Microlon and Lycoming engines?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cumbernauld
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Microlon and Lycoming engines?
Hi folks I may be asking something that has already been covered if so my apologies. Are there any issues in using Microlon in a Lycoming 0-360-A1A with a constant speed prop? The engine doesnt have a spin on oilfilter, it has the internal screen (which makes me cringe), it is a high hours unit with recent new top end. Any thoughts comments etc. greatfully received.
John.
John.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: cambs.
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Microlon
I use this fantastic(for me) product as a matter of course due to the unusual profile of the 3000 hours a year my planes do. That is 800ft agl at low power and 60 kts. My valve guides were always coking up with particulates as a result of the low power and i was always having to do a top overhaul at "Half-time" (1000 hours). The magic liquid with its fractured resins effectively "teflon coats" all the surfaces in the engine.
Result (for me anyway) is 5 engines that always now meet TBO
The unexpected result with the lower friction from this one off treatment was 3litres per hour less on my fuel flow meter - CAVEAT- simultaneous install of K+N air filter so no ability to separate the effects of each.
The only hard data i can offer quantitatively is a reduction of 90 degrees F in the CHT as we made the observation in the same flight after fitting.
Sorry to say , however, that in this case it's not worth it on a high time engine like the one mentioned - well not in my opinion anyway - hope that helps.
The "Snake oil" perception is common and completely normal as i believe years ago there were similar claims made.
Modern material science has come a long way so ask people in car racing etc. what they think.
Purely for the record i have no financial interest in this stuff and no-one believes my experience when they ask as they just really want to rehearse their prejudices with a bit of bah humbug. I dont care and i dont actively tell people about it unless asked or if a relevant thread appears.
Good look and safe flying to all.
Spernkey Bowlock
Result (for me anyway) is 5 engines that always now meet TBO
The unexpected result with the lower friction from this one off treatment was 3litres per hour less on my fuel flow meter - CAVEAT- simultaneous install of K+N air filter so no ability to separate the effects of each.
The only hard data i can offer quantitatively is a reduction of 90 degrees F in the CHT as we made the observation in the same flight after fitting.
Sorry to say , however, that in this case it's not worth it on a high time engine like the one mentioned - well not in my opinion anyway - hope that helps.
The "Snake oil" perception is common and completely normal as i believe years ago there were similar claims made.
Modern material science has come a long way so ask people in car racing etc. what they think.
Purely for the record i have no financial interest in this stuff and no-one believes my experience when they ask as they just really want to rehearse their prejudices with a bit of bah humbug. I dont care and i dont actively tell people about it unless asked or if a relevant thread appears.
Good look and safe flying to all.
Spernkey Bowlock
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Tasmania, Australia.
Age: 77
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anti-Friction
I have been running a well known brand of Anti-Friction in my oil, ie two bottles (600ml), to a full oil tank, and adding extra when needed. The effect is a cooler engine, smoother running, and easier starting. With this treatment I have used their oil flushing treatment before an oil change, after the first treatment the compression came up, and little, or no oil pressure fluctuations. Add to this I use about 80ml of two stroke oil to 50ltr of fuel, as in my opinion fuel is far too dry and dose not provide sufficent lubrications in areas of valve stems etc. Two stroke dose not 'settle out' like some other additives.
The Auster engine has about 150hrs to run.
The Auster engine has about 150hrs to run.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When most Lycoming engines in regular use make the overhaul time on normal aviation oil I can't see the need for oil addatives, if is was a new engine I would think about using Aeroshell W15W50 or W100 plus as these have anti-scuff addatives that Lycoming recomend for all engines and mandate for "H" series engines.
A spin on oil filter is a "must" there are two manufactures of aftermarket kits that I have delt with, Airwolf and B & C both companys offer a good product with the Airwolf being mounted on the firewall and the B & C being mounted on the back of the engine at 90 degrees to the normal factory full flow filter, the B & C filter has an AAN (from the CAA) for fitment to any Lycoming engine. The B & C is the unit that is most usefill if the clearance between the engine and the firewall is restricted.
APS at Lasham supply B & C filter kits in the UK and Airwolf I have obtained direct from the company in the USA.
A spin on oil filter is a "must" there are two manufactures of aftermarket kits that I have delt with, Airwolf and B & C both companys offer a good product with the Airwolf being mounted on the firewall and the B & C being mounted on the back of the engine at 90 degrees to the normal factory full flow filter, the B & C filter has an AAN (from the CAA) for fitment to any Lycoming engine. The B & C is the unit that is most usefill if the clearance between the engine and the firewall is restricted.
APS at Lasham supply B & C filter kits in the UK and Airwolf I have obtained direct from the company in the USA.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why only on a new engine, A&C?
I noticed one thing about the Microlon additive: the FAA approval is claimed to be since 1979. It can't be that recently developed then.
The problem with all this stuff is that not enough pilots communicate with each other so if somebody does have decent data, we will probably never find out.
And the engine manufacturers are s**t scared of recommending anything in case it introduces new liabilities; also it looks bad form to suggest the engine may not work for very long unless one sticks additives in it!
I noticed one thing about the Microlon additive: the FAA approval is claimed to be since 1979. It can't be that recently developed then.
The problem with all this stuff is that not enough pilots communicate with each other so if somebody does have decent data, we will probably never find out.
And the engine manufacturers are s**t scared of recommending anything in case it introduces new liabilities; also it looks bad form to suggest the engine may not work for very long unless one sticks additives in it!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
additives
We don't use any additives in race engine oil,we use top grade 100% synthetic oil,anything from 0W-20 to 20W-60 grade depending on application,most cost around £10/litre.
Whenever I've enquired from oil companies about engine oil additives ,I've been told "if there was any benefit we would put them in our oils!"
or "we use them in our oils anyway"
But that doesn't mean to say that there couldn't be a benefit from additives with some of the low tech/low spec. aircraft engine oils.
Lister
Whenever I've enquired from oil companies about engine oil additives ,I've been told "if there was any benefit we would put them in our oils!"
or "we use them in our oils anyway"
But that doesn't mean to say that there couldn't be a benefit from additives with some of the low tech/low spec. aircraft engine oils.
Lister
Last edited by Lister Noble; 10th May 2006 at 10:49.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L.N.
Most manufacturers will continue to produce, what they have always produced, so long as they can maintain a market for it.
They will do this in spite of the fact that a better performing longer lasting product has been developed.
Multi-grade, high detergent engine oils are a perfect example of this, PAO synthetic oils developed during the war, but not introduced into the market place until early 1990’s are another.
It is not beyond reason, given the above, that manufacturers will lie when asked about superior or improved products manufactured and marketed by a competitor.
The only way forward in such an environment is product competition in the open market place, backed by honest research data, and that is both hard and expensive to come by.
Using racing as a development tool for engine oils has very limited cross over into the passenger car world. Most racing engines have a very short life and fresh oil every race (the longest of which, Le Mans, lasts perhaps 3000 miles). Most races do not exceed 200 miles.
Passenger car engines are expected to run for well over 100,000 miles with oil change periods of up to 6 months and 10,000 miles. Temperatures over this length of time can vary to extremes. The passenger car engine is hauling a heavier vehicle over longer distances, perhaps pulling caravans, boats or trailers as well. In truth the poor passenger car engine oil works much harder for much longer than any racing engine oil.
I am no great believer in ‘mechanics in a bottle’ or snake oil cure-alls, but I do believe that small companies can make significant discoveries that are difficult to market because major manufactures refuse to acknowledge them for fear of loosing market share.
Just my two cents worth.
Regards,
W.B.
Most manufacturers will continue to produce, what they have always produced, so long as they can maintain a market for it.
They will do this in spite of the fact that a better performing longer lasting product has been developed.
Multi-grade, high detergent engine oils are a perfect example of this, PAO synthetic oils developed during the war, but not introduced into the market place until early 1990’s are another.
It is not beyond reason, given the above, that manufacturers will lie when asked about superior or improved products manufactured and marketed by a competitor.
The only way forward in such an environment is product competition in the open market place, backed by honest research data, and that is both hard and expensive to come by.
Using racing as a development tool for engine oils has very limited cross over into the passenger car world. Most racing engines have a very short life and fresh oil every race (the longest of which, Le Mans, lasts perhaps 3000 miles). Most races do not exceed 200 miles.
Passenger car engines are expected to run for well over 100,000 miles with oil change periods of up to 6 months and 10,000 miles. Temperatures over this length of time can vary to extremes. The passenger car engine is hauling a heavier vehicle over longer distances, perhaps pulling caravans, boats or trailers as well. In truth the poor passenger car engine oil works much harder for much longer than any racing engine oil.
I am no great believer in ‘mechanics in a bottle’ or snake oil cure-alls, but I do believe that small companies can make significant discoveries that are difficult to market because major manufactures refuse to acknowledge them for fear of loosing market share.
Just my two cents worth.
Regards,
W.B.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few facts about oils
IO540
Aeroshell w15W50 is not recomended if the engine has run more than about 300 hours as it tends to clear out a lot of the carbon in the engine and this might and I stress MIGHT clog the oil system.
The main reason for the lack of fully synthetic oils for piston engine aircraft is that the synthetic oils cant hold the lead deposits from piston "blow by", if synithetic oils are used the lead can be centrifuged out of the oil and block the oil ways in the crankshaft. Mobil had to withdraw Mobil one from aviation use and pay a lot of damages when a number of engine failures were atributed to this problem.
Aeroshell w15W50 is not recomended if the engine has run more than about 300 hours as it tends to clear out a lot of the carbon in the engine and this might and I stress MIGHT clog the oil system.
The main reason for the lack of fully synthetic oils for piston engine aircraft is that the synthetic oils cant hold the lead deposits from piston "blow by", if synithetic oils are used the lead can be centrifuged out of the oil and block the oil ways in the crankshaft. Mobil had to withdraw Mobil one from aviation use and pay a lot of damages when a number of engine failures were atributed to this problem.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by A and C
Aeroshell w15W50 is not recomended if the engine has run more than about 300 hours as it tends to clear out a lot of the carbon in the engine and this might and I stress MIGHT clog the oil system.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skyhawk-N
You have taken my post out of context, in this thread the first post was asking about a high time engine and oil addatives and changing to Aeroshell
W15W50 at that time in an engines life is not recomended.
The W15W50 is a very good oil but you have to use it only from an engine that has run less than about 300 hours OR keep a very sharp eye on the oil filters.
All my aircraft run on W15W50 and have done so following the "break in" on
S100 as recomended by Lycoming.
I will have to stop assuming that people are reading the whole thread and start writing in leagal speak to avoid these misunderstandings.
The above post is for advice only and is not part of any contract leagal or otherwise the poster has no conection with any oil company and it is for the reader to decide if the advice is to be followed based on the particular engine in question.
W15W50 at that time in an engines life is not recomended.
The W15W50 is a very good oil but you have to use it only from an engine that has run less than about 300 hours OR keep a very sharp eye on the oil filters.
All my aircraft run on W15W50 and have done so following the "break in" on
S100 as recomended by Lycoming.
I will have to stop assuming that people are reading the whole thread and start writing in leagal speak to avoid these misunderstandings.
The above post is for advice only and is not part of any contract leagal or otherwise the poster has no conection with any oil company and it is for the reader to decide if the advice is to be followed based on the particular engine in question.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by A and C
I will have to stop assuming that people are reading the whole thread and start writing in leagal speak to avoid these misunderstandings.
[TreadOnEggShells]I understood your posting to say that W15W50 is not recommended if an engine has run more than about 300 hours, not switching over to using that oil is not recommended. I apologise for misunderstanding your posting.[/TreadOnEggShells]
