What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

LOP causing sticky exhaust valve?

jimkwalton

Active Member
Okay I had a new one sprung on me yesterday. If you’ve been following my other thread about loss of power and flat EGT, we’ve discussed fuel flow issues (I removed and cleaned fuel injectors yesterday) and possible exhaust valve sticking.

A mechanic friend said it’s obvious that it’s a sticky valve because I run the engine LOP all the time, not allowing fuel to lubricate the valve!

I was kinda dumb struck on his comment. I have never heard any issues due to LOP mixture control during cruise!!! Now he says it’s the lead in the fuel that lubricates the exhaust valve!!!?!

Am I the ignorant one here? Which I admit that could be the case……
 
Last edited:
Here is a good article that might help answer your question. One point that resonates is that too low on CHTs isn’t good for valve sticking issues. I think it’s safe to say that a lot of LOP operators view low CHTs as sort of a badge of honor. In many cases, the lower the better. This article might make us rethink that assumption. The article mentions a sweet spot of 350-380 that would be a better goal for LOP ops. At least better for avoiding sticky valves. It might be wiser to run a little less LOP and sacrifice slightly more fuel burn to reach these temps.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/july/pilot/savvy-maintance-valves
 
Okay I had a new one sprung on me yesterday. If you’ve been following my other thread about loss of power and flat EGT, we’ve discussed fuel flow issues (I removed and cleaned fuel injectors yesterday) and possible exhaust valve sticking.

A mechanic friend said it’s obvious that it’s a sticky valve because I run the engine LOP all the time, not allowing fuel to lubricate the valve!

I was kinda dumb struck on his comment. I have never heard any issues due to LOP mixture control during cruise!!! Now he says it’s the lead in the fuel that lubricates the exhaust valve!!!?!

Am I the ignorant one here? Which I admit that could be the case……

The EGT is the same at 50F ROP as 50F LOP so that makes no sense.

TEL is abrasive if anything, not a lubricant. Was never designed as such. Your valve stems are lubed by oil and that is what cokes up if the guide gets too hot. CHTs are lower running LOP. That should reduce coking tendency.

There is no fuel present at the exhaust valves. TEL has been changed mostly to lead oxide after combustion- again not a lubricant either.

The mechanic's conjecture isn't supported by facts. We see many folks running thousands of hours exclusively LOP in cruise, no sticky valves. If this was the cause, nobody would get far before they had sticky valves.
 
I really don't think theres a one size fits all answer to what causes Lycoming valves to stick.

Do they sometimes stick if you run lean of peak? Yeah, sure. Do they sometimes stick if you never run lean of peak? Also yeah, sure.

My flying club never runs any Lycoming lean of peak and yet we just had an exhaust valve stick open on a C172 that's less than a year old. Total time airframe and engine was around 400 hours.
 
SNIP
A mechanic friend said it’s obvious that it’s a sticky valve because I run the engine LOP all the time, not allowing fuel to lubricate the valve!
SNIP

Time for your mechanic to go study. This is exactly wrong.

Mike Busch provides instruction on sticky valves:
https://resources.savvyaviation.com...ticles_aopa/AOPA_2020-07_why-valves-stick.pdf

As already mentioned, there is some data to show that too low CHTs are not best for burning in 100LL. I run LOP 95% of the time but do try to keep CHTs above 350.

The most common sticking valves are pilots running full rich all the time (like flight schools). But - I asked a guy that bought an RV what he did with the mixture knob. The blank look was very telling.

Carl
 
There are several other threads talking about why the io390 seems to have a sticky valve problem, and as far as I know, there is no clear answer yet. I hope someone gets to the bottom of it. Perhaps it's time for George Braly and Tim Roehl to have a look at this problem with their engine lab?
 
Typical response from a mechanic that operates off of what they have been told and nothing more. Not factual at all...
 
Time for your mechanic to go study. This is exactly wrong.

Mike Busch provides instruction on sticky valves:
https://resources.savvyaviation.com...ticles_aopa/AOPA_2020-07_why-valves-stick.pdf

As already mentioned, there is some data to show that too low CHTs are not best for burning in 100LL. I
Carl

Sorry but that is Mike just guessing. Yes, he found lead in the build up; So what. The oil is heavilly laden with lead deposits held in suspension, therefore the build up will also include lead. No smoking gun there. Cars ran leaded fuel for decades with CHTs WAYYYY LOWER than our lyc's and stuck valves were pretty much unheard of. If anything, evidence show Mike to be incorrect. The primary difference between the auto world and Lyc is the anemic oil flow through the lifter due to the absence of a bypass passage (instead it relies solely upon bleed through the piston clearance), that has been on every auto lifter since we progressed from the flathead that didn't need this. This starves the rocker box of oil and exh valves need oil for cooling. This lack of cooling causes excess heat and this heat causes the oil to oxidize and become coke inside the valve guide. That is my guess, but let's be clear that they are all just guesses.

The plungers are all hand lapped to a very small clearance (i.e. human variances) and therefore there will be variances in the amount of oil getting past the clearance. This somewhat explains why the sticky valve syndrome is so random. You can have two identical engines run the exact same way. One gets sticky valves and the other doesn't. This also kind of explains why those running higher oil pressures seem to have fewer problems.

I have flown 100's of hours LOP in the winter, where CHTs never get above 300. At 850 hours I did a wobble test and ALL were on the loose side of the clearance.
 
Last edited:
Cyl 2 IO390

I know enough to be dangerous about the issue, but it seems the vast majority of the time for a IO390 (angle valve) it's cyl 2 that gets a sticky valve (If you get one) and that cyl 90% of the time the hottest. It would be interesting (but not conclusive) to those that have had a sticky valve were you running LOP or ROP the majority of the time.

When I run LOP my CHT's run 50 F cooler than ROP.
 
I was told by a guy at a reputable lycoming engine shop who should have known better that running too far LOP would cause the exhaust gasses to "go toxic" and burn the valve. He said it was like adding oxygen to an acetylene flame to cut steel. What?!?!

A lot of explanations for what goes wrong with engines make perfect sense until you think about them.

Ed
 
Probably ironic, but a good friend who has a lot of experience with Franklin engines (OH, WHAT ARCHAICISMS) says it's common knowledge among Franklin engine users, builders and mechanics that the old wives' tale about TEL and valve lubrication is utter cr*p to them. In Franklin engines, due to the relatively low EGTs (probably from low compression ratios) they experience lead bromide deposition and valve sticking, not the other way around.

I was actually a bit surprised to hear his take (vehement) on this, as you might expect antique engine aficianados to be more susceptible to this sort of tale, but the Franklin guys have know this for decades and decades AFAICT.
 
Not sure if Franklin engines are more susceptible for some reason (do they lack valve rotators or something else?)
 
The EGT is the same at 50F ROP as 50F LOP so that makes no sense.

If the EGT is the same why is the CHT different? (The answer of course is that the EGT temperature doesn't matter, it is just an indication of the mixture and what is happening in the cylinder. There's no point in comparing LOP EGT with ROP EGT. On a tangent... is the valve stem temperature closer to CHT or EGT?)

TEL has been changed mostly to lead oxide after combustion- again not a lubricant either.

TEL is supposed to be changed to lead bromide not lead oxide after combustion.

The lead scavenging agent is included in the fuel, so mixture doesn't have a direct effect. What you need is temperature.

The process is roughly:
TEL -> lead oxide -> lead bromide.

The hotter the combustion the faster the reaction occurs and the more lead is converted to lead bromide and the less ends up as the undesirable intermediate products (lead oxide and lead oxy-bromides).

Also, you are trying to remove oxygen from the lead oxide, so it seems likely that excess oxygen i.e. LOP might hinder that reaction. When the heat breaks apart a lead oxide molecule, it is helpful if the oxygen is taken up by e.g. converting CO-> CO2 rather than hanging around as free oxygen that can re-combine with the lead to form lead oxide again.

If LOP is cooler and has more oxygen, the chemistry seems to say that yes, you are likely to end up with more of the undesirable lead oxide/oxy-bromides than with hotter, richer combustion.
 
Cars ran leaded fuel for decades with CHTs WAYYYY LOWER than our lyc's and stuck valves were pretty much unheard of.

Leaded auto fuel had a much lower lead content than avgas.

I think it also had a much higher ratio of scavenging agent to lead than avgas, which caused its own problems e.g. the excess creates an acid which corrodes exhaust systems.
 
Do the TCP slippery lead phospate generators work better or worse or regardless of LOP's excess oxygen? Does it help or hinder the bromides already in 100LL?
 
In Franklin engines, due to the relatively low EGTs (probably from low compression ratios) they experience lead bromide deposition and valve sticking, not the other way around.

In fact, lower CRs increase EGTs due to lower thermal efficiency.
 
More than common sense needed.

I was told by a guy at a reputable lycoming engine shop who should have known better that running too far LOP would cause the exhaust gasses to "go toxic" and burn the valve. He said it was like adding oxygen to an acetylene flame to cut steel. What?!?!

A lot of explanations for what goes wrong with engines make perfect sense until you think about them.

Ed

Well . . . . . fact - modern valves are made with three different materials. The stem, the tulip, and the contact face. Older valves were not made this way. In DanH's post reference you see that the edges of the valve have the highest temp. And some engine exhaust valves were not of an alloy with the highest oxidation resistance at high temps. So, while this is not entirely an unfounded phenomenon, would not be applicable to modern aircraft valves. Low cost engines could have anything that passes a 150 hr test.

I have seen plenty of exhaust valves with a pie shaped gutter cut out of the top from running too hot, including liquid cooled engines.

While the phenomenon is not false, there is little foundation to apply to the Lycomings of the last two/three decades. Testing by Continental back in the '80s yielded recommendations and instructions on how to run LOP.

Here is a weird example applied to a spark plug. I removed it from a VW, chased the threads and installed a new plug. It's been in my tool box about 50 yrs.
Guttered Plug.jpg
 
Last edited:
If the EGT is the same why is the CHT different? (The answer of course is that the EGT temperature doesn't matter, it is just an indication of the mixture and what is happening in the cylinder. There's no point in comparing LOP EGT with ROP EGT. On a tangent... is the valve stem temperature closer to CHT or EGT?)



TEL is supposed to be changed to lead bromide not lead oxide after combustion.

The lead scavenging agent is included in the fuel, so mixture doesn't have a direct effect. What you need is temperature.

The process is roughly:
TEL -> lead oxide -> lead bromide.

The hotter the combustion the faster the reaction occurs and the more lead is converted to lead bromide and the less ends up as the undesirable intermediate products (lead oxide and lead oxy-bromides).

Also, you are trying to remove oxygen from the lead oxide, so it seems likely that excess oxygen i.e. LOP might hinder that reaction. When the heat breaks apart a lead oxide molecule, it is helpful if the oxygen is taken up by e.g. converting CO-> CO2 rather than hanging around as free oxygen that can re-combine with the lead to form lead oxide again.

If LOP is cooler and has more oxygen, the chemistry seems to say that yes, you are likely to end up with more of the undesirable lead oxide/oxy-bromides than with hotter, richer combustion.

The fact is thousands of folks fly LOP for thousands of hours with no valve sticking issues. There appears to be no correlation there. If LOP was the cause for whatever specific reason, you'd see all of these folks have sticking issues. They are not.

The OP asked about EGT effects on valve sticking. My response was EGT is the same 50 LOP and 50 ROP so EGT alone can't be the cause- doesn't matter as you reiterated.

Since heat is sunk from the valve stem to the guide to the head and EGT is the same as we just established, guide temperature is related to CHT. What people are finding with stuck valves is coked oil. Two likely causes of that- temps too high and insufficient exchange of the oil on the stem/guide.

On some turbocharged Lycomings, they had to add pressure oiling to the guides as they had serious valve sticking and wear issues. That solved it.

There is a fine line between proper stem to guide clearance (when hot) with regards to heat transfer and having sufficient space for effective oiling between the two parts. Oil is really the heat transfer medium here as you can't have zero clearance when hot. As the coking layer thickens, clearance is reduced as is oiling. Guide temps rise leading to faster coke accumulation. Doesn't take long for that to lead to a stuck valve as the clearance reaches zero.

High CHTs should logically increase coking rate as typical exhaust stem temps in Lycomings are higher than the coking temps of most oils.

390s seem to have more problems than 320s or 360s. Not sure why that would be.

On converted liquid cooled auto engines running 100LL, we don't see valve sticking issues, despite heavy lead deposits. The heads are half the temperature of Lycomings. I'd expect combustion temps to be around the same at the same CR. We certainly see thick lead deposits in the chambers, on the valves and turbocharger turbines and housing on tear down. So lots of lead buildup everywhere but no valve sticking. Photos below at only about 100 hours to illustrate how heavily lead accumulated on my turbo parts. Exhaust valves had similar lead deposit thickness. Of course in auto engines, we also generally run synthetic oils which have higher coking temps. That could be a large mitigating factor. It certainly is in turbochargers and turbine engines.

Lead oxide is what is formed during combustion as I stated before. The lead scavenger, ethylene dibromide works to change this to lead bromide, requiring a temperature of around 250C to work and that's easily exceeded everywhere within the cylinders and exhaust areas. It's not 100% effective however so we have both lead oxide and lead bromide deposits present on exposed engine parts.

Given the look at all this, I'd go along with Larry here with surmising that low oil flow to the stems/guides may be the most probable cause for valve sticking in Lycoming engines. You want to keep stem/ guide temps below about 450F to mitigate coking.
 

Attachments

  • turbine1.jpg
    turbine1.jpg
    13.9 KB · Views: 87
  • turbine2.jpg
    turbine2.jpg
    26.6 KB · Views: 65
Last edited:
A bit of Googling suggests that Ed Kollin is probably the most qualified person who has weighed in on the LOP debate.

Suggesting that he can't tell the difference between lead by products and coked oil seems like suggesting a commercial pilot doesn't know whether their engine is piston or turboprop. It's a central part of his career.

Like anyone he could be wrong, but if you want to challenge his analysis I think you need some pretty high power evidence - not just opinions.
 
A bit of Googling suggests that Ed Kollin is probably the most qualified person who has weighed in on the LOP debate.

Suggesting that he can't tell the difference between lead by products and coked oil seems like suggesting a commercial pilot doesn't know whether their engine is piston or turboprop. It's a central part of his career.

Like anyone he could be wrong, but if you want to challenge his analysis I think you need some pretty high power evidence - not just opinions.

Ed is certainly the oil man and understands engines well. Extremely qualified to comment. I've watched him on YT. Great insights on oil topics. I haven't seen any content on stuck valves or LOP from him. Do you have a good link?

Let's assume that lead is building up in the guides or valve stems. Why would it be any worse running LOP than ROP knowing that the lead scavenger is effective above 250C and we have chamber temps and EGTs at least 3 times that value?

If low CHTs are the culprit, wouldn't we see more stuck valves in winter climate operations? Are we? Sound off under what conditions you folks suffered a stuck valve, maybe we can correlate something.

If LOP operation is the culprit, wouldn't we logically expect those engines to eventually suffer a stuck valve? Do we see a higher incidence when flying LOP?

In my experience, looking at customers plugs and exhaust pipes running our EFI and primarily LOP in cruise, lead deposits seem much less than engines running ROP like I see on flying school engine plugs. Is that a valid observation? What are other folks seeing on plugs and with borescopes?
 
Ross, DanH posted (post #9) a link to Ed's article on valve sticking.

I read that article and there was one link to fuel deposits but not an SEM with material identification. It was a TVA. Regardless, we both know it is not just the lead and A/F. Valve materials, guide shrouding, guide materials, wear rates, oil exposure at the top of the stems, and operating cycles that will include some ROP idling and fuel rich starts all affect the closure of the guide/stem gap.

I did not see any definitive conclusion that LOP operation will result in stuck valves in Eds 3 part series. Certainly there is a link made to the deposits just outside the stroke zone on the exhaust valve. Not unexpected really.

Diesel valves certainly run a lot cooler, and don't have lead in the fuel, but have had occasions of exhaust valve sticking due to coking. If many occurred it was deemed a design issue and clearances, guide materials, and top end oil exposure were the primary variables.

Contintental built a liquid cooled engine with high compression, and ran 500F lean of peak. It did not stick valves. It was flat rated at 250hp to 60,000 ft.
 
the bottom line is get the wobble test done when new engine reaches 100 hours and every 500 hours or so after. knowledge is power. your exhaust valves are the weak point of our lycomings. it is very cheap to do the inspection. I have run 2 engines in my rv to 5,600 hrs - no problems, 1750 hrs on i0-540 r44 many reamed guides. just do it. don't guess. :cool:
if you have any Robinson helicopters on your field get to know the mechanic that maintains them, they can do your valve inspections. takes abound hour to do a 4 cylinder lyc.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top