new engine

new engine

Hi.
I am about to have a new engine installed in my 182 and I have a couple of questions.
1)Break in, the manual I received quotes (The engine receives a run-in operation before leaving the factory. therefore, no break-in schedule need to be followed. Straight mineral oil ( MIL-C-6529 Type II) should be used for the first oil change period  (25 hours).
2) are TCM magnetos the same as  Bendix?
Branko

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

Re: new engine

Fly the airplane like you would normally - but it would be best to take it on a  couple hour cross-country.  Just maintain a nice temperature range and it should be fine.. TCM magnetoes are Bendix with a different name..

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

Re: new engine

Most engines will be fully broken in by 5 hours--many times by 3.5 hours run time.  It is not necessary to run mineral oil.  That is an OLD wives tales from the 30s and is no longer valid.  It simply won't go away.  The last 30 or so engines I have broken in were all done with whatever oil the owner wished to use for the TBO run.  I do not use mineral oil at all.  It breaks down under heat sress quicker than AD oils do.

I would try to run high power and very rich for a few hours (if LOP is possible on the given engine, I do the entire breakin LOP). Change the oil and filter at 5 hours and again at 15 more hours then go to the regular intervals.

Walter Atkinson
Advanced PIlot Seminars

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

Re: new engine

> I would try to run high power and very rich for a few hours (if
> LOP is possible on the given engine, I do the entire breakin
> LOP). Change the oil and filter at 5 hours and again at 15 more
> hours then go to the regular intervals.

Hi Walter

I'm confused. If I read this correctly, either very rich or very lean (if LOP possible - e.g. fuel injected engine) are both OK.
Am I misunderstanding something if I assume that either extreme is OK but in the middle is not OK? I have been running in new rings & valve on one cylinder (0300D) and I was told by the engine rebuilders to lean to 1375 EGT, but not to run too lean or too rich.

Thanks

Tony
C-GICE

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

Re: new engine

Tony:

The purpose of the breakin is for ONE activity.  To seat the rings.  This is best accomplished under high mean pressures and low temperatures.  High mean pressures equate to high HP.  Low temps are found either LOP or very ROP; not in the middle!

LOP ops are much cleaner than very rich operation.  If LOP is an option on the engine, high power LOP breakin best satisfies the requirements of high pressures and low temps.  The second best option is high power and very rich operation.

As I said, the last 30 or so engine we have broken in have all been done at very high power, LOP with whatever aviation oil the owner wishes to use for the TBO run.  It keeps the engine cool and seats the rings in about 3.5 hours and the AD oil does a better job of keeping the particles in suspension so they drain out with the oil.    Change the oil and filter at 5 hours; again in 15 more, and then on the regular interval.  DONE.

Walter Atkinson
Advanced Pilot Seminars

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

Re: new engine

> The purpose of the breakin is for ONE activity.  To seat the
> rings.  This is best accomplished under high mean pressures and
> low temperatures.  High mean pressures equate to high HP.  Low
> temps are found either LOP or very ROP; not in the middle!

Thanks very much. It's a lot clearer now.

Tony

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

Re: new engine

Thank you very much Walter
I hope to have the plane ready in about a week and thats the procedure that I will follow

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

Re: new engine

I have a non-technical question regarding Walter's advice. 

Suppose something goes wrong with the engine due to something unrelated to the piston rings.  Now you go to the manufacturer and he finds you weren't using mineral oil and didn't follow his recommendations.  Can that invalidate his warrantee?

What do we do, in general, if we believe we have a sound technical basis for doing something, but it is not accepted by the manufacturer?

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

Re: new engine

<<Suppose something goes wrong with the engine due to something unrelated to the piston rings.  Now you go to the manufacturer and he finds you weren't using mineral oil and didn't follow his recommendations.  Can that invalidate his warrantee?>>

THAT is a very good and reasonable question.  I don't think using mineral oil is all that bad.  It's just that if you have the choice, AD oil is a more scientifically valid choice for the reasons given.  If the warranty is an issue and the builder insists on using mineral oil, by all means do what will make him happy.  In the process, know WHY you are doing that.  It's not because there is any scientific validity to his Old Wive's Tale advice.  It's the warranty!

We are finding the more scientifically knowledeable engine shops are no longer advising the use of mineral oil for breakin.  Five of the top shops which have attended our classes are no longer requiring the use of mineral oil and some are not using it at all any more.  They've seen the data.

Old Wive's Tales are like snakes.  They take a  lot of killin'. <g>

Walter Atkinson

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

Re: new engine

I just had 4 new cylinders installed and have been using mineral oil currently have 20 hrs since top overhaul. Another AD advised not to use AD due to the fact it would glaze the cylinders and therefore would have to be honed. He advised to use nothing but mineral oil .. I was using philips 20w 50 multigrade (mineral oil) but really couldnt tell him if it was truely mineral oil.. so I quickly purchased aeroshell mineral oil and changed the oil. Later I found out that the philip was also break in oil (mineral oil)

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

Re: new engine

Barry:

*Another AD [did you mean IAs?]  advised not to use AD due to the fact it would glaze the cylinders and therefore would have to be honed. *

This is the kind of foolishness that keeps these OWTs circulating.   Glazing occurs from high heat on an oil that is in the process of breaking down from that heat.  Mineral oil breaks down and therefore glazes at a LOWER temperature than AD oils.  What's the problem during breakin?  HEAT, right?  If he's worried about glazing, he should NEVER recommend mineral oil!

"A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth."

Even though that's a quote from Adolph Hitler, it seems very appropriate as a source of OWTs in aviation.  Ask these *knowledgeable*, old IAs for some data to support their statements.  They won't have any data on this topic I assure you.  They're just repeating what they've heard from some other uninformed expert.

'Tis a puzzlement how these things keep alive in the face of the scientific data to the contrary.

Walter

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

Re: new engine

Some years back, I tried to break in a C-90 with chrome cylinders. I opted to use Detergent oil.. It turned out to big mistake.. The cylinders glazed and they had to be removed, deglazed/honed.. That was a costly mistake and quite a lot of extra work.. I have replaced many Lycoming 0-540s with factory remans and used the factory recommended, non-detergent oil.  I have never had a ring seating problem. So Wives tale or foolishness - it is still not a risk I am willing to take.  I will stick with Non-detergent for break-in.  What is the big deal. It is just as simple to use it for 25 hours -switch over, and press on.  I don't ever want to go through that deglazing thing again.....Another thing - if I have a problem with the new factory reman and the tech rep shows up for warranty - I don't want to lie about what oil I stuck in it.......

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

Re: new engine

Jack:

I can certainly understand your trepidation about making a change based on your experience.  It is, however, very important to assign the correct cause of an event to the real source.  There have been MANY more glazed cylinders while using mineral oil than when using AD oil.  The secret is not letting the cylinders get so hot.  THAT is what caused the glazing problem, not the oil. 

If it's the oil, how do we explain the number of cylinders that need re-honing which have used mineral oil??  It's the heat.  I make an effort to make recommendations based on the science. If the AD oil is the problem, then why have we not had a single glazed cylinder in the last 40 or so engines we have broken in using AD oil?  It's the heat.  Keep it cool.  It's in the science.  The Ad oil keeps the particles in suspension better and is more heat reisistant.  There are two good reasons the science says that it is a better choice.

If you wish to continue to use mineral oil in the face of data to the contrary, please feel free to do so.

Walter Atkinson
Advanced Pilot Seminars

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

Re: new engine

I feel compelled to insert my nickels worth in on the subject.I just spent around 750.00 each for Millenium cylinder kits for my 150K,The instruction sheet enclosed in each box(all identical of course) specifically stated to use mineral Oil for the first 50 hours.My mechanic told me that this was to be the case even before reading up on the new cylinder kits.
The break in went flawlessly,and my compressions are excellent.
Wives tale or not,Im going to go with whats proven,and from where Im sitting the mineral oil is indeed the correct way to go.

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

Re: new engine

*  Wives tale or not,Im going to go with whats proven,and from where Im sitting the mineral oil is indeed the correct way to go.*


That's fine.  No problem.  Now, ask for some scientific DATA to support that recommendation.  So far, no one has presented ANY.

Please send us some DATA. ("We always did it that way," doesn't count!)

Where this comes from is the 1920's when the purty of mineral oil was better than the early attempts at *newer* multi-grade oils.  Those days are past and the current aviation oils are now far superior to mineral oil.

My data comes from the oil companies who make both mineral and AD oils.  I'm told by one petrolium engineer that the ONLY reason his company even makes an aviation mineral oil any more is the OWT demand to use it during break-in!!!!

My intention is not to force anyone away from anything, but only to inform with science-based information.  Again, take this information and do as you please with it.  Use it, or ignore it.

Walter Atkinson
Advanced Pilot Seminars

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

Re: new engine

You convince Lycoming to put it on paper - then I will switch without question... I know Lycoming is stubborn to changes but so are a lot of old mechanics.. I've never seen an oil company change a cylinder yet - because it glazed... so if I am left holding the bag, I will do what has worked for me in the past.....I do not knock your quest for educating the uneducated. Actually, I commend you for your knowledge and patience to keep us all posted....Jack

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

Re: new engine

* stubborn to changes *

"Tain't it the truth?  <g> 

That brings to mind what happened in 1927 when my grandmother and her father were sitting on the porch listening to the radio and heard that Lindy had landed safely in Paris.   My great grandfather wandered off into the front yard saying, "Ya know, Babe," he mused while looking up at the moon, "one day a man will walk on that."

He became the laughing stock of Tuscaloosa, Alabama for that comment. He passed away long before July 20, 1969, but my grandmother called me that night to tell me that her father had been vindicated when Neil took that "one small step!"

"New ideas are often ridiculed until they become common knowledge, then the response is, 'sure, everyone knows that.'"

Something to ponder.

Walter Atkinson
Advanced PIlot Seminars

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

Re: new engine

Some people still believe using butter on burn is the right thing to do, even though it is absolutely one of the worst thing to do!

I'm sure every body knows at least one (OWT)!

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

Re: new engine

Walter:

One thing you have overlooked is the fact that FAR43.13 (a) specifically says "Each person performing maintenance, alterations, or preventive maintenance on an airacraft, engine, propeller or appliance shall use the methods, techniques and practices PRESCRIBED IN THE CURRENT MANUFACTURERS MAINTENANCE MANUAL".  This is a federal Regulation.  It doesnt matter how much data you have to support your theory, if the manual says to use mineral oil for break-in, a mechanic would have no other choice but to use it.  He could not deviate from the manufacturers manual based on your data. 

Until the manufacturers change their manuals there is no choice!!!

Sal

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

Re: new engine

Good thing the engine can't read

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

Re: new engine

I don't know about you, but I'm glad Orville and Wilbur didn't have the FARs to contend with.  We'd all still be walking.

I had no idea that the FAA knew everything.  Hmm?  If that's the case, why are they coming to us to learn about detonation?  Why are they coming to us to learn about the effects of timing?  Why are they coming to us to learn about the effects of ThetaPP on durability?

Maybe you should tell them that they already know everything and don't need to learn anything new.

Me?  I'm going to keep on teaching them.  They've already asked me to review all of the piston engine test questions on all of the FAA airman and mechanics tests and correct the questions they have wrong.  So far, I've found about a dozen questions that need fixing.  Why have they asked this?  Well, the FAA guys who write the tests, came to our seminar and decided that they had a lot wrong and it needed to be fixed.

I guess I'll just call 'em back and tell 'em that you said that FAR 43.13 (a) prohibits any improvement in their knowledge.

Walter

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

Re: new engine

Walter, Sure, FAR 43.13 was written by the FAA, but the FAA did not write the engine maintenance manuals.

I too, followed the old wives tale and used mineral oil for the first 50 hours. 600 hours later, my compressions are excellent. For the price of a top end, I'd rather not test your theorys on oil.

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

Re: new engine

Walter:

FAR 43.13 (a) has nothing to do with the FAA improving their  knowledge about detonation, effects of timing, and effects of ThetaPP on durability of piston engines.  It is a federal regulation, a LAW that governs how mechanics are to perform maintenance.  Improving knowledge on the above items would take place when and if the manufacturers change thier manuals to reflect the theorys you are informing us about.  Until that happens we as mechanics have no choice but to comply with the current manufacturers manuals per the LAW. 

The FAA needs to change alot of test questions on piston engines and you can certainly help them do that.  But  test questions are not federal regulations.  Any violation of a regulation will result in consequenses to the mechanic.  The first question asked by any FAA inspector is "did you follow the manufacturers maintenance manual as required by 43.13? 

Reguardless of how you or anyone else feels about using mineral oil, if the manual says to use it, the mechanic must do it.

Sal

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

Re: new engine

It seems that the mechanic is stuck! 

What sort of motivation does the Engine manufacturer have to make this change? Are they having a significant problem with cylider glazing that is imposing on them?  If it did I garantee they would be studing the best oil to use and which one provides the most margin.  It cost them to make such a change.  Can't you hear the manufacturerers' management, that's just an "enhancement" and not a necessity, mineral oil works just fine for so many years. We've got high priority problems to solve...

One would hope that a better performing engine and satified customer would be in their best interests.  But if you do not have enough competition, then why bother updating your manual if something they are doing now seems "adequate" even though it's not the very best thing for the engine?  It's also not bad for the engine.  Continual improvement is a necessity if you are in an industry that has a lot of competition.  It seems the reality for the GA industry is, "if it isn't broke don't fix" it is a good enough philosophy.

WE as pilot / owners are the ones that have the most to gain and the most to lose.  A $20K loss means something to me.  If I operate under part 91, I am aware that I can specify a replacement part for my plane and IF an AP agrees, he can fabricate a replacement part and instll it legally with a log entry.  So why can't I specify a better break in oil, show the data to an A&P  and have them "decide" that it's at least equivalent to mineral oil.  No, I've nearly convinced myself this is not a legal issue, I think it's a liability issue for the mechanic that makes this deviation.  Suppose the engine siezes in the first 5 hours, for a manufacturer's defect and the manufacturer want's as many insurance companies involved so they can share the blame.

Do I have this wrong?

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

Re: new engine

It is not a legal issue. It is not a regulatory issue. Aircraft maintenance manuals are NOT regulatory unless certain airworthiness limitations sections of those manuals are list on the TC data sheet.

Sal did not tell the whole story. FAR 43.13 (a); Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propellor, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturers maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, OR OTHER METHODS, TECHNIQUES, AND PRACTICES ACCEPTABLE TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, EXCEPT AS NOTED IN 43.16.

§43.16 Airworthiness Limitations.
Each person performing an inspection or other maintenance specified in an Airworthiness Limitations section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness shall perform the inspection or other maintenance in accordance with that section, or in accordance with operations specifications approved by the Administrator under    Parts 121,   
123, or    135, or an inspection program approved under   
§91.409(e).

Very few of our general aviation aircraft usually discussed in this forum have a limitations section in the maintenance manual, and even if one did, the limitations sections do not address procedure, just limitations on time life items, and inspection intervals.

Just because a manufacturer says something is mandatory doesn't make it so. You DO NOT have to comply with manufacturers "Mandatory" service bulletins, unless your compelled to perform by an FAA regulation. An example would be if an AD referenced a service bulletin, or operators flying 121 or 135 would be required to comply with manufacturers mandatory SB's on engines , props, and appliances, and sometimes airframe SB's.

In this particular discussion, and the type engine and airframe discussed above, it is the operators decision to use the oil of choice. There are many other areas in general aviation that owners, operators, and mechanics still enjoy freedoms to use our experience and intelligence to do things better.

Technology comes first, then someone writes about it, then it gets regulated. Todays cutting edge truths will become tomorrows OWT's, and regulations sometimes, manytimes, do not get revised to reflect our new found knowledge.

FOR REFERENCE ONLY

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:
2547
Newest User:
bbrs18@comcast.net
Members Online:
1
Guests Online:
1303

Online: 
bbrs18@comcast.net

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