Scott Hersha
Well Known Member
I didn’t buy any because I already had two, but it said “straight nipple” on the packaging. You’re probably right, but might be worth a check. Next time I’m there I’ll buy one and find out - they were pretty cheap.
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Filter Test Results
- Thread starter DanH
- Start date
No. Here are the particle counts for the entire test...which does not last long. Data is usually recorded every 10 minutes, but the tech terminated this run when the deltaP rise (lower left) indicated it would not make it to 20 minutes without bypass opening.
Your assumption about dirt loading causing an efficiency increase is common. I too found it surprising, and asked the lab director about it. With a constant displacement system, rising deltaP forces more trash through whatever openings remain available. One theory says there is probably some filter media distortion also, releasing trash.
The numbers don't lie. It's a truly terrible filter.
Interesting to compare the Challenger and the S-15. Challenger claims 22 µm filtration for their "aircraft filter", but there is little performance difference.
Funny, but if you try to use that MERCH75 code, you get this. 
"MERCH75 discount code isn’t valid for the items in your cart".
But if you put the oil filter in your cart, you get this message..
"MERCH75 discount code isn’t valid for the items in your cart".
Scott Hersha
Well Known Member
K&P has them for $25(!). The best way to get one is to just pull one off a used Campion or Tempest like I did. I’m going to check with the two local shops at my airport and pick up a couple more used filters. I’m narrowing down my replacement filter for my S-15. I really don’t want to keep running my engine with that ……. whatever it is - doesn’t seem to be a filter at all. So far, it seems like the WIX 51624 / NAPA Gold 1624 might be a good candidate. Of course testing could prove otherwise.
Bill Boyd
Well Known Member
Don't want to derail this excellent thread. Have we discussed the why of 4-month / calendar-based oil changes irrespective of hours flown? I'd like to understand what possible legit reasons there are for this - the actual chemistry and physics. If we haven't hashed it, I can start a new thread to do so. If we have, I'd appreciate a link.
Thanks, and carry on...
Thanks, and carry on...
Start a new thread please.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
“Merchandise” in this context is sweatshirts and mugs…. we used to call it “SWAG”.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Agree. And the resulting part is even “specifically engineered” to work, so there’s one less thing for the forum to debate. That said, I flipped mine around so the short side is locked in the housing and therefore not subject to wear and tear during filter changes. The resulting “long side” is far longer than required to achieve 100% thread engagement in the filter base. Not an issue if one has the firewall clearance, but I’m going away from my normal ”shortie” 1068 in favor of a slightly longer can and I may have to shorten the long side a bit. Something to consider for anyone who is looking to use this part in a tight clearance situation.
JonJay
Well Known Member
Nobody wants to touch it, as, I suspect few adhere to this. I have been wrenching for 30 years, had many different mentors, and never heard of it, even though it is right in plain sight.
Bill Boyd
Well Known Member
I'll start a new thread on this specific question, Jon. Let's not clog this one.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Though I quoted Dan‘s post, and he’s relaying Lycoming specs, this is to the group at large:
I’ve overseen plenty of proof testing of hydraulic system installations on military aircraft over the years and we typically “proof” to 150% of operating pressure. With the above I’m wondering 2 things-
— Why the 400% safety margin?
- What real world conditions, even the wildest edge case, would allow a Lycoming to get anywhere near that value in flight?
The reason for this question is to explore the last possible objection to the use of an “automotive” filter.
erich weaver
Well Known Member
so clearly the Challenger and K&P suck all across the board. What I don’t understand is why would their filtering be consistently WORSE (as in zero) for the larger particles compared to the smaller particles?
Prior post: https://www.vansairforce.net/threads/filter-test-results.226033/#post-1760906
More on that subject later.
Today's Wow Moment.
Filters arrived back from the lab, so I cut them open.
Champion:
Tempest:
Wix
They all look new, right? Nope. The Champion stopped 25.6 grams of dirt. The Tempest stopped 17.9 grams. The Wix stopped 22.4 grams. There was dirt in the cans, and in the remaining oil, but the elements themselves, although loaded with so much dirt that deltaP had gone to 10 psi, looked perfectly clean.
The lesson is obvious. When we cut filters and visually inspect, we might see metal bits and chunks of carbon, but that stuff is huge in the context of filtration. What we can't readily see is very large amounts of dirt in the 5 to 100 µm range.
There was some oil remaining in the cans, as all three filters have an anti-drainback provision. While bouncing around in a freight truck, the oil rinsed some dirt off the surface of the elements, which settled out in the cans. This is the Wix can; the Champion and Tempest were similar. Sure, this is visible, but consider how much must still be in the element. Recall this was a 22 gram dirt load.
Filters arrived back from the lab, so I cut them open.
Champion:
Tempest:
Wix
They all look new, right? Nope. The Champion stopped 25.6 grams of dirt. The Tempest stopped 17.9 grams. The Wix stopped 22.4 grams. There was dirt in the cans, and in the remaining oil, but the elements themselves, although loaded with so much dirt that deltaP had gone to 10 psi, looked perfectly clean.
The lesson is obvious. When we cut filters and visually inspect, we might see metal bits and chunks of carbon, but that stuff is huge in the context of filtration. What we can't readily see is very large amounts of dirt in the 5 to 100 µm range.
There was some oil remaining in the cans, as all three filters have an anti-drainback provision. While bouncing around in a freight truck, the oil rinsed some dirt off the surface of the elements, which settled out in the cans. This is the Wix can; the Champion and Tempest were similar. Sure, this is visible, but consider how much must still be in the element. Recall this was a 22 gram dirt load.
Last edited:
Canadian_JOY
Well Known Member
I'm wondering, since you have these filters open, if there's any worth in capturing for posterity the pleat count and translating that to total filter media surface area?
I’ll take a stab at summarizing our multi-level engine health monitoring that occurs at an oil change.
Engine Screen: Every 100 hours; big chunks; internal engine parts breaking; immediate troubleshooting required
Oil Filter inspection: Every 50 hours; visually sized debris; normal up to increased engine wear; start to diagnose if over xx amount
Caught in oil filter: Every 50 hours; very small stuff; No way to verify except by using quality filter; Protection against friction wear and oil contamination
Oil Analysis: Every 50 hours; microscopic engine wear particles; type of particulate provides indication of wear; long term trend monitoring
Engine Screen: Every 100 hours; big chunks; internal engine parts breaking; immediate troubleshooting required
Oil Filter inspection: Every 50 hours; visually sized debris; normal up to increased engine wear; start to diagnose if over xx amount
Caught in oil filter: Every 50 hours; very small stuff; No way to verify except by using quality filter; Protection against friction wear and oil contamination
Oil Analysis: Every 50 hours; microscopic engine wear particles; type of particulate provides indication of wear; long term trend monitoring
Scott Hersha
Well Known Member
WOW is right…. All that dirt is NOT being held by the two “cleanable” oil filters. Did I say filters?
Media area would be one factor in dirt capture, but the composition of the media would probably have a larger impact.
That said, I should point out a detail. Note the length of the two tested aircraft filter elements compared to the Wix 51515 element. A Champion/Tempest 48109, same as the 48108's but with a longer element, would be a more direct comparison. I would expect the longer 109 filters (i.e. more media area) to demonstrate more dirt capacity before hitting 10 psi deltaP.
Put another way, I picked 108's and the 51515 because they are the most common, not because they would exhibit the absolute best performance in class. 109 or 111 aircraft filters, or one of the new synthetic media auto filters would be better.
Interesting point - did the testing lab say what filter they have tested that is the "best they have seen?" Or is this confidential information?
Good question. The lab operates on strict confidentiality. I was welcome to look around, and I could ID many clients from the labels on the boxes, but discussion of specific performance is prohibited for any filter other than the client's own submissions. We could talk about generalities, screens vs depth media, for example, and the latest synthetic depth medias apparently perform well. The well-regarded ultra efficiency Caterpillar filters were an obvious favorite, as they are used for clean up on some of the lab equipment. They are rated 6 to 12µm absolute, the term "absolute" meaning Beta 75, or 98.67% efficient...but they darn sure won't fit your RV.
Pilot135pd
Well Known Member
That was the first thing I looked for too when I read this thread.
Like the above, visually clean, Challenger element below. However, a detail. The lab guys are, as you might expect, curious about things....and they have equipment at their disposal we can only dream about. In this case, one of the gentlemen decide to do some micro photography to measure the openings in the screens. At this time I don't know if he washed the element in any way, so for this one, view with the caveat in mind.
Before you ask, yes, he told me his conclusion, but it was unofficial. I hope to confirm independently, and if so I'll let you know. The knowledge would not change any conclusion previously discussed here.
This is interesting. The picture of the Challenger element looks *exactly* like the K&P S15; I thought they were different (i.e. Kitplanes, 10-15-2022, "A Permanent Solution" - Paul Dye, ref. "Challenger told us that their filters are manufactured to their specifications (by K&P) with a screen rating of 22 microns.")
I wonder if they allowed their specification to drift, or it was B.S. all along? I know that the screen for the FLO PCS4 is much larger than the S15, that was evident when I did a side/side comparison of the two a while back. (attached)
A moot point -- going to throw them both in the trash.
B
Go back a few posts and compare the performance, S-15 vs Challenger.
Both are sub-par performers. Even so, I would have expected the Challenger to perform *much* better than the S15 given the claimed sizes (22uM vs 35uM); some 37% better...
After thoroughly enjoying the last few hours reading this thread ,after I recently installed the reusable K&N filter I would like to hone in on the ultimate recommendations. I ran with the CH48110-1 for years (it was what the A&P installed who built my ECI 0-360 kit engine), and switched to the Tempest version with the magnetic capability to trap metal particles a few years ago. I have the ECI 90 deg oil filter adaptor which I have no idea if it has a built in bypass or not and apparently the CH48110-1 does not have a bypass capability, should I go for the WIX 51515 ($8 on amazon), the WIX 51647 ( $19.37 on Amazon), or stick the Tempest version of the CH48110-1 (generally around $50). My motor has been good for almost 1000 hours and I would like to keep it that way 
.
Sometimes ignorance is bliss, time for wine
Figs
.Sometimes ignorance is bliss, time for wine
Figs
From the WIX website there are three variations on the 51515 cellulose media in different lengths. The 51515XP is a synthetic media.
51515 - 5.197”
51068 - 4.338”
51521 - 3.790”
The specs on theses three should be the same; however, the shorter versions have a better chance of needing to bypass a clogged media and the 51515XP is a different media.
This is from a MOPAR Forum.
51515 - 5.197”
51068 - 4.338”
51521 - 3.790”
The specs on theses three should be the same; however, the shorter versions have a better chance of needing to bypass a clogged media and the 51515XP is a different media.
This is from a MOPAR Forum.
Attachments
Last edited:
I ran with the CH48110-1 for years (it was what the A&P installed who built my ECI 0-360 kit engine), and switched to the Tempest version with the magnetic capability to trap metal particles a few years ago. I have the ECI 90 deg oil filter adaptor which I have no idea if it has a built in bypass or not and apparently the CH48110-1 does not have a bypass capability, should I go for the WIX 51515 ($8 on amazon), the WIX 51647 ( $19.37 on Amazon), or stick the Tempest version of the CH48110-1 (generally around $50). My motor has been good for almost 1000 hours and I would like to keep it that way
First things first. The goal is to get the right filter, so find out if you have a bypass built into the adapter.
pjc
Well Known Member
I have the adapter with the integrated bypass and have been using the WIX 51258 for several years with excellent results In place of the specified Champion 48103.
Some additional detail here
NAPA 1515 Gold oil filter
"owwwwwwwww, somebodies closer" I bought a 1515 oil filter today to size up on my 8A. I have an airwolf remote mount that is on the lower starboard side of the firewall, the 1515 is about 1.5 inches too long, is there an equivalent napa filter to the 1515 that is 1.5 to 2 inches shorter that I...
vansairforce.net
One might question the 345 psi burst pressure spec, but I figure if the filter sees 345psi, I’ve got bigger issues than the filter can leaking.
YMMV
Peter
So how can I tell, is there some external indication? I do not have a ECI specific engine manual only Superior and lycoming.
Roadjunkie1
Well Known Member
And what about the filter receptacle on the engine itself; i.e, no adapter needed. Do Lycomings have built-in bypass valves?
I imagine James Ball at Titan-Continental could tell you. They bought ECI.
The standard Lycoming "receptacle" is a filter adapter (replaced a screen housing). The horizontal filter adapter does have an internal bypass and uses a 48110 or 111 filter (no bypass in the filter).And what about the filter receptacle on the engine itself; i.e, no adapter needed. Do Lycomings have built-in bypass valves?
Walt
Well Known Member
Just a note: the SAP adapter does not have a bypass and uses the 48108
Excellent Walt, thanks.
Adapter list. So far we have:
Lycoming horizontal w/ 3/4" thread: Internal bypass, use 48110 or 48111 aircraft filter. Subject to field experience and possible test, Wix 51647 and equivalents, no bypass inside the filter.
Superior Air Parts: No internal bypass, use 48108 or 48109 aircraft filter. Many users report good operating experience with Wix 51515 and equivalents. The filter's internal bypass setting is a bit low for the aircraft application.
B&C BC700: No internal bypass, use 48108 or 48109 aircraft filter. Many users report good operating experience with Wix 51515 and equivalents (Napa Gold 1515 is common). The 51515's internal bypass setting (8 to 11 psi) is a bit low for the aircraft application.
Continental Titan: No internal bypass, use 48108 or 48109 aircraft filter, or Wix 51515 and equivalents. See above.
Airwolf Universal Lycoming Homebuilt Kit AFC-K001: No internal bypass, use 48108 or 48109 aircraft filter, or Wix 51515 and equivalents. See above.
Casper Labs: No internal bypass, use 48108 or 48109 aircraft filter, or Wix 51515 and equivalents. See above.
ECI Titan: No internal bypass, use 48108 or 48109 aircraft filter, or Wix 51515 and equivalents. See above.
Good work everyone.
Last edited:
Many WIX (now owned by Mann) are still manufactured in the 'Merica! Though you need to read the actual canister to see for sure. The 51258 is still made in USofAEverybody needs to watch this video...Where do our filters really come from??
db1yg
Well Known Member
ECI Titan: TBD
Per the Eci Service Instruction No 03-2 Rev 4 (2007).
"The Eci angled oil filter adaptor requires use of a filter with an internal bypass valve such as the CH48109 or 48108."
Please note that this "Instruction" was prior to Eci's purchase by Continental. However, more recently (two years ago) I took delivery of a Continental Titan IO340 with their angled adaptor--it also came with the CH48108 filter. I would conclude that the older Eci and newer Titan adaptors do not have a bypass.
Cheers,
db
Per the Eci Service Instruction No 03-2 Rev 4 (2007).
"The Eci angled oil filter adaptor requires use of a filter with an internal bypass valve such as the CH48109 or 48108."
Please note that this "Instruction" was prior to Eci's purchase by Continental. However, more recently (two years ago) I took delivery of a Continental Titan IO340 with their angled adaptor--it also came with the CH48108 filter. I would conclude that the older Eci and newer Titan adaptors do not have a bypass.
Cheers,
db
RVbySDI
Well Known Member
Figs, I imagine you have the same adapter as I do from ECi. I use the Tempest 48108 mentIoned. i will call James Ball tomorrow and see what he has to say about It but I also think I will call Bobby Looper. He was instrumental in building and testing the ECi IO340 I am flying. I expect he will know defintively.
I was told at SNF that JB just retired!
Thought for the day.
I see a rush to Wix filters, but remember, it's still early in the game. We now know a lot about the current 51515 (aka NAPA Gold 1515). Most of the Wix alternates should offer similar performance, for example a 51647 for those who need a filter without a built-in bypass, and prefer a higher burst pressure rating. But consider; we should also look at the 51515XP, a Wix synthetic media filter. Or perhaps a Donaldson P551132, suggested as a candidate by one of our more knowledgeable folks. It too is a synthetic media filter. Take a look at the synthetic element below, courtesy of a regular on the Bob is the Oil Guy site. It's different.
There is yet much to learn. Things like can strength and bypass pressure really matter. I just cut three filters back to back, and you better believe the Wix 51515 can is thinner.
Point is, don't fixate on just one choice just yet. And if you're not sure about alternates, screw on a Champion or Tempest and be patient.
I see a rush to Wix filters, but remember, it's still early in the game. We now know a lot about the current 51515 (aka NAPA Gold 1515). Most of the Wix alternates should offer similar performance, for example a 51647 for those who need a filter without a built-in bypass, and prefer a higher burst pressure rating. But consider; we should also look at the 51515XP, a Wix synthetic media filter. Or perhaps a Donaldson P551132, suggested as a candidate by one of our more knowledgeable folks. It too is a synthetic media filter. Take a look at the synthetic element below, courtesy of a regular on the Bob is the Oil Guy site. It's different.
There is yet much to learn. Things like can strength and bypass pressure really matter. I just cut three filters back to back, and you better believe the Wix 51515 can is thinner.
Point is, don't fixate on just one choice just yet. And if you're not sure about alternates, screw on a Champion or Tempest and be patient.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
I've long used the 1068 (AKA the "shortie" 1515) but am going to evaluate the 1647.
On the Rocket, I have a tight fit between the end of the can and the firewall, but still ample clearance with the longer 1647 once seated. The question remaining was if I could fit the filter between the firewall and the long nipple AND start the threads. Yes, as it turns out - just fits. I was prepared to shorten the nipple, so I counted the turns to completely disengage the old filter and it was 6 full turns. I counted the can base and it is 4 threads, so the unmodified nipple has plenty of engagement and could have been cut down if required.
Bottom line: the longer can of the 1647 (and 1515) fits my Rocket. Next oil change I will install the 1647 and fly it. Not sure there will be anything to report after that unless there is a catastrophic failure. But I'm going for it.
On the Rocket, I have a tight fit between the end of the can and the firewall, but still ample clearance with the longer 1647 once seated. The question remaining was if I could fit the filter between the firewall and the long nipple AND start the threads. Yes, as it turns out - just fits. I was prepared to shorten the nipple, so I counted the turns to completely disengage the old filter and it was 6 full turns. I counted the can base and it is 4 threads, so the unmodified nipple has plenty of engagement and could have been cut down if required.
Bottom line: the longer can of the 1647 (and 1515) fits my Rocket. Next oil change I will install the 1647 and fly it. Not sure there will be anything to report after that unless there is a catastrophic failure. But I'm going for it.
My neighbor (who is not on VAF) reached out to Lycoming this morning about the Challenger oil filters. Here was their response -
Hello XXXXX,
Internally at the factory, the Challenger filters were evaluated to determine suitability for operation in our test cells to reduce waste since they are reuseable. During this evaluation it was found that the Challenger filters did not filter down to the particulate level that a Champion or Tempest filter will however, it did perform better than a pressure screen for particulate removal. Based on these findings if the Challenger filter is installed, I recommend performing oil changes earlier than the 50 hours recommended by SB480F for spin on type filters.
Thank you,
Brandon Dildine
Field Service Technical Representative
Lycoming Engines, an unincorporated operating division of Avco Corporation
[email protected] +1 570-327-7279 or +1 877-839-7878
Hello XXXXX,
Internally at the factory, the Challenger filters were evaluated to determine suitability for operation in our test cells to reduce waste since they are reuseable. During this evaluation it was found that the Challenger filters did not filter down to the particulate level that a Champion or Tempest filter will however, it did perform better than a pressure screen for particulate removal. Based on these findings if the Challenger filter is installed, I recommend performing oil changes earlier than the 50 hours recommended by SB480F for spin on type filters.
Thank you,
Brandon Dildine
Field Service Technical Representative
Lycoming Engines, an unincorporated operating division of Avco Corporation
[email protected] +1 570-327-7279 or +1 877-839-7878
Pilot135pd
Well Known Member
That kind of seals the fate of those filters for me. One less item on my "Improvements To-Do" list.
And additionally from my neighbor’s communication with Lycoming -
“The Challenger filter is not currently a Lycoming approved PMA part. As for PMA certification details, I recommend contacting Challenger or the FAA for details on what requirements they had to meet for PMA status. We evaluated the Challenger filters but due to the reduction in filtering ability led us to not pursue using them in the factory. CubCrafters uses them on their X Cub and NX Cub with the IO-390-D3B6 and probably a few other models. I have not had any negative reports from CubCrafters or operators using this type of filter about its ability to filter. Personally, I do Like the design but would operate on a reduced oil change interval if installed.
Thank you,
Brandon Dildine”
And from his communication with Challenger -
Thank you for reaching out to Challenger Aviation.
After reviewing the information presented, it appears this unauthorized test has no verifiable information. There is no lab name listed, no testing variables nor are there parameters of how these results were determined. From what we can see, there is a partial summary of a full report that will not be released. Therefore, Challenger will not be making a statement regarding the test referenced.
Our Challenger Aviation Products, FAA/PMA certified filter went through rigorous testing upon receiving our STC approval. As we are sure you are aware, that information is proprietary per the FAA requirements. However, if you would like to see what type of data is collected for that certification process you can find it at the following link.
Our certified aviation oil filter has been flying since 2006, with only minor changes made in 2009. We have had wonderful feedback from the pilots in the field flying our certified aviation oil filters.
As far as the non certified aviation oil filters being referenced, we have no response as we do not promote nor encourage the use of non aviation certified filters for use in any aircraft, certified or experimental. The K&P S15 oil filter is not certified for use in any aviation applications.
Thank you again for your inquiry.
Heather Rocco
CEO/Co-Owner
Challenger Aviation Products, Inc.
“The Challenger filter is not currently a Lycoming approved PMA part. As for PMA certification details, I recommend contacting Challenger or the FAA for details on what requirements they had to meet for PMA status. We evaluated the Challenger filters but due to the reduction in filtering ability led us to not pursue using them in the factory. CubCrafters uses them on their X Cub and NX Cub with the IO-390-D3B6 and probably a few other models. I have not had any negative reports from CubCrafters or operators using this type of filter about its ability to filter. Personally, I do Like the design but would operate on a reduced oil change interval if installed.
Thank you,
Brandon Dildine”
And from his communication with Challenger -
Thank you for reaching out to Challenger Aviation.
After reviewing the information presented, it appears this unauthorized test has no verifiable information. There is no lab name listed, no testing variables nor are there parameters of how these results were determined. From what we can see, there is a partial summary of a full report that will not be released. Therefore, Challenger will not be making a statement regarding the test referenced.
Our Challenger Aviation Products, FAA/PMA certified filter went through rigorous testing upon receiving our STC approval. As we are sure you are aware, that information is proprietary per the FAA requirements. However, if you would like to see what type of data is collected for that certification process you can find it at the following link.
Our certified aviation oil filter has been flying since 2006, with only minor changes made in 2009. We have had wonderful feedback from the pilots in the field flying our certified aviation oil filters.
As far as the non certified aviation oil filters being referenced, we have no response as we do not promote nor encourage the use of non aviation certified filters for use in any aircraft, certified or experimental. The K&P S15 oil filter is not certified for use in any aviation applications.
Thank you again for your inquiry.
Heather Rocco
CEO/Co-Owner
Challenger Aviation Products, Inc.
Last edited:
Lycoming's "it's better than a pressure screen" statement pretty much confirms for me that the thresholds of FAR compliance were low in the original STC.
ds
"Unauthorized test"? What would the response be to UL testing? Could go further point-by-point but why bother. Choice of such defensive defensive wording says a lot, at least to me.
Ahhh - so you wish to denigrate the testing that was performed outside of your "authorized" control, but you also will not release the testing results of your own.
Got it.
I call BS.
Defensive and data free -- this reads like a CEO in denial about their companies future.
Me thinks they won't be selling their OEM'd "filters" much longer. Maybe T-shirts and other "Merch" tho...
