X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:13:07 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mta13.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.44] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.3) with ESMTP id 1340998 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:24:17 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.168.78.44; envelope-from=glcasey@adelphia.net Received: from [70.34.70.106] by mta13.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060821132326.QLOK59.mta13.adelphia.net@[70.34.70.106]> for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:23:26 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1--381737540 X-Original-Message-Id: <3CA00CAB-8DF8-4635-B61B-341EE2E35D0D@adelphia.net> From: Gary Casey Subject: Re: Firewall forward X-Original-Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 06:23:25 -0700 X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) --Apple-Mail-1--381737540 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed There are a couple of technical reasons, but I don't know if there is a regulatory source. Vibration is one concern and I was told that steel should be used on each end of a hose that connects between the engine to a stationary location. Steel has an infinite fatigue life and aluminum has a finite fatigue life that depends on stress level. Is this a sufficient reason to use steel? I doubt that the vibratory stresses in most fittings could ever be high enough to be a concern - after all, the hose itself isolates the movement. The second reason is fire protection - in theory the aluminum fittings could melt in the case of an engine fire. I doubt that this would happen in the case of a fairly massive fitting, but I suppose it could happen to a -3 or -4 fitting used for a gage line exposede to direct flame (no internal flow to cool the fitting). I'm sure I added a pound or two of weight by using steel fittings, but that's what I did. Gary Casey > > In the past there has been discussion of the use of aluminum hose > fittings firewall forward, the general opinion being no. I am in > negotiation with a supplier of hoses who claims there is no reason > or regulation not to use them. Up to now I have not been able to > find any regulation on the matter. Can any one help? > > Thanks > > John Herminghaus > LIVP --Apple-Mail-1--381737540 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 There are a couple of technical = reasons, but I don't know if there is a regulatory source.=A0 Vibration = is one concern and I was told that steel should be used on each end of a = hose that connects between the engine to a stationary location.=A0 Steel = has an infinite fatigue life and aluminum has a finite fatigue life that = depends on stress level.=A0 Is this a sufficient reason to use steel?=A0 = I doubt that the vibratory stresses in most fittings could ever be high = enough to be a concern - after all, the hose itself isolates the = movement.=A0 The second reason is fire protection - in theory the = aluminum fittings could melt in the case of an engine fire.=A0 I doubt = that this would happen in the case of a fairly massive fitting, but I = suppose it could happen to a -3 or -4 fitting used for a gage line = exposede to direct flame (no internal flow to cool the fitting).=A0 I'm = sure I added a pound or two of weight by using steel fittings, but = that's what I did.

Gary = Casey

In the = past there has been discussion of the use of aluminum hose fittings = firewall forward, the general opinion being no.=A0 I am in negotiation = with a supplier of hoses who claims there is no reason or regulation not = to use them.=A0 Up to now I have not been able to find any regulation on = the matter.=A0 Can any one help?

Thanks

John = Herminghaus
LIVP
=

= --Apple-Mail-1--381737540--