Wes, looked like this operator had different results:Quote:
Originally Posted by WLIU
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...02LA181&akey=1
Printable View
Wes, looked like this operator had different results:Quote:
Originally Posted by WLIU
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...02LA181&akey=1
Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Downey
Sorry I should have been more clear. Its not uncommon for 2 cycle oils to have both dispersents and detergents. There are other detergents besides metallic ash, and the EPA does not control any of the metallic ash anyway.
My reference is my employer, and unfortunately as much as I would love to send you internal reports, I cannot.
Marty,Quote:
Originally Posted by martymayes
Notice how much was added? Nobody really knows. However it is a sure bet it was well in excess of the 100:1 ish ratio typically used. Mixed at 100:1 there is no octane reduction outside of normal parameters....that has been tested. However mixed at 25:1 you can loose 3 or 4 points of octane and affect AFR. My guess is that the oil was mixed way to heavy, and perhaps was poured into only partially full tank, and not mixed well causing it to be pulled into the fuel system. Thats the only way I could explain the fuel actually feeling oily downstream.
I'll stick with my original opinion that nothing will happen when you add a quart of 2 cycle oil to your aircraft engine oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Novak
Mind telling us what you do for a living? we won't care who or where you work.
Me? I'm simply an old A&P-IA that has had a few engines apart and knows what he sees.
Hi Tom,
Sure I work for Mercury Marine in the engineering department, if you are into boating then you might recognize the name. Im not trying to argue with anyone, I just have the privelage of having access to a pretty nice materials labratory, experts in the field of lubrication, and have been able to do some real testing. Just trying to share what I have learned and know....nothing more.
What we know is that an engine failed and the fuel was contaminated with Marvel Mystery Oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Novak
Ok, so really nothing. From a failure analaysis perspective those 2 facts are pretty worthless. There just isnt any data there to support anything one way or another. Unfortunately half-done failure reports like that do nothing but add confustion.Quote:
Originally Posted by martymayes
back in my day of sailing and operating an atomic 4 gas engine, sticking valves were a problem. using mmo in the fuel solved the problem. the stuff worked!
my o-360 lyc went 3,150 hrs on the hobbs using mmo. valves, comps, cylinders, oil consumption, were fine. the cam lifter started making metal.
my new o-360 has 950 trouble free hours using mmo in the fuel and oil. to me it is like vitamins, i take them, i feel good and my vital signs are good. each to his own.
Attachment 1773
This is the same hype as power steering fluid which is just hydraulic oil. Type F transmission fluid has been used for years as an upper valve lube when mixed with gas and that's all MMO is.
All anecdotal and hunch. I consider MMO a solvent or sludge fighter - "hot supper" in a bottle. Didn't I read somewhere three other ingredient are pig fat, perfume, and dye? Dad was Army Air Corps WW2 and growing up I saw even he limited use of it to ground-based equipment that was pretty tired or experiencing treatable ailments... never for the life of machine/vehicle. Usually when something was pretty far gone, rough idle, sticking valves, coming out of negligent storage, etc and sometimes it did provide, like an antacid but likely opposite mechanism, some relief of the problem. When poverty forced me to pick up cheap neglected used cars and high time planes, I did the same, with the same occasionally helpful results postponing the "try to fix it or just junk it" decision. But on those occasions (gone forever?) when I could afford pure fun cars/aircraft/inboards I could also usually afford Camwhatsit so that is what I'd add beginning after breakin - just to vehicles getting infrequent use (like boats and classic cars). No substitute for nor supplementation needed to good quality clean oil in everyday use. Even when the usage analysis programs in my newer GM stuff driven exclusively highway in warm climate tell me oil doesn't need to be changed for 40 or fifty thousand miles or more. I change the first load at 500 miles and then wait for the signal or a year, whichever comes first.
As long as I have been flying, the myths and legends surrounding Mavel Mystery Oil are ever present.
This much is true: MMO is not an approved additive for fuel or engine oil in any type of certificated aircraft engine. Period. For experimental aircraft, you can use it by the gallon but you have entered the realm of the true test pilot. Good luck with that.
As with prescription drugs, their is no such thing as an additive without side effects. Remember Mobil 1 oil for aircraft? It had lots of engineering behind the product but still was causing lots of problems. Do you really know what MMO is doing inside your engine, oil or fuel? If you have some very expensive engineering data for us to review, please share. Otherwise, the wonders of MMO are right up there with Yetti sightings.
As others have suggested, fly your aircraft often and change oil and filter every 25 to 50 hours. Use an approved aircraft engine oil. Many engineers and oil companies have examined and tested these products for their use as specified. Can you say that for MMO?
M. Young
i know some bonanza owners who swear by the stuff. those engines have terrible valve issues but using mmo they reach tbo. hmmm.
Hmmm, I guess if one is running some just before the oil change (as some suggested) it would be good to get the gunk out; otherwise I suppose the thought would be to free it up to go through the oil filter.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosiejerryrosie
M. Young asks if you can say that Marvel has been tested? And of course it has, by over 90 years of widespread use by airlines, military, and other owners, in the field in real use,not just by boffins.
If it was likely to do any harm that would be apparent by now, and I have never heard of even one engine damaged by Marvel oil.
Mobil 1 is a different case, it looked good in the lab, but that was over a relatively short time, not decades of actual use. And Mobil 1 was to totally replace normal engine oil, not just be a small volume addative.
Just curious, does anyone know what was in Mobil 1 that caused the problems? I have never known for sure, but think they rushed it onto the market. It seems to work well in cars, doesn't it? other than some leaks reported.
Can one be sure that Marvel is doing good,is worth the small amount of money? No, not anymore than taking some extra vitamin B and C when you might be getting a cold is proven.
As far as claiming that Marvel is not approved for use, I have never heard anyone from the FAA make such a statement or discourage use of Marvel.
I am a Bonanza owner who uses it in the fuel of my Cont TSIO 520-UB, in which I had major exhaust valve trouble in the past. So far no valve trouble yet, did have a cracked cylinder. I try to use it especially in cold weather, it was recommended by my overhauler. And using Marvel does not change or affect oil changes, do them same as before. I can't say that I expect to reach TBO with or without Marvel. The Bonaza is a fine plane, but many Continentals have had more valve problems than Lycomings. I had one cylinder with zero compression, the exhaust valve actually was missiing a piece like a slice being cut out of a pie.
As for Rosie writing, as "gunk sitting in the bottom of your crankcase", I don't think so. Anyone who is using a modern ashless dispersant engine oil is probably going to have a pretty clean engine, without a lot of "gunk" sitting anywhere. And if you have a full flow paper type oil filter, ( you should) that is going to remove impurites pretty well. And some people call A D oil, "detergent" which is wrong, there hasn't been any detergent in airplane engine oil made in years, since the 50s. These people may also call mineral engine oil, "non detergent", which is factual, but silly, they might as well call mineral oil, "non mustard" or "non vodka", since it also doesn't have these, but then neither does A D oil.
MMO was developed in the 1920's by a guy who designed and built carburetors, to make Marvel carburetors work better. presumably, without harming the engines those carbs were mounted on. just a wild guess here, but if one is using a Marvel carb then using the additive developed by the guy who designed the carb might make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood
http://www.marvelmysteryoil.com/index.php/site/about/
who still uses Marvel carbs today?
http://www.msacarbs.com/
http://www.kellyaerospace.com/carburetors_charts.html
http://www.airpowerinc.com/productca...t=13&mfgid=AVS
etc etc etc
yes. not what was in it, what wasn't:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood
http://www.avweb.com/news/news/182891-1.html
M.Young,Quote:
Originally Posted by COMM114
In fact there are many engineers at engine companies that have tested the materials that are in MMO and their function in an engine. Simple stoddard sovents and mineral oils make up the bulk of chemicals sold to clean varnishes from fuel system components, clean intake valves, etc etc. There really is no mystery in MMO, and thats what I always stress to people. See it for the chemicals it contains, and use sound logic to determine its usefulness. The engineering data you ask for is in the hands of every oil company and engine company out there, however as you know it rarely ever leaves the doors of engineering. There are business legal issues with an engine company saying you can run additive XYZ unless it is either sold uder their own label, or there is some performance specification ( API, SAE, JASO, ASTM etc ) that they can specify.
Holy crap, anyone want to buy a bridge!
A good sales man can sell anything to anyone who does not need what they are selling. Even if it is the best stuff ever made for everything. LOL! Change your oil at the times specified and you won't go wrong.
Question for EAAbip ? You say "change your oil at times specified and you won't go wrong". What does that have to do with Marvel oil? Nothing on the Marvel can or in any literature that I have ever seen or even heard about has anything to do with not changing the oil at specifies times. I have never read or heard of an owner who says he is not changing oil because he is using Marvel. So I think that idea exist only in your head. If you don't like Marvel that is fine ,but don't try to set up a case against them on some bogus boogey man.
And as far as your "won't go wrong" , that is nonsense. While oil changes a normal 25 or 50 hour interval is a good practice, it alone does not make an engine failure proof. I have had exhaust valve failure and turbo failure in my Cont TSIO 520 despite regular oil change, both before I used Marvel and I use it in the fuel, not the oil.
And as for as "a good sales man can sel anything to anyone who does not need what they are selling" , who is the "good sales man" in you tale? I haven't seen Marvel hawking its product at EAA or elsewhere. It is carried by independant dealers ,but it don't see the type of over claims that other products have.
I agree with everyone regarding the efficacy of this product, it is like anything a person is "Sold", a good product if it didn't do any harm to alter one's opinion! On the other hand, one individual mentioned Camguard, and that is indeed a good product with the appropriate testing and results to prove same. It's designed, among other things, to protect parts such as cams from rusting when engines aren't run on a regular basis, which is true for many of us. This is particularly true of Lycoming's where the cams are only lubricated when the engine is running, hence the oil drains off when they sit allowing the potential for rust to develop. My last real job (I volunteer at the Frontiers of Flight Museum, Dallas, TX) was with Superior Air Parts, so understand the problem and how Camguard is a good solution, and yes it's in my Comanche's O-540! Also, never heard one engine shop ever suggest MMO was a product they would recommend anyone use!Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Delene
60 Post, wonder if anyone's mind is changed :D
I've used that stuff for decades (regularly) in numerous air cooled engines including a number of aircraft over many hundreds of hours, did it help? no idea, did it hurt anything? no real idea there either, my use was only as an upper cylinder lube though.
I doubt it. I know I do not use it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Blue Chips
Based on what a few mechanics have told me, one of the few uses I would try if needed is for a sticky valve. Fill the cylinder with MMO and pull the prop through to push the MMO against the valve and create a hydraulic lock; let it sit overnight and flush. The solvent aspect of MMO will sometimes fix this problem.
Tim
I would find a new mechanic....Quote:
Originally Posted by tspear
I've some personal stories and opinions about so called "Certified" aircraft mechanics, same with "Certified" instructors as well as "Certified" parts" that are not in the least comforting and certainly "Certified" is not all that it is cracked up to be and certainly not all bad either. With regard to the use of MMO, considering the decades of use in countless types of engines by countless individuals with no history whatsoever of causing any failures/damage and countless of those that felt it is helpful that it would be a very reasonable, almost singular conclusion to consider it safe to use in spite of the fact it has not gone through any aircraft certification process. This is not my recommendation to use MMO but my own personal sentiment about the product.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1600vw
I used to have a goal to see what was the best mile Per gallon I could get with this Harley I owned and the MPG clearly increased with it's use in test runs. About the only negative aspect ever mentioned about MMO is that it didn't seem to help.
My comment was not about MM oil but about any mechanic who wants someone to flood the cylinders with anything and cause a hydro lock situation, and to solve a stuck valve problem. I myself like the product and have seen it do some amazing things. I have posted this info before and others just walked over everything I said. I dropped it.
But here is a personal, I saw it with my own eye's type of thing I did with this stuff.
I rebuild the axle in a couple trucks. I had all the old axle grease setting for about 6 months in an open container. One day I decide to drain this container and get me a funnel. I stick the funnel in a 50 gallon barrel and pour this fluid into the funnel. It plugs right up and would not drain. If you ever dealt with axle grease its stinks and I did not want to touch it at all.
I let it drain on its own for about 2 hours and I still had a full funnel. I then grab a drip oil can you use to oil things around the house and shop and dripped TWO drops on top of this greasy sludge. It instantly started flowing, it flowed so fast it made the tornado effect in this grease. After the funnel drained it took seconds I poured more of this sludge into the funnel. It plugged up again and would not flow. I took the oil can and put Two drops on top and again it just took off and again made the tornado effect. I drained all that axle grease in just a few mins. To this day it amazes me.
Tony
B-C,Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Chips
I think people can be divided into 3 groups on just about any subject, explaining why internet research is futile at times.
A) people that have little/no understanding of "WHY", and are easily swayed by marketing.
B) people that have limited understanding of "WHY" and distrust all marketing thinking they know better.
C) people that have a complete understanding of "WHY" and use that knowledge to make decisions.
Most people that think they fall into "C", are actually in the "B" group. Few in "A" or "B" will listen to "C", However "A" people will trust a "B". The largest and loudest group is "B". Quietest, smallest, and most seldom heard from usually is a "C" (Mostly because they get tired of group "B" arguing with them) .
LOL, not sure what you are saying but I disagree hahaha
Tony (1600vw),
That is quite interesting on the gear sludge flow.
Those are the type of reports that are beneficial, regardless of the product.
Ken
I have found that many mechanics have some prejudices for or against products or procedures. Sometimes they may know and sometimes not. Think of it like this; if you went to the doctor for a knee pain, would you just take a quick solution or would you want to get a fuller explanation. My doctor showed me my xray, and I can see the thinner than normal cartildge due to years of ski racing and running. We discussed how to deal with it, that certain injections may help, with no real side affects and that I certainly don't need any major surgery soon. I have given up running the annual Boulder- Boulder 10k, too much impact. So Iknow what why and how, not just a quickshot opinion. If the mech tells you something ask why, and it should be a better reason than, "I don't use it". If he doesn't use it, or never has how does he know one way or the other. Also a lot of mechs are not airplane owners, may not be pilots and may not fly anything. I recently went to the NWOC with some of the top pilots in the country and a panel of 6 of the top engine builders, 2 for Merlins, 2 for radials, and 2 for Allisons. Someone asked about the use of CAMGUARD and it brought sort of a blank look to everyone's face on the panel. No one really knew anything except they were generally against it. One of the radial engine guys was even from the SAME TOWN where Camguard is made, yet he was a blank. Not one of these guys had even tried it, probably had not read up on it. I had asked the same question at an earlier meeting, with the same blank looks. And you can bet that virtually no one really does a full and fair test of any additive or probably any oil. By that I mean take 100 new engines, run 50 of them to TBO on one additive and 50 without it and monitor the results with oil analysis and teardowns. Or take a fleet of say Barons and run one engine on one oil and the other on another type. No one even comes close to what would be scientific knowledge, provable, repeatable knowledge. What there often is really is only educated guesses and often more guess than education. In one airplane that I fly the struts in the landing gear can leak as they wear and the seals are hard to find and it takes some major work to replace a seal. I read about an additive, Granville strut seal and asked around. Mechs and owners virtually all gave it a thumbs down, but since they had not used it they really didn't know what they were talking about. So we tried it, very little to lose, it cost $75 and only took an hour to service both struts. AND IT WORKED! Now all the experts said when a seal is worn out you have to replace them. Not so fast, Granville will not repair a seal that is torn or cracked but if the seal is just old and has dried out and shrunk it softens and expands the seal and you can gain another year or so of good service and certainly wait till the annual to replace the seal.
Ive been using it for years. I had a lifter out of prime on my 2006 GMC truck. Solved the issue but I have to add more every now and then.
The A&P who did the annual on our old club Fly Baby started out as a mechanic on Northwest Airlines Constellations. He told me to use MMO on my Fly Baby's Continental to help forestall valve problems. And I have, for the past 30+ years.
Oh, and it has kept the hangar clear of elephants, too.
I posted a story of my old A&P to the Fly Baby web page:
http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/legacy.html
Ron Wanttaja
Actually, Kinner service bulletin #130 recommends the application of Marvel-Oil as a valve stem lubricant to extend the life of valves guides.Quote:
Originally Posted by COMM114
Best,
HT & V
I added some to the crankcase of an old Dodge pickup in storage at another state. The engine would run, but not pull a load. I suspected lifter problems after troubleshooting the ignition system. After 20 minutes at a high idle, the truck ran like a top. The solvent will eventually burn off leaving only the engine oil. Normally, I don’t use it, but i always have some onhand for those times of need.
I’ve also had a friend use it in an IO-520 with a noisy lifter. Cured the issue.
Not only Kinner. Technical bulletins from American Cirrus and Continental ( for the A-40 ) suggest the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by high time cub