X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:18:43 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.192.82] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.12) with ESMTP id 2300483 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:55:58 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.192.82; envelope-from=rpastusek@htii.com Received: from dlhtpax009 (c-69-143-130-212.hsd1.va.comcast.net[69.143.130.212]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <20070830105519m1200dggdje>; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:55:19 +0000 From: "Robert Pastusek" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] TSIO-550 Engine fittings question X-Original-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:55:07 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <006201c7eaf4$3aacee40$b006cac0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0063_01C7EAD2.B39B4E40" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcfqhFxkC+t8qijXR1CifokySz3jmgAbuLmA Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0063_01C7EAD2.B39B4E40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rick Titsworth wrote: Put this is the category of you don't know what you don't know. The attached photo shows two fittings. The top one (actually two) is from the bottom of a TSIO0550 oil cooler where it feeds the turbo's (for cooling) - at least that's what was on my engine and seems to reflect the diagram in the TCM manual. The bottom one is functionally the same thing but is a single fitting that I got from a local hydraulic fitting supplier. Is there a reason that TCM used two fittings when they could have got by with one? It appears the original(s) might be brass and steel (plated). I'll re-check when I'm out at the hanger. The new/bottom one is steel (plated). Perhaps there is some issue with the steel fitting in the aluminum oil cooler housing (galvanic/seizing), or perhaps they intend the brass fitting to be softer when attempting to get it in/out (if it's stuck), or ???? Anyone have any insight before I insert the new one? I was going this way because I desired the shorter fitting for better hose clearance/alignment. Also, some time ago, I replaced a 90 degree TCM fitting on the fuel pump with a 45 degree steel one. Now, I don't recall if the original was brass? and/or don't know if that was a mistake for some reason. I don't recall anything in 43.14 regarding brass vs steel fittings in aluminum housings - but's there's plenty of stuff in there that I may have missed/forgotten. I'd also be interested in the opinions of others on the list about this. I found a couple of instances of exactly the same situation on my TSIO-550, including a couple of 90 degree fuel system fittings where a 45 would make hose alignment and routing better. Thinking the 45 degree fittings provided a smoother fuel flow path, I substituted where it made sense. I also swapped out multiple fittings, including the above noted, for a single, and in one situation used two 45 degree fittings vice one 90 degree to provide clearance around an engine mount tube. Used good quality steel Parker fittings. Bob Pastusek ------=_NextPart_000_0063_01C7EAD2.B39B4E40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Rick Titsworth wrote:

Put this is the category of = you don’t know what you don’t know… The attached = photo shows two fittings.

The top one (actually two) is from the bottom of a TSIO0550 = oil cooler where it feeds the turbo’s (for cooling) - at least = that’s what was on my engine and seems to reflect the diagram in the TCM = manual. The bottom one is functionally the same thing but is a single fitting = that I got from a local hydraulic fitting supplier.

Is there a reason that TCM used two fittings when they could = have got by with one?

It appears the original(s) might be brass and steel = (plated). I’ll re-check when I’m out at the hanger. The = new/bottom one is steel (plated). Perhaps there is some issue with the steel = fitting in the aluminum oil cooler housing (galvanic/seizing), or perhaps they = intend the brass fitting to be softer when attempting to get it in/out (if = it’s stuck), or ????

Anyone have any insight before I insert the new one? I = was going this way because I desired the shorter fitting for better hose clearance/alignment.

Also, some time ago, I replaced a 90 degree TCM fitting on = the fuel pump with a 45 degree steel one. Now, I don’t recall if the original was brass? and/or don’t know if that was a mistake for = some reason. I don’t recall anything in 43.14 regarding brass vs = steel fittings in aluminum housings – but’s there’s plenty = of stuff in there that I may have missed/forgotten.

<= /p>

I’d also be interested in the opinions of others on = the list about this. I found a couple of instances of exactly the same = situation on my TSIO-550, including a couple of 90 degree fuel system fittings where = a 45 would make hose alignment and routing better. Thinking the 45 degree = fittings provided a smoother fuel flow path, I substituted where it made sense. I = also swapped out multiple fittings, including the above noted, for a single, = and in one situation used two 45 degree fittings vice one 90 degree to provide clearance around an engine mount tube. Used good quality steel Parker = fittings.

Bob Pastusek

------=_NextPart_000_0063_01C7EAD2.B39B4E40--