The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!
In my experience the Champion nipple has a larger thread diameter on the filter side (13/16 IIRC), so the Tempest's 3/4 x 3/4 was the "go to". The short threaded side screws into the adapter assembly without drama. I cant remember how much force it took, but I did think it was loose enough to require locktite as extra insurance from backing out at a filter change.
That's just going to end with a lot of people selling used K&N *Air* filters in the Classified section...
AHA! This might explain my situation... My -6 has always had a nipple installed in the engine, and the threads on it are 13/16". I assumed that someone must have stripped/munged the stock threads and re-threaded and installed a nipple for the next larger size. This makes me wonder if someone just happened to remove a Champion filter and somehow leave the nipple in the engine, and since then i've always had a 13/16" thread (and i've been buying the appropriate Champion/Tempest/etc. filters that have a 13/16" female thread on them since I bought the plane). In fact, I went out of my way to buy the K&N reusable filter that had a 13/16" female thread as well... Which i'll be removing at the next change...
K&N air filters are excellent at keeping stones, birds, leaves, and insects out of the engine. Anything much smaller than that will get through. Thankfully most of our time flying is in relatively clean air as soon as we get away from the surface. I agree that an air filter test will result in a lot of disappointment, but perhaps it will help us find a better way to filter the incoming air, considering the challenges of aviation (rain, snow, ice at altitude, and dust and bugs near the ground).That's just going to end with a lot of people selling used K&N *Air* filters in the Classified section...
Yep, odds are if you pull it out of the adapter you will find 3/4 on the adapter side. Swap it out with the straight Tempest nipple (or aftermarket) and you can join the party with the rest of us!
AHA! This might explain my situation... My -6 has always had a nipple installed in the engine, and the threads on it are 13/16". I assumed that someone must have stripped/munged the stock threads and re-threaded and installed a nipple for the next larger size. This makes me wonder if someone just happened to remove a Champion filter and somehow leave the nipple in the engine, and since then i've always had a 13/16" thread (and i've been buying the appropriate Champion/Tempest/etc. filters that have a 13/16" female thread on them since I bought the plane). In fact, I went out of my way to buy the K&N reusable filter that had a 13/16" female thread as well... Which i'll be removing at the next change...
Or just buy the Wix 51258. It has the 13/16” female thread you need.
The Tempest nipple has a shoulder. Just tighten it snug, it can't fall out with the filter in place.
Lycoming has used at least two different oil filter adapters over the years. I have the same 13/16-16 thread on my Lycoming. IF I go though the parts catalog, there will be two different part numbers between the one you and I have verse the one that is now shipping on new engines. I use the 48103 filter for most of the last 26-years.AHA! This might explain my situation... My -6 has always had a nipple installed in the engine, and the threads on it are 13/16". I assumed that someone must have stripped/munged the stock threads and re-threaded and installed a nipple for the next larger size. This makes me wonder if someone just happened to remove a Champion filter and somehow leave the nipple in the engine, and since then i've always had a 13/16" thread (and i've been buying the appropriate Champion/Tempest/etc. filters that have a 13/16" female thread on them since I bought the plane). In fact, I went out of my way to buy the K&N reusable filter that had a 13/16" female thread as well... Which i'll be removing at the next change...
I use this magnetic plug from Anti Splat Aero. Thankfully I have not found anything on it yet.
antisplataero.com
My adapter houses a bypass so none is needed in the filter. This is the same as the Champion 48103 which is used with my adapter if you prefer TSO parts.
I think the magnet will only trap particles that come within a 1/6" or so. I personally don't see a benefit for it on the filter. On the drain plug, The particles would sink down and be capture by the plug, so a magnetic plug is probably a good idea.
They are straight, on the male and female threads of every Champion I have dissembled. I just checked the thread diameters on the possibility of thread class difference. The removed adapter has the same thread diameter measurements on both ends. 3/4-16 Both ends are equally easy to thread in the back side of the oil filter end plate. It appears that the shoulder is used to deform the first thread for a mechanical lock. I would want to replicate this locking if the adapters are reused, and personally, would only use the shoulder type adapter unless al alternate design was tested for equal removal torque.
Interestingly, Champion spec for the thread size is 13/16" for the 48108 or 48109 yet looks like people have been using filters (WIX 51515) that list the thread size of 3/4. Is this a mistype somewhere?
See attached, only the CH48103 and 104 have 13/16", Tempest cross reference the same.
Thanks for the info. Here is where I got my info about the threat size and this size is reported for CH48109 as well.
Just got 4 of these in. These things are tiny! Smaller that the K&P filter, which makes install easier in the tight quarters.
That was kind of my point - the test done is a very small sample size of a single example of five different filters. There are other options for sure - let’s not lose sight of that in our mass rush to the tested Wix example.
This is a really good point, and I just want to say how grateful I am for the information provided by the study. Having failed to contribute $ toward that worthy effort, I hereby commit to contributing to any follow-up study!
Yesterday I switched back to my old stock of Champion filters, standing by for more analysis to find the best auto filter for us to use in the future. I've got two more Champions in stock - hopefully you guys will find an excellent replacement before I run out. Not going to sell my K&P as I'm hopeful that they will respond to these tests and come up with a better filter element that fits in their housing. I've love to be able to use one of the modern auto filter cartridges in a re-usable housing.
This is the value of this site. I think I will give my savings to the crew that runs this site.
And as great as it is for builders, it might be even more useful for clueless types like me who buy used RVs. This site and Vic’s book basically make that whole enterprise possible!
AFAIK, because of low capacity
Did you guys see a similar independent test for automotive filters on bobistheoilguy? They also picked several popular filters
and ran a comparison test for them. It's quite educational. They have a WIX, too
If capacity is determined based on size, HP3 is just about the same size as a CH48108 filter and the flow rate is higher than the average filter. I called Fram and they did not offer any reason as why it could not be used for a daily driver. My only thought is that since it captures more and smaller particles, it may clog up faster thus shorter oil changes. I read in one of the review it was recommended for a 5000 mile change where as the ultra synthetic says 20000 mile change. I have a XG16 arriving tomorrow and will be testing it for fit and possible change.
Interesting that all these filters fit my old 1986 Land cruiser....who would ever have know I kept the filter, but upgraded the vehicle...
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.
