APenNameAndThatA

Tudor style?

Aviation Consumer had the following to say

• Home
   
   
  
• Subscribe
   
   
  
• Get Web Access
   
   
  
• Current Issue
   
   
  
• Letters to the Editor
   
   
  
• Gear of the Year
   
   
  
• Airplane Reviews
   
   
  
• Sample Reviews
   
   
  
• Product Catalog
   
   
  
• Archives
   
   
  
• Links
   
   
  
• About Us
   
   
  
• Contact Us
   
   
  
• Account Info
   
   
  
• Customer Service
   
   
  

• Government
   
   
  
• Weather
   
   
  
• Flight Planning Tools
   
   
  
• General
   
   
  
• Aircraft
   
   
  
• Magazines
   
   
  
• Books & Tapes
   
   
  
• Organizations
   
   
  

Industry News

April 2011 Issue

Story Tools

• E-Mail to a friend
   
   
  
• E-Mail to the editor
   
   
  
• Printer Friendly
   
   
  

Also with this article...

• Checklist
   
   
  
• TCM IO-360 Oil Analysis
   
   
  
• Butter On A Cat's Behind
   
   
  
• Corrosion Comparisons
   
   
  
• Contacts
   
   
  

By Aviation Consumer Staff

Oil Supplements: Worth it for Many

We can’t guarantee CamGuard or AvBlend will save you money over the long haul. But both seem to have real merit, albeit with different strengths.

Oil leads a tough life. It’s supposed to lubricate, seal, clean and cool the running engine. After shutdown, it’s supposed to protect metal surfaces so the next start doesn’t scrape off corroded material that’s ultimately replaced from your wallet via a premature overhaul.

Oil companies will improve the oil as best they can, but their choices to market a case of oil at the right price might not match your preference for long-term

AvBlend and CamGuard are the most popular options.

investment in your engine. The bottom line is this: Is it worth up to an extra dollar an hour—maybe $2000 over the life of an engine—to beef up your oil?

We think it is if the supplement in question can back up its claims. Two rise to the top of the pack with approval for certified engines, and enough lab and field data for us to review: ASL CamGuard and AvBlend. We asked both companies for all the data they could supply, and posted a request for comments on our sister publication AVweb.com to see what the experiences of owners and shops have been. The 609 responses we got don’t constitute a large sample, but we feel some broad conclusions can be drawn from these opinions.

CamGuard

ASL CamGuard’s creator, Ed Kollin, did the initial research that lead to Exxon Elite. (Full disclosure: Ed Kollin has frequently served as a source on oil articles for Aviation Consumer.) That research included looking at red-tagged parts to try and see why parts failed. "Corrosion was 95-plus percent the reason." Even the scuffing problem in Lycoming cams and lifters, Kollin felt, was actually due to pitting on the hard metal that lead to spalling. "Of our top 10 list, corrosion was one through five."

Kollin proposed a mix of several ingredients for a protection formula, but it proved too expensive for Exxon. Kollin struck out on his own with a modified version that mated corrosion protection with additives for anti-scuff, deposit control and conditioning of seals. Kollin added the latter because the anti-scuff protection in some oils breaks down thermally into a seal-eating compound.

CamGuard has been vetted through a battery of industry-standard tests, as well as modified versions that Kollin claims are closer to the operating environment of an aircraft engine. The results are impressive, in our view. For example, wear protection was increased 10 fold over some base aviation oils and some corrosion tests stopped when an oil-plus-CamGuard mix had prevented corrosion 40 days longer than the nearest competitor. In our short corrosion test (page 11) CamGuard didn’t outstrip oils with additives by this much, but in previous (longer-duration) tests, it performed better.

Kollin says that most of CamGuard’s anti-wear capabilities are from corrosion protection. He claims a 30-percent reduction in wear metals is typical when using CamGuard. Savvy Aviator principal Mike Busch has been testing CamGuard in his Cessna 310 and reports 10- to 20-percent reductions. In our owner opinion poll, 165 out of 292 CamGuard users reported a reduction in wear metals in their oil analysis.

But this claim is a bit tricky in that total metal must be corrected for the hours flown (since metals accumulate in the oil with time). Maintenance or a change in flying habits can throw off the numbers. We didn’t get enough reports from our poll respondents to independently verify these claims, and results can be subtle, as you can see on page 10. Blackstone Labs took a look for us across the board for wear metals in Lycoming O-360-A4Ms using CamGuard versus those that don’t (they can see CamGuard in the oil). The results were inconclusive.

Kollin stops short of claiming CamGuard will free sticky rings, but he says it interacts with fuel residues that cause many deposits to form. Engine motion over time may free parts, which may lead to lowered oil consumption. One poll respondent told us, "I own the largest piston overhaul shop in Australia … when we tear down the time-expired engines that have been running Camguard they all have less deposits, less carbon and less corrosion than engines not using Camguard."

Reports of lowered oil consumption and cleaner engines also speckled the results, but not with a frequency that made our pulse quicken. CamGuard did its FAA approval testing (which only needs to show the additive does no harm) using a Lycoming IO-540 doing aerobatic flight for 500 hours. Photos of the torn-down engine looked shockingly clean, in our opinion. Even so, we’re with many of the aircraft owners who say they won’t really know until overhaul.

We didn’t ask specifically about weeping seals on our questionnaire, but several respondents volunteered that CamGuard helped with this problem. This isn’t conclusive but it did catch our attention.

AvBlend

AvBlend’s pedigree dates back to the late '40s (with roots even earlier) to deal with cold-start scuffing issues in auto racers. The product, called Lenckite, found aviation through Ed Rachanski Sr., a funny car racer and builder who went on to found an FAA Repair station, Blueprint Engines, at Chicago’s Midway Airport.

AvBlend was field tested for FAA approval at Executive Helicopter in Chicago using a Lycoming HIO-360-C1A in an Enstrom helicopter used for traffic work. The testing ended five overhauls later when the cylinders had 7787 hours on them (one finally developed a head crack). They were just then reaching their service limits. On each of the overhauls, parts turned up exceptionally clean, particularly around problematic valve guides.

What’s called AvBlend in the aviation world is also sold for over-the-road use as ZMax. This product got wound up in an FTC lawsuit over claims made by the company about specific performance gains a consumer would see. The silver lining to that suit, as AvBlend’s Ed Rachanski Jr. will point out, is that the company did $2 million in lab testing, which verified its claims for decreased wear, increased performance, deposit control, corrosion protection and more.

AvBlend’s test documents show that much of this testing was done with automotive oils in automotive engines, and we can’t say how applicable those findings are to aircraft engines. Looking only at the single-cylinder lab engine (CLR) tests using aircraft oil and ZMax (AvBlend), however, still shows 17-percent reduction in blowby, a six-percent reduction in piston-skirt wear, a two-percent reduction in exhaust-valve wear, and about an 8.5-percent gain in power and efficiency. All were shown to be statistically significant. Lab data also supports wear reduction and corrosion resistance, albeit using automotive oils. In our own corrosion tests, AvBlend did as well as any of the other supplements.

In our field interviews, the first thing that popped up was deposit control. "An AvBlend engine sticks out like a sore thumb," said Dave Allen of Poplar Grove (one of our top-rated engine shops). "I can tell because they’re so clean." We asked

This Lycoming IO-720 has 1600 hours on it, all of them with AvBlend. The cylinder was removed for a leaking base O-ring. It was the first major engine work in 13 years.

Allen if he felt there was a higher instance of serviceable parts in these engines. He felt there was probably less wear, but couldn’t say for sure.

American Flyers ran field tests on AvBlend in 1992 hoping to reduce incidents of valve sticking. After a cumulative 375,000 hours, the report was a 75- to 80-percent reduction. Current Director of Maintenance for American Flyers, Rick Farmer, says they still use AvBlend with every oil change, and the valves and engines are currently much cleaner than average. Several owners and Bill Middlebrook of Penn Yan Aero reported AvBlend curing valve issues.

For AvBlend, 29 out of 92 users reported lowered metals in their oil analysis data. Again, we didn’t get enough actual test data from respondents to assess those claims by press time. However, one owner told us he stopped doing oil analysis because "the readings were so low."

Howard Fenton, who sold his oil analysis business to Blackstone Labs, conducted an informal audit of 50 randomly selected airplanes whose owners reported they started using AvBlend. He didn’t see any significant changes, however, he admits he was only looking at raw data without statistical analysis.

In our opinion, field evidence for wear reduction is stronger. The company touts Sean Tucker’s six-minute flight with zero oil pressure after a part failure. We spoke directly with Ken Tunnel of Lycon, who does Tucker’s engine work. "From the paperwork and the download [from the engine monitor], I would never have guessed it ran with no oil for six minutes," he told us. "I would have at least thought it would have got the crank." Tunnel treats all new Lycon engines with AvBlend.

Turning back to the opinions of pilots who wrote in, we were unimpressed with comments like, "My engine ran to TBO with no problems." Plenty of engines do that. We were more impressed with: "My 2250-hour cylinders were in good enough condition to warrant a credit against my new cylinders," and, "At 1500 hours the engine was torn down by ECi for prop strike inspection. They called me questioning if this engine really had 1500 hours, thinking it was a misprint." There were several like comments.

Unlike CamGuard’s cocktail approach, AvBlend describes its product as "a tenacious micro-lubricant with reformulated micro-molecules that penetrate, clean and protect metal from the inside out."

According to Ed Ranchanski, Jr., this means it can weep out and protect metal even when the oil would be burned away by the combustion process, and is why it is effective on valve guides and rings. The logic is that better sealing means both more power and fewer blowby products promoting corrosion. It would be interesting to see if AvBlend-treated engines show less lead in the oil, a byproduct of blowby. AvBlend has lab data showing the stuff penetrates bare metal deeper than oil alone. They also have measurements from AvBlend-treated engines showing a fraction of typical valve-guide wear at overhaul.

More Options

In our corrosion testing, we looked at several other additives on the market: Marvel Mystery Oil, VpCI, Lycoming’s LW-16702, Engine Guard Aero and Friction Master. But this list has limited applicability. LW-16702 is simply an anti-scuff and incorporated into many oil formulations already. VpCL and Engine Guard are primarily preservatives for storage.

Marvel is well-known and loved by some, but it’s not for use in certified engines. Friction Master is a Teflon treatment similar to the now-rare Microlon. It’s not currently approved for certified engines, and we haven’t seen enough general data on Teflon treatments to convince us they provide a tangible benefit.

One option is not using any additive. We found it interesting that out of 527 owners who tried at least one oil additive, only five percent felt the additive did nothing for them at all.

AvBlend retails for $18.95 per can from the company. Some online sources are cheaper. They recommend one can per oil change for most four-cylinder (eight-quart sump or less) engines and two cans for larger ones. The recommended interval is every 25 hours, with a maximum of every 50.

CamGuard’s recommendation is five percent CamGuard every 25-30 hours, but many owners report going 50 hours. It retails for $24.95/pint. Unlike AvBlend, you can store unused CamGuard for later changes.

Running these numbers out on a Lycoming IO-360 with 50-hour changes, that’s $758 over a 2000-hour engine run for AvBlend and $798 for CamGuard—40 bucks in favor of AvBlend. Try a six-cylinder TCM O-470 with a 12-quart sump and you need two cans of AvBlend. That makes the math $1516 for AvBlend versus $1198 for CamGuard. Change your oil every 25 hours and it’s $3032 compared to $2396—a $636 difference. There are some engines where the delta is larger.

And, yes, the only difference in the formula of AvBlend and Zmax is the color of the dye. This is not true of the different formulations of CamGuard.

How To Choose?

This brings us full circle to our original question of whether it’s worth the $1000-2000 over the life of the engine. We’ll make a qualified "yes." Escaping even one cylinder replacement or getting an additional 100-200 hours out of your engine would pay for the investment.

Based on lab tests, field tests and owner comments, we’ve come to a split decision. When premature top overhauls or valve issues are the concern, we’d try AvBlend. If your engine isn’t flying regularly, then corrosion is your archenemy. For corrosion and corrosion-induced wear, our preference would be CamGuard.

The trickier question is what to do with a new engine that will fly regularly. Frankly, regular use and frequent oil changes are probably your best insurance. But a supplement could hedge the bet. While it’s easier for us to wrap our heads around the package approach of CamGuard’s formula to the single-solution approach of AvBlend, we can’t deny the weight of evidence that AvBlend delivers on its claims to a measurable degree.

Until we have side-by-side data to suggest otherwise, we can only recommend going with the evidence you find most convincing and sticking with the program until something convinces you otherwise.

Since when have foxbats had fabric control surfaces?

Anaesthetic PLUS some procedure. Usually a few % risk. These days with antibiotic overuse infection makes it even more risky. Any how the issue was "It's not a lie IF you believe it". Believing something is one thing . Truth may well be another thing. Nev

Where does it say that in an authoritative source? If a figure is quoted it is either correct or wrong by varying degrees. Nev

It's not a lie if you believe it.

Go on the operating table under anaesthetic for anything much . Probably a 2% (or more) risk of dying in the next hour would be a common scenario. The thing about operating an aircraft that you aren't FORCED to fly is that YOU control most of the risk factors.. Accept that and take responsibility for it and we will be in a world of more reality. RAAus can't make you safe IF you work hard at not being safe. Nev

Hi

I am wanting to use a VH registered plane for STOL on rough strips, and carry as much stuff as I can in the plane, and have a parachute attached. The Savannah and Foxbat both seem to fit the bill. The Foxbat can be registered VH and seems to have a big following in the outback, and numerous flying schools use it. On the other hand, I might have difficulty hangaring it in Alice Springs, and it has fabric control surfaces.

My understanding is that the factor Savannah now is 600 kg MTOW (otherwise the decision would be a no-brainer.) The Foxbat and Savannah both have almost identical takeoff roll and cruise speed, as far as I can tell. The Foxbat looks like it would be faster, but its cabin is 20 cm wider at the elbows and it tapers more rapidly.

ATM, I am leaning towards the Foxbat: the 20 cm wider cabin is a plus, and training would be much simpler. It seems that I would have to train 24 and RA-Aus and then patch over (as our bikie colleagues would say) to VH and RPL. I want to be able to fly out of Alice Springs and Mt Isa.

Thanks!

Hi

I am wanting to use a VH registered plane for STOL on rough strips, and carry as much stuff as I can in the plane, and have a parachute attached. The Savannah and Foxbat both seem to fit the bill. The Foxbat can be registered VH and seems to have a big following in the outback, and numerous flying schools use it. On the other hand, I might have difficulty hangaring it in Alice Springs, and it has fabric control surfaces.

My understanding is that the factor Savannah now is 600 kg MTOW (otherwise the decision would be a no-brainer.) The Foxbat and Savannah both have almost identical takeoff roll and cruise speed, as far as I can tell. The Foxbat looks like it would be faster, but its cabin is 20 cm wider at the elbows and it tapers more rapidly.

ATM, I am leaning towards the Foxbat: the 20 cm wider cabin is a plus, and training would be much simpler. It seems that I would have to train 24 and RA-Aus and then patch over (as our bikie colleagues would say) to VH and RPL. I want to be able to fly out of Alice Springs and Mt Isa.

Thanks!

Talk to your instructor, you can learn to fly in your 19 registered aircraft if it meets certain criteria.

Hi

Is there any way that I can learn to fly in a Savannah. I was considering getting one (Foxbat's fabric control surfaces and the sun might not mix) but am keen to learn in the same type of plane that I fly in order to have the maximum hours in type. I am thinking that if there are not many factory-build Savannahs in Australia, then few/no flying schools will use them.

Thanks!

So the hours flown nearly doubled from 2106 to 2017? Sounds like RAAus has discovered the GFA method of reducing the fatality rate per 100,000 hours. Just fake the hours by exaggerating them greatly."Insanely good" ? I'd say "unbelievably good".

It's never been safer to fly RAA planes 1.05 deaths per 100,000 hours is an insanely good result last year, GA needs to lift its game as the RAA is clearly found the secret to flight safety [ATTACH=full]53551[/ATTACH]

The RAA website says that flying is safe. Setting aside the issue that "safe" is not really a word that safety professionals use, I offer the following. If you fly 50 hours a year, your risk of dying from RAA is 1.5 in 50 000 hour, or 1.5 in 1000 for the year. The ABS tells us that the chance of dying is about 1 in 1000 for primary school aged children (the safest age to be) and climbs to about 2 in 1000 for middle aged people like me. So, if you take your kids flying 50 hours a year, if they die, there is a 50% chance that it will be in your airplane. (Actually, many of those who died will have had already-known illnesses. So, if your children are healthy, and if your child dies, it will *probably* be in your airplane.) I intend to fly with my children, so maybe RAA is safe after all. I still think that the RAA website is lying.

If you intend flying into controlled airspace you will need to prove that you speak and understand English so you can talk to the tower and understand what the tower and others are saying. Some pilots, while speaking excellent English, while schmoozing the opposite sex at the pub, are attrocious English speakers in the air and who compress a conversation into the smallest time space available (often with a mouth full of Sao or hot potato)

I have enquired with soon-to-be flying school to see if they are an agent for CASA to vouch for my English-speaking ability, and also if they are allowed to identify my original documents for securityid.com.au. I will be training with Recreational Aviation at Gympie.

It is nice to see that people schmooze you at the pub. Email literacy might count for even more than I thought. Reading between the lines, relationships blossomed, but then you dumped them when you heard them speak on the radio. You can't have a sterile cockpit if it has half of lunch ground into the floor.

I had to get an English language form, a transfer form for RAAus to RPL form, a form for the instructor to fill in with whatever endorsements I was adding to my rpl. If you have a cross country endo already it can go across when compency demonstrated ( everything goes past faster at 120knots,you really have to keep on it) but if you don’t you are limited to the 25 nm radius. Along with existing asic, proof of I’d and log book copies certified by a suitable person. Only just completed last month, so a fairly recent experience.Cheers

Clinton

Last time I looked Alice Springs Aero Club was able to do training for RAA and GA so you can probably talk to them about all the bits of paper you need (since you need a GA Instructor type to handle the paperwork and conduct your flight review. I suspect Alice Springs requires an ASIC.

Hi

I hope to operate a small single engine airplane out of Alice Springs airport. I am trying to get things squared away before starting the actual training, which I hope to do in a month full time. Have not ordered the airplane yet, which will take three months (and the rest) to materialise.

As far as I can tell, I need to get an ARN (Aviation reference number), which I have applied for. When I have the ARN, then I can apply for a recreational aviation medical certificate. When I have the medical certificate, then I can apply for an ASIC (Aviation Security Identification Card). (If an airport is not 'security controlled' then you don't need an ASIC but only an AVID. Alice springs can take jumbos, so I think it will need an AVID. I have emailed to ask).

100 years ago I got airside OH&S clearance for Melbourne (? which one) airport, but I don't think I'll need one of those. Alice springs airport wants insurance and etc. but I will need the airplane before I can insure it...

Not sure where you found the POH to get those numbers.The first one I found on the web relates to the Ukraine and speeds are given in mph, kph and knots and maybe this has confused you. However, even this gives a clear manoeuvring limit of 89 knots.

The Ukraine POH is for an aircraft with 90 litres of fuel, not the 114 that is standard for the current Australian Foxbat.

 

Interestingly it is approved for Night VFR ops.

 

I suggest you look at the Kelpie specifications on the Foxbat Australia site as a good starting point.

 

If you have or are close to placing an order you should get in touch with Foxbat Australia for a current Australian POH.

 

As to those doubting the 99 knots, possible though not usual in level flight. I would say 95 knots is a more probable fast cruise.

 

I enjoyed a 2007 Foxbat for 10 years. It was a 544 kg MTOW aircraft with 92 litres of fuel. I usually planned cross country flights at 95 knots and found that to be pretty much on the money!

 

(My replacement Foxbat is presently nearing the Suez Canal. I'll let you know how it goes in a couple of months.)

By would you be wanting to check this by correspondence, and on a forum at that? What happened to the Instructor who trained you? Or was there one?

Hi, I was wondering if people knew about the V speeds for the Foxbat, please. I downloaded the POH and am trying to get my head around it in plenty of time for ordering and arrival. Some of the info is as follows.

Short Field Takeoff (Full Flaps)

========================

Rotate at 22 kts.

Liftoff at 35 kts.

Accelerate close to the ground to 54 kts, then climb away.

Stall Speed

=========

One stage of flaps 32 kts

No flaps 42 kts.

It does not seem likely to me that it would be a good idea to rotate 3 tks above stall speed. I imagine that the stall speed for full flaps would be lower than the stall speed for one stage of flaps. Does anyone know what it is? I will be getting a Kelpie so I imagine some of the speeds will be a bit lower.

These seem to be the book numbers FWIW.

V Speeds

Vr (short field) = 22

Vr (normal field) = 22

Vso = 32

Vlof (short field, 2 flaps) = 35

Vs = 42

Vlof (normal field, flaps) = 44

Vbg (flaps) = 49

Vx = 49 (+ 5 in turbulence)

Vat (short field) = 49

“V2min” = 54

Vlof (no flaps) = 54

Vy = 54 (+ 5 in turbulence)

Vbg(no flaps) = 54

Vat (normal field) = 54

Vfe = 80

Vra = 99

Va = 101

Vne = 124

Other Speeds

Cruise in rough air 54 to 99

Approach 54 to 80

Balked landing 54

Cruise 1000 ft 4000 rpm 59

Cruise 1000 ft 5000 rpm 87

Cruise at 5400 rpm 97

Top speed at sea level 99

Wind Speeds

Maximum crosswind 14

No flaps takeoff/landing 16

Does anyone know if factory-built Savannahs can be on the VH registration list in Australia? They are all metal so a good alternative to a Foxbat if they have to be left in the sun I am thinking.

Is that really how it works? Maybe I need to refresh my understanding of physics but I would have thought if a plane is flying balanced and turned downwind it would NOT change airspeed any more than turning upwind.

 

Unless this comment relates to specifics of this particular plane i have trouble understanding it. I am guessing you mean 30degrees angle of bank rather than just turning 30 degrees left or right, but I don't understand how passing the 30 degree mark somehow induces a stall? Again assuming a balanced turn I would say it would increase your stall speed but to say that would induce a stall i find a bit simplistic.

A 30 degree bank (balanced turn) increases stall speed by 7%, because of the increased wing loading. (The wing has to accelerate the aircraft around the turn, as well as keep it off the ground.) So, the poster was saying, that if an aircraft turns downwind, there are two factors that combine to increase the stall speed that are both acting together, and that increases the probability of stalling. A 30 degree bank is just a rule of thumb.

They crash because some event happened to them, not specifically because they are old or have a piston engine in them. The LIKELYHOOD of various types having events is related to many factors.. The age factor can be mitigated to some extent by well designed inspections and a suitable maintenance programme. It's also true that a jet engine far surpasses the reliability achieved by pistons probably by factor of 10. at least.. Running out of fuel cancels out that reliability advantage as does flying into a hill in cloud.. or a gaggle of geese. which jet engines don't like.. A piston prop might fare better in that case..Any single has a bad engine out performance, A powered glider might be an exception. A twin that won't fly on one has double the chance of not getting there. Plus there is the handling problem with a twin when you lose one. If you are too slow you keep turning and rolling unless you speed up or close the other throttle.. A floatplane over water has a lot of aerodrome choice if the swell is OK. Many factors to consider. It's about probability.

The P&W PT-6 (in the caravan and many other good planes) was considered the epitome of reliability but neglect and overconfidence can cancel that out. The "she'll be right " syndrome at work.. Nev.

I see little point in pontificating or speculating as to what or what may not have happened, at least until there is something of substance reported on the occurrence.

The ABC news had a picture of a Cessna Caravan belonging to the company. I thought, "Holy crap, I would have bet my life on that being a safe plane". Of course, each time you step on board a plane you really do bet your life it will be safe... But it turns out it was an old piston single that crashed. *Possibly* because it was so old. I read somewhere that Cessna Caravans do not have good a safety record as you would expect because people take liberties with them. I have no clue if that is true.

I have no first-hand experience of your bureaucracy. In that context, I offer a hypothesis: your "leadership" has been seduced by the prospect of power, prestige, and a bigger pay packet.

Making RAA closer to PPL just seems crazy to me.