mtv wrote:

AKJurnee wrote:

mtv wrote:Yeah, a memo from 1946....and concerned about a little lead in 80/87 fuel....


MTV

Then you needed to be a bit more specific in your last post.

But I do agree that Camguard is approved and I use it with good results.

Interesting.....a guy using a skull and crossbones as his avatar recommending use of toxic chemicals.....just sayin, some irony there.

MTV

Clever observation sailor

mtv wrote:Interesting.....a guy using a skull and crossbones as his avatar recommending use of toxic chemicals.....just sayin, some irony there.

MTV

Quote where I said anything about recommending anything? Other then me using Camguard.

You wanted something where a lycoming or continental approved the use of a top cylinder lubricant like mmo. I showed you a service bulletin from continental. Then you condescending state it was from 1946 with 80/87 fuel with very little lead. BTW 100ll has about 4-5 times that level, and we still run small continental A-65 C-85/90’s.

And now you personally attacking my avatar and associating me with condoning of the use toxic chemicals.

You, buddy are the types that run off any potential members or current members.

Well now I'm sorry I started this discussion about MMO, my apologizes to the BCP community

AKJurnee wrote:

mtv wrote:Interesting.....a guy using a skull and crossbones as his avatar recommending use of toxic chemicals.....just sayin, some irony there.

MTV

Quote where I said anything about recommending anything? Other then me using Camguard.

You wanted something where a lycoming or continental approved the use of a top cylinder lubricant like mmo. I showed you a service bulletin from continental. Then you condescending state it was from 1946 with 80/87 fuel with very little lead. BTW 100ll has about 4-5 times that level, and we still run small continental A-65 C-85/90’s.

And now you personally attacking my avatar and associating me with condoning of the use toxic chemicals.

You, buddy are the types that run off any potential members or current members.

I wasn’t “attacking” you, your avatar, or anyone else. Note my use of “emoticons”. If you can’t take a joke or deal with other people’s opinions (emphasis there) then the internet might not be the best place to hang out.

My point was simply that I’d doubt (opinion again) that Teledyne would support that letter today, but maybe.....

In any case, I hope you manage to get that knot out of your undies before it causes permanent damage.

MTV

I love it. Use it or Seafoam, even in engines beyond 1920’s engineering. Keeps high performance 4 - stroke EFI outboards alive much longer too. Pour it over my pancakes even, hadn’t heard of the cancer so better stop that though. But I’d never put it in anything other than an experimental aircraft engine. Ever.

mtv wrote:

AKJurnee wrote:

mtv wrote:Interesting.....a guy using a skull and crossbones as his avatar recommending use of toxic chemicals.....just sayin, some irony there.

MTV

Quote where I said anything about recommending anything? Other then me using Camguard.

You wanted something where a lycoming or continental approved the use of a top cylinder lubricant like mmo. I showed you a service bulletin from continental. Then you condescending state it was from 1946 with 80/87 fuel with very little lead. BTW 100ll has about 4-5 times that level, and we still run small continental A-65 C-85/90’s.

And now you personally attacking my avatar and associating me with condoning of the use toxic chemicals.

You, buddy are the types that run off any potential members or current members.

I wasn’t “attacking” you, your avatar, or anyone else. Note my use of “emoticons”. If you can’t take a joke or deal with other people’s opinions (emphasis there) then the internet might not be the best place to hang out.

My point was simply that I’d doubt (opinion again) that Teledyne would support that letter today, but maybe.....

In any case, I hope you manage to get that knot out of your undies before it causes permanent damage.

MTV

Somebody is easily reached. Mike just put out a low power single ping. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js9-fPNb9Gg

Marvel Mystery Oil - I use it. 1946 Luscombe. If I don’t, I get a valve being sticky every now and again... can’t say anything scientific about it but it works for me - your mileage may vary. Just remember, opinions are like a$$holes, everyone’s got one...

Aah, good old Marvel Mystery Oil--
always good for a spirited conversation.
Wheel landings vs 3-point or mogas vs 100LL, anyone?

hotrod180 wrote:Aah, good old Marvel Mystery Oil--
always good for a spirited conversation.
Wheel landings vs 3-point or mogas vs 100LL, anyone?

Whatever you do, don't ever use MMO if you're wheel landing with 100LL.
I know a guy that heard of a guy that saw a guy wreck his airplane that way.

Should such an untimely event happen what would be the best caliber of rifle for dispatching the injured wing creature or would you recommend a scatter gun for the task

Now.....What about the downwind turn?

Funny stuff... or not.... depending on how tightly you're wound.

There is really not much rocket science to this stuff. Like anything else target a specific mission, do some due diligence in formulating a plan of attack, and if the shoe fits, wear it... or not... I see the OP's question as a good question and valid attempt at following the above, until emotions, sarcasm, and satire,get in the way...

The contents of MMO have been available since the dawn of time, so I doubt anyone is suggesting witchcraft or magic. Users, (such as myself) just prefer not to have to own a distillery to produce something that can be had pretty much anywhere (in a handy carrying case).

Testing and due diligence are things that need to be done in a fashion that actually makes sense with YOUR specific mission. Using someone else's litmus test can be anywhere from a precise fit, to totally meaningless... Including those of the FAA, NTSB, Big Pharma, or Big Aero...

The notion that because something is not FAA approved it can't be good, is so poor of an excuse for an argument that I'm surprised anyone even bothers singing that song anymore? I'm not suggesting we burn the feds at the stake and fly in total anarchy, I'm just pointing out that regs are developed over a long drawn out period of time in a fashion to be as 'stupid proof' to the unwashed masses as possible. Every scenario can't be addressed and somethings will never be approved before a better mousetrap comes along. Doesn't mean the old one didn't kill mice btw... To the best of my knowledge, one of the above posters has had at least two turbine engine failures as a direct result of the use of FAA / PMA'd parts (that's techno lingo for FAA approved). In the company I used to fly for, blades from the exact same supplier on a PT6-34 led to the exact same fate I have no idea what correlation this has to the use of an additive?

Using the NTSB as a data point in this fashion, is almost worse... They are usually VERY good at finding something that went wrong, so good they may find several things that were wrong, or may have contributed to a bad day. Or none at all. But finding out the exact point, in what is generally a whole chain of events that led to a wreck is far more witchcraft than peppermint elixir.... Did the guy that poured the elixir have a dyslexic moment and pour 40oz instead of 04oz? Did he have an engine on the verge of catastrophic failure and not recognizing the situation choose that day to run a good smell through his engine? Who knew? But as we all know, it only takes one catastrophic event to make big enough waves to affect us all.

Lycoming and Continental doesn't approve it? Would this make business sense? In the Pratt and Whitney research posted above, P&W potentially had big 'skin' in that game. Exhausting $9mil on a potentially billion dollar return is a no brainerd... Alternatively
Additives and elixirs have virtually no return for engine makers, while the continuous human intervention requirement, exposes liability forever if they elect to back it. The fact that they approve any additive is almost mind boggling to me. What's more astonishing here? the fact that you can still buy a magneto lit recip, or the fact that that's almost the only way you can buy one? Let's go wayyy out on that limb and say that additive netted an extra 20,000 hrs tbo. Would that make business sense for an engine builder to back?

Do I use it? yes... I use it in bladder equipped airplanes, like another poster suggested to keep the top side of the bladders wet. I realize that eventually the bladders will dry out from the outside, but exposing both sides to dry air (particularly avgas dried air) would only seem to speed that process up to me. Another poster here suggested I pour a little pure avgas on one end of a 2x4, and do the same on the other end with a little MMO in it, then look at the board the next day... I encourage anyone with bladders to do the same... I use it in engines that are prone to lead fouling as it makes a reasonable scavenger at a reasonable price. If you've never had to run a rope down a spark plug hole, these words are probably lost on you... I use it for uses as dog pilot suggested, as it is handy and again more economical than purpose built chemicals. I don't get too wound up when someone snickers when the see a red bottle come out of the plane, and I don't even notice if I don't see one come out of someone else's airplane.

In the end, IMHO anytime you veer off the 'approved' path you are on your own. What a wonderful concept? in some cases it promotes advancement, and in the balance, it promotes Darwinism

Take care, Rob

Rob wrote:Funny stuff... or not.... depending on how tightly you're wound.

There is really not much rocket science to this stuff. Like anything else target a specific mission, do some due diligence in formulating a plan of attack, and if the shoe fits, wear it... or not... I see the OP's question as a good question and valid attempt at following the above, until emotions, sarcasm, and satire,get in the way...

The contents of MMO have been available since the dawn of time, so I doubt anyone is suggesting witchcraft or magic. Users, (such as myself) just prefer not to have to own a distillery to produce something that can be had pretty much anywhere (in a handy carrying case).

Testing and due diligence are things that need to be done in a fashion that actually makes sense with YOUR specific mission. Using someone else's litmus test can be anywhere from a precise fit, to totally meaningless... Including those of the FAA, NTSB, Big Pharma, or Big Aero...

The notion that because something is not FAA approved it can't be good, is so poor of an excuse for an argument that I'm surprised anyone even bothers singing that song anymore? I'm not suggesting we burn the feds at the stake and fly in total anarchy, I'm just pointing out that regs are developed over a long drawn out period of time in a fashion to be as 'stupid proof' to the unwashed masses as possible. Every scenario can't be addressed and somethings will never be approved before a better mousetrap comes along. Doesn't mean the old one didn't kill mice btw... To the best of my knowledge, one of the above posters has had at least two turbine engine failures as a direct result of the use of FAA / PMA'd parts (that's techno lingo for FAA approved). In the company I used to fly for, blades from the exact same supplier on a PT6-34 led to the exact same fate I have no idea what correlation this has to the use of an additive?

Using the NTSB as a data point in this fashion, is almost worse... They are usually VERY good at finding something that went wrong, so good they may find several things that were wrong, or may have contributed to a bad day. Or none at all. But finding out the exact point, in what is generally a whole chain of events that led to a wreck is far more witchcraft than peppermint elixir.... Did the guy that poured the elixir have a dyslexic moment and pour 40oz instead of 04oz? Did he have an engine on the verge of catastrophic failure and not recognizing the situation choose that day to run a good smell through his engine? Who knew? But as we all know, it only takes one catastrophic event to make big enough waves to affect us all.

Lycoming and Continental doesn't approve it? Would this make business sense? In the Pratt and Whitney research posted above, P&W potentially had big 'skin' in that game. Exhausting $9mil on a potentially billion dollar return is a no brainerd... Alternatively
Additives and elixirs have virtually no return for engine makers, while the continuous human intervention requirement, exposes liability forever if they elect to back it. The fact that they approve any additive is almost mind boggling to me. What's more astonishing here? the fact that you can still buy a magneto lit recip, or the fact that that's almost the only way you can buy one? Let's go wayyy out on that limb and say that additive netted an extra 20,000 hrs tbo. Would that make business sense for an engine builder to back?

Do I use it? yes... I use it in bladder equipped airplanes, like another poster suggested to keep the top side of the bladders wet. I realize that eventually the bladders will dry out from the outside, but exposing both sides to dry air (particularly avgas dried air) would only seem to speed that process up to me. Another poster here suggested I pour a little pure avgas on one end of a 2x4, and do the same on the other end with a little MMO in it. I encourage anyone with bladders to do the same... I use it in engines that are prone to lead fouling as it makes a reasonable scavenger at a reasonable price. If you've never had to run a rope down a spark plug hole, these words are probably lost on you... I use it for uses as dog pilot suggested, as it is handy and again more economical than purpose built chemicals. I don't get too wound up when someone snickers when the see a red bottle come out of the plane, and I don't even notice if I don't see one come out of someone else's airplane.

In the end, IMHO anytime you veer off the 'approved' path you are on your own. What a wonderful concept? in some cases it promotes advancement, and in the balance, it promotes Darwinism

Take care, Rob

Good pointsRob. The point is that you are actually thinking.....not just adding.

MTV

Rob wrote:... I use it in engines that are prone to lead fouling as it makes a reasonable scavenger at a reasonable price. If you've never had to run a rope down a spark plug hole, these words are probably lost on you... I use it for uses as dog pilot suggested, as it is handy and again more economical than purpose built chemicals.....

Good post Rob.

Rob wrote:Funny stuff... or not.... depending on how tightly you're wound.

There is really not much rocket science to this stuff. Like anything else target a specific mission, do some due diligence in formulating a plan of attack, and if the shoe fits, wear it... or not... I see the OP's question as a good question and valid attempt at following the above, until emotions, sarcasm, and satire,get in the way...

The contents of MMO have been available since the dawn of time, so I doubt anyone is suggesting witchcraft or magic. Users, (such as myself) just prefer not to have to own a distillery to produce something that can be had pretty much anywhere (in a handy carrying case).

Testing and due diligence are things that need to be done in a fashion that actually makes sense with YOUR specific mission. Using someone else's litmus test can be anywhere from a precise fit, to totally meaningless... Including those of the FAA, NTSB, Big Pharma, or Big Aero...

The notion that because something is not FAA approved it can't be good, is so poor of an excuse for an argument that I'm surprised anyone even bothers singing that song anymore? I'm not suggesting we burn the feds at the stake and fly in total anarchy, I'm just pointing out that regs are developed over a long drawn out period of time in a fashion to be as 'stupid proof' to the unwashed masses as possible. Every scenario can't be addressed and somethings will never be approved before a better mousetrap comes along. Doesn't mean the old one didn't kill mice btw... To the best of my knowledge, one of the above posters has had at least two turbine engine failures as a direct result of the use of FAA / PMA'd parts (that's techno lingo for FAA approved). In the company I used to fly for, blades from the exact same supplier on a PT6-34 led to the exact same fate I have no idea what correlation this has to the use of an additive?

Using the NTSB as a data point in this fashion, is almost worse... They are usually VERY good at finding something that went wrong, so good they may find several things that were wrong, or may have contributed to a bad day. Or none at all. But finding out the exact point, in what is generally a whole chain of events that led to a wreck is far more witchcraft than peppermint elixir.... Did the guy that poured the elixir have a dyslexic moment and pour 40oz instead of 04oz? Did he have an engine on the verge of catastrophic failure and not recognizing the situation choose that day to run a good smell through his engine? Who knew? But as we all know, it only takes one catastrophic event to make big enough waves to affect us all.

Lycoming and Continental doesn't approve it? Would this make business sense? In the Pratt and Whitney research posted above, P&W potentially had big 'skin' in that game. Exhausting $9mil on a potentially billion dollar return is a no brainerd... Alternatively
Additives and elixirs have virtually no return for engine makers, while the continuous human intervention requirement, exposes liability forever if they elect to back it. The fact that they approve any additive is almost mind boggling to me. What's more astonishing here? the fact that you can still buy a magneto lit recip, or the fact that that's almost the only way you can buy one? Let's go wayyy out on that limb and say that additive netted an extra 20,000 hrs tbo. Would that make business sense for an engine builder to back?

Do I use it? yes... I use it in bladder equipped airplanes, like another poster suggested to keep the top side of the bladders wet. I realize that eventually the bladders will dry out from the outside, but exposing both sides to dry air (particularly avgas dried air) would only seem to speed that process up to me. Another poster here suggested I pour a little pure avgas on one end of a 2x4, and do the same on the other end with a little MMO in it, then look at the board the next day... I encourage anyone with bladders to do the same... I use it in engines that are prone to lead fouling as it makes a reasonable scavenger at a reasonable price. If you've never had to run a rope down a spark plug hole, these words are probably lost on you... I use it for uses as dog pilot suggested, as it is handy and again more economical than purpose built chemicals. I don't get too wound up when someone snickers when the see a red bottle come out of the plane, and I don't even notice if I don't see one come out of someone else's airplane.

In the end, IMHO anytime you veer off the 'approved' path you are on your own. What a wonderful concept? in some cases it promotes advancement, and in the balance, it promotes Darwinism

Take care, Rob

That's the first well-reasoned, fact-based rationale I've ever heard for using MMO. I finally understand why someone might want to add MMO to fuel (for the purpose of preserving the life of the fuel bladders).

Personally, I've never seen any scientific testing that shows MMO lives up to any of their claims, but neither have I seen any "well-done" tests that showed it caused harm. There are a few not-so-scientific "studies" that make claims both ways, but in my view, the methodology of those studies leaves lots of room for argument. Seems like the one "sure" way to make your engine last longer is to fly the heck out of 'em!

Now that's an amazing reply, thanks Rob

The argument that neither the FAA or engine manufacturers are likely to approve any additive is, again, a specious argument. As I noted before, Cam Guard is an approved engine additive. So, at least someone is willing to go to through the testing to be “approved”.

MTV

Camguard does not disclose the use of any phosphates that are known nerve agents like MMO.

-0-

dogpilot wrote:If any of you flew radials, you may remember the "Lean Burn Out" we would do from time to time for lead fouling. It does work on flat engines as well.

My radial time is in the single digits. Can you give a cliff's notes version?

Thanks!