Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.148; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <470A2CF2.2020704@nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:13:22 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (X11/20070824)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Hose clamp myth busters
References: <list-2374537@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-2374537@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dale Rogers wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>    Maybe this is one of those things that isn't terribly obvious, but -
> having used a variety of screw type clamps - I'm wondering why
> plain old spring clamps aren't suitable for this application.  I can't
> ever remember having one fail in service.  (photos below)
>
>   
They're not expensive or exotic enough.  If it goes on an airplane, by 
golly, it can't be cheap or straight forward.</sarcasm>

Thanks for busting the myth, Al.  I'd like to add one more piece of 
supporting data.  Any nipple or tube that the hose is connected to 
should have a bead rolled on it.  That's going to create an 
comparitively *HUGE* obstruction that the hose with the associated clamp 
will have to slip over.  If your bead isn't large enough to make a good 
seal on the inside of the hose, and then the clamp is loose enough to 
slip over both, I'd expect that you'd also have the engine strapped to 
the plane with safety wire (with TWO wraps of wire, just to be safe).