine overhaul shops like Precision engines have corroborated this.
They even go further by writing bulletins for their clients with the reasons
why they firmly recommend single grade oils like Aeroshell 100 for the break
in process and Aeroshell w100 for the rest of the engine life... and not only
because the dripping off capabilities or the thickness advantages or disadvantages
at room temperatures, their recommendations are based in aftermath of
thousands of overhauls and repairs. I have seen service history records from
another major shop, reporting how much less favorable an engine history is after
being operated on "synthetic blends or semi-synthetic" oil products and it's
encouraged to use Mineral Based (AD) Oils only, single over multi-viscosity
unless serious sub-freezing conditions require the use of a multi grade oil for
better starting operation.
I'm not saying Phillips xc 25W-60 is a synthetic oil, just saying that synthetic
oils are at the bottom on the list of all oils. Phillips xc 25w-60 is a mineral
based, ashless dispersant (AD) multigrade oil.
Like Eric, many of us thought Phillips xc 20/60 is one of the top choices for radial
engines. I'm glad that this topic has been brought to the table and I'm
grateful to Jill at M14p engines for her report on how they are seeing problems
with stuck valves in customer radial engines who have been using Phillips xc
25W60.
We look forward to the upcoming article on this.
Carl
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=348100#348100
Message 14
| 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 |
|
Carl:
All good info. However, is the XC 25-60 AD? I was under the impression it was not,
and it's because it's non-detergent that it can be used for break-in. Now
that I'm looking on that Phillips link, it's not really clear. Let me know if
you can determine that. Thanks. -Eric
On Jul 30, 2011, at 9:14 PM, CD 2.0 wrote:
>
> Which oils drips faster from the engine?... The problem starts when the engine
stops leaking... if a radial engine stops leaking, then it's out of oil, and
that's not good news.
>
> Multi grade oil drips faster from the engine parts and remains much thinner and
more easily pourable at room temperature than single grade oil, unless this
has changed recently and manufactures have come up with new a combination of
ingredients that prevents or change the existing thinner and pourable conditions
of multi grade oils at room temperature. If something new like this has been
done... I'm all ears and would look forward to some feedback from certified
sources on this.
>
> However long it takes for the oil stripping process to occur... the slowest the
leaking process occurs the better for the engine and so far and to my knowledge,
single engine oils are thicker and drip slower than multi grade oils (in
any brand) at ordinary room temperature.
>
> Major radial engine overhaul shops like Precision engines have corroborated this.
They even go further by writing bulletins for their clients with the reasons
why they firmly recommend single grade oils like Aeroshell 100 for the break
in process and Aeroshell w100 for the rest of the engine life... and not
only because the dripping off capabilities or the thickness advantages or disadvantages
at room temperatures, their recommendations are based in aftermath
of thousands of overhauls and repairs. I have seen service history records from
another major shop, reporting how much less favorable an engine history is after
being operated on "synthetic blends or semi-synthetic" oil products and it's
encouraged to use Mineral Based (AD) Oils only, single over multi-viscosity
unless serious sub-freezing conditions require the use of a multi grade oil
for better starting operation.
>
> I'm not saying Phillips xc 25W-60 is a synthetic oil, just saying that synthetic
oils are at the bottom on the list of all oils. Phillips xc 25w-60 is a mineral
based, ashless dispersant (AD) multigrade oil.
>
> Like Eric, many of us thought Phillips xc 20/60 is one of the top choices for
radial engines. I'm glad that this topic has been brought to the table and I'm
grateful to Jill at M14p engines for her report on how they are seeing problems
with stuck valves in customer radial engines who have been using Phillips
xc 25W60.
>
> We look forward to the upcoming article on this.
>
> Carl
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=348100#348100
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 15
| 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 |
|
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 6:14 PM, CD 2.0 <dbowie2007@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Multi grade oil drips faster from the engine parts and remains much thinner
> and more easily pourable at room temperature than single grade oil, unless
> this has changed recently and manufactures have come up with new a
> combination of ingredients that prevents or change the existing thinner and
> pourable conditions of multi grade oils at room temperature. If something
> new like this has been done... I'm all ears and would look forward to some
> feedback from certified sources on this.
>
> However long it takes for the oil stripping process to occur... the slowest
> the leaking process occurs the better for the engine and so far and to my
> knowledge, single engine oils are thicker and drip slower than multi grade
> oils (in any brand) at ordinary room temperature.
>
It is not as simple as that. Yes, a higher-viscosity oil will take longer to
pour through an orifice. (That is how viscosity is tested!) But that does
not mean that the more viscous oil remains on the parts significantly
longer. There is a chemical bonding process that takes place as well that
has nothing to do with viscosity. You can see it with other materials. A
drop of water will adhere to something because of the polar nature of its
molecule. It doesn't drain down. And the two materials involved determine
the behavior.
Some oils have additives that increase this bonding process. Yes, they drain
down but a film remains on the parts. This film protects the parts from
oxidation and may even be sufficient to provide initial lubrication. But as
far as I know, these additives are only in synthetic and semi-synthetic
oils. Exxon touts this capability of their semi-synthetic "Exxon Elite".
See:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/lubes/exxonmobil/emal/files/controlling_rust.pdf.
So mere viscosity is not a sufficient indication of the ability of the oil
to protect the parts from corrosion over a period of time.
You know, no one has even suggested why a radial engine is different from a
horizontally-opposed engine from the point of view of an oil. That might be
a useful thing to do in an attempt to understand why one oil or another
might work better rather than just promulgating hearsay and anecdotal
evidence.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
Message 16
| 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 |
|
My understanding is that it's the configuration of the oil journals.
On Jul 30, 2011, at 9:50 PM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 6:14 PM, CD 2.0 <dbowie2007@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Multi grade oil drips faster from the engine parts and remains much
thinner and more easily pourable at room temperature than single grade
oil, unless this has changed recently and manufactures have come up with
new a combination of ingredients that prevents or change the existing
thinner and pourable conditions of multi grade oils at room temperature.
If something new like this has been done... I'm all ears and would look
forward to some feedback from certified sources on this.
>
> However long it takes for the oil stripping process to occur... the
slowest the leaking process occurs the better for the engine and so far
and to my knowledge, single engine oils are thicker and drip slower than
multi grade oils (in any brand) at ordinary room temperature.
>
> It is not as simple as that. Yes, a higher-viscosity oil will take
longer to pour through an orifice. (That is how viscosity is tested!)
But that does not mean that the more viscous oil remains on the parts
significantly longer. There is a chemical bonding process that takes
place as well that has nothing to do with viscosity. You can see it with
other materials. A drop of water will adhere to something because of the
polar nature of its molecule. It doesn't drain down. And the two
materials involved determine the behavior.
>
> Some oils have additives that increase this bonding process. Yes, they
drain down but a film remains on the parts. This film protects the parts
from oxidation and may even be sufficient to provide initial
lubrication. But as far as I know, these additives are only in synthetic
and semi-synthetic oils. Exxon touts this capability of their
semi-synthetic "Exxon Elite". See:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/lubes/exxonmobil/emal/files/controlling_rust.pdf
.
>
> So mere viscosity is not a sufficient indication of the ability of the
oil to protect the parts from corrosion over a period of time.
>
> You know, no one has even suggested why a radial engine is different
from a horizontally-opposed engine from the point of view of an oil.
That might be a useful thing to do in an attempt to understand why one
oil or another might work better rather than just promulgating hearsay
and anecdotal evidence.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> brian@lloyd.com
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
>
>
>
Message 17
| 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: Oil and the M-14P |
Warren,
CamGuard exceptional performance, beats the pants off any premium oils for corrosion
protection and anti-wear properties...
Lots of owners are complaining about corrosion problems in engines. Part of this
is because of reduced flight activity due to higher fuel prices and economic
uncertainties. CamGuard isnt a slam dunk solution to corrosion problems, but
its the best solution out there because it provides "marginally and measurably"
better corrosion and anti-wear resistance than any oil out there.
Multi-weight versus mono-grades with CamGuard... in desert climates like AZ as
well as temperate areas like California, the airplane won't see wide swings in
temperature. Although corrosion is less of a problem in these areas and you could
go with a multi-grade per se, I would stick with the Aeroshell W100 + the
CamGuard. At lower temperatures, multi-grade offers definite advantages by reducing
the strain on the pneumatic starter and battery and delivering oil pressure
sooner... it's better to have full oil pressure and parts bathed in oil sooner
rather than later... so during the coolest times of the year, you may opt
to switch to multi-grade and of course keeping adding CamGuard.
And how about specific "multi-grade" oil brands to use with CamGuard?.... you're
looking for very small differences between similar oil products. No one can
produce convincing field data that one oil is hands down a better choice than
another... but Phillips XC is a good choice to go with CamGuard because XC is
a simple mineral-based oil with anti-oxidative and anti-foam additives that responds
well to CamGuard.
So I would stick to single grade Aeroshell W100 + CamGuard for temperate climates,
without subfreezing temperatures, and multi-grade oil like Phillips XC 25W-60
+ CamGuard for the coolest parts of the year.
Of course the use of the Phillips XC, should be conditioned with the new findings
from Jill (M14p engines shop in AZ) on M-14 engines that used this oil type.
Jill also mentioned that Phillips XC 25W-60 when used with CamGuard do not
seem to be encountering the stuck valve problem.
Carl
k7wx wrote:
> Carl,
>
> Great post!
>
> I wonder if you, or others with insights into this have any thoughts about using
CamGuard with either straight weight or multi-viscosity oils for the M-14P.
I have heard anecdotally that for those engines in which CamGuard has been used
look better when inspected during an overhaul.
>
> Another simple question. I'm breaking in a zero-time M-14P. At about 20 hours,
oil temps began to come down and oil consumption leveled off. What would you
consider a reasonable endpoint for the break-in period before switching from
AeroShell 100 mineral oil to AeroShell 120 AD? Oil temp? Oil consumption? Minimal
number of hours?
>
> Warren Hill
> N464TW
>
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=348113#348113
Message 18
| 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 |
|
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Eric Wobschall <eric@buffaloskyline.com>wrote:
>
> Carl:
>
> All good info. However, is the XC 25-60 AD? I was under the impression it
> was not,
There are several flavors. The XC 25W60 is an AD oil. There is M 20W50 that
is not. Phillip recommends using the AD oil during break-in. (There is no
reason not to.)
> and it's because it's non-detergent that it can be used for break-in. Now
> that I'm looking on that Phillips link, it's not really clear. Let me know
> if you can determine that. Thanks. -Eric
>
Why do you think that you can't use an AD oil for break-in?
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
Message 19
| 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 |
|
Eric yep... Phillips XC 25W-60 is multigrade ashless dispersant (AD) mineral with
SAE 25W (low temperature viscosity for start-up and quick lubrication) which
is ideal for cool weather performance.
Is also full bodied SAE 60 for protection at high engine temperatures. I believe
consumption is lower than the Aeroshell W100, but the price is higher.
It's valid for the "Break-in" process, but top shops like Precison Engines recommend
Aeroshell 100 for this.
It's exclusively designed for radial and other aviation engines that require 120
grade oils.
Carl
radiopicture wrote:
> Carl:
>
> All good info. However, is the XC 25-60 AD? I was under the impression it was
not, and it's because it's non-detergent that it can be used for break-in. Now
that I'm looking on that Phillips link, it's not really clear. Let me know if
you can determine that. Thanks. -Eric
>
>
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=348115#348115
Message 20
| 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 |
|
... actually a quick and easy way to find out if an oil is AD is by the "W" (ashless
dispersant)
In this case Phillips XC 25W-60.
Carl
radiopicture wrote:
> Carl:
>
> All good info. However, is the XC 25-60 AD? I was under the impression it was
not, and it's because it's non-detergent that it can be used for break-in. Now
that I'm looking on that Phillips link, it's not really clear. Let me know if
you can determine that. Thanks. -Eric
>
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=348117#348117
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! --
|