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.
 
Interesting on this test of a Wix 27 micron rating? paper vs 35 micron steel mesh that they show the HP loss (10 on a 400 HP area? engine) from poor filtration.
And, as Dan’s excellent work showed, the steel did a terrible job of filtering (in this test, iron particles used for magniflux testing).

Fwd to 19.00 for results. May be of interest if you haven’t had enough filter by now.
 
Interesting video. Would have liked them to isolate the cause of HP loss though - my first thought would have been ring wear and blowby, but as this was essentially a paid commercial for a ring manufacturing company, that was not named as the cause. If there was enough increased friction in the bearings from all the junk in there to show up on a dyno, then those bearings must be absolutely trashed by now.

That said, it’s more evidence that the cleaner you run the oil, the better.
 
Paul 5r4 said:
Excellent video with great explanations.
Click to expand...
The video has been quite thoroughly discussed on BOTG - there is somewhat more there than meets the eye.

For me, the real takeaways are (in priority order):
1. Do not dump sand down your oil filler neck,
2. Have a good air filter to prevent introducing dirt etc. into the system, and
3. Have a reasonably good oil filter that matches your application.
 
Are the specks coffee grounds or the boulders the filter did manage to filter from your last oil change? :D
 
sbalmos said:
Are the specks coffee grounds or the boulders the filter did manage to filter from your last oil change? :D
Click to expand...
Those ‘specks’ are bubbles. He’s foaming his coffee - a great move. I might turn mine into a coffee cup too, but I think I’ll grind off the inside lip where the O-ring goes to provide a “sipping” area, so that the coffee doesn’t get caught up in the channel - which could ruin a shirt when that channel of coffee spills over while trying to ‘sip’. I think if you warm up the ‘can’ before putting in the coffee, there is enough mass to keep the coffee warm for a while. Just fill it with hot water while brewing your coffee.
 
Scott Hersha said:
Those ‘specks’ are bubbles. He’s foaming his coffee - a great move. I might turn mine into a coffee cup too, but I think I’ll grind off the inside lip where the O-ring goes to provide a “sipping” area, so that the coffee doesn’t get caught up in the channel - which could ruin a shirt when that channel of coffee spills over while trying to ‘sip’. I think if you warm up the ‘can’ before putting in the coffee, there is enough mass to keep the coffee warm for a while. Just fill it with hot water while brewing your coffee.
Click to expand...
You're giving me ideas. We'll have to compare notes and mods, since we're both down for another month+ anyway. And the specks I was referring are the black spots at the edge of the bubbles and housing wall, one 'o clock position. ;)

sprucemoose said:
Beer cups for the Monday RV social? IYKYK as the kids say.
Click to expand...
I like it! Maybe I will pack mine.
 
Well FWW, for those interested, after this report came out I started using an automotive filter that has a great specs (Fram XG16) and as a way of a test (not so scientifically) I sent a sample of the oil to BlackStone Lab. They confirmed that they don't do any prefilter of the oil to catch the bigger item. The oil had about 30 hours on it and I changed filter to XG16 without changing oil. Flew it for another 2.5 hours and sent another sample to Blackstone.
The result of the first sample is pretty much identical to my previous results and about the same for universal average other than lead which is higher.
The second result which had 2.5 hours thru the the XG16 is also about the same perhaps slightly worse. I would have thought 2.5 hours of flying would be enough to get the same oil through the filter perhaps multiple passes and if the filter was going to catch more, then I was hoping for a bit better result. I did not.
 
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...
Yes but less likely. The seal experiences a lot of shear because the filter is spun-on. The subject seal type (or any seal) is better served when the gland surfaces are relatively static. Removing a material‘s cross sectional area when a shear force is applied can only hurt In this case.

This isn’t saying the subject OEM didn’t perform their perceived due diligence; however, common sense would dictate a seal with a solid cross section in this application would be more forgiving/installation fault tolerant (insufficient lube, over torque) to say the least.
 
I reused the square profile PC Racing Flo cum billet coffee mug/spitoon seal once. I would NOT reuse them.

If anyone has one still, on a lawnmower, I have three unused seals. Can mail or bring to OSH.
 
First off, well done Dan! I love a good test with factual data. Very interesting thread.

I do have a couple observations:
1. The data provided in one of the early posts, with an excerpt from SAE 881825, states that the most damaging particle size is in the 2-22µm range - where particle size exceeds Oil Film Thickness (OFM), however none of the filters tested provided any great efficacy in that particle range, although I am impressed with the Wix filter performance.
2. K&P clearly states on their website that their filter mesh is 35µm, yet there are several, if not many, posts showing surprise and/or dismay, along with several disparaging comments that the filter doesn't provide desired filtration at or below the designed particle size and that it should be tossed, disregarded, etc... (although I especially liked the beverage repurposing idea). This test focused on particle size < 40µm, however I think it would provide a more valuable review of the filter's performance to be tested in the particle range the manufacturer claims it was designed for.
3. The gram loading vs PSI chart is very informative. Lots of discussion around bypass pressures, but it appears a 8-11 psi bypass relief is more than adequate. Incidentally, I received an email from Dave Fisher at K&P several years back saying their bypass started opening at 15# and was fully open at 20#.

I did an experiment of the Challenger CH48109C filter using my own airplane starting in 2013. I bought one and put it on the right engine of my Baron and then continued to run a Tempest 48109 filter on the left. I did this for a 50 Oil Change Interval (OCI) and then swapped sides. I did this for 10 OCIs, performing oil analysis at each OCI, and then finally just left it in service on the left engine. The result was insignificant changes in wear metals over those 10 periods with variations +/- few ppm each sample. I still have that CH48109C filter and it's in good shape after about 1200 hours of service.

The right engine was overhauled at 2450 hours based on cracks found on the case at #3 cylinder. We then overhauled the left engine at 2641 hours and both the rod and main bearings looked good. The camshaft needed to be reground and we installed all new cylinders, but I saw nothing to indicate anything other than normal wear over the overall period of that engine.

My take-away from my own experience is that the K&P filters do a fine job of filtration in their intended range. Something I didn't see mentioned in this thread is that the K&P (Challenger) filters have a permanent rare earth magnet that does a great job and provides immediate indication of any ferrous debris.

I hadn't considered the Wix 51515XP and didn't realize they were using synthetic media, I'm very interested in how that compares with the standard paper elements in a head-to-head experiment.

This thread is very good to highlight the importance of not just which filter, but doing oil changes at regular intervals AND pay just as much attention to air intake filtration. Keeping particles from entering the engine is just as important, if not more so, as removing it from the oil, and most importantly, the value of oil analysis.

Thanks again Dan and everyone who funded the testing.
 
rongawer said:
First off, well done Dan! I love a good test with factual data. Very interesting thread.

I do have a couple observations:
1. The data provided in one of the early posts, with an excerpt from SAE 881825, states that the most damaging particle size is in the 2-22µm range - where particle size exceeds Oil Film Thickness (OFM), however none of the filters tested provided any great efficacy in that particle range, although I am impressed with the Wix filter performance.
2. K&P clearly states on their website that their filter mesh is 35µm, yet there are several, if not many, posts showing surprise and/or dismay, along with several disparaging comments that the filter doesn't provide desired filtration at or below the designed particle size and that it should be tossed, disregarded, etc... (although I especially liked the beverage repurposing idea). This test focused on particle size < 40µm, however I think it would provide a more valuable review of the filter's performance to be tested in the particle range the manufacturer claims it was designed for.
3. The gram loading vs PSI chart is very informative. Lots of discussion around bypass pressures, but it appears a 8-11 psi bypass relief is more than adequate. Incidentally, I received an email from Dave Fisher at K&P several years back saying their bypass started opening at 15# and was fully open at 20#.

I did an experiment of the Challenger CH48109C filter using my own airplane starting in 2013. I bought one and put it on the right engine of my Baron and then continued to run a Tempest 48109 filter on the left. I did this for a 50 Oil Change Interval (OCI) and then swapped sides. I did this for 10 OCIs, performing oil analysis at each OCI, and then finally just left it in service on the left engine. The result was insignificant changes in wear metals over those 10 periods with variations +/- few ppm each sample. I still have that CH48109C filter and it's in good shape after about 1200 hours of service.

The right engine was overhauled at 2450 hours based on cracks found on the case at #3 cylinder. We then overhauled the left engine at 2641 hours and both the rod and main bearings looked good. The camshaft needed to be reground and we installed all new cylinders, but I saw nothing to indicate anything other than normal wear over the overall period of that engine.

My take-away from my own experience is that the K&P filters do a fine job of filtration in their intended range. Something I didn't see mentioned in this thread is that the K&P (Challenger) filters have a permanent rare earth magnet that does a great job and provides immediate indication of any ferrous debris.

I hadn't considered the Wix 51515XP and didn't realize they were using synthetic media, I'm very interested in how that compares with the standard paper elements in a head-to-head experiment.

This thread is very good to highlight the importance of not just which filter, but doing oil changes at regular intervals AND pay just as much attention to air intake filtration. Keeping particles from entering the engine is just as important, if not more so, as removing it from the oil, and most importantly, the value of oil analysis.

Thanks again Dan and everyone who funded the testing.
Click to expand...
Here is a test that was done on automotive type filters and this is why I decided to give Fram XG a try. My test results posted earlier are far less scientific but I do find them to give some indications at least on my engine.
 
Was there a “no harm” recommendation I can use vs a Tempest 48110-2 at $33 each? I tossed the reusable 18 hours ago . Thx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.