Peter wrote:
There are claims going around the internet that nearly all engine wear takes place in the first few seconds after startup, before the oil pressure has a chance to build up.
That’s Mike Busch POV. He also uses W100+Camguard.
His company manages hundreds of airplanes. Who else can do the statistics to say better ?
Malibuflyer wrote:
If that would be the case, why do engine manufacturers (and regulators) define engine limits in terms of hours and not in terms of cycle times?
Maybe for the same reason we still use mags, carburetors, alternators from the 60s, leaded fuel, and fill in oil on a regular basis ?
Regulation and lack of business sense taste for innovation maybe 
Sticking my head out to get bitten 
That’s Mike Busch POV
Yes, and I don’t disagree. However, while the statement may be 100% true, it does not mean it is relevant to engine longevity, or anything to do with engine problems (stuck valves, etc, etc). Most engine parts actually suffer very little wear, which is why you can rebuild a Lyco/Conti so many times. Each time you do it you chuck a pile of bits away (starting with the exhaust valves ) but most of it lives another TBO interval, or several. Especially the crankshaft.
Unless….. there is corrosion
why do engine manufacturers (and regulators) define engine limits in terms of hours and not in terms of cycle times?
Probably for the reason above. It doesn’t actually matter!
The hot section of the engine mostly wears on an hourly basis, while the directly pressure lubricated bottom end operates oil starved at start-up and therefore wears a lot at startup… but that part of the engine does not typically drive TBO. That’s why a top overhaul can extend the hours between overhauls considerably.
Small Continentals apparently have issues with oil pump gear wear, and so that is where I’d be looking first for a problem with oil pressure loss on a particular engine.
Mogas on the Jodel, apart from a spell when that was forbidden, as leaded was replaced. I’ve used Avgas on the Bolkow for the 50+ hours since we bought her. I may change soon, possibly to a mix.
Jujupilote wrote:
That’s Mike Busch POV. He also uses W100+Camguard.
Mike Busch receives money from Camguard. What should he say?
Jujupilote wrote:
His company manages hundreds of airplanes. Who else can do the statistics to say better ?
Statistics don’t help for discussions on such topics, as there are far too many parameters that are said (or at least assumed) to have significant impact on engine life. You would literally need millions of engines under surveillance to do significant statistics. Plus it is absolutely undisputed that there are things you can do to your engine (e.g. running significantly beyond CHT limits) that have much bigger impact on wear than the choice of oil – and for most planes we don’t even have data on that.
But speaking about Mike Busch/Savvy and statistics: When they tried to acquire me as a customer, I asked them if they could provide any evidence (or even guarantee) that an engine under their supervision will live longer than an engine not managed by them. They couldn’t or wouldn’t provide such evidence.
I asked them if they could provide any evidence (or even guarantee) that an engine under their supervision will live longer than an engine not managed by them. They couldn’t or wouldn’t provide such evidence.
That’s not surprising – discussed in many previous threads – example. IMHO the main benefit of Savvy (I am on their email list too, and read their case studies) is to protect you from ending up bent over a barrel by a shyster (or simply ignorant) maintenance outfit, which exist in equal proportion everywhere. A second benefit is that they really do understand engine troubleshooting, which most mechanics do not.
Also, frankly, they probably can’t be bothered with a customer in a far away land, where they have to interact with a different and far less transparent set of rules, and the aircraft owner does not have the final say, and who is asking difficult questions which would take a lot of their time to answer. It would be like the same divorce lawyer having to deal with both parties.
Re making money from Camguard, well, everybody who does “anything commercial” is making money from somebody. If EuroGA carried adverts, I/we would be making money from the advertisers (and would need a very different mod policy particularly as the firms with the worst reputation would likely be the biggest spenders). To give another example, the whole GAMI/APS roadshow (which is doing a good service in educating people) is making money from preaching that engine management is far more complicated than it really is.
Small Continentals apparently have issues with oil pump gear wear, and so that is where I’d be looking first for a problem with oil pressure loss on a particular engine.
With a gear pump, a loss of oil pressure is probably a very late warning of impending disaster
Silvaire wrote:
Small Continentals apparently have issues with oil pump gear wear, and so that is where I’d be looking first for a problem with oil pressure loss on a particular engine.
The oil pump concerns about small Continentals are more that the oil pump bores are in the rear case, rather than their being a separate oil pump body as a larger Continental, or Lycomings. So if you have debris go through the oil pump of a small Continental, there is a risk of buggering up the whole rear case, rather than just the oil pump body itself.
Lycomings had issues with oil pump impeller cracking, and were AD’d for it a long time ago. I’m hopeful that by now, all of the defective impellers have long since been maintained out!
Too thick (cold) oil will not flow well, so there is a risk at starting of oil taking longer than desired to get to where it should be lubricating. Too thin (overly hot) oil will not withstand the internal pressures of metal on metal well, so risks scoring internal bearings and friction surfaces. I will always preheat an engine in cold weather. If not possible, I like to pull it through many times, and if possible, even hand start it, just to reduce the loads to the starter motor turning over a very stiff engine. When I was the lowly copilot in the Aztec flying in northern Ontario in the winter. I would go out to the airport by cab during all day layovers, and run both engines, just to keep them warm, if no electric heating was possible. We too preheating really seriously.
Peter wrote:
Re making money from Camguard, well, everybody who does “anything commercial” is making money from somebody.
I would never blame someone for doing a business!
It’s just that consumers need to understand what is happening:
When Wayne Rooney endorses Nike shoes, he doesn’t do so because he wants you to become a better scorer, but he does it because he gets money for this endorsement.
When Mike Busch endorses Camguard, it’s the very same story.
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.
Except Camguard does work – see previous threads about oil analysis proving it.
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 like Mike Busch. I don’t mind him making money out of camguard or whatever. 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.
Camguard is something I also validated in my previous Arrow 200. The wear metals in oil analysis not only reacted positively to Camguard, they kept on dropping even further with more concentrated use of camguard. I noticed, for my flying, up to 6 or 7% of it definitely dropped the overall wear metal trend by a considerable amount.
