X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 07:56:17 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from wolverine.webiness.com ([65.61.103.66] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.11) with ESMTPS id 4633108 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 20:24:35 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.61.103.66; envelope-from=brent@regandesigns.com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=regandesigns.com; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type; b=HQOHUx8W+ns2MP9zvJoBvzrRQNJn2vgKrAz88xSe9rmOFdJhcWAGykn4sdMft3FYfixfZRL/YTVnBoPGhJYT7VLl8Kp3I2EuQAh+IVbawmohNwfR34OV3SiUnCSOUv8g; Received: from 207-170-226-178.static.twtelecom.net ([207.170.226.178] helo=[192.168.1.145]) by wolverine.webiness.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PQ8lD-0001uk-Fc for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 17:23:59 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: <4CFEDE2C.2070801@regandesigns.com> X-Original-Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 17:23:56 -0800 From: Brent Regan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: Hydraulic hoses Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010302080205070107090909" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - wolverine.webiness.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lancaironline.net X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - regandesigns.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010302080205070107090909 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Scott writes:<<>>> To answer your questions, yes I did (and always do) log the repairs and test fly the aircraft after any significant maintenance. The test flight is followed by an inspection. FAA approval is not required (according to my FSDO) if the form, fit and function of the component is unchanged. When I changed propeller types a few years ago I did inform them. As soon as I discovered the distorted tube I said to myself: "Self, you don't want to fly with that part on the airplane. I don't think it is airworthy." and promptly set about replacing the part. Had I simply replaced the heat wrap on the distorted part I likely would have needed FAA approval because the component no longer resembled, within reason, the original condition. If a builder applies some spiral wrap to a hydraulic line and that spiral wrap then breaks and falls off but the original hose remains in near new condition then there is no problem with the hose. If the hose itself starts to crack and fall apart then there is a problem. The critical question is if the functional capability of the component is compromised. The spiral wrap and the heat wrap are separate parts from the hose or tube and so their performance is independent of the thing they surround. Regards Brent Regan --------------010302080205070107090909 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Scott writes:<<<You recently described an "experiment" where you wrapped some tube interconnecting turbo components and later found heat deterioration of the metal. You then conducted another experiment by constructing a replacement part and a shield. I hope this new experiment achieves the desired result. Did you log these changes and the fly off tests? Did you have an FAA inspector approve these experiments?>>>>

To answer your questions, yes I did (and always do) log the repairs and test fly the aircraft after any significant maintenance. The test flight is followed by an inspection. FAA approval is not required (according to my FSDO) if the form, fit and function of the component is unchanged. When I changed propeller types a few years ago I did inform them.

As soon as I discovered the distorted tube I said to myself: "Self, you don't want to fly with that part on the airplane. I don't think it is airworthy." and promptly set about replacing the part. Had I simply replaced the heat wrap on the distorted part I likely would have needed FAA approval because the component no longer resembled, within reason, the original condition.

If a builder applies some spiral wrap to a hydraulic line and that spiral wrap then breaks and falls off but the original hose remains in near new condition then there is no problem with the hose. If the hose itself starts to crack and fall apart then there is a problem.

The critical question is if the functional capability of the component is compromised. The spiral wrap and the heat wrap are separate parts from the hose or tube and so their performance is independent of the thing they surround.

Regards
Brent Regan
--------------010302080205070107090909--