X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 20:27:19 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from rc3-smtp.comporium.net ([208.104.2.7] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTP id 6627444 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:09:24 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=208.104.2.7; envelope-from=snopercod@comporium.net Received: from rg25.comporium.net ([208.104.244.60]) by rc3-smtp.comporium.net ({885c17cc-cff6-4d92-8caa-cc0fa3baf93b}) via TCP (outbound) with ESMTP id 20131205220850346 for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 22:08:50 +0000 X-RC-FROM: X-RC-RCPT: Received: from 33.225.235.68.dsl.brvdnc.dynamic.citcom.Net (EHLO _127.0.0.1_) ([68.235.225.33]) by rg24.comporium.net (MOS 4.3.4-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id PPB47687 (AUTH snopercod); Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:08:49 -0500 (EST) X-Original-Message-ID: <52A0F96D.9080102@comporium.net> X-Original-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:08:45 -0500 From: John Cooper User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] [LNC2] Front Crankshaft Oil Seal Replacement Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030707070002090008040407" X-MAG-OUTBOUND: comporium.redcondor.net@208.104.244.48/28 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030707070002090008040407 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks, Chris! I grabbed Lycoming SI 1324 *version A* off the Internet which recommended the Pliobond 20. Thanks for dragging me into the 21st century! I'm now wondering if the red Silastic 736 wouldn't work better than the clear Silastic 737. The red RTV is used to seal automobile water pump tubing, for example. Engineers! Always trying to re-design stuff! LOL! > Rubber will last much longer if submerged in oil. The failure may > simply be due to nothing more than the years of sitting idle. > In terms of the seal installation, I would recommend using Dow Corning > 737 (see SI 1324C, 2009), Pliobond is offered up as an alternative if > the 737 is not available. After having recently changed a shaft seal, > I highly recommend sticking with the 737, in particular for the > do-it-yourselfer. It provides much more working time and is easier > to handle than contact adhesive. I can see many A&Ps not wanting to > use it because of the longer cure time (24 hours). > Chris Zavatson --------------030707070002090008040407 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks, Chris! I grabbed Lycoming SI 1324 version A off the Internet which recommended the Pliobond 20. Thanks for dragging me into the 21st century! I'm now wondering if the red Silastic 736 wouldn't work better than the clear Silastic 737. The red RTV is used to seal automobile water pump tubing, for example. Engineers! Always trying to re-design stuff! LOL!

Rubber will last much longer if submerged in oil. The failure may simply be due to nothing more than the years of sitting idle.

In terms of the seal installation, I would recommend using Dow Corning 737 (see SI 1324C, 2009), Pliobond is offered up as an alternative if the 737 is not available. After having recently changed a shaft seal, I highly recommend sticking with the 737, in particular for the do-it-yourselfer. It provides much more working time and is easier to handle than contact adhesive. I can see many A&Ps not wanting to use it because of the longer cure time (24 hours).

Chris Zavatson

--------------030707070002090008040407--