Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
waraton

Is this any good? Camguard Aviation Oil Additive.

Recommended Posts

The Camguard story was pretty convincing. Additives that the oil company ( Exxon ) considered too expensive but their chemist wanted to put in. So he left Exxon and started Camguard. And the endorsement of Mike Busch is convincing too.

 

If I was Jabiru, of course I would say don't use any additives, they would lose some control and yet be carrying the risk of warranty repairs.

 

My engine on avgas sure gets lots of deposits from ( I think ) lead bromide , and I don't see why using Morey's ( and camguard) could be a risk.

 

The only thing making me hesitate is how the engine is running so well in spite of being dirty inside.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ON avgas you should use an aero oil. It's specifically formulated to handle the lead., Probably the only oils that are since lead is not used anywhere but aviation. Nev

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“engine developers spend mega millions on research“

Are we still talkng about Jabiru?

 

Customers are the engine developers.

 

If theres an additive that helps prolong engines life, Id suggest it would be cheap at double the current cost of Camgard

 

We arent talking cheap auto engines

Fair comment - it's unlikely that Jabiru have spent mega millions on research but they will have derived some /knowledge/benefit from the research being done by the engine manufacturers that do. And yes my comment reflects the automotive industry more than the aviation industry but then which industry leads in internal combustion engine technological development? (certainly not the legacy aviation engines of Continental/Lycoming)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Automotive industry is very vibrant and innovative driven by price, fuel efficiency and low servicing costs. Plenty of engines need no major service before 160,000 kms and annual oil changes are here. . Aero engine development is struggling hard to maintain yesterdays reliability standards. there are reasons for that. lack of regular use being one and lack of engine general operating knowledge and good practice (management). Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All true

 

So we have aircraft flown irregularly, known problems with bore corrosion and rings binding, common stuck valves - overall pretty crook reliability and longevity record

 

Run on old spec (but high quality) oils and no obvious choice of newer types

 

At the least it a market hole for additives to help.Some would see it as drawing technology from far more advanced auto engine industry as mentioned.

 

Has anyone used Camgard?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the benefit of your experience onetrack. I am impressed by the idea that shortening the oil-change interval is more cost-effective than putting in additives.

 

The argument that the people who do such things as use additives will also have OCD and therefore be better maintainers is obviously correct too. But if those same people notice things like a cleaner combustion chamber, then I for one will be very interested.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jetjr I don't know how you arrive at those conclusions. There are few aircooled engine oils out there.of any kind. Aero oils ARE upgraded . They are not old spec oils.The PLUS on the W-100 is an example. Early aero oils were non or little detergent no friction modifiers.. Lack of use won't be compensated for by any car oil better than 100 Plus. (specifically formulated for the Lycoming {high in the case}, camshaft engines. Combustion chamber build up is usually from unburned fuel and dust that passes the filter. Aero engines run rich at idle and high power on purpose.

 

. Most modern CAR oils are quite low viscosity for fuel efficiency and less pollution when cold.. (quicker warm up by driving rather than idle warm up.) The clearances in an aircooled aero engine would not suit a 0-30 type oil.. SOME additives MIGHT help.. BUT You would need to go right into it to be sure and I have no idea where you would get the information you would need. Oil itself doesn't wear out it gets contaminated and some acid countering additives become depleted. ED Extended Drain Oils are not superior to any other . They are fleet use and the additives do not do anything to make the oil itself better at normal oil change oil change intervals. In fact since the the additives are not for better oil performance literally, they detract from getting a better performance until the normal would have DETERIORATED in the same conditions. 25 hours is well below any time where you would have to worry about it deteriorating. If I flew a few hours in dust I would change it straight away, but that's a special circumstance.. Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd expect W100 today will be the same as a century ago.

jetjr, your expectations are just plain wrong. There is no engine oil produced today that is the same as it was 100 years ago - and not even 30 years ago.

Aviation oils are certified, purely because they meet SAE specification J1899. All oils and all fuels are produced to an SAE specification or standard, or its civilian or military equivalent in the country where it is sold (there are NATO, Milspec, civilian European, and sometimes British specifications/standards, that cover the same areas as SAE standards).

 

The J1899 SAE specification has been revised 4 times since 1991. J1899 wasn't introduced until around the mid-1930's.

 

Prior to that, there were no specifications for aviation oil, you relied on the oil company telling you their product was fit for use in your engine.

 

J1899: Lubricating Oil, Aircraft Piston Engine (Ashless Dispersant) - SAE International

 

The SAE specifications for all oils and fuels are revised regularly - purely because of new discoveries and developments in oil technology.

 

If an aviation oil meets the SAE J1899 specification, it's certified for use in aircraft engines - regardless of what chemicals or additives the oil company uses.

 

Every oil company uses a slightly different formula to meet SAE J1899. J1899 doesn't cover what is added to oil, it covers the oils performance and level limits of allowed impurities.

 

There's some good reading in the articles below, directly from the oil experts themselves.

 

AeroShell 100 Plus

 

Aviation Oil Facts

 

Incidentally, aviation oils do not contain detergents.

 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats good news, I expected incorrectly and exaggerated a bit, forgive me. Good articles too.

 

If the requirement is simply SAE spec then there is no certification. Manufacturers can claim what they like once it reaches this benchmark AND just because a Standard changes, doesnt mean the legacy products themselves do too. A brave move to alter things much Id have thought seeing how incredibly complicated oil formulations appears to be.

 

Still to see what changes have been made in W100 other than an additive being included in the Plus version. They also then mention 15W 50 offers similar benefits? Does it contain Plus additive? - edit seems it does

 

(Theres been some poor results with this product, so much so its been removed from recommendations by Jabiru)

 

The benefits of Shell LW16702 , seems reads the same as Camgard and others. Unlike other auto additives it is expressly designed for aviation.

 

Would seem Camgard has been accepted by engine manufacturers - not sure to what level or to what level is required if theres no proper cert process.

 

Shell seem to be saying additives are no good, except for ours.....

 

Some work was done on Sports Plus in engines other than Rotax with excellent results, however all ceased I think when Shell sold out Aeroshell products line. Not sure how Shell are involved now.

 

 

  • More 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Incidentally, aviation oils do not contain detergents."

 

AeroShell Sports Plus does

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest the oil to use with AVGAS is a no brainer. One version of the Aeroshell or any other reliable make of oil. Not all have the PLUS which is a camshaft saver. Additives that are part of a tested formulation can't be considered in the same manner as someone adding something else later... without knowing if it's compatible.

 

Re the detergent issue It appears likely the detergent was discontinued when the ashless -dispersant formulations came on the market . That was something that escaped my notice...

 

Aeroshell Sport Plus is derived from Shell Superbike 4 and that's for Rotax 912 with gear reduction drive and using Mogas . (No lead ) Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, few would be using anything else but W100+, I guess the problem is that people ARE using W100+, are changing oil at 25 hrs and still having corrosion, ring,valve and other problems.

 

So much so that manufacturer has developed entire new engine components with plated alloy barrels to reduce the issue.

 

Plenty RAA aircraft do very small hours, like <50 per year, and might need special corrosion proofing.

 

The Camgard ASL product is being promoted by guys from large aero engine shop in US and Mike Busch so not without some backing.

 

Seems maybe Exxon are using a version of Ed Kollins additive package in their Elite oil - its on the web, must be true!

 

If you read documents here The CamGuard Chronicles - Camguard theres some strong advocates.

 

Also

 

"ASL Camguard has been “accepted” by the FAA Engine & Propeller Directorate for normally aspirated engines. What that “acceptance” means is that the FAA wrote ASL a letter saying that they are persuaded that Camguard “does no harm” when used in normally aspirated engines." Mike Busch

 

There is some data of corrosion tests against Aeroshell 15W40 and others but link is dead.

 

So maybe only downside would be wasted money??

 

Sports Plus is recommended for use with 100LL in their documents

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the light of this debate seeming to move (at least a little) toward low usage/long storage aero engines, I would like to make a slight addition to my earlier comments, which assumed normal/regular usage (ie operations to & within manufacturer's recommendations/expectations) -

 

The problem of low usage engines is not confined to aviation. I suspect (speculation) that the almost infinitely varied environments/conditions of a low use/stored engine make it almost impossible to come up with an oil that can be run in normal operations and at the same time preserve the engine in pristine condition, so as to enable it to be started and used without further maintenance input.

 

Further - it would seem to me that relying on an engine oil, that is designed to be used in an operating engine, for intermittent or distant future operations, with or without additives, is " pie in the sky".

 

If you want to preserve an engine for future use, ask the manufacturer to recommend a procedure for "mothballing" your engine - this will include advice on how to bring it back into operation (draining the "pickling" oil will be part of this).

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the light of this debate seeming to move (at least a little) toward low usage/long storage aero engines, I would like to make a slight addition to my earlier comments, which assumed normal/regular usage (ie operations to & within manufacturer's recommendations/expectations) -

The problem of low usage engines is not confined to aviation. I suspect (speculation) that the almost infinitely varied environments/conditions of a low use/stored engine make it almost impossible to come up with an oil that can be run in normal operations and at the same time preserve the engine in pristine condition, so as to enable it to be started and used without further maintenance input.

 

Further - it would seem to me that relying on an engine oil, that is designed to be used in an operating engine, for intermittent or distant future operations, with or without additives, is " pie in the sky".

 

If you want to preserve an engine for future use, ask the manufacturer to recommend a procedure for "mothballing" your engine - this will include advice on how to bring it back into operation (draining the "pickling" oil will be part of this).

You've taken it too literally Skippy; there are less hours per year compared to most cars, but a lot more than the average Header or Bale loader. If you stick to Onetrack and Facthunters comments, you'll be reading about people who have accumulated practical knowledge in the field.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inhibiting and returning to service an engine every fortnight would become tedious

 

Camit made an oil inhibitor unit, based aroind injecting a small shot of oil into each head just on shutdown

 

Seems to work

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he obviously knew of the problem. Casa had material on this. Inhibiting motors what are not in service for certain periods of time. It's probably a few weeks. No oil stays on a red hot exhaust valve for long and the 3 piece piston OIL control rings leave no oil film in a practical sense, especially on a polished (glazed ) bore. If you want to wreck your motor fly and leave your plane outside the clubhouse for hours then start it and taxy for 200 yards and then leave it for a month. It will have a coat of rust on most of the cylinders I guarantee.. Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is well known, its a workable solution thats missing

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've taken it too literally Skippy; there are less hours per year compared to most cars, but a lot more than the average Header or Bale loader. If you stick to Onetrack and Facthunters comments, you'll be reading about people who have accumulated practical knowledge in the field.

Oooh! are we are getting a little personnel here?

 

Not sure what sort of harvest you have been involved in - in my day the headers did way more hours, in the operational months, than most small aircraft would do in the same period - bale loaders, usually a general duties tractor front end loader/ telehandler fitted with a bale grab, that work all year round (unlike the aircraft we are talking about). Further most agricultural equipment will run at or near optimum operating temperature for long periods, quite unlike, say an aircraft used for circuit training. Farmers who can't justify (not enough hours /Ha) their own equipment, hire contractors - they can't afford to have expensive equipment hanging around, just to underpin their pub/hanger talk.

 

I do read Onetrack & Facthunters comments - (along with most of the other interesting people who contribute to this forum) I dont think they are actually supporting the use of oil additives, but keeping an open mind and the conversation moving (forward ??)

 

Aircraft owners who dont fly their aircraft frequently/long enough to keep the engines in good condition will, I guess, always search for the "magic mechanic in a bottle" to make up for their poor practice.

 

Got the dough - use whatever "snake oil" makes you feel good, it's a (sorta) free country.

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Problem is well known, its a workable solution thats missing

If you can't do about 100 hrs/year - take on partners or sell the aircraft and hire.

 

Saw a Maule the other day - The Manager said it had not moved for over 3 years. Owner still paying hanger fees (reluctantly). Think of the cost of bringing this aircraft back into operation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As said elsewhere RAA ondicates our aircraft average more like 20-50 hrs per year

 

By your reasoning there goes much of the RAA aircraft fleet

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As said elsewhere RAA ondicates our aircraft average more like 20-50 hrs per yearBy your reasoning there goes much of the RAA aircraft fleet

".........................take on partners or sell the aircraft and hire." Hanger Queens are just costly trophy wives. If possing is your thing, go make like a Trump.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like skippy's point about using your plane enough.

 

Just like people pay for somebody to walk their dog, we should arrange for our planes to be flown if we can't or wont.

 

Taking a junior "partner" might be a good way to achieve this. How silly to have juniors unable to fly because they can't afford the hire costs when at the same airfield there are neglected planes getting very expensive rust from inactivity.

 

I'm going to think more on this as I'm getting old. Maybe Turbs can come up with a paperwork plan so you wouldn't go straight to jail if the other partner crashed and you had done the maintenance.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like skippy's point about using your plane enough.Just like people pay for somebody to walk their dog, we should arrange for our planes to be flown if we can't or wont.

 

Taking a junior "partner" might be a good way to achieve this. How silly to have juniors unable to fly because they can't afford the hire costs when at the same airfield there are neglected planes getting very expensive rust from inactivity.

 

I'm going to think more on this as I'm getting old. Maybe Turbs can come up with a paperwork plan so you wouldn't go straight to jail if the other partner crashed and you had done the maintenance.

It’s God that’s watching you Bruce, not me.

 

Sounds like a good idea; it would work best having the aircraft on line so it’s under supervision of the CFI. The GA line aircraft system seemed to break down on hires after the licence point involving touring and arguments over damage away from the field.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like skippy's point about using your plane enough.Just like people pay for somebody to walk their dog, we should arrange for our planes to be flown if we can't or wont.

 

Taking a junior "partner" might be a good way to achieve this. How silly to have juniors unable to fly because they can't afford the hire costs when at the same airfield there are neglected planes getting very expensive rust from inactivity.

 

I'm going to think more on this as I'm getting old. Maybe Turbs can come up with a paperwork plan so you wouldn't go straight to jail if the other partner crashed and you had done the maintenance.

Terrific idea Bruce - For a long time I have been concerned by the dearth of people under 50 let alone under 25. I always encourage young people to give flying a go. So often they site cost as an insurmountable barrier. Access to low cost flying might be a way of getting more young people involved.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s God that’s watching you Bruce, not me.Sounds like a good idea; it would work best having the aircraft on line so it’s under supervision of the CFI. The GA line aircraft system seemed to break down on hires after the licence point involving touring and arguments over damage away from the field.

Problemo - RAA 19 (& similar) cannot go "on line". Also "on line" suggest hire costs that the asspiring young may not be able to meet.

 

I like the Bruce idea of a junior partner, somehow legally able to use the aircraft, perhaps pay something towards its upkeep, the real "pay off" for the owner would be regular use of the plane and that warm and fuzzy feeling that you have helped a young person to grow & achieve, may be even start a career in aviation, who knows?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...