----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 9:31
PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Sorry
Rusty - no bind
please
don't take this as being critical, I'm just asking - is it true or not
that engine fittings should be steel, not aluminum? or is that
just a myth? does aluminum fatigue faster than steel? what do
certified piston planes use?
Kevin Lane Portland, OR
This
is sort of a controversial subject. There is probably an
official FAA rule, or at least rule of thumb about only using steel
fittings when there's relative motion on the two ends of a
hose. Of course screwing steel fittings, into an
aluminum gear drive would also violate some dissimilar metal rules, so
damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Since
I was schooled at the Van's Aircraft institute, I follow the
more common sense rules. If it's a small fitting, that isn't very
strong, it's best to use steel. If it's a fairly large
fitting, then aluminum is plenty strong. AN-6 is about the
dividing line, and it comes down to whether there's much motion.
In the case of the drain fitting you see in the pic, there's no relative
motion, so I feel aluminum is fine.
Cheers,
Rusty
(not an A&P, and don't even play one on
TV)
This topic
was recently discussed on the canard aviator's website....seems that
Lycoming is sending their brand new engines with aluminum
fittings. I agree, however that there is comfort in using steel
for the smaller (-4) sizes. I have -16 aluminum AN fittings for my
radiator hoses, and it would take a sledgehammer to damage one of those
aluminum fittings. The general consensus on the canard site was
similar....steel for the smaller fittings, but aluminum was fine for -6
sizes and larger. I guess they figure that if Lycoming can supply
a certified engine with aluminum fittings, it's OK on our
experimentals. FWIW. Paul
Conner