Reusable oil filter

Snowflake said:

"How far each O-ring sticks out" is not a measure of how effective the seal will be.

Click to expand...

I'm not an expert in the field by any measure. Having said that, let me give you an example: when I installed the Tempest I got more or less a full 360 turn from initial contact of the seal with engine block till the filter was properly torqued. Not sure if Champion is any different in that aspect?
Why did Tempest and Champion design their filters with a big, fat, sticking out seal and not a fancy tiny quad ring?

Just completed my third oil change with the S-15. O-ring looked to be in new condition. I put it on just barely past hand tight and have had no issues yet. Maybe some of the issues are due to being over-tightened?

scsmith said:

You are correct if in fact you pull perpendicular to the wrench. My observation is that people often don't. They tend to pull perpendicular to the 'line of action'. See post #286. Its a minor point either way.

Click to expand...

Yep. With the 24" wrench and 3" offset of the example above, it's in the 1% range as you mentioned, which has to be within the tolerance range of torque for the fastener... So whether people pull perfectly straight or not, doesn't really matter. What casual users get wrong is that they hear someone who has done the math say "you can use a torque wrench with a crow's foot" and assume that means it can be inline with the torque wrench. *That* could cause a serious error.

Great discussion on the topic though, I had to go to my whiteboard and draw it out too, just to make sure I had the free body diagram right.

glider_rider said:

I'm not an expert in the field by any measure. Having said that, let me give you an example: when I installed the Tempest I got more or less a full 360 turn from initial contact of the seal with engine block till the filter was properly torqued. Not sure if Champion is any different in that aspect?
Why did Tempest and Champion design their filters with a big, fat, sticking out seal and not a fancy tiny quad ring?

Click to expand...

Maybe cost? I expect the X-rings are more expensive (but I admit I haven't checked). Also, I would expect the x-rings require more precision in the mating shapes. That's easier to ensure with a one-piece machined aluminum block than with stamped and crimped together pieces of sheet steel.

Gentlemen, with all due respect, in this case an oil ring debate is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

DanH said:

Gentlemen, with all due respect, in this case an oil ring debate is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Filter Test Results

The results are in. Previous organizational thread here: https://vansairforce.net/threads/oil-filter-testing.223689/ Please support and thank our many individual donors, and our two vendor sponsors, Barrett Precision Engines and CamGuard. There are many interesting details, and research...

vansairforce.net

Click to expand...

Not really DanH... the results of the tests are not really surprising. Just one look at the S15 element suffices.

I also reported my experiences with that filter element here, and underlined the fact that no trace, as minute as they were, of metal was ever found since using the reusable. And this in opposition to when I was still using standard paper filters, when I always found minuscule amount of metal. Proof is in the pudding

Now speaking cost... I fly around 365 hours a year, and that equals to 7 filter changes. Yes, a year... for those flying some meagerly hours in that same year, the paper filters may well cost $100 a piece and it wouldn't matter much

And as a last remark, Lycosauruses have only been equipped with proper filters for a few dozen years. Remember the screen? My bet is that they were more permeable than the reusable filters we are talking about.

So, ummm, anybody want to buy an S-15?

Dan 57 said:

I also reported my experiences with that filter element here, and underlined the fact that no trace, as minute as they were, of metal was ever found since using the reusable. And this in opposition to when I was still using standard paper filters, when I always found minuscule amount of metal. Proof is in the pudding

Click to expand...

I'm a little slow sometimes. What does it prove?

Dan 57 said:

Not really DanH... the results of the tests are not really surprising. Just one look at the S15 element suffices.

I also reported my experiences with that filter element here, and underlined the fact that no trace, as minute as they were, of metal was ever found since using the reusable. And this in opposition to when I was still using standard paper filters, when I always found minuscule amount of metal. Proof is in the pudding

Now speaking cost... I fly around 365 hours a year, and that equals to 7 filter changes. Yes, a year... for those flying some meagerly hours in that same year, the paper filters may well cost $100 a piece and it wouldn't matter much

And as a last remark, Lycosauruses have only been equipped with proper filters for a few dozen years. Remember the screen? My bet is that they were more permeable than the reusable filters we are talking about.

Click to expand...

I'm left wondering the implications for those of us who are limited in flying time currently but still religiously change their oil every 4 months. Do I really need a new $50 filter every 4 months even though I've only put maybe 10 hours on it? Debating changing filter every other change, if I ditch the S15.

DanH said:

What does it prove?

Click to expand...

It "proves" that simple visual observations were now corroborated by lab testing...

YellowJacket RV9 said:

I'm left wondering the implications for those of us who are limited in flying time currently but still religiously change their oil every 4 months. Do I really need a new $50 filter every 4 months even though I've only put maybe 10 hours on it? Debating changing filter every other change, if I ditch the S15.

Click to expand...

Good question. The capacity values from a 4548-12 test offers good clues. Go back and look at the posted numbers. The Tempest and Champion filters required 17.9 and 25.6 grams of test dust to push them to 10 psi deltaP. That's a lot of dirt.

Unposted detail...in fact, the Tempest would hold 14.39 grams before the deltaP rose 1 psi. The Champion held 21.82 grams at 1 psi.

Point is, a key feature of depth media filtration is the ability to hold a lot of garbage before going to bypass. The idea is not so much the ability to extend filter changes, but rather, the ability to remain in the air while the engine reduces itself to ground up metal bits.

If i were running one of these only 10 hours between oil changes, I would not change the filter.

Actually had a discussion with the lab folks regarding a test to determine how long we could run a decent filter. For an engine in good condition, it's more than 50 hours; consider how many hours you run a filter on your car. However, in the end we decided it was moot. Very expensive test, no good way to account for variations between engines, and there is too much value in cutting a filter for content inspection every 50 hours.

Dan 57 said:

It "proves" that simple visual observations were now corroborated by lab testing...

Click to expand...

The screen filters don't catch any significant quantiity in the required range as defined by ARP1400, specifically more than 90% of 40µm particles and more than 75% of the 25µm particles.