X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 20:34:55 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.63] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.10) with ESMTP id 2162905 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 23:35:52 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.63; envelope-from=douglasbrunner@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=rUngg9nJvYe6mlilyeq0xF93HSaLOGgc+K9t1uHQWHFAHi/8DxkH2KUDsUqWFr7p; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [74.93.196.177] (helo=DFWK3391) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1I714m-0004dx-Dj for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 23:35:16 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <003701c7c047$ccbbf6f0$1bd0a60a@DFWK3391> From: "Douglas Brunner" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: oil filters - 21st century preferred X-Original-Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 23:34:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01C7C026.441510F0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-ELNK-Trace: ad85a799c4f5de37c2eb1477c196d22294f5150ab1c16ac0c864d17e3813b99a62c2f70f9abc4a4d575a996cb779f34a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 74.93.196.177 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C7C026.441510F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Robert, I understand the convenience issue, but what is the basis for saying = that the ADC screen traps particles far finer than a paper filter? Have = there been any independents tests, or is this merely a manufacturer's = claim? =20 The reason that I ask is that the company that built my engine (Monty = Barrett) specifically recommended that I use a paper canister filter = rather than a screen because the paper filter would provide better = filtration. I am not saying that the engine builder is necessarily = correct, but I am reluctant to depart from his recommendation without = some good data. There is also a claim made in the advertisement that it provides = additional oil cooling (15-20) degrees. What is the basis for this = claim? What do your oil temps run? D. Brunner ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Lancair=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 1:04 PM Subject: [LML] Re: oil filters - 21st century preferred Colyn, I installed the ADC oil screen and have been very pleased with it. = (See http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/adcsystem.php ). = 100% of the trapped particles are right there on the surface and could = be seen at a glance. It traps particles far finer than a paper filter. = By-pass triggers an indicator lamp and there is provision for a chip = detector as well. And cleaning is a snap.=20 Robert M. Simon ES-P N301ES -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: Colyn Case on earthlink [mailto:colyncase@earthlink.net]=20 Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:48 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: oil filters - 21st century preferred I did a little research on oil filters and discovered that: a) champion bypass pressure differential is below continental spec b) champion particle size is 40 microns which is right at expected = film thickness. auto spec is 25 microns c) in general, much higher efficiency filters are available to the = auto-industry I'm wondering if anyone on the list has experience with better = filters. thanks, Colyn ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C7C026.441510F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Robert,
 
I understand the convenience issue, but = what is the=20 basis for saying that the ADC screen traps particles far finer = than a=20 paper filter?  Have there been = any=20 independents tests, or is this merely a manufacturer's claim? =20
 
The reason that I=20 ask is that the company that built my engine (Monty Barrett)=20 specifically recommended that I use a paper canister filter rather than a screen because the paper filter = would=20 provide better filtration.  I am not saying that the engine = builder is=20 necessarily correct, but I am reluctant to depart from his = recommendation=20 without some good data.
 
There is also a claim made in the = advertisement=20 that it provides additional oil cooling (15-20) degrees.  What is = the basis=20 for this claim?  What do your oil temps run?
 
D. Brunner
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Lancair=20
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 = 1:04 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: oil filters = - 21st=20 century preferred

Colyn,
 
I installed the ADC oil screen and have = been very=20 pleased with it.  (See http= ://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/adcsystem.php ). = =20 100% of the trapped particles are right there on the surface and could = be seen=20 at a glance.   It traps particles far finer than a paper=20 filter.  By-pass triggers an indicator lamp and there is = provision for a=20 chip detector as well.  And cleaning is a = snap. 
 
Robert M. Simon
ES-P N301ES

From: Colyn Case on earthlink=20 [mailto:colyncase@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, = 2007 3:48=20 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: oil filters = - 21st=20 century preferred

 
I did a little research on oil = filters and=20 discovered that:
    a) champion bypass = pressure=20 differential is below continental spec
    b) champion = particle size is=20 40 microns which is right at expected film thickness.   auto spec = is 25=20 microns
    c) in general, = much higher=20 efficiency filters are available to the auto-industry
 
I'm wondering if anyone on the list = has=20 experience with better filters.
 
thanks,
 
Colyn
 
------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C7C026.441510F0--