Here's something that is being kicked around on our Beechcraft list. 
Someone originally asked about a particular engine additive.  Mike Busch 
(The Saavy Aviator) never heard of it, but someone else did.  Sooner or 
later it will come here, so I thought I'd post it.

"Mose" has a shop in MO., and is a 30 year veteran of Continental Motors on 
it's technical side.  Just want to throw that out for those who like to play 
devil's advocate.  I take this guy's word from experience just as if it were 
the Gospel According To St. Fred.  In other words, save your money.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Moseley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 9:57 AM
Subject: B: Re: AVlube oil additive


> Once upon a time, long long ago, there was an engine additive that was 
> claimed to add hours, less wear, extended valve/guide life, less piston 
> scuffing, longer bearing life, increased libido, decreased hair loss, 
> weight loss, increased muscle mass and a few other things.  Offered up as 
> proof of concept was a test engine that had cylinders that had been 
> operated over 7 gazillion hours and still in new limits, shiny pistons, no 
> oil consumption, etc.
>
> I was ask my opinion once at a seminar where I was a speaker along with a 
> friend of mine, Ben Vissar, the Shell Answer Man ( who I confered with 
> many times on oil and its list of subjects) where the booth for this stuff 
> was. Breakfast came along with my input...
>
> I didn't think it was a valid test of their product because, it was under 
> a very controlled and predictable outcome. They used a test object that 
> has ducted fan cooling, express warm up and cool down guidelines, tightly 
> and highly effecient baffeling that produced very effecient and even 
> temperatures, not subject to near the bending, miss installation issues 
> normally found, cruised at constant, high power, heavy loaded, (which is 
> good), no huge variations in power or rpm so the counterweights were happy 
> all their life, used for radio broadcast everyday, so corrosion on the 
> cam, etc. was a non-issue,  well maintained with oil changes, etc, along 
> with a host of other "perfect engine conditions".  So, in my "opinion" the 
> selection for a test was a "perfect" and "predictable" selection for an 
> excellent outcome.
>
> If a "real" test was conducted by giving it to a host of John Q. Public 
> and their normal "range" of operation was used for a test then results 
> gathered and evaluated would provide more of a legitimate test of the 
> product.  Or, give it to a manufacturer, pay for the runs for 
> certification and testing required for them to bless it and see what it 
> does over the normal certification requirements like, 150 hours of running 
> the engines with all parameters sitting on the red line, cht, oil, rpm, 
> mp, etc. evaluate after teardown and see what it was.
>
> All I am suggesting is to look at the facts, evaluate similiar to what I 
> have said and use your discretion.  Remember this, FAA Approved does NOT 
> mean TCM or Lycoming Approved.  FAA Approved simply means that testing was 
> run to see if there were any ADVERSE affects in most cases, not in support 
> of magical claims of improvements like I described in paragraph 1 above.
>
> Now, not being a chemist or oil engineer, or anything even close, I have 
> noted in 40+ years, issues affecting engine longetivity/performance, that 
> I "thought" might be possible to address with a better lubrication.  Since 
> having been involved early on in CamGuard, Ed seemed to have a good handle 
> on the issues faced by the average aircraft owner and early failures of 
> rust, combustion acids, things engines don't like, etc.  I "think" it has 
> been out long enough for some proof of "it works", so personally, using my 
> own criteria of above, I am using it and selling it to my customers 
> because I think it does work as advertised.  Personal opinion here, but Ed 
> seemed to have a good understanding of issues faced and addressing them in 
> the formulation of CamGuard.  He did his homework.  Time is the best test 
> and I think it is encouraging to see results so far.
>
> mose
>
> Original Message ----- 
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 11:01 PM
> Subject: B: AVlube oil additive
>
>
>> Does anyone know anything about this oil additive? (Mike Busch?) I have 
>> been
>> talking to a shop who swear it has made a big difference to the engines 
>> they
>> service. I recall the discussions about AvBlend and certainly Cam Guard, 
>> but
>> don't recall reading about AVlube.
>>
>> Website is http://www.atc-engines.com/avlube.asp
>>
>> Vancouver BC
>> 77 B55

Reply via email to