What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Filter Test Results

280FX said:
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”.
Click to expand...
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.
 
280FX said:
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”.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Scott Hersha said:
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=
Click to expand...
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.
 
280FX said:
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”.
Click to expand...
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 drs.faa.gov

enter enough text to get the PMA1000061341.jpg

Dynamic Regulatory System

drs.faa.gov 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...
 
Last edited:
von_flyer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.”
 
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.
 
280FX said:
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."
Click to expand...
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.
 
“Each delivered OEM part will meet the original manufacturer’s specification or, if the part is not an OEM part, it will meet or exceed the original manufacturer’s specification. Please contact [email protected] if part information appears to be incorrect.”

A PMA part has to meet or exceed. Perhaps Champion and Tempest greatly exceed and Challenger “meets”. Needs to be compared to the manufacturer (Lycoming) specifications to know for sure.
 
I’ll take a stab at this - since Lycoming never made a filter, but a screen in the beginning, perhaps the PMA is based on performing as good as the original screen…which isn’t much of a stretch for the reusable versions. But that’s just a guess…
 
gasman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just because you can see it, does that mean there are no particles on that magnet that are smaller than the 40 microns or whatever the filter is supposed to trap? I don’t quite understand that statement.

I’m too cheap to spend $100 plus for that magnet, but I did slap some super strength magnets on the can.
 
bakercdb said:
Just because you can see it, does that mean there are no particles on that magnet that are smaller than the 40 microns or whatever the filter is supposed to trap? I don’t quite understand that statement.

I’m too cheap to spend $100 plus for that magnet, but I did slap some super strength magnets on the can.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with that. A magnet will help concentrate the metallic so you can see it if it builds up beyond powder status.

Looking at the above posted picture with the magnet, that motor has an issue. If the next few oil filter changes are the same, I expect a cam replacement will be due down the line. Engine performance will continue to decay as the cam lobes continue to reduce in size.
Or the metal is coming from another internal part.... still not good.
 
Bill Boyd said:
Not making things worse... yet.

Not until an H-seal blows out and someone else loses their oil overboard.
Click to expand...
Has anyone reported losing all of their oil overboard here yet? I missed that. A seal can fail on a conventional filter as well, for the same reason.
 
Failure of the flat, solid cross-section seals? Only time I've ever had that happen was when a previous O-ring was left on the block by the mechanic. When stacked two-deep, they will definitely blow out. Fortunately, it was on an automobile, and we noticed the leak after a short drive home but before oil depletion.
 
Snowflake said:
Has anyone reported losing all of their oil overboard here yet? I missed that. A seal can fail on a conventional filter as well, for the same reason.
Click to expand...

This thread has gone from filter test results to something else. With as many as were using the reusable filters previously and few reports of failed seals during that period, it’s hard to suspect anything other than installation error.
 
ChiefPilot said:
This thread has gone from filter test results to something else. With as many as were using the reusable filters previously and few reports of failed seals during that period, it’s hard to suspect anything other than installation error.
Click to expand...
Agreed. There are already sufficient (factual) reasons for disliking the reusable filters, we don't need a witch-hunt.
 
280FX said:
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”.
Click to expand...
Likely 1 of 2 ways- The approval authority accepted data from a test method unequal to Dan H's lab selection. Any NON SAE ARP 1400 test standard oil filter test makes it apples and oranges and snake oil.

2- The approval authority compared to a OEM Lycoming non-filtering pressure screen.

Easy enough for your neighbor?
 
bakercdb said:
Just because you can see it, does that mean there are no particles on that magnet that are smaller than the 40 microns or whatever the filter is supposed to trap? I don’t quite understand that statement.

I’m too cheap to spend $100 plus for that magnet, but I did slap some super strength magnets on the can.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. $120 for just one magnet seem way too much money for something that its benefit is untested or verified. I spent $6 for multiple pieces of magnet that seem pretty strong to do the job and if it doesn't than I drink one less beer to off set the cost.
 
Bavafa said:
I couldn't agree more. $120 for just one magnet seem way too much money for something that its benefit is untested or verified. I spent $6 for multiple pieces of magnet that seem pretty strong to do the job and if it doesn't than I drink one less beer to off set the cost.
Click to expand...
If the magnet is strong enough to catch metal particles, does it interfere with the whiskey compass, or the magnetometer?
 
PilotjohnS said:
If the magnet is strong enough to catch metal particles, does it interfere with the whiskey compass, or the magnetometer?
Click to expand...
If your magnetometer is installed close enough to the filter, then I would imagine yes. But I don't know anyone one would install it that close as there is a lot of ferrous metal there that would also interfere with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top