---------------------------------------------------------- Commander-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 06/17/03: 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 11:07 PM - Re: hose job (Bill Hamilton) 2. 11:12 PM - Re: New to group; Looking for first Commander (Bill Hamilton) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 11:07:36 PM PST US From: Bill Hamilton Subject: Re: Commander-List: hose job --> Commander-List message posted by: Bill Hamilton All, Hose life is a very vexed subject. Many "later" aircraft nominate a life for hoses ( rubber), in the case of some turbo Pipers, three years. Until about 4 years ago, there was an Australian AD that required replacement of all hoses at 5 or 6 years, this was rescinded, and it is now MM or if there is no MM figure, up to the A&P/Owner. Any rubber hose in a high temp area will deteriorate quite quickly, the question of judgement comes in ( if hose life is not mandated in the MM) with low usage airframes. Here there is the balance of deterioration by time alone, plus the effects of operations. My general choice, particularly for critical hoses, is the substitute teflon lined hoses, unlimited life, so periodic replacement is no longer an issue. While the cost is greater, I believe the end result justifies the cost. If you do use teflon hose, be very careful about abrasion and damage caused by the stainless steel wire braid, where you haven't fire sleeved such a hose, use the style that has an anti abrasion outer layer, and still make certain all the hoses are secure. On the 500 A I found one fuel injection line form the spider to an injector 80% rubbed through, ie: The wall thickness of the tube reduced by 80%, because the ( then rubber) hose from the FCU was not properly secured.There is a 100 hour inspection SB of all injector line called up by TCM for all their injected engines. Be really conservative, hoses are not expensive, but a blown hose can be very expensive. Regards, Bill Hamilton At 09:21 AM 16/06/03 -0400, you wrote: >--> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" > >During the process of overhauling my offending engine. The subject of hoses >surfaced. Some are like new and others are not. There is one large hose, >that goes from the firewall sump(oops I said that "s" word) to the engine. >It was covered with that orange fire protective coating. I removed the hose >because it seemed to be a little stiff. I was able to break off, the end of >the hose by the engine, by hand. I suspect it was original equipment. > >I guess my point is, the orange fire protective sleeve does not degrade like >the hose. The orange stuff looked good while the hose underneath was "lying >in wait" for me. > >Just food for thought. > >bilbo > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 11:12:28 PM PST US From: Bill Hamilton Subject: Re: Commander-List: New to group; Looking for first Commander --> Commander-List message posted by: Bill Hamilton All, Packard certainly did as good job on re engineering the Merlin to vastly improve it's reliability, compared to the early Marks built by Rolls Royce. The Packard Merlin was far more than just a Merlin built under license. Cheers, Bill Hamilton. At 11:40 AM 15/07/03 -0700, you wrote: >--> Commander-List message posted by: "Craig Lundborg" > >My grandparents told me about Packards! > Craig >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Subject: Re: Commander-List: New to group; Looking for first Commander > > > > --> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com > > > > In a message dated 06/15/03 10:09:37 Pacific Daylight Time, > > bowing74@earthlink.net writes: > > > > > > > I like the comparison made here to another fine American product of >years > > > gone by. PACKARD. > > > > > > > Jeeeeezzzz Bilbo, you're really old. I've always thought of Commanders in > > terms of the '57 Chevy. > > > > Wing Commander Gordon > > > > > >