Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:22 AM - More pics (Craig Payne)
2. 06:17 AM - M14P Gearbox wanted (Off2wildblue)
3. 09:10 AM - Re: Prolonged idling/taxiing (stephen.hayne)
4. 09:30 AM - Hamburger filter base mounting hardware (1906)
5. 11:18 AM - Re: Re: Prolonged idling/taxiing (mark bitterlich)
6. 02:21 PM - any reason NOT to go Swagelok check valves? (Jon Boede)
7. 04:01 PM - Re: any reason NOT to go Swagelok check valves? (Warren Hill)
8. 04:53 PM - Re: any reason NOT to go Swagelok check valves? (Mark Pennington)
9. 07:39 PM - Re: any reason NOT to go Swagelok check valves? (Warren Hill)
10. 08:01 PM - Re: any reason NOT to go Swagelok check valves? (Walter Lannon)
11. 10:34 PM - Re: any reason NOT to go Swagelok check valves? (Mark Pennington)
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 |
|
Thanks to those folks who sent pics of their baggage holds, good stuff. I
also need a shot of the pile of old avionics, power supplies and cables
that many of removed from the CJ. About 190 lbs came out of mine and I left
the flux gate compass stuff in.
Craig
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 |
|
| Subject: | M14P Gearbox wanted |
I am wanting to upgrade my M14B to an M14P. I am looking for a gearbox for an M14P.
I have checked with a few sources Im still waiting to hear back. But I thought
I would see if anyone had one on the used market that was not damage from a prop
strike or something along those lines. I have checked with a few sources Im
still waiting to hear back. But I thought I would see if anyone had one on the
used market that was not damage from a prop strike or something along those
lines. You can contact me off list.
You can contact me off list.
SAM
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491845#491845
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: | Re: Prolonged idling/taxiing |
Here are some links to the manual pages for adjusting these screws... (and the
Fuel Flow that I installed).
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1DKFaSiQNhG2ar0QLg8qSlwTcU99xpqT2?usp=sharing
--------
-
Stephen Hayne, Professor, CIS, Colorado State University
666CJA
http://selfsynchronize.com/hayne/plane/cj6.asp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491848#491848
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 |
|
| Subject: | Hamburger filter base mounting hardware |
Would greatly appreciate it if anyone who's mounted one of these to the engine
mounts would share the hardware they've used so that I can save some time and
money putting this together.
Thanks.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491850#491850
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: Prolonged idling/taxiing |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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 |
|
| Subject: | any reason NOT to go Swagelok check valves? |
I'm a "stock" guy. I like to keep things the way the design bureau designe
d them.
That having been said, over the years I've replaced or overhauled enough Ch
inese check valves to fill a trick-or-treater's plastic pumpkin. It's gett
ing old.
The Swagelok replacement check valves seem like a good idea, but I'm cautio
us, so:
Does anybody have a single experience, observation, or reason NOT to go wit
h the Swagelok replacement one-way check valves?
The only thing I can think of is, "We don't have enough total hours as a co
mmunity to know what the down-side of the Swagelok valves is going to be" -
- but that argument is fading.
Jon
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: any reason NOT to go Swagelok check valves? |
Hello Jon,
It=99s a simple thing to rebuild them. Doug Sapp provides the
parts and all that=99s needed are two 17 mm wrenches. For those
check valves that are too far gone from internal corrosion, the
replacements that Doug builds are excellent. Regardless, whether you
rebuild or replace, they still need to be swapped out every few years.
No way around that no matter who makes them.
Just me, but I like to replace the soft lead washer with a soft aluminum
crush washer that=99s been coated in WD40 to reduce deforming
during tightening. Very solid seal. Attached is an image.
Personally, I=99m not a big fan of the Swagelok check valves. They
are not very robust. Have seen too many fail. On a flight to Oshkosh a
few years ago one of the members of our group had several fail by the
time we got to Nebraska from Arizona. Spent a long time on the tarmac at
the Lincoln airport replacing them with Chinese ones, which kept working
for the next three years.
Exceptions are the Swagelok main and emergency on-off valves. They are
fantastic and seem to last forever. The 90 degree, 2-port one is
SS-42GF2-A-WN2 with the black handle. Attached is an image of one
configured for the main air.
Warren Hill
N464TW
Mesa, AZ
> On Oct 16, 2019, at 2:21 PM, Jon Boede <jonboede@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm a "stock" guy. I like to keep things the way the design bureau
designed them.
>
> That having been said, over the years I've replaced or overhauled
enough Chinese check valves to fill a trick-or-treater's plastic
pumpkin. It's getting old.
>
> The Swagelok replacement check valves seem like a good idea, but I'm
cautious, so:
>
> Does anybody have a single experience, observation, or reason NOT to
go with the Swagelok replacement one-way check valves?
>
> The only thing I can think of is, "We don't have enough total hours as
a community to know what the down-side of the Swagelok valves is going
to be" -- but that argument is fading.
>
> Jon
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: any reason NOT to go Swagelok check valves? |
Warren
I agree the Chinese check valves.
I use the lead seals and I also use WD40 while tightening.
Do you have a part number for the aluminum seals. ?
Thanks
Mark
N621CJ
Richmond VA
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:08 PM Warren Hill <hill@doctor-hill.com> wrote:
> Hello Jon,
>
> It=99s a simple thing to rebuild them. Doug Sapp provides the parts
and all
> that=99s needed are two 17 mm wrenches. For those check valves that
are too
> far gone from internal corrosion, the replacements that Doug builds are
> excellent. Regardless, whether you rebuild or replace, they still need to
> be swapped out every few years. No way around that no matter who makes
> them.
>
> Just me, but I like to replace the soft lead washer with a soft aluminum
> crush washer that=99s been coated in WD40 to reduce deforming durin
g
> tightening. Very solid seal. Attached is an image.
>
> Personally, I=99m not a big fan of the Swagelok check valves. They
are not
> very robust. Have seen too many fail. On a flight to Oshkosh a few years
> ago one of the members of our group had several fail by the time we got t
o
> Nebraska from Arizona. Spent a long time on the tarmac at the Lincoln
> airport replacing them with Chinese ones, which kept working for the next
> three years.
>
> Exceptions are the Swagelok main and emergency on-off valves. They are
> fantastic and seem to last forever. The 90 degree, 2-port one is
> SS-42GF2-A-WN2 with the black handle. Attached is an image of one
> configured for the main air.
>
> Warren Hill
> N464TW
> Mesa, AZ
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2019, at 2:21 PM, Jon Boede <jonboede@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm a "stock" guy. I like to keep things the way the design bureau
> designed them.
>
> That having been said, over the years I've replaced or overhauled enough
> Chinese check valves to fill a trick-or-treater's plastic pumpkin. It's
> getting old.
>
> The Swagelok replacement check valves *seem *like a good idea, but I'm
> cautious, so:
>
> Does anybody have a single experience, observation, or reason *NOT *to go
> with the Swagelok replacement one-way check valves?
>
> The only thing I can think of is, "We don't have enough total hours as a
> community to know what the down-side of the Swagelok valves is going to b
e"
> -- but that argument is fading.
>
> Jon
>
>
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: any reason NOT to go Swagelok check valves? |
Hello Mark,
The aluminum crush washers are generally available on Amazon, searching
first by outer diameter in mm.
Warren
> On Oct 16, 2019, at 4:52 PM, Mark Pennington
<pennington.construction.inc.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Warren
>
> I agree the Chinese check valves.
> I use the lead seals and I also use WD40 while tightening.
>
> Do you have a part number for the aluminum seals. ?
>
> Thanks
> Mark
> N621CJ
> Richmond VA
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:08 PM Warren Hill <hill@doctor-hill.com
<mailto:hill@doctor-hill.com>> wrote:
> Hello Jon,
>
> It=99s a simple thing to rebuild them. Doug Sapp provides the
parts and all that=99s needed are two 17 mm wrenches. For those
check valves that are too far gone from internal corrosion, the
replacements that Doug builds are excellent. Regardless, whether you
rebuild or replace, they still need to be swapped out every few years.
No way around that no matter who makes them.
>
> Just me, but I like to replace the soft lead washer with a soft
aluminum crush washer that=99s been coated in WD40 to reduce
deforming during tightening. Very solid seal. Attached is an image.
>
> Personally, I=99m not a big fan of the Swagelok check valves.
They are not very robust. Have seen too many fail. On a flight to
Oshkosh a few years ago one of the members of our group had several fail
by the time we got to Nebraska from Arizona. Spent a long time on the
tarmac at the Lincoln airport replacing them with Chinese ones, which
kept working for the next three years.
>
> Exceptions are the Swagelok main and emergency on-off valves. They are
fantastic and seem to last forever. The 90 degree, 2-port one is
SS-42GF2-A-WN2 with the black handle. Attached is an image of one
configured for the main air.
>
> Warren Hill
> N464TW
> Mesa, AZ
>
>
>
>
> <Crush_washer.png>
>
>
> <on-off2.png>
>
>
>
>> On Oct 16, 2019, at 2:21 PM, Jon Boede <jonboede@hotmail.com
<mailto:jonboede@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm a "stock" guy. I like to keep things the way the design bureau
designed them.
>>
>> That having been said, over the years I've replaced or overhauled
enough Chinese check valves to fill a trick-or-treater's plastic
pumpkin. It's getting old.
>>
>> The Swagelok replacement check valves seem like a good idea, but I'm
cautious, so:
>>
>> Does anybody have a single experience, observation, or reason NOT to
go with the Swagelok replacement one-way check valves?
>>
>> The only thing I can think of is, "We don't have enough total hours
as a community to know what the down-side of the Swagelok valves is
going to be" -- but that argument is fading.
>>
>> Jon
>
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: any reason NOT to go Swagelok check valves? |
Hi Mark;
You will find a large selection of both copper and alum. Metric crush washe
rs at McMaster Carr. They are listed by ID, OD and thickness. I could giv
e you a part number now but not in the hangar so may guess wrong.
I have been using the alum. ones for years for all the check valves and num
erous other locations like rocker shafts and various plumbing fittings, etc
=2E
Cheers;
Walt
From: Mark Pennington
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: any reason NOT to go Swagelok check valves?
Warren
I agree the Chinese check valves.
I use the lead seals and I also use WD40 while tightening.
Do you have a part number for the aluminum seals. ?
Thanks
Mark
N621CJ
Richmond VA
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:08 PM Warren Hill <hill@doctor-hill.com> wrote:
Hello Jon,
It=99s a simple thing to rebuild them. Doug Sapp provides the parts
and all that=99s needed are two 17 mm wrenches. For those check valv
es that are too far gone from internal corrosion, the replacements that Dou
g builds are excellent. Regardless, whether you rebuild or replace, they st
ill need to be swapped out every few years. No way around that no matter wh
o makes them.
Just me, but I like to replace the soft lead washer with a soft aluminum
crush washer that=99s been coated in WD40 to reduce deforming during
tightening. Very solid seal. Attached is an image.
Personally, I=99m not a big fan of the Swagelok check valves. They
are not very robust. Have seen too many fail. On a flight to Oshkosh a few
years ago one of the members of our group had several fail by the time we g
ot to Nebraska from Arizona. Spent a long time on the tarmac at the Lincoln
airport replacing them with Chinese ones, which kept working for the next
three years.
Exceptions are the Swagelok main and emergency on-off valves. They are fa
ntastic and seem to last forever. The 90 degree, 2-port one is SS-42GF2-A-W
N2 with the black handle. Attached is an image of one configured for the ma
in air.
Warren Hill
N464TW
Mesa, AZ
On Oct 16, 2019, at 2:21 PM, Jon Boede <jonboede@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm a "stock" guy. I like to keep things the way the design bureau des
igned them.
That having been said, over the years I've replaced or overhauled enoug
h Chinese check valves to fill a trick-or-treater's plastic pumpkin. It's
getting old.
The Swagelok replacement check valves seem like a good idea, but I'm ca
utious, so:
Does anybody have a single experience, observation, or reason NOT to go
with the Swagelok replacement one-way check valves?
The only thing I can think of is, "We don't have enough total hours as
a community to know what the down-side of the Swagelok valves is going to b
e" -- but that argument is fading.
Jon
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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: any reason NOT to go Swagelok check valves? |
Thank you Walt and Warren
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:07 PM Walter Lannon <wlannon@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Hi Mark;
>
> You will find a large selection of both copper and alum. Metric crush
> washers at McMaster Carr. They are listed by ID, OD and thickness. I
> could give you a part number now but not in the hangar so may guess wrong
.
>
> I have been using the alum. ones for years for all the check valves and
> numerous other locations like rocker shafts and various plumbing fittings
,
> etc.
>
> Cheers;
> Walt
>
>
> *From:* Mark Pennington <pennington.construction.inc.1@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2019 4:52 PM
> *To:* yak-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: any reason NOT to go Swagelok check valves?
>
> Warren
>
> I agree the Chinese check valves.
> I use the lead seals and I also use WD40 while tightening.
>
> Do you have a part number for the aluminum seals. ?
>
> Thanks
> Mark
> N621CJ
> Richmond VA
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:08 PM Warren Hill <hill@doctor-hill.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Jon,
>>
>> It=99s a simple thing to rebuild them. Doug Sapp provides the part
s and all
>> that=99s needed are two 17 mm wrenches. For those check valves tha
t are too
>> far gone from internal corrosion, the replacements that Doug builds are
>> excellent. Regardless, whether you rebuild or replace, they still need t
o
>> be swapped out every few years. No way around that no matter who makes
>> them.
>>
>> Just me, but I like to replace the soft lead washer with a soft aluminum
>> crush washer that=99s been coated in WD40 to reduce deforming duri
ng
>> tightening. Very solid seal. Attached is an image.
>>
>> Personally, I=99m not a big fan of the Swagelok check valves. They
are not
>> very robust. Have seen too many fail. On a flight to Oshkosh a few years
>> ago one of the members of our group had several fail by the time we got
to
>> Nebraska from Arizona. Spent a long time on the tarmac at the Lincoln
>> airport replacing them with Chinese ones, which kept working for the nex
t
>> three years.
>>
>> Exceptions are the Swagelok main and emergency on-off valves. They are
>> fantastic and seem to last forever. The 90 degree, 2-port one is
>> SS-42GF2-A-WN2 with the black handle. Attached is an image of one
>> configured for the main air.
>>
>> Warren Hill
>> N464TW
>> Mesa, AZ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 16, 2019, at 2:21 PM, Jon Boede <jonboede@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm a "stock" guy. I like to keep things the way the design bureau
>> designed them.
>>
>> That having been said, over the years I've replaced or overhauled enough
>> Chinese check valves to fill a trick-or-treater's plastic pumpkin. It's
>> getting old.
>>
>> The Swagelok replacement check valves *seem *like a good idea, but I'm
>> cautious, so:
>>
>> Does anybody have a single experience, observation, or reason *NOT *to
>> go with the Swagelok replacement one-way check valves?
>>
>> The only thing I can think of is, "We don't have enough total hours as a
>> community to know what the down-side of the Swagelok valves is going to
be"
>> -- but that argument is fading.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm
_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm
_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_748154580092218988_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
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! --
|