Dennis Madden

Dennis Madden

Active Member
Winter, and an O-320 in an RV-4. Read most of the oil stuff I can find out there but just wondering what accumulated wisdom is lurking around here. Some guys tell me to use straight weight oil since I have no filter and drain it every 25 hours. Others swear by the aeroshell multi grade. I have been planning to add and oil filter, but now after reading everything on this site, I'm thinking... should I bother?
What are your thoughts?
Fire away,
DM
 
I've been using Aeroshell 15W-50 for almost forever. One of the reasons is because of the Lycoming additive included. Now that the additive is also in the straight weights, I'll be switching. If you change your oil every 25 hours, and you don't live where the temperature swings wildly, straight weights should be fine.
I refuse to use any product with the word Exxon on it, but that's another story.
 
I also use the Shell 15W50. I have used it in two new 0-360s and have had great success. I change it at 25 hr intervals, with the filter. My oil consumption has been consistently around 18 to 20 hrs per qt. I broke the engine in using the straight weight mineral oil from Shell (80).

Roberta
 
I've been using Aeroshell 15W-50 for almost forever. One of the reasons is because of the Lycoming additive included. I have used Exxon (had a FREE case given to me) but do not like the container and the Aeroshell is more readily available. The straight weight oil with the additive may be ok but I find the multi-weight oil having my airplane ready to fly sooner at 70 F. The Constant Speed Prop cycles smoothly at 70 with the multi-weight but needs 100 F to cycle the same way with straight weight oil.

If you talk to all the aviation oil manufacturers, they will all tell you the same thing about the multi-weight oils. They all agree that due to the viscosity enhancer in the multi-weight oil, it will be thicker at elevated temperatures than the straight weight oil.

In many parts of this country, the straight weight oil works well in most cases. The multi-weight does cost more.
 
Exxon

I'm doing for my Superior engine what Superior does for theirs - Exxon Elite. In my C-150 I stayed with what had always been used in it - straight grade AeroShell. Here in Michigan I found the straight grade a PITA because of our weird weather in spring and fall. Multi-grade solves that problem. I have no compelling reason to choose Exxon over Shell and I doubt either one makes as much of a difference as my engine dehydrator.
 
I'm using Exxon Elite also, but not for any particular reason, other than several years ago Aeroshell was recalled, and no one in town had any non recalled oil. So, I bought what was available, EE. Their stupid large mouth is enough reason to not use them though. I'd like to say it is hard to imagine how that decision could have possibly occurred, but I've been around business long enough to not be surprised.:p Some tyrant somewhere in the company, I suspect. But, after almost 1000 hours, I probably won't change (superstitious).

For what it is worth, Bart at Aerosport Power told me that the wear materials in my oil analyses are around half of what he typically sees. Exxon claims in their published report the same thing, but I make no claim about what they say.
 
Oil

It would be nice to see some factual data. I am guessing that just about any aviation oil is fine. I am still using a straight weight (Aeroshell) since I am still in the break-in period but counter the problems with it (cold here despite the alleged global warming) by using an engine oil sump heater before I fly. That gets the oil up to the mid 80s F.

Going to breakfast somewhere the oil stills stays warm enough.

The only problem I had was going cross-country where it got cold overnight (not in a hangar) and I had to wait until the temps got up before I started the engine.

I will probably change to Aeroshell 15W50 in the near future.

I used to use the Plus but decided that I fly enough that it is not worth the extra cost. There are people here that may fly 25 hours a year and some fly none. That can't be good regardless of the oil.
 
I'm using Phillips 20-50W mineral for engine brake in as per ECI. I went with it because of our wild temp fluctuations this time of year and it seems to be working really well. After 5 hours it looks like things are seating in as the cyl head temps are all stabilizing and the oil temp is dropping. I was always an Aeroshell user before and I still will probably change to it after brake in as it is the most common oil for an FBO to carry. Don
 
Dennis - break the engine in with a straight 80 and then run it on a D80 is my view. I am in the UK so a D15-50 type oil is only marginally useful. There is good logic in the straight oiol for break in, which is well covered elsewhere, as is the use of a detergent oil later.

As to brand my view is ANY premium brand. As it happens I use Total which is French so perhaps not familiar to you in the USA, but that is because I get a good deal. I would tend to shy away from Shell for the simple reason that they charge more to cover the cost of promotion. (If one was inferior to another they would modify it.)

The key issues are change it per reccomendation 25 hrs/3mos with a screen and 50 hrs/3 mos with a filter, and fly the pants of it.

Have fun!
 
Some oil analysis data

Ron Lee said:
It would be nice to see some factual data. I am guessing that just about any aviation oil is fine. SNIP
Click to expand...

Here is the data for my earlier comment. The whole article is available here. Basically, they got oil analysis data from a lab, and then simply looked at the wear metal per hour stated on the report. The number of samples is significant. Obviously, there could be conflict of interest as the data is presented by the company who looks good in this. It would be very interesting to see if another independent lab's data would mirror this.

exxonelitegraphsmallkz8.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

Here is the data for my last 5 or 6 oil analyses, each on representing 50 hobbs hours:

n66apoilanalysesbd7.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

If I take the averages of the aluminum, iron, copper and chromium and divide them by 50 hours, I get:

Iron - .37 ppm/hr
Aluminum - .24 ppm/hr
Chromium - .20 ppm/hr
Copper - .23 ppm/hr

These are quite similar to the Exxon data points from the graph, except for chromium, which is in my case similar to the straight 100 Aeroshell.

Interesting. So, my data seems to correlate reasonably with the data presented by Exxon, but we need others who don't use Exxon but get analysis done to show some data.
 
FROM ECI

yakdriver said:
I'm using Phillips 20-50W mineral for engine brake in as per ECI. I went with it because of our wild temp fluctuations this time of year and it seems to be working really well. After 5 hours it looks like things are seating in as the cyl head temps are all stabilizing and the oil temp is dropping. I was always an Aeroshell user before and I still will probably change to it after brake in as it is the most common oil for an FBO to carry. Don
Click to expand...
http://www.eci2fly.com/pdf/BreakInInstructions.pdf#pagemode=bookmarks&page=15
 
engine oil sump heater

Ron Lee; I am still in the break-in period but counter the problems with it (cold here despite the alleged global warming) by using an engine oil sump heater before I fly. That gets the oil up to the mid 80s F.QUOTE said:
Ron, could you tell me what your'e using for an oil sump heater?

Is there such a thing as an electrical sump heater similar to a block heater on a car that you just plug in or use with a timer?

Bevan
Click to expand...
 
Oil sump heater

Bevan, I have an older Reiff sump heater (placed on the bottom of the sump)

http://www.reiffpreheat.com/

Look for: HotStrip Oil Sump Heater

There may be automotive equivalents but I am not sure how they would work.

You can also get 7 day timers that will come on whenever you choose.
 
Last edited:
Oil

Tons of stuff in the forum archives about pre-heat. It may qualify for the "never ending debate" category...

Now, back to this thread, don't some others have oil analysis data to post?
 
Oil Analysis

OK here's one:

Friend of mine, an A&P with Inspection Authorization sent in a sample of oil from a failed engine. He included numerous particles of steel and aluminum with the sample. The reply came back: Normal wear.

Guess the larger particles were the typical "couldn't see the forest for the trees." Mabe this could have been a "Monday" test????
 
Maybe that is why some guys feel cutting the filter inspection and the sump suction screen inspection are more important than burning the oil sample.

Any other opinions?

On the other side of the fence I know some guys religiously send the sample never pull the suction screen and never cut the filter.
 
Last edited:
I only have three oil analyses

Still a new engine so I may not be at a static point yet.

Fe is 0.57 ppm/hr

Cu is 0.39 ppm/hr

Cr is 0.557 ppm/hr

Al is 0.15 ppm/hr
 
Last edited:
Oil

I guess I'm from the old school (maybe the dunce), but I cut EVERY FILTER for inspection. I believe that if the engine is in serious trouble, it will be making enough metal for the naked eye to see.

Don't claim to be no roads schoollar.:D
 
ferret said:
Ok. So who makes a by-pass oil filtration system for aircraft engines?
Click to expand...

EaBP By-Pass Filters
Engineered for Outstanding Oil Filtration Efficiency

EaBP90

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
The Ea By-Pass Oil Filter (EaBP) provides the best possible filtration protection against wear and oil degradation. Working in conjunction with the engine’s full-flow oil filter, the AMSOIL Ea By-Pass Filter operates by filtering oil on a “partial-flow” basis. It draws approximately 10 percent of the oil pump’s capacity at any one time and traps the extremely small, wear-causing contaminants that full-flow filters can’t remove. The AMSOIL Ea Bypass Filter typically filters all the oil in the system several times an hour, so the engine continuously receives analytically clean oil.

Higher Efficiency
AMSOIL EaBP Filters have an efficiency of 98.7 percent at two microns. At normal operating RPMs the EaBP Filter will filter all of the oil in a typical five quart sump in less than 10 minutes.

Superior Construction
The superior construction of AMSOIL EaBP Filters provides better sealing and increased longevity along with superior corrosion resistance. AMSOIL EaBP Filters have a marine powder coated exterior; and their zinc-dichromate base plates increase rust protection. EaBP Filters have a nitrile HNBR gasket and an orange silicone anti-drain valve. The two stage pleated and layered cellulose/full synthetic media has an efficiency rating of 98.7 percent at two microns.

Longer Lasting
When used in conjunction with AMSOIL motor oil and an AMSOIL EaO or Donaldson Endurance™ filter, the EaBP should be changed every other full-flow filter change up to 60,000 miles. When used with other brands of motor oil or full-flow filters, the EaBP Filter should be changed every other full-flow filter change. AMSOIL recommends using oil analysis when extending oil drain intervals.

Increased Oil Capacity
The increased fluid system capacity and filtration life provides improved oil cooling and ensures that equipment constantly runs on clean oil. Engine efficiency is increased, providing extended engine life.

Soot Removal
AMSOIL has designed a new high-efficiency by-pass filter element that is also a soot removal device. AMSOIL Ea By-Pass Filters use a synthetic/cellulose sandwiched media. The inner layer of the element is composed of a highly efficient cellulose media covered with a full synthetic media outer layer. These filters remove 39 percent of soot contaminants less than one micron. Soot removal efficiency increases approximately 10 to 14 percent when the EaBP Filter is used in conjunction with a standard full-flow filter.

By-Pass Filtration Benefits

• Dramatically Extended Drain Intervals
• Improved Oil Cooling
• Increased Filtration Capacity and Life
• Increased Fluid System Capacity
• Efficient Small Particle and Soot Removal
• Significantly Extended Engine Life
• Equipment Constantly Runs on Clean Oil
• Increased Engine Efficiency
• Remove Particles Less Than One Micron

AMSOIL By-Pass Filter Replacement Chart

AMSOIL By-Pass Filter Replacement Chart
Type of Unit Stock Number Size (Approx.) Additional Oil Needed Crankcase Capacity Applications
SINGLE SPIN-ON ELEMENT
(Used with BMK-11 or any DUAL REMOTE SYSTEM)
EaBP-90 Diam. = 4.5 in.
Height = 6 in.
With Mnt. = 8 in. 1 qt. up to 9 qt. Pleasure Vehicles, Light Trucks and Smaller Commercial Applications

Normal Service Life b:When used in conjunction with AMSOIL motor oil and an EaO or Donaldson Endurance filter, the EaBP should be changed every other full flow filter change up to 60,000 miles. When used with other brands of motor oil or full flow filters, the EaBP filter should be changed every other full flow filter change. AMSOIL recommends using oil analysis when extending oil drain intervals.

Mount Filter
BMK-11 Any size AMSOIL Ea By-Pass Filter Element

https://www.amsoil.com/storefront/eabp.aspx
 
Last edited:
My oil analysis

Alex P - since you asked here is some data for you. Its off an O-320 in my Supercub. It dates back to 2001. In the earlier years I used BP and in the later Total. In winter I tend to use a multigrade and in summer a D80. I am only really fussed about changing the oil at 25hrs / 3 months. No filter, just a screen.

http://gikonothr.blogspot.com/2007/12/oil-analysis.html#links

My main interest is Blackstone's comment. If you find anything interesting in the data feel free to comment.

The engine is just past 500hrs SMOH, though should by now have learned what to do (reliably revolve 1 million times every 7 hours) since it was (I think) first installed in around 1967. Most of its life was spent on the edge of the arctic circle counting Reindeer!
 
Interesting. .

I agree that all aviation oils are probably about the same and the most important thing is how often the plane is flown, preheating in very cold temps, etc.

I'm still kind of surprised this data shows results for all the elements so close among the different oils sampled.

Anectodally, my company flies 26 SR-22s. MX just switched from Aeroshell 15-50 to Phillips 20-50 because the Cont. IO-550s oil samples were coming back with consistently high copper readings. I've heard of others having the same problem and that the Aeroshell's anti-corrosion additive has been known to leech copper from bearings. After switching to Phillips, the samples are now coming back in limits.

- Brett


rocketbob said:
I send my oil to Blackstone for analysis, and this is what they have to say:

http://www.blackstone-labs.com/about_aircraft_oils.html

No difference between brands.
Click to expand...
 
gasman said:
EaBP By-Pass Filters
Engineered for Outstanding Oil Filtration Efficiency

...
By-Pass Filtration Benefits
...
? Dramatically Extended Drain Intervals
Click to expand...
While a better filter can only improve the situation, it cannot remove acids. For that reason, extended drain intervals based on removing micron-sized particles is not, in my view, a good idea.

Further, I don't see how a filter can protect a muti-grade oil that is not 100% synthetic from breakdowns of the long molecular chains that are the basis of the multi-grade (non-Newtonian) characteristic. While synthetics like Mobil-1 or Amsoil are much more resistant to this breakdown, we have no pure synthetic for our aviation engines. For cars, maybe, but not for Lycomings et al. When I did oil analysis studies of Valvoline car oil back in the eighties, I found that a 10W-40 became a 10W-30 within 3,000 miles. I can't directly relate that to the aviation situation, but I think it makes a point.
 
Steve Sampson said:
Alex P - since you asked here is some data for you. Its off an O-320 in my Supercub. It dates back to 2001. In the earlier years I used BP and in the later Total. In winter I tend to use a multigrade and in summer a D80. I am only really fussed about changing the oil at 25hrs / 3 months. No filter, just a screen.

http://gikonothr.blogspot.com/2007/12/oil-analysis.html#links

My main interest is Blackstone's comment. If you find anything interesting in the data feel free to comment.

The engine is just past 500hrs SMOH, though should by now have learned what to do (reliably revolve 1 million times every 7 hours) since it was (I think) first installed in around 1967. Most of its life was spent on the edge of the arctic circle counting Reindeer!
Click to expand...

Steve, it looks like your engine is right in there with what they call universal averages (which I assume is all testing on Lycomings that they do?). Your numbers, if I divide by 25 hours/oil change, are right in line with the graphs shown earlier. Thanks.
 
Phillips XC #'s

Alex,

Here are my #'s using Phillips XC after 200 hrs

Iron - .53 ppm/hr
Aluminum - .099 ppm/hr
Chromium - .10 ppm/hr
Copper - .308 ppm/hr
 
I have always used Phillips X-C 20W50 in my -6 (O-360-A1A, Carb, Sensenich), changing at 50 hours. My cylinders are channel-chrome and never really broke in right so I only get 5-6 hours out of a quart (even after 800 hours). Yes, cost is a consideration here but when I see data such as the Blackstone study, I don't see any reason to change. Additionally, I was a member of a flying club at South St. Paul that operated Piper singles. We used nothing but Phillips oil and had no problems. The engines always went TBO and beyond and showed minimal wear when torn down. This club had 10 to 12,000 cumulative hours using this oil. Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but a preponderance of it.
As an A&P I have seen article after article about oils, and all said the same thing: Fly the airplane regularly and change the oil on time, and any of the oils we have tested will do the job. Corrosion prevention during periods of disuse is another issue, and the last article I read said Exxon Elite was the winner there (Aviation Consumer, I believe).
Bottom line? Worry about that "perfect landing", not what oil is circulatin' in that engine...
 
follow up question

Good stuff posted here on the oil question . Thanks to all. As a follow up, do you have an opinion about the need for an oil filter, or is it OK (assuming 25 hour oil changes) to just run the screen?
Fire away,
Thanks DM
 
Filter

Dennis, my Supercub does not have a filter. Since it is 'controlled' by the CAA (like the FAA but more stupid) it is very expensive for me to add a filter. The -9a I built, and the -4 I am building, both have a filter, so you have my answer.

They are controlled in a way more similar to your EXPERIMENTAL catagory, so huge costs are not involved. As you see from my oil analysis (an earlier post in this thread) a screen does just fine, but a filter has to be better and is probably cheaper in the long run if you are flying more than 25hrs in 3 mos.

Depending on the engine you have, if you can add a filter without too much hassle, do it. Best of all is if you have an engine where it just screws on the back like this, a -D1A. http://gikonfwf.blogspot.com/2007/09/p-mags.html#links See the bottom picture. Its in a -4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.