Filter Test Results

[Toobuilder]

From my neighbor - “I disagree. This is not an STC, it is a PMA. If you read the specific PMA approval shown in the link provided, it is for the Challenger CP-48110 as a replacement for the Champion CH48110 filter (not a screen). So I would believe that equivalency had to be shown by Challenger for the Champion. My question is how were they able to show that, given the poor performance of the Challenger relative to the Champion using the ISO test standards for full flow filters”.

Not a lawyer or with any particular insight into the PMA process, but this lay person would only expect the new part to bolt to the same location as the old part and ”do no harm”. I would not expect there to be any particular performance demonstration relative to the two, especially considering the spin on filter concept that is now standard, is also an “accessory” and not required for basic engine operation.

 

[DanH]

From my neighbor - “I disagree. This is not an STC, it is a PMA. If you read the specific PMA approval shown in the link provided, it is for the Challenger CP-48110 as a replacement for the Champion CH48110 filter (not a screen). So I would believe that equivalency had to be shown by Challenger for the Champion. My question is how were they able to show that, given the poor performance of the Challenger relative to the Champion using the ISO test standards for full flow filters”.

That's an interesting point! It does say PMA, and I too understand a PMA to be an equivalent...which it is quite clearly not. I wonder what Champion might have to say.

My compliments to your neighbor.

 

[Bavafa]

Here’s an oil filter test youtube video that is interesting and kind of funny. Not highly accurate like the testing done here, but still, some obvious outcomes. I don’t know if the synthetic filters talked about on this thread are fiberglass, but that discussion is also interesting.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v...SUjcd4jnb6G5ZPgujouowJOyaWrV_7E1AE9c_05riA&e=

I wonder if there is enough interest to do yet another test but with more automotive type filters. Right now there has been a few that has been suggested that should work well (HP3, GX16, WIX51515 and WIX51515x to name a few).
I pulled my challenger filter and replaced it with a Ultra Synthetic (GX16) without changing the oil. I pulled some oil and sent it to Blackstone Lab and planning on doing the same thing in about 5 hours of flying or so to get a comparison. It will not be as good of a test as DanH has done but it might reveal some info.

 

[moosepileit]

From my neighbor - “I disagree. This is not an STC, it is a PMA. If you read the specific PMA approval shown in the link provided, it is for the Challenger CP-48110 as a replacement for the Champion CH48110 filter (not a screen). So I would believe that equivalency had to be shown by Challenger for the Champion. My question is how were they able to show that, given the poor performance of the Challenger relative to the Champion using the ISO test standards for full flow filters”.

If I were to attack the PMA, it looks pretty smart of Challenger- what does the filter "need" to do?

The PMA calls out the STC.

Dynamic Regulatory System

drs.faa.gov

enter enough text to get the PMA

Dynamic Regulatory System

drs.faa.gov

Circular/chicken vs egg logic...

Is the Champ vs challenger going to make or break TBO? No, neither will. 50 hrs vs 25 hr oil change intervals? No, neither will. Why? TBO is both low in service hours and few in years.

Will both filters show damage metals upon inspection? I'd say yes, better than the Lyc and Conti OEM filter screens.

The challenger is "easier" in some regards, so maybe more users would inspect the media vs cutting a can and separating pleats?

It's a great question posed- what data was presented...

 

[gasman]

Just a FYI. The use of magnets was mentioned in an earlier post. This is what I see in my C-90 using the Aeromag on a Champion filter. I have not used it on the Lycoming yet.

You would find all of those shavings in the filter media if no magnet was used. If you can see it, the media will trap it.

There is no need for a magnet other than seeing before you inspect the pleats.....
It does allow for easier collection to confirm that your motor does have an issue.

 

[bjdecker]

It probably got PMA approval because the dimensional parameters were the same (flange size, o-ring I.D. and O.D., nipple dimensions based upon the drawing submitted), nothing else was required.

 

[280FX]

Again from my neighbor - “I’m having a lot of trouble accepting “dimensionally identical” as a justification for PMA. So if a Rapco PMA’d brake disc and/or pad was dimensionally identical, but didn’t have the same brake energy or torque capability of the Cleveland part they were replacing and caused braking distance to double, that would be acceptable? It’s kind of the same logic being applied here - the Challenger filter fits, but it doesn’t filter as well as the Champion it claims to replace and it ”does no harm”. If this is how PMA works, it certainly makes me question the whole process.”

 

[Toobuilder]

To use your analogy, maybe the brake distance doubles, but there is an equally compelling benefit - like maybe the brake life doubles…. It is up to the consumer to decide what is valuable.

 

[DanH]

I'm not losing any sleep over Challenger's PMA or STC. In terms of results, we know what we need to know. Let's talk about the good filters.

 

[Snowflake]

Again from my neighbor - “I’m having a lot of trouble accepting “dimensionally identical” as a justification for PMA. So if a Rapco PMA’d brake disc and/or pad was dimensionally identical, but didn’t have the same brake energy or torque capability of the Cleveland part they were replacing and caused braking distance to double, that would be acceptable? It’s kind of the same logic being applied here - the Challenger filter fits, but it doesn’t filter as well as the Champion it claims to replace and it ”does no harm”. If this is how PMA works, it certainly makes me question the whole process."

Remember, you're talking about putting it on an engine that originally only had a simple screen. So *anything* is an improvement, providing it doesn't outright block the oil path. No, it isn't filtering as well as a paper filter. But it's not making things worse by being there either. The braking analogy isn't a good one, because you're talking about removing functionality, not augmenting what was there originally.

 

[Bill Boyd]

Not making things worse... yet.

Not until an H-seal blows out and someone else loses their oil overboard.