winterization kit

winterization kit

wintertime is ahead? Carburetor icing is the problem of our 68 C172H. Someone told me, Cessna offered a winterization kit once to prevent carburetor ice. Does anyone knows where this kit would be available? Pit

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

Unless you are operating out of Barrow, Alaska in January, the winterization baffle kits are not a good idea.  They restrict airflow in uneven ways and have the unintended consequences of creating hot spots on the cylinders.

I recommend against them.

Walter Atkinson
Advanced Pilot Seminars

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

Walter is right.  I have seen it happen to several engines.
Just give the engine a good warm-up before you attempt to add power.

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

Hi Pit

Winterization kits do not prevent carb ice.

Carburettor heat prevents carb ice.

Either use full carb heat as recommended in your POH,
or install a carb temperature guage, and then you can keep the temp in the safe range by use of partial carb heat.

Either way, a winterization kit ain't going  to do it - that just blocks out some of the cold air that would be flowing over the baffles. It heats the engine faster (sometimes by more than you would like).

HTH

Tony

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

Pilots,

I'm a believer in winterization kits, and apparently so is Cessna.  I have a handbook that recommends using one in temperatures below 20 degrees F and has kits for the same.  I know these accessories do restrict airflow to prevent overcooling and believe an engine that's running too cold is just as bad as one that's running too hot. 

I'm searching for a Winterization Kit that will fit on the bottom of the cowl of my 1969 Cessna 172K serial # 17257705

I appreciate any leads on getting a kit.

Thanks,  Skot Weidemann N78651

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

**I'm a believer in winterization kits, and apparently so is Cessna. I have a handbook that recommends using one in temperatures below 20 degrees F and has kits for the same. I know these accessories do restrict airflow to prevent overcooling and believe an engine that's running too cold is just as bad as one that's running too hot. **

You may be making operating decisions based on some misinformation, albeit logically and thoughtfully considered, it's still misinformation. 

We instrumented up an engine with a 36 probe CHT monitor and MEASURED the effects of the winterization kit.  Unless you have seen that data,  you might not appreciate just what it does to the engine. Since neither you nor Cessna have seen that data, I'm not surprised that you would feel the same way as they do! <g>  Seriously, unless the OAT is waaaay below zero, DON'T use a winterization kit.  Your engine will thank you.  It will not enjoy a round piston running up and down in an oval cylinder from uneven cooling.  NONE of the OEMs have done this testing.  We've asked.  They did what was logical.  The only problem is that the results are not logical!  Baffling an air-cooled engine is NOT logical.  The airflow does not go where one thinks it goes.  Some of the Cessnas are exceptionally well baffled while others are very porly baffled.  This indicates that either different engineers designed the baffles on different airplanes or they just got lucky on the good ones, not having much understanding of the details of the issue.

TCM set their watercooled engine to run continuously at 240dF or below.  The minium normal operating CHT according to Lycoming is 150dF!  I seriously doubt you can run it that cold, even oin the winter.  Cooler CHTs are better.  I have baffled my airplane to get it to run as cool as possible.  Cool metal is stronger and cooler cylinders will last longer.  Cooler cylinders also produce more HP.  The concept that a cylinder must run hot to be healthy is an Old Wives Tale with no scientific supporting data. (No, the choke doesn't need 375-400dF to be right!  That's another OWT.)

I would respectfully suggest that you reconsider your thoughts on winterization baffles. From a tested, scientific perspective, there is no reason to use them unless the OAT is a lot colder than it ever gets in the lower 48.  That's not my opinion.  That's what the data shows.

Walter Atkinson
Advanced Pilot Seminars

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

Walter,

I'm a believer in data, but not necessarily interpretation of the data.  High temperature is high temperature and if that is your basis I would readily agree. 

You stated as the reason that winterization is bad:

<It will not enjoy a round piston running up and down in an oval cylinder from uneven cooling.>

CHT temperatures do not measure shapes of cylinders.  I agree you might infer or calculate the shape via an analytical computer model, but is that what was done?  If so, the reality is only as good as the model.  Was it validated against reality?  I know I'm probably preaching to the choir but I'd like to know.

So, is that the case, or is there other evidence this is happening, i.e. "scuffy" of the piston rings or cylinder walls?

I would also suggest that if there is a significant temperature gradient the stresses may be beyond design and therefore weaken of cause cracking at temperature below design. 

So what is it?
High localized temperatures? or
Temperature gradients? or
Computer models? or
physical damage evidence to support this ascertion? or
All of the above?

Walter, I'm not trying to give you a hard time.  I really am interested and you only gave a conclusion without the complete basis as to how you got there.  Without this information, how are we to judge the conclusions?

Respectfully,
Barry

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

Barry:

All good questions and very reasonable to ask.

Here's the deal... short version.

1)  We placed six CHT probes per cylinder in a circumferential manner so we could determine the circumferential temperature and therefore *roundness* of the cylinder head as the temperature changed. 

(these were hand made and calibrated thermocouples placed with ceramic cement.  We used a data aquisition computer with 36 channels dedicated for the CHT readings.  This allowed us to view the cyinder head in three dimemsions as related to temperature and it generated some surprising results.  As an example, we learned that the #5 cylinder on a 206 with factory baffles runs dramatically out of round.  It is almost always the first cylinder to fail on a 206.  On a Bonanza, it was the #2 cylinder that was the worst and almost always the first to fail.) 

Obviously, if the cylinder is the same temperature circumferentially, it will remain *rounder* as it expands than if one area is a lot hotter OR cooler than the rest of the metal.  The expansion of the head alters the shape of the barrel--hence the reason for barrel choke when the head is at room temperature.

2)  From the data we found large variations.  In some cases, VERY large variations.  So, we tufted an engine with dozens of pieces of yarn strung throughout the engine compartment.  We placed a video camera under the cowl that we could control from the cockpit and LOOKED at the air flow while in flight.  I don't know of anyone else who has done this.  Guess what?  It doesn't do what I was always taught it does!  The air does NOT go where I always was taught it goes.  The air doesn't go where logic would dictate that it should.  It does NOT come in the front of the cowl, pressurize against the backplate and get forced down through the cylinder fins.  Nope, it doesn't do that.  The vast majority of the air goes right back out the front of the cowl and over the windscreen!  Yep.  That's why you get oil on the windshield when you have an oil leak on the top half of the engine.  The inside half of the tufts around the front opening of the cowl were pointed FORWARD, RIGHT AT THE PROPELLER!   Surprised?  Meeeeee, too!

3)  We addressed these large variations with baffling changes until we got the cylinders as circumferentially even in temps as possible.  Altering mass airflow into the cowl had unexpected and large effects (hence, my distrust of winterization baffles as a concept).  This is another reason you should NEVER operate with the cowl flaps closed during ground ops.  Hot spots resulted.

4)  We have repeatedly observed thermal runaway at temps above 420dF.  This has been demonstrated to be the result of an out-of-round cylinder which results in scraping and scuffing of the areas where the round piston is rubbing in the oval hole. Thermal runaway is real and repeatable in some engines and is worse in engines which are poorly baffled.  It may not be as evident in well-baffled installations until much higher mean temperatures are reached.

This research endeavor was over several years and included so many issues as to make it impossible to make a full report in this medium.  (nor would I, since a lot of this knowledge is propriatory in nature)   I do feel like it was the about the most extensive research effort in this area ever undertaken by any group or manufacturer.  These were not computer models.  This was from direct measurement and observation.  Computer models would be pretty close to worthless since no one knows enough about this to properly program the computer for the effects!  RATZ, it woulda been easier--and cheaper, too!

As a result of these extensive (and expensive) efforts I've come to appreciate that baffling issues are poorly understood and dramatically underappreciated by most.  The best baffling by an OEM we have seen (based on our knowledge gained from this research) are the late model Cessna 210s and the Cirrus airplanes.  Cirrus missed it on two of the six cylinders, but they got a lot of it right.  About the worst designs appear to be in the early 210 series and the 182s.  Dreadful.  The Twin Cessnas are pretty good with a few minor problems.  The Bonanzas were OK, with some BAD issues on two cylinders.  The Pipers are pretty bad... including the Malibu.  The Lancair design is, well, I hate to say this, but... oughta classify as awful.  This is what leads one to the conclusion that either the OEMs don't appreciate the issues involved or they don't care.  I think it's the former.

Almost everything I ever thought about baffling and learned as an A&P turned out to be just, plain wrong.   Logical, but wrong.  I learned to like the taste of crow over this topic.  The data taught me how absolutely wrong I had been in my understanding of engine cooling.

You were right to challange my statements, because on the surface they disagree with the conventional wisdom.  That's only because the conventional wisdom I had always believed wasn't so wise! <g>

Here's a good one.  Based on the observed and measured phenomenon during the tufted experiment described above on a single engine, conventional engine set-up, assume that the airplane is at the run-up pad.  The wind is from 360 @ 10knots.  Upon what heading should you position the airplane to get the maximum cylinder cooling effect during run-up and why?  The first correct answer and explanation is worth $100 off on tuition to the APS class to the winner.  This offer will be good for the first correct answer and explanation received before 0200 Zulu October 6, 2004! That gives you a week! For an additional $100 off, Which heading would be the second best and why?

Walter Atkinson
Advanced Pilot Seminars

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

Hmmm, cool contest.  ;-)  I'll try.

My guess is that the best cooling would occur at 180, which would allow the greatest air to enter the bottom of the cowl, convectively rise and exit out through the front using the prop to "sling" the heated post cooling air away from the cowling and using the 10 knot wind to keep it from being blown back to the rear of the cowl.

My guess for the second best cooling would be at 090, also allowing for the cooling air to enter from the bottom convectively rise and then use the circular prop wash/cross wind combination to augment the "Chimney" effect at the front of the cowl.  Once again, this would use the prop to sling the heated air away from the cowling.

After thinking about it, I’m not really sure which would be better, maybe I have them reversed?  Hmmm, actually I’m probably not even close; it just makes sense to me.  ;-)

Best Regards,
Dale

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

Dale:

Good attempt.


We still do not have a winner!  <g>

Walter

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

A very interesting though experiment!

[I own a C-172 M with the factory engine.]  The propeller operates on the principle of lift and not thrust.  To do this, as it spins it creates a relative high pressure on the aft part of the blade as compared to the front of the blade.  This is what creates the force that propels the airplane forward.  So air gets sucked in from the front and accelerated toward the rear.  The air flow over the airfoil of the propeller depends on the local speed of the propeller element versus the air flow.  In stagnant air, the relative angle depends on the angle that the local chord makes with the shaft.  As you increase air in front of the propeller the relative angle is changed due to the velocity of air along the shaft and the propeller blade will stall.  At 800 rpm/ 1700 rpm and at 6” from the shaft center the velocity is 29 mph / 61 mph.  11.5 mph (10 knots) wind moves the resultant relative angle on toward the front of the airfoil which would cause it to stall.   As you move out to 1 foot the speed is 57 mph / 121 mph somewhat better but still the wind is not insignificant.  At 1.5 ft the propeller is moving at 85 mph / 182 mph, much better.  At 2 ft the propeller is moving at 114 mph / 243 mph.   Now note that the top of the cowling is not more than a foot above the shaft center.  So at 360 you lose a lot of air flow where you need it. 

The lower portion of the propeller has the greatest angle since is moving the slowest.  So you optimize by getting the resultant relative velocity at the best angle for the lower say foot of the propeller.  I don’t know the angle so I would guess it is about 20 degrees.  To take most advantage of the wind I would think you turn west 110 degrees and end up at about 250 heading (360-110).  (Based on the rotation of the engine and assuming the best relative wind is about parallel or slightly below the chord.)

Note:  I don’t buy the chimney effect.  It would be insignificant, because it depends on the height as well as density. And there is very little height across an engine!

As far as the second best confirguration, I'm thinking....

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

OK Walter, since you admit to eatin crow, I can stand some too.

Air will move from high pressure to low pressure without regard as to how much wind your trying to pack into the cowling. The prop, when turning, will have a low pressure area in front of it, just the same as a wing has a lower pressure on top, thus creating lift. This is a reason for your yarn pointing forward nearest the spinner. Moving air is lower pressure than still air. The air in the lower cowling moves out the cowl flaps to the lower pressure area created by prop wash. The air above the engine moves out because of the lower pressure created by the "lift" generated by the prop, and because of prop wash. It'll slip out wherever it can. Air will move in to replace it. The prop does not, and airspeed does not force air through the cylinders, at least not efficiently. Air exchange is the dominant effect. Opening the cowl flaps increases cooling because of the venturi like effect created by the prop wash and will cause air to move through the cylinders. The constant cycle of high pressure moving to low pressure causes the air to eddy in different ways depending on airframe design, angle of attack, and cowl flap position. The air moves through the cowling more quickly from left fwd to right aft, because of clockwise prop rotation, making the #2 and #5 (TCM) in the more stagnant air locations. You cant change the wind direction in flight, but I suppose that during a ground runup you could take advantage of it. I say best is 315 degrees and next is 135
Del

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

Walter, you didn't say how many times one can enter the contest.  So I'm going to vote, often.

In my last post I said a number of things wrong.  But the worst is I was solving the wrong problem.  We are trying to make the air cool the engine, which is a noble thing to do while on the ground.  We are not trying to produce the most lift on the propeller.  I assumed that if I produce the most lift the air would be moving opposite the lift, which is incorrect.  So what we need here is a good billiard shot.  We are stirring up the air with the propeller (fan) spinning and what we want to do is find the best angle to get the air moving into the cowling opening.  If we face the wind, the propeller is nearly perpendicular to the wind and would tend to block it as it goes by.   

The first position -The golf shot:  We want to open the face of the club (prop) with the ball (the wind) and make it glance off the face of the blade and straight back along the shaft of the engine (or nearly straight back since the shaft is at an angle with the fuselage).  Say we want the little wind we got, which is moving at 11.5 mph from the north, to be at 45 degrees with the back of the propeller blade.  If the blade at height of the cowling is positioned at an average angle of 20 degrees (assumption) the direction of rotation, then turning west another 70 degrees will make the blade parallel to the wind from the north.  So, I need to turn another 45 degree further left to toward the south.  So this guess would be 360-70 - 45 or take a heading of 245 degrees.

The second position - the river currents:  The next guess is to turn east to position the blade so the wind is coming in from behind the blade and is forced back with the air flow from prop.  So this guess is 20 (assumption for the blade angle) + 90 = heading of 110 degrees.
Barry

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

Barry and Del:

You have made some very good observations, but are missing the most salient factor (which, quite frankly was the one thing I had never considered either until I was forced to figure out why the observed phenomenon was differnt than the logic).  The answer is simple--figuring it out wasn't--at least for me.


5 days left to claim the prize.

Enter often.
 
Walter

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

Last entry.

I re-read your long post and got an idea.

While on the ground, the propeller blows air essentially back over the fuselage and due to the spinning propeller creates a low pressure near its center/shaft and just in front of the cowling.  Now, we have the unexpected result of air entering from below and being sucked out the front of the cowling.  That's the reason to keep the cowl flaps open to get the most air in and flowing over the engine from as wide an area as possible.

So, how to position the airplane on the ground to make the most of this.  That is to create the highest pressure underneath the aircraft and suck most of the air from the cowling. To maintain the lowest pressure at nose, turn the plane with it's tail into the wind.  So take a heading of 180 degrees.

Next best position.  Haven't a clue.  So I'll say using my first post, but correcting for an angle problem turn west 70- 90 degrees to West.  I figure with the relative wind producing the best lift on the propeller, will create the lowest pressure in front of the cowl and suck the best.

The best and next best is just a guess really.

I'll be really interested in finding out the right answer.

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

OK, Barry...  you have the right heading, but for the wrong reason!  <g>

Two more days to go on the prize.

Walter

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

The reason was a pure guess, so now that we know the answer(?), let's see if we can come up with a reason....

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

One explanation for this result is that reverse flow through the engine compartment exists while on the ground and the plane is not moving forward.  The cooling in this way is contrary to the design which is when the plane is moving at high speeds forward. This is merely an hypothesis.  I can not prove it without actually experimenting.  OK, This is my reasoning that would make it plausible but it's just an assertion at this time.

When a propeller turns there are low pressure areas in front and behind the blade.  The reason for the lift (force) forward is that the low pressure area in front of the wing is lower than the pressure aft of the blade.  Due to the twist on the propeller the air is also forced rear ward creating the wind we feel from the fan.  This thrust rearward is not the primary reason for the propulsion forward but it helps.  Having said that there tends to be a low pressure (lower than atmospheric pressure in front of the cowling).  The momentum and stream lines of the air being blown back and over the fuselage cowling tends to act like a barrier to the air surrounding the plane.  So that air tends to get drawn from the opening below the plane up through the engine and out of the front of the cowling.  The fact that the engine is hot and air expands only tends to assist the air flow.  But there is not enough driving force due to natural circulation because there is not enough of a height to generate the density head required. 

By turning the plane so the wind blows from the rear, the local pressure is increased below the plane where the opening to the engine compartment is located.  The pressure is increased because the wind being blow rearward collides with the wind blowing from opposite it slowing down.  The slower moving air stream has a higher static pressure.  The higher pressure difference increases the reverse flow through the engine compartment.

Again, I am only hypothesizing this strange result.  Without experimenting to observe this, it’s just a thought at this time and perhaps there are other explanations.. I'm done.

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

Time's up! <g>

Answer:

As has been correctly noted, all airflow is only from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure.  Take the condition suggested here: Wind 360 @ 10 knots.  With the wind directly pointed AT the nose of the airplane, the angle of attack on the moving air by the prop near the hub will be very low, if not zero.  Very little air moves into the cowl since there is no real high pressure developed. The air movement is nearly the same with the engine OFF as with it running--10 knots.  Not much.

Now, turn the aircraft 180 degrees to the wind.  The angle  of attack of the relative wind against the prop is now very high.  The wind is coming around the fuselage and hitting the prop tips at a very high angle of attack.  This results in a large thrust vector and high pressure area in a donut-type shape around the nose of the airplane as Barry and Del noted.  The low pressure areas are outboard of the prop arc and behind the spinner and inside the cowl.  The prop blast moves toward these low pressure areas.  As soon as the air pressure moves behind the spinner, it chases the low pressure area in the cowl and in the air goes!  There is a low pressure below the cowls since the prop blast below the airplane is creating low pressure in the cowl flaps.  The air chases that low presure and the air movement is on out of the cowl flaps.  The air moves from front to back through the cowl.

With any angle other than directly downwind or directly into the wind there is essentially NO air movement under the cowl!  Essentially, none! That was a surprise.

So, the correct answer is that directly downwind gives the most cooling, with directly into the wind second (the same with the engine running or not running!) and essentially no cooling air movement at any other angle.   

We watched this in amazment as we taxiied around in a circle.  The tufts would be limp at all headings other than directly into the wind and dead downwind.  There was a little tuft movement when INTO the wind and the tufts would stand out straight with a LOT of air movement when we passed through dead downwind.  I do run-ups into the wind unless the OAT is very high, then I do them dead downwind to help keep CHTs under control on the ground.  Sometimes it gets some interesting remarks from the tower! <g>

There's nothing like measuring and observing something to find out what's really happening! 

This is true on a tricyle gear airplane as the prop is basically 90 degrees to the ground.  This effect is NOT observed in taildraggers. In taildraggers, the only position that gives any air movement is INTO the wind.  Also, there are serious prop-stress issues which result when doing runups at ANY angle other than directly INTO the wind in a taildragger.  Stay directly INTO the wind in a taildragger.

Walter Atkinson
Advanced Pilot Seminars

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

An interesting exercise.  I’ve never even thought about questioning the position of the airplane during run-up.  Sorry it's taken so long to react, but I've been trying to get those crow feathers out of my mouth. 

Now that the guessing game is over, and you’ve described the observation in more detail, we can be creative in trying to explain it.   You’re attributing the relatively high pressure inside the “donut” shaped flow stream aft of the blade and relatively low pressure inside the cowling as being the driving force- sounds good to me.  So anything that disrupts the high pressure side or low pressure side would have an affect on the cooling flow through the cowling.  The air cooling flow path through the engine compartment looks pretty restrictive making it more sensitive to these disruptions.

You described that there is essentially no meaningful air flow through the engine compartment when there is an angular component to the wind. This suggests to me that the low pressure area at the outlet of the cowling is being disturbed causing a pressure rise under the plane.  I suppose it might be due to the acceleration of the wind between the ground and the bottom of the fuselage mixing with the prop blast - a ground effect!  With the plane positoned at 180 degrees, the geometry of the fuselage and the prop blast would divert the wind around the fuselage without disrupting the air flow under the plane close to the prop.  Also, I do take exception (although can’t prove it) to the idea that the relative wind at the prop tips is being affected enough to cause an increased pressure.  The wind is being disturbed by the local prop blast reducing the effect on the relative wind.  I think the increased cooling over the 360 degree position would be more because when heading into the wind there is a relative wind effect reducing the lift capability of the prop. This in turn reduces the high pressure somewhat aft of the prop.  (Just some more guessing.)

Have you been able to observe the localized effect of the wind around the cowling outside of the cowling using a smoke generator or some other technique?

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

Barry:

**You described that there is essentially no meaningful air flow through the engine compartment when there is an angular component to the wind. This suggests to me that the low pressure area at the outlet of the cowling is being disturbed causing a pressure rise under the plan**

We don't think so.  We think the loss of airflow while angled to the wind is form the loss of the circumferential shape of the high pressure area.  In that case, the air movement is *across* the nose of the airplane instead of into the cowl inlets.

Smoke doesn't work.  Too turbulent.  Only the tufts seem to give us much data we can study!

Walter

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

In studing shedding vortices off an airfoil, velocity profile measurements can be made using a laser test setup in a lab and using other fluids. This would be difficult to model properly.  However, can this kind of research ever be justified to see what's going on?  Does anyone care?

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

Barry:

Intersting point about the lasers.  I guess the real issue is bang for the buck.  Probably not worth the effort or expense.  This is one of those deals where we've gained 95% of the improvement with a moderate effort.  Getting that last 5% would cost huge efforts and money and probably would not be worth it. 

Oh, well ? ! ?

Walter

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

lycoming recommends having an oil temp of at least 180* to boil off the moisture that is present in the oil. This moisture will eventually lead to corrosion inside the engine. Using the kits will allow the oil to reach that temp. They also say that the hottest oil in your engine is 45* hotter than where the oil temp probe is at. 180+45=225* hot enough to boil the moisture away. I work in Chicago and during the winter oil temps will not reach that temp without the kits. I personally trust a major manufacturer over a homemade test with many variables

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: winterization kit

Nate:

**lycoming recommends having an oil temp of at least 180* to boil off the moisture that is present in the oil.**

This true and very good advice.  BUT don't do it in such a way that the cylinders are negatively impacted.  Simply place a strip of duct tape over a small portion of the oil cooler until the oil temp. runs where you want it.  But, a winterization kit that creates hot-spots and will negatively impact your top end is not the optimal way to achieve the desired result.

** I personally trust a major manufacturer over a homemade test with many variables.**

That's an interesting remark.  Would it affect your assumptions if you knew that the manufacturuer has never run these tests themselves or that the test I referenced which you called "homemade" was an FAA approved scientifically controlled study which has resulted in more than one FAA approved STC?  If you think the OEM knows more about this.  You would be mistaken.  Several OEMs have come to us for this knowledge.

Walter

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Board Info

Board Stats:
 
Total Topics:
6045
Total Polls:
1
Total Posts:
16356
Dormant:
User Info:
 
Total Users:
2556
Newest User:
d575757@yahoo.com
Members Online:
0
Guests Online:
3367

Online: 
There are no members online

Forum Legend:

 Topic
 New
 Locked
 Sticky
 Active
 New/Active
 New/Locked
 New Sticky
 Locked/Active
 Active/Sticky
 Sticky/Locked
 Sticky/Active/Locked

ankara escort ankara rus escort ankara escort bayan ankara bayan partner ankara escort kizlar escort ankara ankara escort ankara eskort ankara escort bayan ankara bayan partner ankara escort kizlar escort ankara