Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:29 AM - Real bolt failure count? (Mark Hubelbank)
2. 12:26 PM - Re: Re: What a joke (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
3. 12:41 PM - Re: Real bolt failure count? (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
4. 02:46 PM - Re: Real bolt failure count? (Thruster87)
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: | Real bolt failure count? |
Does anyone really know how many failures have occurred that were not
caused by poor maintenance? Pete suggested that there were only three
bolt failures. This suggests more. It also begs the question of the need
to use Loctite. I would consider the use of Loctite a liability as it
increases the risk of not properly torquing the bolts.
On 05/02/2011 1:20 AM, Thruster87 wrote:
> --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "Thruster87"<alania@optusnet.com.au>
>
> A local flight training center that has been using Jabiru aircraft for the past
12yrs, swears by the new nut modification,they found that the new nuts can
be torqued more easily [the small nuts feel like they are going to strip the threads
during torquing] and since doing the SD have NOT had any more issues.Also
they have a wobble bar [10"] which they ground to move about 10 deg and they
ground the socket walls so it would fit in.This way NO need to remove any bits
from the engine.The jury is still out on the need to use loctite,as without
it it would make it a lot easier to re-torque the nuts/studs. Cheers
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338613#338613
>
>
--
Mark Hubelbank
NorthEast Monitoring
2 Clock Tower Place
Suite 555
Maynard, MA, 01754 - USA
mhubel@nemon.com
978-443-3955
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 |
|
I know for a fact the ARP nut is far better and stronger than the old nut
but having said that they should have also had the bolt of the proper length
replace the old one.
It seems to me they are trying to fix a stripping nut problem with a
stronger nut when in fact they have a non stretching bolt problem they aren't
addressing and as you know when you strengthen one part something else is more
prone to fail. Seems like the heat is causing the case to expand and the
bolts aren't of the stretch type so the nuts strip as a result. Re torquing is
simply masking an underlying problem.
Same as the heads.
Jeff
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: Real bolt failure count? |
Just another Jab problem that could be fixed but they seem to think
problems don't exist. One question I have is, if the bolt is failing why change
the
nut? I think they have a nut failure problem and they think a stronger nut
is the answer. WRONG
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: Real bolt failure count? |
By using the new nut you are gaining almost a 50% increase in thread take up,thus
the load is less per thread which in turn reduces the chance of breakage.Longer
studs /bolts are available if so desired. Cheers
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338667#338667
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! --
|