ATP Seminole Fleet

The flight school I apprenticed at as a mechanic had a Cessna 172N that required the additive, as well as possibly a few others. I remember we bought that additive in bulk and had crates of it stored away, and I did a fare share of filter cutting and additive adding on our 50 hr oil changes.

This seems like a really widely known and complied with AD (so much so that a google search led me to Aeroshell Plus oil, which already includes the Lycoming additive), and I would be really surprised if somebody there didn't know about.

Maybe I'm not fully understanding Lynxman's posts, but is the issue that they were not adding the additive, not changing the oil frequently enough (100 hr not 50 hr) or both?

(EDIT: Or just not showing compliance in the logbooks, like Roger, Roger said?)
 
What is the anti-wear/anti-scuffing additive you're referring to, and why is it important?
The anti-wear/anti-scuffing additive (sometimes referred to by the Lycoming stock number LW 16702) is a supplemental additive required in some Lycoming engines. This additive deters scuffing on the engine models in question, particularly during engine starts. The FAA has required its use in those engine models affected by Airworthiness Directive 80-04-03-R2, paragraph b.1.
Exxon Elite contains one of the two additives approved for this usage. Using an oil that already contains this additive results in a more consistent concentration of the additive throughout the drain interval, and should provide better protection against scuffing and wear than oils that do not contain the additive.
[back to top]






-Exxon Elite has this additive, so I believe they are In compliance. Of course this is an FAA matter so its always open to interpretation.
 
What is the anti-wear/anti-scuffing additive you're referring to, and why is it important?
The anti-wear/anti-scuffing additive (sometimes referred to by the Lycoming stock number LW 16702) is a supplemental additive required in some Lycoming engines. This additive deters scuffing on the engine models in question, particularly during engine starts. The FAA has required its use in those engine models affected by Airworthiness Directive 80-04-03-R2, paragraph b.1.
Exxon Elite contains one of the two additives approved for this usage. Using an oil that already contains this additive results in a more consistent concentration of the additive throughout the drain interval, and should provide better protection against scuffing and wear than oils that do not contain the additive.
[back to top]





-Exxon Elite has this additive, so I believe they are In compliance. Of course this is an FAA matter so its always open to interpretation.

This "anti-wear" additive will also cause your copper and phosphorus to show elevated in any spectrographic oil analysis. I did not like the idea of causing increased wear on some part of my engine to protect another. Eventually I switched to Phillips 20-50 and the elevated copper went away. The Phillips lacks the Lycoming additive that Aeroshell 15-50 and Exxon Elite contain.
 
So does anyone know what is so different about these particular models of Lycoming engines that makes them susceptible to cam/lifter wear? My old flight school ran 172s with the IO-360-L2A on straight W100 or W80 and they made TBO and beyond with no trouble. A pretty much bulletproof engine in my experience. So why are some Lyc's so fragile? Or is it mostly a matter of how often they're flown?
 
So does anyone know what is so different about these particular models of Lycoming engines that makes them susceptible to cam/lifter wear? My old flight school ran 172s with the IO-360-L2A on straight W100 or W80 and they made TBO and beyond with no trouble. A pretty much bulletproof engine in my experience. So why are some Lyc's so fragile? Or is it mostly a matter of how often they're flown?


I've been told that it's because of a shared cam lobe. But I woulden't trust, look a few posts up.:o
 
Back
Top