Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:22 AM - Engine - which drain plug port to use? (Ralph E. Capen)
2. 07:03 AM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Tim Bryan)
3. 07:13 AM - Brake / Rudder pedal throw (Ralph E. Capen)
4. 07:35 AM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Ron Lee)
5. 08:04 AM - Re: Used RV buying best practices? (Tedd McHenry)
6. 08:30 AM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Tim Bryan)
7. 09:02 AM - Re: LOG BOOKS (John W. Cox)
8. 09:41 AM - AD compliance (David Grover)
9. 01:05 PM - Re: RV Safey Record (Bob)
10. 01:59 PM - Re: RV Safey Record (Ron Lee)
11. 03:34 PM - Re: RV Safey Record (Scott)
12. 05:34 PM - pitot / static line material (Larry James)
13. 06:41 PM - Re: pitot / static line material (Russ & Marilyn)
14. 08:16 PM - Re: pitot / static line material (Vanremog@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Engine - which drain plug port to use? |
Folks,
I'm getting ready to put some 'real' oil in my engine prior to starting it up instead
of the pickling juices from the builder. I'm thinking about maintenance
- I'll need to change the oil on a regular basis so I got one of the drain valves
from ACS.
The question is where to put it....there are three places that are available and
lend themselves to easy access. Some a re Left, some are right, some are forward,
some are aft. Two of them are safety-wired with a square looking bolt
head protruding, one of them is a recessed allen-head plug (with no safety).
I'm thinking that the safetied ones are straight thread vs NPT which would narrow
my choices as I think my fitting is NPT.
The aircraft is a 6A so it sits more level than a 6 - that would be a consideration.
Ralph
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Bert,
It is a little frustrating when one also assumes just because some believe
an AD can't apply to an experimental they would sooner be dangerous,
reckless, and stupid causing all of general aviation to be the most
dangerous.
I personally have only suggested that if I don't want to use an aviation
product in my "Experimental" airplane I am free to use something non
aviation. This would obviously mean while one product is scrutinized and
the other isn't it makes no sense to apply them at all as anything other
than advisory.
What it doesn't mean is if one chooses to install an aviation product and an
AD is issued they would just ignore it. My Experimental was built by me and
is inspected by me for my safety. I did use aviation products wherever I
could and if I become aware of an AD on a product it would be my own
foolishness to not look at it with a critical eye and make my own choice as
to how to deal with it. Maybe even determine it isn't a concern for me.
However, suggesting the AD is applicable only means if I don't think it is a
problem I could just remove that part and fly with something non aviation;
problem solved as it will never be an issue again. The bottom line is it is
my choice just like it was my choice to put it in the airplane in the first
place.
Painting all our opinions with a broad brush and saying we are the cause for
low safety records of GA is simply a bit too much. Nobody on this list
built an airplane because they wanted to be stupid and reckless. This is
just my opinion of course and I respect yours except for the part where you
condemn some of us.
Tim
RV-6 and Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bert murillo
> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 1:38 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: LOG BOOKS
>
>
> PEOPLE DO FOOLISH THINGS WE KNOW...NO MATTER WHAT
> THEY WANT TO PROVE THEY DO NOT HAVE TO LISTEN TO
> ANY ONE, I AM A BIG SHOT, NO BODY IS GOINT TO TELL
> ME WHAT TO DO...
>
> NO WONDER WHY, GENERAL AVIATION, GONTINUES TO BE
> AT THE BOTTOM, WHEN IT COMES TO SAFETY..
>
> FOR 30 YEARS OR SO, IT NEVER IMPROVES... IT IS A SHAME
> I COULD TELL STORIES, THAT CURL UP YOUR HAIR,..
> HAVE YOU SEE ALSO THE WAY PILOTS
> " THE BIG SHOTS' DRESS. SOME LOOK LIKE THEY NEVER
> TAKE A BATH....I HAVE SEEN PILOTS, THE ONES I AM
> TALKING ABOUT THEY THINK THEY ARE 'TOPO GUNS',GETTING
> IN TO THEIR PLANES, ONE WAS A CHEROKEE 140. most
> recent... with no shoes, no shirt... what a sight....
>
> DO NOT FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDED AD,, FROM THE MFG.
> WHAT A HECK, THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING..
>
> VAN's IS AN IDIOT, TELLING US WHAT TO DO.....
>
> AND ON AND ON...
>
> THESE ARE THE POPLE, THAT PUT BLACK MARKS ON
> GENERAL AVIATION, AND THE REST OF US PAY FOR...
>
> Bert
>
> rv6a
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Scott <acepilot@bloomer.net> wrote:
>
> > How about this required placard:
> > Passenger Warning- THIS AIRCRAFT IS AMATEUR-BUILT
> > AND DOES NOT COMPLY
> > WITH THE FEDERAL SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD
> > AIRCRAFT. This warning
> > must be in full view of all passengers.
> >
> > ADs concern safety. Experimentals do not comply
> > with Federal safety
> > regulations per placarding. Therefore, by
> > deduction, ADs do not apply
> > to experimentals.
> >
> > How does the FAA know what equipment has been
> > installed in my plane?
> > What if I built a replacement stainless steel needle
> > in my carburetor
> > and an AD comes out on the original factory seat in
> > the type carburetor
> > I have that calls for immediate replacement of the
> > part. Do I have to
> > remove my part and put in the new factory part?
> > Don't think so. Not
> > sure, but I don't have an "equipment list" for mine
> > (I bought
> > it...didn't build it) that shows what is on there,
> > so how do they know
> > what carb I have?
> >
> > Again, I'm not saying it may not be wise to comply,
> > but I don't think I
> > can say I HAVE to comply.
> >
> > Scott
> > do not archive and I hope not to start a fight! ;)
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob J. wrote:
> >
> > > Well, show me the FAR that exempts AD's from
> > applying to
> > > experimentals. I don't know what the EAA bases
> > their position on,
> > > because there is no rule whatsoever that supports
> > their argument. I
> > > don't think their argument could hold up in a
> > court of law.
> > >
> > > Lets start by looking at FAR part 39.3, the
> > regulation in question:
> > > "FAA's airworthiness directives are legally
> > enforceable rules that
> > > apply to the following products: aircraft,
> > aircraft engines,
> > > propellers, and appliances."
> > >
> > > Almost all FAR's have an applicability section.
> > Notably absent from
> > > part 39 is an applicability section. There's no
> > wording anywhere in
> > > the FAR's, particularly part 39, that says AD's
> > don't apply to
> > > experimentals.
> > >
> > > The key word in 39.3 is "products". It doesn't
> > matter what type or
> > > category aircraft the "product" is installed in,
> > its still a product
> > > and since its a product AD's do apply. Again to
> > emphasize FAR 39 does
> > > not grant exemptions to the experimental category
> > and thus as the
> > > regulation states AD's apply to all aircraft
> > products.
> > >
> > > The language of FAR 39 can allow the FAA can issue
> > AD's to
> > > experimental aircraft, experimental aircraft
> > engines, experimental
> > > propellers, and experimental appliances, even
> > toilet seats in aircraft
> > > with commodes but that hasn't happened (yet).
> > >
> > > I had this pointed out to me by DAR #1 who has
> > been a DAR for over 35
> > > years and has issued CofA's to hundreds of
> > aircraft, mostly transport
> > > category along with many experimentals and
> > warbirds. He can recite
> > > FAR's verbatim. He knows his stuff.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bob Japundza
> > > RV-6 flying F1 under const.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Scott
> > <acepilot@bloomer.net
> > > <mailto:acepilot@bloomer.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > > When did ADs start becoming applicable to
> > experimental
> > > homebuilts? This was asked of EAA and they
> > said no. Has anyone
> > > ever received an AD in the mail for their
> > homebuilt?
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Scott
> > http://corbenflyer.tripod.com
> > Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4
> > Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
> >
> >
>
>
>
> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster
> Total Access, No Cost.
> http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Brake / Rudder pedal throw |
Fellow builders,
I am looking at a potential interference between my brake pedals and my cabin heat
valves. I have not added brake fluid to my system as I may have to do some
'rearranging'
With full rudder pedal deflection, the outboard brake pedals hit the throw arm
on their respective heater valves. I built them fairly symmetrical so it happening
on both sides doesn't surprise me.
I can relocate the throw arms to the opposite side of the firewall and route the
cables through eyeball fittings if necessary - but I would like to find out
how bad it could be.
I'm using the kit supplied master cylinders for both seats (same masters supplied
in the dual brake kit). What I need to know is: "For brake application to
hold the airframe with full engine power applied, how much of the master cylinder
throw rod is down in the master cylinder?" From what I can determine, the
max throw is just under 1.5", so that gives me an idea of what's going on.
My first thoughts are to rebuild the heater valve actuator so that it's not there
to be interfered with - but then I may stil have to worry about someone with
a long foot. Relocating the cable / throw arm to the forward side of the firewall
may be a better solution.
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
RV6AQB N822AR @ N06 forever finishing.....
Knocking out some of the million little things - only 750,000 left.....
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
> Painting all our opinions with a broad brush and saying we are the cause
> for
> low safety records of GA is simply a bit too much. Nobody on this list
> built an airplane because they wanted to be stupid and reckless. This is
> just my opinion of course and I respect yours except for the part where
> you
> condemn some of us.
Tim, we ARE the cause of our poor safety record. From using questionable
"non-aviation" items, to ignoring problems during the flight test period, to
poor judgment when flying.
Frankly it is time for the RV community to develop a safety program that
highlights the problem areas with the goal of reducing our accident rate
by as much as 25-50% in the next five years.
Ron Lee
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Used RV buying best practices? |
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Andrew M wrote:
> I think a set of Best Practices for used RV pre-buy/purchasing would be
> helpful.
That's a great idea for the Matronics wiki. I've started a page with the
suggestions from this thread.
<http://wiki.matronics.com/wiki/index.php/Buying_a_Used_RV>
I've also added a link to that page from the main RV page.
<http://wiki.matronics.com/wiki/index.php/RV>
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I agree Ron, but what was said was not "Our safety record" but "General
Aviation" Plus my concern is suggesting we are non-safety oriented just
because we have a different opinion about how AD's should be applied when
applying them obviously opens a huge can of worms on how to apply them.
Plus we really don't have to comply as we could just remove it. It also
isn't about safety because AD's do not really create safety. Saying so is
likened to saying I don't need to ever deal with anything on my airplane
unless an AD comes out. That would be rubbish. We have to create our own
safety regardless of any AD's. We are all responsible for that differently
in our different creations. Certified a/c are a completely different animal
because they are all built off an assembly line and built the same with the
same components. Also just because a component in one application proves to
be a problem doesn't mean it would be a problem when installed in completely
different type aircraft; ie: experimental. We have to look at all the data
ourselves and decide what is relevant and what is not.
This is just my opinion, so I respect yours and agree with what you said. I
just didn't agree with Ron's broad statements.
Tim
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 9:32 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: LOG BOOKS
>
>
> > Painting all our opinions with a broad brush and saying we are the cause
> > for
> > low safety records of GA is simply a bit too much. Nobody on this list
> > built an airplane because they wanted to be stupid and reckless. This
> is
> > just my opinion of course and I respect yours except for the part where
> > you
> > condemn some of us.
>
>
> Tim, we ARE the cause of our poor safety record. From using questionable
> "non-aviation" items, to ignoring problems during the flight test period,
> to
> poor judgment when flying.
>
> Frankly it is time for the RV community to develop a safety program that
> highlights the problem areas with the goal of reducing our accident rate
> by as much as 25-50% in the next five years.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Open and meaningful discussion can do that.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: LOG BOOKS
> Painting all our opinions with a broad brush and saying we are the
cause
> for
> low safety records of GA is simply a bit too much. Nobody on this
list
> built an airplane because they wanted to be stupid and reckless. This
is
> just my opinion of course and I respect yours except for the part
where
> you
> condemn some of us.
Tim, we ARE the cause of our poor safety record. From using
questionable
"non-aviation" items, to ignoring problems during the flight test
period, to
poor judgment when flying.
Frankly it is time for the RV community to develop a safety program that
highlights the problem areas with the goal of reducing our accident rate
by as much as 25-50% in the next five years.
Ron Lee
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
For what it's worth,
I am not an expert on the subject.
When I received my airworthiness certificate several years ago the DAR
required that the oil pump AD on my used IO-360 be complied with. I spoke
with the FAA directly and they did not know or have an answer on AD
compliance. I spoke with AOPA, no insight. I spoke with EAA. They said
(from an interpretation from the FAA) that you are not required to comply
with an AD however you are required to address the issue. The logic being
that when I replaced the gears in my engine thus complying with the AD,
however I am not an A&P so the AD was not technically complied with. I did
however address the issue. There position was that I could address the
issue using whatever method you choose not necessarily what is spelled out
in the AD. In my case I happened to use their method of addressing the
issue. My understanding is that if I wanted to place this engine back on a
certified A/C the AD would still need to be complied with.
This seems like common sense logic so I am going with it. Again I am no
expert.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV Safey Record |
>>Painting all our opinions with a broad brush and saying we are the cause for
>>low safety records of GA is simply a bit too much. Nobody on this list
>>built an airplane because they wanted to be stupid and reckless. This is
>>just my opinion of course...
>
>Tim, we ARE the cause of our poor safety record. From using questionable
>"non-aviation" items, to ignoring problems during the flight test period, to
>poor judgment when flying.
>
>Frankly it is time for the RV community to develop a safety program that
>highlights the problem areas with the goal of reducing our accident rate
>by as much as 25-50% in the next five years.
How about some facts to prove that RV pilots are responsible for the
poor GA safety record.
It seems to me that there is a strong lobby of people who want
certified standards to apply to experimentals. If you want to do
this with your RV, fine if you think you can. If you expect to buy a
used RV that meets certified standards, well I don't know?
As far as complying with ADs and SBs, yes I do. But, my oil pump did
not fail until I installed the newer version as required by the
AD. As for Van's fuel tank SB, three years later I am still digging
out proseal from my fuel filter, the result either way is a lack of
fuel flow when there is plenty of fuel.
So maybe, just a hunch, complying with ADs and SBs are not always the
safest thing one can do. Poor judgement in my case was trying to fix
something that was not broken.
And why is safety so important. If I want to kayak a Class V
Whitewater River, who is to say that it is too dangerous and I should
not be allowed to do so, or that I should only Kayak Class II
rivers? To relate this to flying RVs, how many RV accidents could we
prevent if no one flew IMC in an RV? After all IMC flying is much
more dangerous than VFR no wind, no clouds etc. What about outlawing
night flight, or mountain flying, or flying over water or just plain
flying without a purpose? And my pet peeve of all, crashing without
filing a flightplan?
After the EAA Arlington crash a few years ago (the one were a
nonbuilder, did a pull to vertical on takeoff and then completed a
whip stall and landed nose first and killed himself) maybe non
builders should not be allowed to fly RVs? Ridiculous, but I would
like to know how many crashes were by the builder and how many by non builders.
I am all for safety, it is hard to argue against. But turning an
experimental into a certified aircraft that only uses certified parts
and no experimental parts, radios, avionics etc., is not the way.
Somebody define a "questionable non aviation items?"
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV Safey Record |
I wrote:
>Tim, we ARE the cause of our poor safety record. From using questionable
>>"non-aviation" items, to ignoring problems during the flight test period,
>>to
>>poor judgment when flying.
>>
>>Frankly it is time for the RV community to develop a safety program that
>>highlights the problem areas with the goal of reducing our accident rate
>>by as much as 25-50% in the next five years.
Bob wrote:
> How about some facts to prove that RV pilots are responsible for the poor
> GA safety record.
Bob, it is fact that around 75% of accidents are due to pilot error...RV,
Cessna, Piper, Cirrus.
My point is that there is no reason that the RV community can't improve
the accident rate (lower it) of the RV population.
Personally I would use the AOPA on-line classes as a core. Study those
then come to a forum where the group discusses the common accident factors
and how to avoid it.
You can't stop stupid and you will never get the accident rate to zero. But
let's
be overly optimistic and assume that this safety program cuts the RV
accident
rate 50%.
Here are some of the benefits:
1) More parents around to see their kids grow up.
2) More RVs to buy for non-builders like me.
3) Lower insurance rates (hopefully)
Frankly I am tired of seeing RV accidents and fatalities. Let's step up,
develop
a good safety program, get to as many RV pilots as possible and start
reducing our
accident rate.
Ron Lee
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV Safey Record |
Well, the good news is that RV safety records HAVE to be better than ANY
driving safety record...I'm sure more people are killed in my state in
one year on the roads than will EVER be snuffed in an RV...
Scott
do not archive
Ron Lee wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
>> Tim, we ARE the cause of our poor safety record. From using
>> questionable
>>
>>> "non-aviation" items, to ignoring problems during the flight test
>>> period, to
>>> poor judgment when flying.
>>>
>>> Frankly it is time for the RV community to develop a safety program
>>> that
>>> highlights the problem areas with the goal of reducing our accident
>>> rate
>>> by as much as 25-50% in the next five years.
>>
>
> Bob wrote:
>
>> How about some facts to prove that RV pilots are responsible for the
>> poor GA safety record.
>
>
> Bob, it is fact that around 75% of accidents are due to pilot error...RV,
> Cessna, Piper, Cirrus.
>
> My point is that there is no reason that the RV community can't improve
> the accident rate (lower it) of the RV population.
>
> Personally I would use the AOPA on-line classes as a core. Study those
> then come to a forum where the group discusses the common accident
> factors
> and how to avoid it.
>
> You can't stop stupid and you will never get the accident rate to
> zero. But let's
> be overly optimistic and assume that this safety program cuts the RV
> accident
> rate 50%.
>
> Here are some of the benefits:
>
> 1) More parents around to see their kids grow up.
>
> 2) More RVs to buy for non-builders like me.
>
> 3) Lower insurance rates (hopefully)
>
> Frankly I am tired of seeing RV accidents and fatalities. Let's step
> up, develop
> a good safety program, get to as many RV pilots as possible and start
> reducing our
> accident rate.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | pitot / static line material |
Hi All,
I think I once had this figured out but have forgotten - meaning my project
is taking way too long. I have the store-bought aluminum Static Ports with
barbed fittings on the back side. I'd like to keep barbed fittings
throughout for simplicity and reliability - I've had compression and
"instant" fittings leak. What size and type tubing is best ?? I'm looking
at Tygon, polyurethane, polyethelene, and other exotics ... but is there
someone with the technical expertise to say one is best over the other ??
Thanks !!!!
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA
Super Decathlon
Rocket (under construction)
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pitot / static line material |
Larry,
Go with the polyurethane, you will only have to buy this stuff once.
It's flexible and very tough.
Russ Keith
RV9A Slow Build
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry James
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 8:29 PM
Subject: RV-List: pitot / static line material
Hi All,
I think I once had this figured out but have forgotten - meaning my
project is taking way too long. I have the store-bought aluminum Static
Ports with barbed fittings on the back side. I'd like to keep barbed
fittings throughout for simplicity and reliability - I've had
compression and "instant" fittings leak. What size and type tubing is
best ?? I'm looking at Tygon, polyurethane, polyethelene, and other
exotics ... but is there someone with the technical expertise to say one
is best over the other ??
Thanks !!!!
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA
Super Decathlon
Rocket (under construction)
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pitot / static line material |
In a message dated 4/7/2008 5:36:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
larry@ncproto.com writes:
I have the store-bought aluminum Static Ports with barbed fittings on the
back side. I=99d like to keep barbed fittings throughout for simplic
ity and
reliability =93 I=99ve had compression and =9Cinstant
=9D fittings leak. What size and
type tubing is best ?? I=99m looking at Tygon, polyurethane, polyeth
elene,
and other exotics .. but is there someone with the technical exper
tise to say
one is best over the other ??
SMC has a really nice light walled black polyurethane that fits their
pneumatic fittings and would be my recommendation to you. It will last the
lifetime of the airframe. By the way Tygon is just another brand name and
not
descriptive of a particular polymer.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 887hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000
016)
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|