orion
R.I.P.
Once or twice before I mentioned herein that I use an additive in my engines in order to supplement the oil's protection against wear and corrosion. The product is called Microlon and is FAA certified for aircraft use. This morning I added it to my current airplane, which has had a major overhaul about 150 hours ago. The engine is an O-540.
BTW, I am not associated with this company in any way - I just thought I'd pass on a bit of my own data for your own consideration.
Having been a mechanic and later, had association with the Society of Automotive Engineers, I am of the opinion that most oil additives marketed to the every-day car owner are a waste of money at best, or can do more harm than good at worst. I even approached this product with a lot of skepticism and did a lot of talking to people in the company and outside of it, before i put it in my first airplane. But that first experience made me a convert. Since then I've used it in two other airplane engines, two marine engines and in my truck and in all cases the product performed consistently and as advertised and expected.
This morning I added the product to my airplane and as required by the instructions, went for a two-hour flight. The before and after behavior was visibly significant, even considering the less than precise measurements of the typical aircraft gauges. The flight was held constant at about 1,800' MSL on a 18 deg. C. day. Throttle setting was 2,250 rpm at 23" MP. After take-off and upon reaching altitude the engine was throttled back to this setting and leaned to a LoP condition. The following was observed:
With throttle back the initial idle had a slight bit of vibration with the indicator showing between 530 and 550 rpm. After the flight the throttle full back idle was smooth and at 710 rpm.
Oil temperature seemed to run between ten and fifteen degrees cooler than standard, although the exact number was difficult to arrive at since it was measured by the airplane's standard gauge, which is of course far from precise in its markings. But through the flight the temp did drop a bit more than one width of the indicator needle despite the air temperature increasing by at least two degrees.
Initial cylinder head temperature on hottest cylinder (as measured on the EDM 700 monitor) was 404 to 405 - at the end of the flight the same cylinder read 396. For the period of the flight the air temperature increased approximately two degrees. This is the cylinder with the plug gauge since the probe is used by the airplane's stock certified gauge. As such, it tends to indicate higher than what the normal probe would indicate so the meaningful measurement here is the downward change in the temperature despite an increase in the air temp. Throttle increase (rpm and mixture constant) to 26" showed only a one degree increase in the cylinder head temp. Normally this power increase would have increased the head temp by five to about eight degrees.
EGTs remained essentially the same throughout the flight.
The last number may be a bit subjective since the two hour flight did burn off some fuel but the indicated and true airspeed did increase, showing about a three mph improvement by the end of the flight. While some of that might be due to lower friction losses in the treated engine, I have no real proof regarding how much came from the treatment nor how much came from the reduction in weight.
The treatment for the 540 costs about $230 but given the protection and performance improvement, I'd say that this is a pretty good investment.
BTW, I am not associated with this company in any way - I just thought I'd pass on a bit of my own data for your own consideration.
Having been a mechanic and later, had association with the Society of Automotive Engineers, I am of the opinion that most oil additives marketed to the every-day car owner are a waste of money at best, or can do more harm than good at worst. I even approached this product with a lot of skepticism and did a lot of talking to people in the company and outside of it, before i put it in my first airplane. But that first experience made me a convert. Since then I've used it in two other airplane engines, two marine engines and in my truck and in all cases the product performed consistently and as advertised and expected.
This morning I added the product to my airplane and as required by the instructions, went for a two-hour flight. The before and after behavior was visibly significant, even considering the less than precise measurements of the typical aircraft gauges. The flight was held constant at about 1,800' MSL on a 18 deg. C. day. Throttle setting was 2,250 rpm at 23" MP. After take-off and upon reaching altitude the engine was throttled back to this setting and leaned to a LoP condition. The following was observed:
With throttle back the initial idle had a slight bit of vibration with the indicator showing between 530 and 550 rpm. After the flight the throttle full back idle was smooth and at 710 rpm.
Oil temperature seemed to run between ten and fifteen degrees cooler than standard, although the exact number was difficult to arrive at since it was measured by the airplane's standard gauge, which is of course far from precise in its markings. But through the flight the temp did drop a bit more than one width of the indicator needle despite the air temperature increasing by at least two degrees.
Initial cylinder head temperature on hottest cylinder (as measured on the EDM 700 monitor) was 404 to 405 - at the end of the flight the same cylinder read 396. For the period of the flight the air temperature increased approximately two degrees. This is the cylinder with the plug gauge since the probe is used by the airplane's stock certified gauge. As such, it tends to indicate higher than what the normal probe would indicate so the meaningful measurement here is the downward change in the temperature despite an increase in the air temp. Throttle increase (rpm and mixture constant) to 26" showed only a one degree increase in the cylinder head temp. Normally this power increase would have increased the head temp by five to about eight degrees.
EGTs remained essentially the same throughout the flight.
The last number may be a bit subjective since the two hour flight did burn off some fuel but the indicated and true airspeed did increase, showing about a three mph improvement by the end of the flight. While some of that might be due to lower friction losses in the treated engine, I have no real proof regarding how much came from the treatment nor how much came from the reduction in weight.
The treatment for the 540 costs about $230 but given the protection and performance improvement, I'd say that this is a pretty good investment.
