By9468840 wrote:
just by looking at the shear number of educational videos he has on youtube that are all accessible for free, he better makes some money elsewhere so we can benefit from his knowledge.
Welcome to the new world. Youtube-Videos are not for free – you pay for it by watching ads (or since more recently by paying YouTube directly).
Saying “someone needs to make money elsewhere so that they can afford putting videos on YouTube” is like pretending “3+ needs to earn lots of money with other businesses so that they can afford to send so much TV program for free”.
Mike Busch has done more than any single person to drag GA kicking and screaming into the 20th century.
He might make a bit – probably somewhere south of sod-all – off youtube. You start making pennies when you have 1000 followers; see e.g. here. And then you make almost nothing until you are into the hundreds of thousands. And to achieve that you have to spend your life on fb and twatter, on every web forum, on every fb group, etc, pumping your videos… which are mostly so crappy that nobody watches them anyway. It helps massively to be an attractive female, which Mike B isn’t 
He’s a great guy who puts a lot into GA, and I have not heard him say or write anything which I can state is nonsense. He’s a good engineer, too, with a good grip of the subject – unlike the vast majority of mechanics. Most of his videos could be condensed by 90% but isn’t that true of most? Most flying videos, biking videos, ski videos, etc videos could be condensed by 99% without any loss of value
Video hosting is incredibly expensive. It’s got to be paid for somehow.
Peter wrote:
He might make a bit – probably somewhere south of sod-all – off youtube.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Again: Nothing bad about it! It’s just that “Mike Busch, Wayne Rooney and the pope recommend Camguard” doesn’t say anything about this product as long as these three do it for money.
I don’t think Mike Busch gets any money for recommending Camguard. It would damage his credibility a lot. I’d like to know a credible source for that information.
I think Mike Busch is genuinely interested in sharing his knowledge with the GA community at large to help increase safety and reduce costs.
Peter wrote:
Mike Busch has done more than any single person to drag GA kicking and screaming into the 20th century.
21st century? I agree Peter. He has completely debunked a lot of GA myths that resulted in much risky and unnecessary maintenance activity and cost.
I think Mike Busch is making most of his money today with his Savvy Aviation enterprise, and in the process likely has more raw data on GA Lycoming/Continental engine usage that anyone else worldwide. He has also written a number of books that are so far mostly consolidation of information from his magazine articles. Over the years he’s written many articles for AOPA, EAA, Cessna Pilots Association, etc, and now webinars too. It’s those webinars that are mostly being posted on YouTube. Part of his funding for the books is via Patreon, and regardless I suspect that won’t make him all that much money.
I don’t think Mike really needs to work for a living. He made a fortune with Avweb and everything since then is just icing on the cake.
As I can see the parameters of those oils are the following (speaking about viscosity):
W100:
at 100degC – 18mm2/s
at 40degC – 204mm2/s
W80:
at 100degC – 14,5mm2/s
at 40degC – 139mm2/s
15W50:
at 100degC – 18,2mm2/s
at 40degC – 137mm2/s
It looks like the perfect oil would be 15w50 but it’s not due to reasons described by some experienced maintenance organisations (lower capabilities to absorb lead contents than straight W oils).
I would be then happy to use a W80 all year (as W100 you should preheat when below plus 16degC), but then my question is:
viscosity of W80 is only 14mm2/s at 100degC – isn’t it too low for summertime flying? W100 and 15W50 have 18mm2/s
Are there any official “minimums” of viscosities at working temps? What happens to the engine which is run for 2000hours on about 28% less viscous oil?
I currently use W100 during summer and 15W50 during winter but I am not happy with the multigrade as it leaves a “coffee like” film (water with oil) on the filler cup – engine not warm enough.
On W100 or W80 there was no “coffee” – just clean water droplets from condensation.
What are your opinions?
isn’t it too low for summertime flying?
I am sure it is absolutely fine. There is plenty of margin there to keep the bearing surfaces apart – so long as your oil pump is working.
Also the above numbers don’t take into account viscosity degradation over the service interval. How bad does it get after say 40hrs? I posted some fairly consistent data here which suggests there are factors in play which are much bigger than 14 v 18.
It would be great to be absolutely sure about it and to have some data from engine manufacturer.
As you say there are also other factors to that.
I have TSIO-360 which is a bit more “stressed” as it is turbocharged, so the pressures on bearings are probably higher than on N/A engines, so maybe my oil should be a bit more viscous to protect.
I am thinking in a long term horizon as I am going to use those engines “on condition”, not to overhaul them immediately after TBO.
Raven wrote:
I would be then happy to use a W80 all year (as W100 you should preheat when below plus 16degC), but then my question is:
viscosity of W80 is only 14mm2/s at 100degC – isn’t it too low for summertime flying?
My club is using W80+ exclusively all year round (or equivalent grade from other manufacturers such as TOTAL XPD80). We have had no engine problems at all (at least not that could be traced to the oil) even though we occasionally have OAT of +30°C or more in summer. In winter we use oil sump heaters on all aircraft. (We’re operating in Sweden, at 60°N.)
There is no evidence I have ever seen that whether an engine makes TBO or not is in any way related to how much the parts are wearing.
That’s assuming it was originally built to new limits.
Engines tend to not make TBO because of corrosion, triggering camshaft / tappet surface breakup, and stuff like that, which generates metal in the filter. Turbocharged engines nearly always don’t make TBO because of cylinder cracks.
Peter wrote:
There is no evidence I have ever seen that whether an engine makes TBO or not is in any way related to how much the parts are wearing.
Engines don’t tend to make TBO because they have inherent weakneses which the manufactorer doesn’t do anything about.
Camshaft’s failure on O-235’s is well known. Yet nothing is done. Same with the centre main bearing on O-200’s.
In fact I’m surprised Lycoming came out with roller tappets for their larger bore engines.
Peter wrote:
Turbocharged engines nearly always don’t make TBO because of cylinder cracks
I want to exceed TBO
But seriously I think I will use W80 in colder periods and W100 in warmer.
Maybe mixing both when topping up quart or two.
No 15w50 for me any more!
