For those of us who run our engines (Aircraft, Auto or Marine)

[Wolfala]

With the season turning colder and our wallets shrinking - I wanted to share my experience. Those of us who fly or operate engines on a regular basis know that running the engine regularly prolongs its life. Cars usually do not have that problem, but Boats and Aircraft sure do. If they are run once a week that would be lucky.

The problem of this infrequent operation is buildup of corrosion on the interior components. The major reason a majority of the time an engine doesn't make it to overhaul is because of corrosion - and with the colder weather we have even less frequent operation of these engines.

That makes for an expensive hobby when you get down to it...so what tools did we have available to us to demonstrate our wear metals in the oil? Oil Analysis of course - which brings me to the subject of this post.

Many of us here have these pieces of equipment. I have several close pilot friends with BIG BORE engines, IO-550, Turbocharged, etc. Keeping in mind that these engines spend 90% of their life at 80% of their rated power - it is a miracle they last as long as they do. Mine is 1400 hours and still going strong. And while I lived out in California I was flying 50 hours or more per month, since I have moved back to the East Coast that number has been dropped to 1/3 of that. Combine that with the coastal environment I live in by nature of the east coast, there was bound to be a surge of corrosion with less frequent operation.

I spoke with my friend who had a similar situation but with a much younger engine then mine - he sent his oil out to the lab, which initially showed fretting corrosion from the crankcase, iron and chromium from cylinder metallurgy and nickel from the exhaust valves and valve guides as being problematic. He had flown maybe 40 hours in a period of 6 months. So on the advice of others (mechanics, pilots, etc) he put an additive called ASL Camguard. Now he has a 2004 G2 SR22 (original owner) and have 678 hours. The last couple of oil reports have shown a greater than normal wear - higher numbers of aluminum, chromium, iron, lead. Not in the danger zone, but not great.

After the last oil change (annual), he added 1/2 pint of CamGuard. Did an oil change three weeks ago and sent the sample to Blackstone. What a surprise! The engine wear is dramatically less - 1/3 less to 2/3 less on most everything.

See report below.





I am also including a PDF from Mike Busch on his experience operating the stuff in his Turbocharged Cessna 310. He has good data going back a few years on operation without the stuff and operation with the stuff - particularly during prolonged periods of INACTIVITY. If you read ANYTHING of this post you really must read that PDF.

http://www.cirruspilots.org/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.PostAttachments/00.00.42.14.27/ABS-Dec-savvy2.pdf

Additional reading for why the stuff was created.

http://www.aslcamguard.com/Why%20CamGuard.pdf


I copied an email from the guy who developed the stuff and am including that in this post as it generally benefits guys here who are mechanically savvy.

----------
"Ed Kollin is the
chemist/engineer who helped design CorrosionX, Rejex and CamGuard. Might
have to change to Phillips 20W-50. Currently using AS W100 and CamGuard,
with much improved oil analysis wear indications since using CamGuard (1,000
hours on IO-520D).

MP

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FYI there is very little difference in the available oils.

Here is a breakdown of the different oils. They are VERY simple formulations
and all are compatible in any proportion. The viscometerics is the only
thing that will vary by mixing multi with straight weight.

AeroShell W100 - Solvent 600N commodity basestock, brightstock (thick)
commodity basestock, dispersant, antioxidant, antifoam, and pour point
depressant. 35 year old technology.

AeroShell W100Plus - Solvent 600N commodity basestock, brightstock (thick)
commodity basestock, dispersant, antioxidant, rust inhibitor, copper
corrosion inhibitor, antifoam, and pour point depressant. 35 year old
technology.

Phillips 20W-50 - Solvent 600N commodity basestock, brightstock (thick)
commodity basestock, viscosity modifier, dispersant, antioxidant, antifoam,
and pour point depressant. 27 year old technology

Aeroshell 15W50 - PAO synthetic basestock, solvent 600N commodity basestock,
brightstock (thick) commodity basestock, viscosity modifier, dispersant,
phosphate antiscuff, antioxidant, rust inhibitor, copper corrosion inhibitor
and antifoam. 20 year old technology.

Exxon Elite 20W-50 - PAO synthetic basestock, solvent 600N commodity
basestock, brightstock (thick) commodity basestock, multi-functional
(dispersant) viscosity modifier, phosphate antiscuff, antioxidant, and
antifoam. 15 year old technology.

In my opinion they are all poor. Would you except rust and deposits in your
car? Why do you in your plane?

Regards,

Ed

You should know I designed Camguard as the (minimum) additive package that
should be in aviation oil. I assume Shell did this as well. Exxon copied
Aeroshell 15W-50 so in a roundabout way they did also. Formulators
historically know what additives to put in piston engine oils, antioxidants,
corrosion inhibitors, anti-foam, etc. There are a few problems when you
formulate for a "specialized" case like an aircraft engine. Leaded fuel,
very high blow-by rates and ashless requirements make for interesting
challenges.

When Mobil AV1 came out using 100% PAO synthetic basestock, it was obvious
to me that they had little understanding of piston aviation. Shell then made
the same mistake, oops no we didn't, we only used 50% PAO (the worst
possible synthetic base stock for aviation).

Then they additized their oil based on the typical yet incorrect notion of
protecting the oil from breakdown as they would in auto or diesel oils. BUT
oils don't breakdown (oxidize) in the short amount of time they are in our
aircraft they become CONTAMINATED. And formulating for contamination is very
different than formulating for breakdown.

I know Shell and Exxon products are woefully inadequate. I know what is in
them and I have seen their lack of performance. I know they have 0.05% rust
inhibitor which is 20 times to low. I know they have 0.5% antioxidant which
is WAY to low. I know they use phosphate esters as anti-scuff agents whose
use is historic in nature not performance driven and not without real
problems.

I know these things and because Shell and Exxon use PAO and the additives in
the concentration they use I can only conclude they do not understand the
target engines they are formulating for.

This does not mean planes will fall out of the sky using Aeroshell or Elite,
but you would never accept rust or deposits in your car why do you in your
aircraft?

Camguard uses 11 high performance additives most of which are
multi-functional. They are all commercially available and expensive. I use
multiple ferrous and non ferrous corrosion inhibitors, multiple anti-wear
chemistries a very potent antioxidant/deposit control package. When I was
working on the Elite for Exxon I reported my findings. They were surprised
at the cost of the additive and VERY surprised at the recommended treat
rates. The final formulation was a copy of the Aeroshell 15W-50 for business
reasons.

So what do I think? I recommend what I use, Phillips 20W-50 with Camguard
year round. The additives in Camguard SWAMP those in Aeroshell 15W-50 and
Elite so why pay for them.

Well Greg you did it, you got me started.

Regards,

Ed"

-------------

I am doing a trial run with it in my aircraft since I got a similar cautionary oil report 2 weeks ago and will report back in late december. Though at $25 per quart, this stuff is dirt cheap compared with the cost of an overhaul or anything on the bottom-end of the engine.

Keep in mind the typical concentration of the stuff in an active engine is 5%, so figure thats 1 Ounce of the stuff per quart of oil. If you are planning to keep the engine inactive, then 7-8% of the stuff with the preservative oil is used. More info is at the ASL website.

http://www.aslcamguard.com/

if you wanted to buy the stuff you can find it at www.skygeek.com for a pretty reasonable cost, or AircraftSpruce.

S!

Wolf

P.S.  YES you can use it in Boats or Cars. Not sure on the Diesels though, would double check with the website.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

99% of this kind of additives have proven to have zero or negative effects on engine life. Sure they have great marketing stories but they're usually hoax.

I don't know this product but judging from past history I'd say take it with a grain of salt.

[ColSuave]

somebody did their homework.  It took me a while to read all that, at least i learned some stuff

[Wolfala]

99% of this kind of additives have proven to have zero or negative effects on engine life. Sure they have great marketing stories but they're usually hoax.

I don't know this product but judging from past history I'd say take it with a grain of salt.

99% of this kind of additives have proven to have zero or negative effects on engine life. Sure they have great marketing stories but they're usually hoax.

I don't know this product but judging from past history I'd say take it with a grain of salt.

True,

And being a mechanic I was 99% the skeptic as well. I naturally assumed that
it was just one more alchemical admixture of snake oil, food coloring and perfume designed to separate aircraft owners from their hard-earned cash.I mean, thousands of owners have used Marvel Mystery Oil for decades, and I've never heard of anyone being busted for doing that.)

Speaking with Mike Busch his reactions in his turbocharged engines were as follows "I've been impressed by the reduction of wear metals since I started using Camguard in my two engines. I've seen the same phenomenon in several other engines as well. I've never been a big fan of aftermarket additives, but this one really works.

These days, when owners ask me for an oil recommendation, I tell them that I recommend using either Aeroshell W100 (as I do in my airplane) or Phillips X/C 20W-50, to which ASL Camguard is added. The W100 is a somewhat better lubricant in high-stress operations, while the 20W-50 is better for cold starting."

Hell, i'm just going to copy the article in the PDF for your review.

--

POWERPLANT 114:
THE CAMGUARD CHRONICLES
I’ve been testing ASL Camguard oil additive in my airplane for the past 180 hours, and so far I’m liking what I’m seeing. Over my four decades as an aircraft owner, I’ve been a staunch skeptic when it comes to aftermarket oil additives. I’ve often referred to them sarcastically as “miracles- in-a-can.” I’ve investigated a variety of aftermarket oil additives, but I’ve never seen any convincing evidence that they offer any benefit. This always struck me as unremarkable, because I figured that if an oil additive was actually demonstrably beneficial, then Aeroshell, Exxon and Phillips would already be blending it into its aviation oils.

A few years ago, I started hearing about yet another miracle-in-a-can called ASL Camguard. I naturally assumed that it was just one more alchemical admixture of snake oil, food coloring and perfume designed to separate aircraft owners from their hard-earned cash.

Then a funny thing happened: I started corresponding with the developer of ASL Camguard. His name is Ed Kollin, and the more we corresponded, the more I thought to myself, “Gee, this guy really sounds like he knows what he’s talking about!” I did a little Googling and discovered that Ed is a research
chemist who previously worked for Exxon Research & Engineering as director of its engine laboratory. I couldn’t help thinking that this didn’t sound like the resume of your typical snake-oil salesman, and started wondering if ASL Camguard might be an exception to the rule.

So at EAA AirVenture 2007, I made sure to seek out Ed Kollin at the ASL Camguard booth, and I spent nearly a half-hour grilling him about his product. It was a fascinating conversation.

The way Ed tells the story, he was working at the engine lab at Exxon Research when Exxon decided to come out with an advanced-technology aviation oil. Ed was tasked with developing an initial formulation. After much research, he developed an additive package that he believed would perform head and shoulders above the competition. Then, much to his disappointment, Exxon decided (according to Ed) to take a more conventional route. He subsequently left Exxon and over the next year developed a no-compromises additive
package as an aftermarket product called ASL Camguard.

After talking to Ed, I was sufficiently impressed that I flew home from Oshkosh with a case of ASL Camguard in the baggage compartment of my Cessna T310R, and decided to give it a try. My intention was to use it for 100 hours and see what impact (if any) it had on my oil analysis results. Shortly after my return from Oshkosh, I did an oil change on both TSIO-520 engines and added a pint of Camguard to each for the first time. After 83 hours, the oil-analysis results were promising, but I considered them somewhat inconclusive.

So I continued using ASL Camguard for a while longer. As I write this column, I’ve been using Camguard for 180 hours, and I now think have data sufficiently interesting that I want to share it with ABS members.

Why Camguard? My interest in Camguard stems from my long-held belief that by far the major threat to piston-engine longevity in owner-flown airplanes is not wear but corrosion. I’ve amassed a great deal of evidence showing that it’s damn-near impossible for us to wear out these big-bore TCM engines, because
they’re incredibly robust. I’ve made no secret of the fact that my own engines are now 1,100 hours past TBO and doing great, and it wouldn’t astonish me to see them reach 3,000 hours SMOH or more before needing any sort of teardown, at least if present trends continue. I believe if my engines don’t make the distance, it won’t be because I wore them out; it’ll be because I allowed them to corrode internally because I wasn’t flying them often or regularly enough. Let me show you what I mean.

About five and a half years ago, I developed a serious health problem that put me out of action for many months. During that scary episode in my life, my airplane sat unflown n its hangar for about four months. My oil analysis clearly shows the toll this took on the engines (Figure 1).

While I normally fly the airplane 150 to 250 hours a year, you can see that between March and October 2002, the airplane only flew 17 hours in 7½ months. Not good. You can also see that as a result of that inactivity, the normalized quantity of iron in the oil (measured in parts per million per hour) doubled from the normal values during the preceding and succeeding periods of normal activity. A graph of this data makes this even more obvious (Figure 2).

[Wolfala]

Look how clearly iron production—rust, actually—correlates with lack of activity. Irregular use is simply a fact of life for most owner-flown airplanes. Mine is a perfect example.

While I fly more hours a year than the average owner, my use tends to be in fits and starts. One month I’ll put 30 hours on the airplane. While the next month, it’s a hangar queen. This is clearly not good for the engines, but as Walter Cronkite used to say, “that’s the way it is.” There’s not much I can do about it.

Or is there? Ed Kollin claimed that he developed ASL Camguard specifically to address the problem of corrosion during periods of engine disuse. The question is: Does it actually work? After talking to Ed at AirVenture 2007, I decided to find out for myself. So how did it do? I started using Camguard at the beginning of August
2007, adding one pint to 10 quarts of the Aeroshell W100 that I’ve used in these engines for decades. I’ve now flown 180 hours with the stuff, and done four oil changes and oilanalysis samples in just over a year. I compared the normalized wear metals for three oil change intervals before starting Camguard with three oil change intervals after starting Camguard (leaving out the last non-Camguard and the first Camguard intervals to eliminate transition effects). The results are shown in Figure 3.

As you can see, there was a modest decrease of all major wear metals in both engines, with the sole exception of nickel, which increased slightly on the left engine. It seems to me that such a decrease in wear metals, even though relatively modest, easily justifies the cost of using Camguard.

Wait! It gets better! What I find even more significant, however, is the evidence that Camguard is clearly doing a spectacular job of reducing corrosion damage during periods of disuse. How do I know that? Read closely, because this gets interesting. Over the more than two decades that I’ve owned my airplane
(and done regular oil analysis on its TSIO-520 engines),

I’ve noticed a fascinating seasonal pattern to the levels of iron in the oil. Specifically, the first oil change I do after April of each year shows a significant spike in iron compared with other samples throughout the year. There’s a very good reason for this. Every year, I down the airplane sometime in March for its annual inspection. Because my airplane is a fairly complex beast (turbocharged known-ice twin), and because I do all the work on it myself, and because I’m probably the world’s slowest mechanic, the airplane is always down for at least a month and sometimes a month and a half before I get it put back together again. This prolonged
annual ordeal is usually the longest period of inactivity that the airplane has all year, and the iron levels in the oil reflect this clearly (Figure 4).

The left engine normally makes between 0.6 and 0.8 ppm/hr of iron, except for the first oil change after each annual inspection where it makes more than 1.1 ppm/hr. Similarly, the right engine usually makes between 0.8 and 1.1 ppm/hr, except for the first oil change after each annual where it makes 1.2 to 1.5 ppm/hr. (The right engine has always produced higher wear metals than the left for more than 4,000 hours. Don’t ask me why.) Note that the unusually high number of 1.79 ppm/hr right after the 2007 annual was due to the fact that I changed a cylinder, and breaking it in generated even higher iron than normal.

Ah, but look at the post-2008-annual numbers—the first such results since I started using Camguard. The iron numbers for those samples not only did NOT spike up (as they always had before), but actually were BELOW AVERAGE for each respective engine!

To me, this is a very significant change from the long-established pattern of annual iron spikes after annual inspections, and convinces me that Camguard is doing a very effective job of corrosion protection. I’ll know more a year from now when I have another set of post-annual-inspection oil report. But for now, this is what I’m seeing and I’m frankly impressed. Time to order another case of Camguard! www.aslcamguard.com

EDITOR’S NOTE: ABS technical advisors have no experience with
Camguard as none of their customers are using it. Therefore ABS
neither endorses nor recommends against its use. We encourage
any members who have used Camguard for at least one year to
let us know if their oil analyses have shown any change.
————————
E-mail questions to mike.busch@savvyaviator.com.

[Cobra516]

Interesting, forwarding this thread to my dad.  He has a '54 Super Cub with an O-290-D2 that we fly about 60 hrs a year. 

[Wolfala]

Interesting, forwarding this thread to my dad.  He has a '54 Super Cub with an O-290-D2 that we fly about 60 hrs a year. 

For an engine that inactive, this is especially relevant.

[cpxxx]

Interesting, the skydive outfit I work for hasn't flown either of our aircraft since October thanks to a waterlogged runway. So I'm beginning to worry about those engines just sitting there. I try and get there once in a while and ask the owner to run them up occasionally. I might look into that additive, particularly for the winter. Even for our best months flying we barely put 40 hours on the clock. In any case our 182 is basically for sale and hardly flies at all.