Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:06 AM - Re: Re: a gentle suggestion (Paul Mulwitz)
2. 06:39 AM - Re: Re: a gentle suggestion (Roger & Lina Hill)
3. 09:14 AM - Re: Re: a gentle suggestion (steve)
4. 10:01 AM - Re: Re: a gentle suggestion (LarryMcFarland)
5. 10:11 AM - Re: Re: a gentle suggestion (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
6. 10:54 AM - Re: Re: a gentle suggestion.. (Gary Gower)
7. 12:22 PM - Re: Fatige life of Aluminum (Ron Lendon)
8. 01:28 PM - How should I seal a leaking fuel tank fitting? (William Dominguez)
9. 02:44 PM - Washere (Bill Naumuk)
10. 03:02 PM - Re: How should I seal a leaking fuel tank fitting? (LarryMcFarland)
11. 03:03 PM - Re: Washere (Carlos Sa)
12. 03:12 PM - Re: Washere (Carlos Sa)
13. 03:17 PM - Re: Washere (Craig Payne)
14. 03:35 PM - Re: Washere (Leo Gates)
15. 05:19 PM - Re: Washere (LarryMcFarland)
16. 07:33 PM - Re: Washere (Bill Naumuk)
17. 07:34 PM - Re: Washere (Bill Naumuk)
18. 09:10 PM - Re: How should I seal a leaking fuel tank fitting? (Bryan Martin)
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: | Re: a gentle suggestion |
I'm sorry for jumping in the middle of this very long thread, but I
can't resist making a couple of comments after reading the summary judgement.
1. I agree that changing the fuel system between gravity feed and
pumped is indeed a major change because it obviously has an impact on
the reliability of the aircraft. The operating procedures are
modified by need for turning the boost pump on and off. Failure to
do either task at the appropriate time can easily cause engine
stoppage or power reduction.
Perhaps more important is the long history of fuel system problems
leading to engine failures. All you need to do is pick a random
period in time and read the accident reports in the NTSB
database. You are sure to run into fuel system failures of all
sorts. These show up regularly in both experimental and part 23
aircraft, but the EXP-AB group seems to have an unusually high number
of these failures.
2. After reading this, I wouldn't even consider using Avemco to
insure a plane I owned. Besides their dishonorable decision to not
support this insured customer, they have a marketing model that
eliminates the insurance broker from the process. I understand
brokers play a very important role in keeping both the insurance
company and insured party reasonably in line.
I have little sympathy for insurance companies of any type who
happily take premiums and then take extraordinary steps to avoid
paying claims. This has been the general problem with health
insurance in the USA and apparently the aircraft insurance industry
also has a dismal record. While the fuel system changes here are
serious, I don't think that fact is so obvious that an insurance
company should use them to deny all coverage. I'll just bet they
didn't return the premiums either.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 11:15 PM 2/6/2009, you wrote:
>OK GUYS, HERE IS THE ORIGINAL COURT TEXT,,, READ AND LEARN FROM IT !!!!!
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: | Re: a gentle suggestion |
Paul;
You nailed it brother: insurance payouts go down, CEO bonus goes up.
The insurance company is not your friend Guys !!!!
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 6:03 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion
I'm sorry for jumping in the middle of this very long thread, but I
can't resist making a couple of comments after reading the summary
judgement.
1. I agree that changing the fuel system between gravity feed and
pumped is indeed a major change because it obviously has an impact on
the reliability of the aircraft. The operating procedures are
modified by need for turning the boost pump on and off. Failure to
do either task at the appropriate time can easily cause engine
stoppage or power reduction.
Perhaps more important is the long history of fuel system problems
leading to engine failures. All you need to do is pick a random
period in time and read the accident reports in the NTSB
database. You are sure to run into fuel system failures of all
sorts. These show up regularly in both experimental and part 23
aircraft, but the EXP-AB group seems to have an unusually high number
of these failures.
2. After reading this, I wouldn't even consider using Avemco to
insure a plane I owned. Besides their dishonorable decision to not
support this insured customer, they have a marketing model that
eliminates the insurance broker from the process. I understand
brokers play a very important role in keeping both the insurance
company and insured party reasonably in line.
I have little sympathy for insurance companies of any type who
happily take premiums and then take extraordinary steps to avoid
paying claims. This has been the general problem with health
insurance in the USA and apparently the aircraft insurance industry
also has a dismal record. While the fuel system changes here are
serious, I don't think that fact is so obvious that an insurance
company should use them to deny all coverage. I'll just bet they
didn't return the premiums either.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 11:15 PM 2/6/2009, you wrote:
>OK GUYS, HERE IS THE ORIGINAL COURT TEXT,,, READ AND LEARN FROM IT !!!!!
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: a gentle suggestion |
Right on Roger.
I stand by my statements about changing the propeller.
Insurance companies will fight hard NOT to pay out.
S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger & Lina Hill" <hills@sunflower.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 12:15 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion
> <hills@sunflower.com>
>
>
> OK GUYS, HERE IS THE ORIGINAL COURT TEXT,,, READ AND LEARN FROM IT !!!!!
>
> Roger
>
> MAGILL, Senior Circuit Judge:
> Avemco Insurance Company (Avemco) issued an insurance policy covering
> William Davenport's home-built experimental aircraft. After Davenport's
> aircraft crashed on May 7, 1995, Avemco sought a declaration from the
> district court that, because Davenport had not complied with the terms of
> the policy, Avemco had no duty to defend or indemnify Davenport for any
> claims arising from the accident. The district court granted summary
> judgment in Avemco's favor, and Davenport now appeals. We affirm
> I.
> Davenport, an experienced pilot and builder of experimental aircraft,
> holds
> a private pilot certificate and a repairman's certificate issued by the
> Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Prior to the events giving rise to
> this case, Davenport built a "VariEze" aircraft from plans he purchased
> from
> Rutan Aircraft. Davenport eventually sold the VariEze and began building a
> second aircraft in 1992. The second plane was built largely from Rutan
> Aircraft's "Long EZ" plans. Because Davenport made several modifications
> to
> these plans, he refers to his hybrid design as the "Davenport Long EZ."
> In September 1994, Davenport purchased an amateur-built aircraft insurance
> policy from Avemco, which provided coverage from September 13, 1994, to
> September 13, 1995. The policy contained an exclusion from liability that
> stated:
> This Policy does not cover bodily injury, property damage or loss . . .
> [w]hen your insured aircraft is in flight unless it[ ] is certified for
> flight by the FAA, initially, and after a modification which requires
> recertification.
> Avemco Policy at 3 (emphasis omitted) (Policy Exclusion).
> The FAA initially certified Davenport's aircraft as airworthy in April
> 1993,
> but conditioned Davenport's airworthiness certificate on thirteen
> "Operating
> Limitations. " One limitation required that "[t]he cognizant FAA Flight
> Office must be notified and their response received in writing prior to
> flying this aircraft after incorporating a major change as defined by [14
> C.F.R. S 21.93]." Special Airworthiness Certificate, Operating Limitation
> No. 10 (emphasis added). A major change is any change having any
> "appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength,
> reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics
> affecting
> the airworthiness of the product." 14 C.F.R. S 21.93(a) (1993).
> According to Davenport, his aircraft was equipped with a gravity feed fuel
> system at the time of the FAA's initial certification. This design relies
> on
> gravity to transfer fuel from the fuel tanks through a fuel line and into
> the engine. After receiving his initial certification, Davenport made a
> series of changes to his fuel system without notifying the FAA. Davenport
> first converted the gravity feed system into a pressurized fuel system by
> installing a mechanical fuel pump and an electric boost pump. After flying
> the aircraft for fifteen hours, Davenport removed the fuel pumps and
> reconfigured the system to its original gravity feed design, again without
> notifying the FAA. Hoping to improve the performance of his aircraft,
> Davenport soon reinstalled the mechanized fuel pumps but again failed to
> inform the FAA of this change. Davenport eventually grew dissatisfied with
> the pressurized fuel system, and he removed the pumps--once again without
> notifying the FAA. In sum, following the FAA's initial certification,
> Davenport made four modifications to the design of his fuel system without
> notifying the FAA of these changes or seeking FAA recertification of his
> aircraft.
> On May 7, 1995, with the most recent version of the gravity feed fuel
> system
> in place, Davenport crashed his aircraft near an airport in Santa Monica,
> California. The accident caused property damage on the ground, which in
> turn
> spawned numerous claims against Davenport in California state courts.
> Avemco filed this suit in federal district court, asserting diversity
> jurisdiction and seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or
> indemnify Davenport for claims arising from the accident. On October 30,
> 1996, the district court granted summary judgment in Avemco's favor. The
> district court held that the Policy Exclusion applied because Davenport
> had
> not recertified his aircraft after he modified its fuel system without
> notifying the FAA. Davenport now appeals.
> II.
> We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Wendt v.
> Host Int'l Inc., 125 F.3d 806, 809 (9th Cir. 1997). Summary judgment is
> appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the
> movant
> is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).1
> Under California law, the language of a contract governs its
> interpretation
> "if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an
> absurdity."
> Cal. Civ. Code S 1638. "[I]f the meaning a layperson would ascribe to
> contract language is not ambiguous, we apply that meaning." AIU Ins. Co.
> v.
> Superior Court (FMC Corp.), 799 P.2d 1253, 1264 (Cal. 1990). Exclusionary
> language that limits coverage under an insurance policy must be
> conspicuous
> and phrased in clear language. Hertz Corp. v. Home Ins. Co., 18 Cal. Rptr.
> 2d 267, 273 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).
> [1] We hold that the language of the Avemco policy clearly excluded
> coverage
> in this case. The Policy Exclusion stated that Davenport's aircraft would
> be
> covered only if it was certified for flight "after a modification which
> requires recertification." Avemco Policy at 3. This language explicitly
> premised coverage on Davenport's compliance with FAA restrictions. These
> restrictions included an operating limitation that required Davenport to
> notify the FAA upon making a change that could affect the "reliability,
> operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the
> airworthiness of the [aircraft]." 14 C.F.R. S 21.93(a). Davenport's
> failure
> to notify the FAA prior to his initial modification of the fuel system
> violated the operating limitation on his airworthiness certificate and
> prohibited Davenport from operating the aircraft without recertification.
> See 14 C.F.R. S 91.9(a) (1993) ("[N]o person may operate a civil aircraft
> without complying with the operational limitations . . . prescribed by the
> certificating authority of the country of registry."). Davenport's failure
> to notify the FAA of his repeated modifications to his aircraft's fuel
> system clearly triggered the Policy Exclusion and released Avemco from any
> obligation to indemnify Davenport.
> [2] Davenport argues that the series of modifications he made to his
> aircraft's fuel system did not constitute a "major change" because the
> fuel
> system at the time of the crash was in the same configuration as at the
> time
> of the initial certification. We reject this argument. Common sense
> dictates
> that altering the method of delivering fuel to the engine of an aircraft
> has
> an obvious and substantial effect on the "reliability, operational
> characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of
> the
> [aircraft]." 14 C.F.R. S 21.93(a).2 The fact that Davenport made repeated
> changes to the fuel system did not remedy his failure to notify the FAA
> prior to making each change. Each change Davenport made to the fuel system
> was major, and each change therefore required FAA notification under the
> operating limitation.
> Davenport also argues that the Policy Exclusion was vague and ambiguous,
> and
> that it should therefore be construed to allow coverage. "[W]ords in an
> insurance policy must be read in their ordinary sense, and any ambiguity
> cannot be based on a strained interpretation of the policy language. "
> Producers Dairy Delivery Co. v. Sentry Ins. Co., 718 P.2d 920, 925 (Cal.
> 1986). Furthermore, the "language in a contract must be construed in the
> context of that instrument as a whole, and in the circumstances of that
> case, and cannot be found to be ambiguous in the abstract." Bank of the
> West
> v. Superior Court (Industrial Indem. Co.), 833 P.2d 545, 552 (Cal.
> 1992)(quotations and emphases omitted).
> [3] We find no ambiguity in Davenport's policy. The policy clearly linked
> Avemco's coverage to the continued validity of the FAA's certification of
> Davenport's aircraft. Because California courts do not find ambiguity in
> exclusions that similarly incorporate FAA requirements by reference, see,
> e.g., Threlkeld v. Ranger Ins. Co., 202 Cal. Rptr. 529, 532 (Cal. Ct. App.
> 1984), we will not do so here.
> [4] Davenport finally argues that, even if there is no duty to indemnify,
> Avemco owed Davenport a duty to defend against pending state suits.
> Although
> the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify, see Horace Mann
> Ins. Co. v. Barbara B., 846 P.2d 792, 795 (Cal. 1993), no duty to defend
> arises if the undisputed facts establish that the insured is not entitled
> to
> coverage. Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior Court (Canadian Universal Ins.
> Co.), 861 P.2d 1153, 1159 (Cal. 1993) (agreeing with lower court that,
> "where extrinsic evidence establishes that the ultimate question of
> coverage
> can be determined as a matter of law on undisputed facts, [there is] no
> reason to prevent an insurer from seeking summary adjudication that no
> potential for liability exists and thus that it has no duty to defend."
> (quotation omitted)). Because the facts viewed in the light most favorable
> to Davenport could not have established coverage under the policy, Avemco
> was entitled to summary judgment on Davenport's allegation of a duty to
> defend.
> Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
> AFFIRMED.
> ________________________________________
> 1 Because diversity jurisdiction exists in this case, the district court
> could hear Avemco's declaratory judgment action in its discretion. See 28
> U.S.C. S 2201(a). Because there was no objection to the district court's
> exercise of its discretion in hearing this case, and because we do not
> find
> extraordinary circumstances that warrant an independent inquiry by this
> Court, we will not review the district court's exercise of its
> discretionary
> jurisdiction. Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220, 1224
> &
> n.4 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).
> 2 Indeed, in an analogous regulation applying to the maintenance and
> repair
> of non-experimental aircraft, the FAA has defined major alterations as
> including "[c]hanges to the basic design of the fuel . . . system[ ]." 14
> C.F.R. S 43 app. A(a)(1)(xii).
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rhino
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 11:45 AM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion
>
>
>
> Gig Giacona wrote:
>> hills(at)sunflower.com wrote:
>>
>> > ....Even though he had gone back to the original fuel system
> configuration, as
>> > ok'ed, by the DAR, the insurance company tried to deny his claim saying
> that
>> > he had made major changes to the fuel system without notifying the FAA
> and
>> > therefore nullifying this insurance....
>>
>>
>> Or the moral of the story might be follow the law. He made his mistake in
> notifing the FSDO of the changes has he made them and following the rules.
>
> The current rules don't require that the FSDO approve any major changes.
> They simply require a logbook entry and a flight test period, both of
> which
> are the responsibility of the builder/owner/pilot, not the FAA. The only
> place an FSDO is involved is in approving the location of the flight test
> area.
>
> The old rules used to require FSDO inspection and re-certification, from
> 1985 to 1993. From 1993 to 1999 the inspection and re-certification
> requirement was dropped, requiring only a written approval of the change
> from the FSDO. From 1999 to 2004 no FSDO involvement was required
> whatsoever, totally eliminating a approval requirement. From 2004 on,
> there
> is only the FSDO approval of the location of the test area required.
>
> The FSDO does not approve your major changes, and you are not required to
> discuss the change with them beyond what affect the change may require on
> the testing location. As such, your insurance company cannot deny a claim
> because there was no FAA notification of the specific major change itself.
> And this only applies to the five hour test period anyway, a period that
> is
> assigned by you, not by the FAA.
>
> As for what hills(at)sunflower.com wrote, the legality would not only
> depend
> on the details of the circumstances, but also as to when this actually
> happened.
>
> Does a change to your fuel system plumbing really qualify as a major
> change?
> Admittedly subjective since the FAA never specifies what major change
> actually means, but likely it is not.
>
> When did this happen, and what rules were in effect at the time?
>
> Was the test period actually adhered to?
>
> Did the incident occur during the test period?
>
> If yes, was the aircraft being operated within the specified test area?
>
> Without that information, none of us can adequately judge if the actions
> of
> either party were proper or improper.
>
> By the way, although the original date of Order 8130.2E is January 23,
> 2003,
> two changes have been made to it since then. The 2004 requirement I
> mention
> above was one of those changes.
>
> --------
> Bob Simmons
> CH 750!!!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228896#228896
>
>
>
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: | Re: a gentle suggestion |
One should not assume any engine reliability until it passes its flight
operation test requirements. I doubt any type certified
has an advantage on the auto conversion for reliability, but the
consistent installation requirements of type certified engines have
a serious advantage if the install is consistent with type certified
aircraft. There aren't many established
standards for the auto conversions. Ones that have sufficient history
for reliability are the Subaru EA81 and the EJ22.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
Gig Giacona wrote:
>
> A type certified engine is assumed to be reliable. A auto conversion isn't or
at least shouldn't be until tested.
>
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: a gentle suggestion |
I would think a good way to determine if a change is "Major" is to ask a IA
or A&P if the change you are making would require a field approval on a
certified aircraft. If the answer is yes it is a Major change.
I don't think a engine replacement is but that's not to say you shouldn't
put it through it's paces around the patch for a few hours to be sure you didn't
leave that bolt or nut loose. And for that matter I think the same should be
done with any replacement regardless of certified or exp.
Jeff
One should not assume any engine reliability until it passes its flight
operation test requirements. I doubt any type certified
has an advantage on the auto conversion for reliability, but the
consistent installation requirements of type certified engines have
a serious advantage if the install is consistent with type certified
aircraft. There aren't many established
standards for the auto conversions. Ones that have sufficient history
for reliability are the Subaru EA81 and the EJ22.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
Gig Giacona wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>
> A type certified engine is assumed to be reliable. A auto conversion isn't
or at least shouldn't be until tested.
>
**************Great Deals on Dell Laptops. Starting at $499.
net/clk;211531132;33070124;e)
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: | Re: a gentle suggestion.. |
Insurance companys work just the same ALL OVER THE WORLD,-- I am sure t
hat with all the useless -insurance monthy payments that this person had
- "gifted"- to the insurance company in his flying life...-- he cou
ld easy buy another airplane and pay the damages...- And still have money
left...-
If we fly carefully, we probably will never need to go to court to dump mor
e money and all our savings in court fees to unsuccesfully try to make the
insurance Company pay.--
They for sure have BETTER- lawyers that you can pay.
-
Here "experienced" pilots- and car drivers, only have the cheapest- 3rd
party damage (in cars and airplanes) we can buy, to cover only -the mini
mum law requirements,- because no insurance no drive or flight...- We i
magine is another forced "tax" we have to pay.
-
WE avoid insurance sellers as- the door to door Tower guys...-:-)--
-
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Again- Do not archive :-)- :-)
-
-
--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net> wrote:
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion
I'm sorry for jumping in the middle of this very long thread, but I
can't resist making a couple of comments after reading the summary
judgement.
1. I agree that changing the fuel system between gravity feed and pumped i
s
indeed a major change because it obviously has an impact on the reliability
of
the aircraft. The operating procedures are modified by need for turning th
e
boost pump on and off. Failure to do either task at the appropriate time c
an
easily cause engine stoppage or power reduction.
Perhaps more important is the long history of fuel system problems leading
to
engine failures. All you need to do is pick a random period in time and re
ad
the accident reports in the NTSB database. You are sure to run into fuel s
ystem
failures of all sorts. These show up regularly in both experimental and pa
rt 23
aircraft, but the EXP-AB group seems to have an unusually high number of th
ese
failures.
2. After reading this, I wouldn't even consider using Avemco to insure a
plane I owned. Besides their dishonorable decision to not support this ins
ured
customer, they have a marketing model that eliminates the insurance broker
from
the process. I understand brokers play a very important role in keeping bo
th
the insurance company and insured party reasonably in line.
I have little sympathy for insurance companies of any type who happily take
premiums and then take extraordinary steps to avoid paying claims. This ha
s
been the general problem with health insurance in the USA and apparently th
e
aircraft insurance industry also has a dismal record. While the fuel syste
m
changes here are serious, I don't think that fact is so obvious that an
insurance company should use them to deny all coverage. I'll just bet they
didn't return the premiums either.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 11:15 PM 2/6/2009, you wrote:
> OK GUYS, HERE IS THE ORIGINAL COURT TEXT,,, READ AND LEARN FROM IT !!!!!
=0A=0A=0A
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: Fatige life of Aluminum |
Herb,
I was having similar thoughts after reading that same article. I just metal finished
the spar parts and use 2 part DuPont variprime between mating surfaces.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=229093#229093
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: | How should I seal a leaking fuel tank fitting? |
I just leak tested my fuel tanks using the "pressurizing by balloon" method. Found
leakages in most of the fitting screws, nipple coupler to finger screen screw
and finger screen to flange screw, you can see it in this picture:
http://picasaweb.google.com/billdomg/Wings#5300156828305206066
I have a similar leak in one of the quick drain valve screw. I tried tightening
with no success, I'm afraid that further tightening might break the flange since
this screws are tapered. Is there any type of sealer (other than pro-seal)
that I can apply to the screws? I would like something that will seal the screw
without making it to hard to unscrew in the future.
Also, one of my senders didn't come with the rubber washers for the screws and
they are also leaking:
http://picasaweb.google.com/billdomg/Wings#5300156857736108498
I would like to use same sealer for the head of this screws in lieu of the washers.
The good news is that there is no leak in any of the pro-sealed joints and rivets
in the tanks, except for the only rivet that I forgot to dip in pro-seal before
placing it.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
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 |
|
All-
Where do you get the thin flat 1/2" washers that go on the front of
toggle switches? ACS, B+C, Wicks, and Radio Shack don't list them.
Bill Naumuk
Townville, Pa.
HDS 601MG/Corvair 95%
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: How should I seal a leaking fuel tank fitting? |
William,
There's a tube of TFE thread sealer that works very well. Usually at
your auto parts store. I had the same problem and this stuff took care
of it.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
William Dominguez wrote:
> I just leak tested my fuel tanks using the "pressurizing by balloon"
> method. Found leakages in most of the fitting screws, nipple coupler
> to finger screen screw and finger screen to flange screw, you can see
> it in this picture:
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/billdomg/Wings#5300156828305206066
>
> I have a similar leak in one of the quick drain valve screw. I tried
> tightening with no success, I'm afraid that further tightening might
> break the flange since this screws are tapered. Is there any type of
> sealer (other than pro-seal) that I can apply to the screws? I would
> like something that will seal the screw without making it to hard to
> unscrew in the future.
>
> Also, one of my senders didn't come with the rubber washers for the
> screws and they are also leaking:
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/billdomg/Wings#5300156857736108498
>
> I would like to use same sealer for the head of this screws in lieu of
> the washers.
>
> The good news is that there is no leak in any of the pro-sealed joints
> and rivets in the tanks, except for the only rivet that I forgot to
> dip in pro-seal before placing it.
>
> William Dominguez
> Zodiac 601XL Plans
> Miami Florida
> http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>
> *
> =================================
>
> *
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 |
|
would it be this?
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=335-1021-ND
Carlos
2009/2/7 Bill Naumuk <naumuk@windstream.net>
> All-
> Where do you get the thin flat 1/2" washers that go on the front of
> toggle switches? ACS, B+C, Wicks, and Radio Shack don't list them.
> Bill Naumuk
> Townville, Pa.
> HDS 601MG/Corvair 95%
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
... or this one, at the bottom of the page?
http://www.wiringproducts.com/index1.html?lang=en-us&target=d130.html&gclid=CNvitM_Cy5gCFQJHxwoddUu41A
2009/2/7 Bill Naumuk <naumuk@windstream.net>
> All-
> Where do you get the thin flat 1/2" washers that go on the front of
> toggle switches? ACS, B+C, Wicks, and Radio Shack don't list them.
> Bill Naumuk
> Townville, Pa.
> HDS 601MG/Corvair 95%
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
I've never used them. You won't scratch your panel if you do the final
tightening of the nut on the side of the switch-body (as opposed to the
lever side) of the switch. I realize this can be a challenge on a crowded
panel. Hindsight says to install the toggle switches first.
Another idea is to place the anti-rotation washer (the one with the single
right-angle "ear") on the lever/pilot side. Not as pretty IMHO.
Good luck.
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Naumuk
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 3:44 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Washere
All-
Where do you get the thin flat 1/2" washers that go on the front of
toggle switches? ACS, B+C, Wicks, and Radio Shack don't list them.
Bill Naumuk
Townville, Pa.
HDS 601MG/Corvair 95%
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 |
|
Try: http://mouser.com/catalog/specsheets/hardware.pdf
--
Leo Gates
N601Z - CH601HDS TDO
Rotax 912UL
Bill Naumuk wrote:
> All-
> Where do you get the thin flat 1/2" washers that go on the front
> of toggle switches? ACS, B+C, Wicks, and Radio Shack don't list them.
> Bill Naumuk
> Townville, Pa.
> HDS 601MG/Corvair 95%
Message 15
| 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 |
|
Bill,
Try google for Mouser or www.mouser.com and you'll probably find
whatever you need there.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
Bill Naumuk wrote:
> All-
> Where do you get the thin flat 1/2" washers that go on the front
> of toggle switches? ACS, B+C, Wicks, and Radio Shack don't list them.
> Bill Naumuk
> Townville, Pa.
> HDS 601MG/Corvair 95%
> *
>
>
> *
Message 16
| 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 |
|
Carlos-
Not at $2+ apiece!
Must have hit the wrong key, wound up with the French "Washere"
instead of "Washers".
Bill
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Carlos Sa
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Washere
would it be this?
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=335-10
21-ND
Carlos
2009/2/7 Bill Naumuk <naumuk@windstream.net>
All-
Where do you get the thin flat 1/2" washers that go on the front
of toggle switches? ACS, B+C, Wicks, and Radio Shack don't list them.
Bill Naumuk
Townville, Pa.
HDS 601MG/Corvair 95%
arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 17
| 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 |
|
Larry-
I'll try that if I can't find them locally. The shipping will wind up
being 10X the cost of the parts.
Bill
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryMcFarland" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Washere
>
> Bill,
> Try google for Mouser or www.mouser.com and you'll probably find whatever
> you need there.
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
> do not archive
>
> Bill Naumuk wrote:
>> All-
>> Where do you get the thin flat 1/2" washers that go on the front of
>> toggle switches? ACS, B+C, Wicks, and Radio Shack don't list them.
>> Bill Naumuk
>> Townville, Pa.
>> HDS 601MG/Corvair 95%
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
Message 18
| 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: How should I seal a leaking fuel tank fitting? |
Put a dab of any decent gasoline tolerant thread sealer compound on
the threads. Fuelube, Sealube, Permatex aviation form-a-gasket, etc.
You should be able to get a 4 oz. can of Permatex aviation form-a-
gasket for about $5 at most auto parts stores. White PTFE thread
sealer can be found at most hardware stores for a reasonable price. It
doesn't take much to do the job. For the sender screws, the Permatex
product would probably be best and it will work on the pipe threads
also.
On Feb 7, 2009, at 4:26 PM, William Dominguez wrote:
> I just leak tested my fuel tanks using the "pressurizing by balloon"
> method. Found leakages in most of the fitting screws, nipple coupler
> to finger screen screw and finger screen to flange screw, you can
> see it in this picture:
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/billdomg/Wings#5300156828305206066
>
> I have a similar leak in one of the quick drain valve screw. I tried
> tightening with no success, I'm afraid that further tightening might
> break the flange since this screws are tapered. Is there any type of
> sealer (other than pro-seal) that I can apply to the screws? I would
> like something that will seal the screw without making it to hard to
> unscrew in the future.
>
> Also, one of my senders didn't come with the rubber washers for the
> screws and they are also leaking:
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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! --
|