X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:37:48 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from pan.gwi.net ([207.5.128.165] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.12) with ESMTPS id 2301521 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:32:45 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.5.128.165; envelope-from=dhc1@gwi.net Received: from S0032744976 (d-216-195-154-109.gwi.net [216.195.154.109]) by pan.gwi.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id l7ULW57P004009 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:32:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from dhc1@gwi.net) X-Original-Message-ID: <013401c7eb4d$2ecf5fa0$1d99c3d8@S0032744976> From: "Bill Wade" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: TSIO-550 Engine fittings question X-Original-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:31:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0131_01C7EB2B.A7003C00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0131_01C7EB2B.A7003C00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I checked the TSIO-550 parts book, and what it shows is an AN912-2 3/8 = x 1/4 reducer at one connection, then p/n 628436 45-degree elbow, 1/8 = NPTF [AN823?]. The other connection is p/n 630065 Connector Fitting = [straight], going to p/n 646485 TEE #6. Despite any corrosion concerns I = believe that fittings connected directly to the engine are supposed to = be steel- I think that fatigue from vibration is the main concern. I just replaced a reducer/ 90-degree arrangement going into a fuel = tank. I don't think it was OEM but instead it was put there to gain = distance from the tank flange in order to make plumbing easier. I didn't = like having an extra set of threads to leak so I replaced it with an = AN822 with the appropriate pipe thread. That being said, could having two sets of threads allow for better = positioning? Instead of having one thread too tight or too loose, two = threads could be adjusted individually. -Bill Wade ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Robert Pastusek=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:18 PM Subject: [LML] Re: TSIO-550 Engine fittings question Rick Titsworth wrote: =20 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. =20 Is there a reason that TCM used two fittings when they could have got = by with one? =20 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 ???? =20 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. =20 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. =20 =20 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. =20 Bob Pastusek=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0131_01C7EB2B.A7003C00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
  I checked the TSIO-550 parts = book, and what=20 it shows is an AN912-2 3/8 x 1/4 reducer at one connection, then p/n = 628436=20 45-degree elbow, 1/8 NPTF [AN823?]. The other connection is p/n 630065 = Connector=20 Fitting [straight], going to p/n 646485 TEE #6. Despite any corrosion=20 concerns I believe that fittings connected directly to the = engine are=20 supposed to be steel- I think that fatigue from vibration is the = main=20 concern.
 
  I just replaced a reducer/ = 90-degree=20 arrangement going into a fuel tank. I don't think it was OEM = but instead=20 it was put there to gain distance from the tank flange in order to = make=20 plumbing easier. I didn't like having an extra set of threads to leak so = I=20 replaced it with an AN822 with the appropriate pipe = thread.
 
  That being said, could having = two sets of=20 threads allow for better positioning? Instead of having one thread too = tight or=20 too loose, two threads could be adjusted individually.  -Bill=20 Wade
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Robert=20 Pastusek
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 = 12:18=20 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: TSIO-550 = Engine=20 fittings question

Rick = Titsworth=20 wrote:

 

Put=20 this is the category of you don=92t know what you don=92t = know=85  The attached=20 photo shows two fittings.

The=20 top one (actually two) is from the bottom of a TSIO0550 oil cooler = where it=20 feeds the turbo=92s (for cooling) - at least that=92s what was on my = engine and=20 seems to reflect the diagram in the TCM manual.  The bottom one = is=20 functionally the same thing but is a single fitting that I got from a = local=20 hydraulic fitting supplier.

 

Is=20 there a reason that TCM used two fittings when they could have got by = with=20 one?

 

It=20 appears the original(s) might be brass and steel (plated).  = I=92ll re-check=20 when I=92m out at the hanger.  The new/bottom one is steel = (plated). =20 Perhaps there is some issue with the steel fitting in the aluminum oil = cooler=20 housing (galvanic/seizing), or perhaps they intend the brass fitting = to be=20 softer when attempting to get it in/out (if it=92s stuck), or=20 ????

 

Anyone=20 have any insight before I insert the new one?  I was going this = way=20 because I desired the shorter fitting for better hose=20 clearance/alignment.

 

Also,=20 some time ago, I replaced a 90 degree TCM fitting on the fuel pump = with a 45=20 degree steel one.  Now, I don=92t recall if the original was = brass? and/or=20 don=92t know if that was a mistake for some reason.  I don=92t = recall=20 anything in 43.14 regarding brass vs steel fittings in aluminum = housings =96=20 but=92s there=92s plenty of stuff in there that I may have=20 missed/forgotten.

 

 

I=92d=20 also be interested in the opinions of others on the list about this. I = found a=20 couple of instances of exactly the same situation on my TSIO-550, = including a=20 couple of 90 degree fuel system fittings where a 45 would make hose = alignment=20 and routing better. Thinking the 45 degree fittings provided a = smoother fuel=20 flow path, I substituted where it made sense. I also swapped out = multiple=20 fittings, including the above noted, for a single, and in one = situation used=20 two 45 degree fittings vice one 90 degree to provide clearance around = an=20 engine mount tube. Used good quality steel Parker=20 fittings.

 

Bob=20 Pastusek

------=_NextPart_000_0131_01C7EB2B.A7003C00--