Oil Analysis

[PaulaJay1]

I've been doing oil analysis every oil change with CTC in Cleveland, OH.
Charge lately was $18.40 and I have been satisfied. Now they have added a
minimum billing of $25 so I'm looking for another place. Any susggestions?

Chuck

[W9MV]

I can't even tell you how much these guys charge, but I am thoroughly satisfied
with their analysis and customer service.

http://www.blackstone-labs.com

Mark

[Ross Richardson]

I use Metal Check and buy directly from them now. About $16.00 I think.
Been using them for 5 years since I bought the plane.



PaulaJay1 wrote:
>
> I've been doing oil analysis every oil change with CTC in Cleveland, OH.
> Charge lately was $18.40 and I have been satisfied. Now they have added a
> minimum billing of $25 so I'm looking for another place. Any susggestions?
>
> Chuck

[Ben Smith]

Blackstone-labs.com charges $20 for a single report. You can buy several in
advance for a discount, but not much of one.

Will CTC let you buy 5 in advance? That way you can stay with your current
lab, and get around their minimum billing scheme?

--
Ben
C-172 - N13258 @ 87Y


"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've been doing oil analysis every oil change with CTC in Cleveland, OH.
> Charge lately was $18.40 and I have been satisfied. Now they have added a
> minimum billing of $25 so I'm looking for another place. Any
susggestions?
>
> Chuck

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, "Ben Smith"
> writes:

>Blackstone-labs.com charges $20 for a single report. You can buy several in
>advance for a discount, but not much of one.
>
>Will CTC let you buy 5 in advance? That way you can stay with your current
>lab, and get around their minimum billing scheme?

ThanksBen for the advice. I called CTC and , first, they reduced the $25 to
the old price of $18.40 "this one time". Second, they do sell 10 prepaid for
$150. Being the engineer that I was, I figured that with two oil changes a
year, I break even with 8% ROI.
I ask them why they do the "$15" per when the $18.40 was not cost effective and
the answer - besides the cost of billing - was that they expect you to "lose"
one during the period. This kind of honesty need to be rewarded, so I think
that I will stay with CTC and buy the 10 pack ( and try not to lose one).

Chuck

[Doug]

I have been using Metal Check and the results are always about the
same, and they say it is no problem. I am interested in any stories
out there about oil analyisis that indicated a problem, and resulted
in engine work, just what happened and how the oil analysis helped or
did not help predict the problem.

Any real life stories?

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 28 Oct 2003 17:26:41 -0800, (Doug) wrote:

>I have been using Metal Check and the results are always about the
>same, and they say it is no problem. I am interested in any stories
>out there about oil analyisis that indicated a problem, and resulted
>in engine work, just what happened and how the oil analysis helped or
>did not help predict the problem.
>
>Any real life stories?

Well, it didn't result in any engine work, but I did have an analysis that
showed high levels of silicon. The interpretation was that I needed to
change my air filter. I know change the air filter every 100 hours
(instead of at annual as I did when I was not flying as much), and I've had
not more dirt in the oil.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Don Gourlay]

We used Blackstone for a couple of years. They alerted us to the fact that
the aluminum content had shot up. Ended up doing a top overhaul. Previously
the leak down tests were ok. We had heard this can change quicky which it
did. The analyiss was the trigger. AME said things would be been fine for
about another 100 hours but we did the top anyway.

A lot of people on the field laughed at doing the analysis every oil change.

"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
> I have been using Metal Check and the results are always about the
> same, and they say it is no problem. I am interested in any stories
> out there about oil analyisis that indicated a problem, and resulted
> in engine work, just what happened and how the oil analysis helped or
> did not help predict the problem.
>
> Any real life stories?

[Bob Fry]

"Don Gourlay" > writes:

> We used Blackstone for a couple of years. They alerted us to the fact that
> the aluminum content had shot up. Ended up doing a top overhaul. Previously
> the leak down tests were ok. We had heard this can change quicky which it
> did. The analyiss was the trigger. AME said things would be been fine for
> about another 100 hours but we did the top anyway.
>
> A lot of people on the field laughed at doing the analysis every oil change.

Don--

I have an Aircoupe with a C-90 engine. First airplane owned so I'm
still learning. OK, my mechanic is skeptical of lab analyses, and
prefers examining the oil and filter after each change. Best would be
to do both, but my question to you and others is--

If you could only do one thing: either lab analysis of oil after each
change, or your own visual examination of oil and filter after each
change, which would you do?

In your above scenario where the lab alerted you to a problem, would
you have noticed the problem by doing a visual inspection of oil and
filter--like seeing metal particles?

[Colin Kingsbury]

I'm a new owner too, but I've learned very quickly to trust mechanics about
as far as I can throw them with my left arm.

Like many other things in aviation, there are few aboslute answers, only
statistics. Maybe 9/10 oil-analysis problems could be picked up by visual
inspection. Maybe 95/100 could be predicted just fine with 100 hour analysis
instead of every 50. Adjust these numbers to your heart's content, but there
is always a chance that a 50-hour analysis will save your butt. Considering
that this costs less than a dollar per hour, I'll take it.

Some guys change their oil every 25 hours for this reason. I go 50 because
plenty of people do and don't have any problems. But if I was flying low IFR
regularly, I'd probably switch.

Most of what "A lot of people on the field" know has to be taken with a
grain of salt, a bigger one if you're a newbie and don't have a good BS
detector. Half of what people in aviation "know" is more voodoo than
scientific fact, especially in GA where the training is so variable. Hell,
go out in the sticks somewhere and you'll probably find plenty of guys who
think oil analysis is what you do when the stuff starts spraying on the
windshield. If you're flying in a Cub and surrounded by pumpkin patches I
suppose that might be a reasonable attitude.

Best,
-cwk.

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> "Don Gourlay" > writes:
>
> > We used Blackstone for a couple of years. They alerted us to the fact
that
> > the aluminum content had shot up. Ended up doing a top overhaul.
Previously
> > the leak down tests were ok. We had heard this can change quicky which
it
> > did. The analyiss was the trigger. AME said things would be been fine
for
> > about another 100 hours but we did the top anyway.
> >
> > A lot of people on the field laughed at doing the analysis every oil
change.
>
> Don--
>
> I have an Aircoupe with a C-90 engine. First airplane owned so I'm
> still learning. OK, my mechanic is skeptical of lab analyses, and
> prefers examining the oil and filter after each change. Best would be
> to do both, but my question to you and others is--
>
> If you could only do one thing: either lab analysis of oil after each
> change, or your own visual examination of oil and filter after each
> change, which would you do?
>
> In your above scenario where the lab alerted you to a problem, would
> you have noticed the problem by doing a visual inspection of oil and
> filter--like seeing metal particles?

[Bluejay]

> If you could only do one thing: either lab analysis of oil after each
> change, or your own visual examination of oil and filter after each
> change, which would you do?

I'd quit, on the basis that the universe had just become too perverse in
contriving such a situation.

Visual inspection will catch some problems, oil analysis will catch
others. The two sets of problems have some things in common, but a lot of
things will only appear in one or the other set.

[[email protected]]

Bob..

......my experience has been with large marine engines, and I
always sample and get an analysis done at each oil change...and if I
owned an aircraft (and may soon) I would also do it ....

IMHO... the analysis will pick up problems long before you
(or your mechanic) will visually see the particles in the oil
filters.

...and yes, I have cut apart a good many of them ... (filters
that is)

And talking to whom I believe are PROFESSIONAL mechanics,
they tend to use ALL the diagnostic tools available to them.. and
they consider oil analysis a cheap and useful tool.

I know of a couple of engines that had bearings replaced
when the copper content went up suddenly (before a bearing spun and
did major damage)

Now, one sample is not very helpful... but several taken
over time establishes the "normals" per period of operating
time... it is the sudden deviation from these "normals" that trigger
the further investigation..

Cheers!

Dave


On 08 Nov 2003 17:20:10 -0800, Bob Fry > wrote:

>"Don Gourlay" > writes:
>
>> We used Blackstone for a couple of years. They alerted us to the fact that
>> the aluminum content had shot up. Ended up doing a top overhaul. Previously
>> the leak down tests were ok. We had heard this can change quicky which it
>> did. The analyiss was the trigger. AME said things would be been fine for
>> about another 100 hours but we did the top anyway.
>>
>> A lot of people on the field laughed at doing the analysis every oil change.
>
>Don--
>
>I have an Aircoupe with a C-90 engine. First airplane owned so I'm
>still learning. OK, my mechanic is skeptical of lab analyses, and
>prefers examining the oil and filter after each change. Best would be
>to do both, but my question to you and others is--
>
>If you could only do one thing: either lab analysis of oil after each
>change, or your own visual examination of oil and filter after each
>change, which would you do?
>
>In your above scenario where the lab alerted you to a problem, would
>you have noticed the problem by doing a visual inspection of oil and
>filter--like seeing metal particles?