Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - fuel lines, tunnel to wing

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

fuel lines, tunnel to wing

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

rnewman(at)tcwtech.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing

Over the last couple of weeks we had a thread on flexible fuel lines and the Van's hard tubing lines.    I've made my choice and decided to machine bushings to allow the use of standard bulkhead fittings at the tunnel and wing root.     I've added a photo gallery on this on our web site.   Here's the direct link.   Just scroll to the bottom of the page on this link



http://www.tcwtech.com/RV-10%20construction%20project.htm



Bob Newman

TCW Technologies

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing

Flexible fuel lines are exactly the kind of consumable that must be

periodically replaced in all aircraft (based on date of product

manufacture) and are subject to the ravages of Ethanol mandated into

gasoline.  We need to hear Dick VanGrunsven weigh in on Oregon's new

bill - HB2210B.  Numerous states were approached by Greenies at the same

time (Michigan, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania).  Oregon's Department of

Agriculture just had a meeting yesterday and admitted a poorly crafted

and detrimental piece of legislation and yet the freight train is still

coming down the tracks next month.



 



Choose those lines wisely.  Know if the VAN supplied fuel quantity

sending unit gaskets are susceptible to Ethanol laden gasoline products

in our tanks.  The Help Desk at VANS needs to hear your concerns.  GAMIs

PRISM product remains years from availability to help with ignition

timing control.



 



John Cox - 40600



 



________________________________



From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob-tcw

Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:50 PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing



 



Over the last couple of weeks we had a thread on flexible fuel lines and

the Van's hard tubing lines.    I've made my choice and decided to

machine bushings to allow the use of standard bulkhead fittings at the

tunnel and wing root.     I've added a photo gallery on this on our web

site.   Here's the direct link.   Just scroll to the bottom of the page

on this link



 



http://www.tcwtech.com/RV-10%20construction%20project.htm



 



Bob Newman



TCW Technologies

rv10(at)sinkrate.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing

I have been fretting over the fuel line installation lately and I too have

considered installing standard bulkhead fittings in some similar fashion.

The one thing that has kept me from making up my mind and doing this is the

following from the 43.13.  I don't think this was mentioned in the last go

around on fuel lines so I thought I would bring it up.  



 



Chapter 8, Section 3, Paragraph 8-31, part c Alignment states:



 



"Never install a straight length of tubing between two rigidly mounted

fittings.  Always incorporate at least one bend between such fittings to

absorb strain caused by vibration and temperature changes." 



 



Does the fitting in the tunnel wall qualify as a rigidly mounted?  If so

does anyone "in the know" know what qualifies as a proper bend?  I am

wondering if this is the primary reason for the way Vans has done it without

fittings?  I'm curious of others thoughts.



 



Ben Westfall



#40579



PDX



 



 



  _____  



From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob-tcw

Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:50 PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing



 



Over the last couple of weeks we had a thread on flexible fuel lines and the

Van's hard tubing lines.    I've made my choice and decided to machine

bushings to allow the use of standard bulkhead fittings at the tunnel and

wing root.     I've added a photo gallery on this on our web site.   Here's

the direct link.   Just scroll to the bottom of the page on this link



 



http://www.tcwtech.com/RV-10%20construction%20project.htm



 



Bob Newman



TCW Technologies

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing

John,

I don't know why there is much thinking of using mogas in an RV. Most 

have relatively high compression pistons requiring at least 91/96 octane 

avgas, which is somewhere around 96-98 pump octane mogas...pretty 

unobtainable. 92 octane mogas is likely to be okay if one is careful not 

to push the timing, etc.



Also, I don't know about the current formulations of PRC, but the PRC 

compounds used in the '60s model Mooneys won't stand up to the aromatics 

in mogas and turns to leaking mush. I saw one such plane that the owner 

pretty much had to convert to bladders because of his illicit use of 

premium mogas in 180hp Mooney.

So, I'd worry more about the PRC with mogas than having to replace any 

flex lines. One could obtain teflon flex lines that would tolerate any 

hydrocarbon, with no life limit. Parker 124J is one variety.

John W. Cox wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Flexible fuel lines are exactly the kind of consumable that must be 

 periodically replaced in all aircraft (based on date of product 

 manufacture) and are subject to the ravages of Ethanol mandated into 

 gasoline. We need to hear Dick VanGrunsven weigh in on Oregon’s new 

 bill – HB2210B. Numerous states were approached by Greenies at the 

 same time (Michigan, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania). Oregon’s Department 

 of Agriculture just had a meeting yesterday and admitted a poorly 

 crafted and detrimental piece of legislation and yet the freight train 

 is still coming down the tracks next month.



 Choose those lines wisely. Know if the VAN supplied fuel quantity 

 sending unit gaskets are susceptible to Ethanol laden gasoline 

 products in our tanks. The Help Desk at VANS needs to hear your 

 concerns. GAMIs PRISM product remains years from availability to help 

 with ignition timing control.



 John Cox - 40600

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing

We usually rivet in a little plate over the hold in the tunnel wall and drill the hole the size needed for the fitting, then use a washer like in the firewall.  The line from there all the way to the tank is very easy because it just has two 90 degree bends in it.  This keeps the connections down, keeps all rigid lines, and avoids the rigid line without bends between two fixed fittings.

do not archive



 Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)

Cell: 352-427-0285

Fax: 815-377-3694



 



On Dec 5, 2007, at 10:40 PM, Ben Westfall wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  I have been fretting over the fuel line installation lately and I too have considered installing standard bulkhead fittings in some similar fashion.  The one thing that has kept me from making up my mind and doing this is the following from the 43.13.  I don’t think this was mentioned in the last go around on fuel lines so I thought I would bring it up.  

 

Chapter 8, Section 3, Paragraph 8-31, part c Alignment states:

 

“Never install a straight length of tubing between two rigidly mounted fittings.  Always incorporate at least one bend between such fittings to absorb strain caused by vibration and temperature changes.”

 

Does the fitting in the tunnel wall qualify as a rigidly mounted?  If so does anyone “in the know” know what qualifies as a proper bend?  I am wondering if this is the primary reason for the way Vans has done it without fittings?  I’m curious of others thoughts.

 

Ben Westfall

#40579

PDX

 

 



From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Bob-tcw

Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:50 PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

Subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing



 

Over the last couple of weeks we had a thread on flexible fuel lines and the Van's hard tubing lines.    I've made my choice and decided to machine bushings to allow the use of standard bulkhead fittings at the tunnel and wing root.     I've added a photo gallery on this on our web site.   Here's the direct link.   Just scroll to the bottom of the page on this link



 



http://www.tcwtech.com/RV-10%20construction%20project.htm



 



Bob Newman



TCW Technologies



 



 



.



 	  Quote: 	
		   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com



	


	


 [quote][b]

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:46 pm Post subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing

One thing to consider is that most of the tubing around the fuel selector

already has some bends in each section; additionally the fixed fittings are

also aluminum and fixed in aluminum, so they all have the same coefficient

of linear expansion; They will expand together and shrink together.



  _____  



From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Westfall

Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 8:40 PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: fuel lines, tunnel to wing



I have been fretting over the fuel line installation lately and I too have

considered installing standard bulkhead fittings in some similar fashion.

The one thing that has kept me from making up my mind and doing this is the

following from the 43.13.  I don't think this was mentioned in the last go

around on fuel lines so I thought I would bring it up.  



 



Chapter 8, Section 3, Paragraph 8-31, part c Alignment states:



 



"Never install a straight length of tubing between two rigidly mounted

fittings.  Always incorporate at least one bend between such fittings to

absorb strain caused by vibration and temperature changes." 



 



Does the fitting in the tunnel wall qualify as a rigidly mounted?  If so

does anyone "in the know" know what qualifies as a proper bend?  I am

wondering if this is the primary reason for the way Vans has done it without

fittings?  I'm curious of others thoughts.



 



Ben Westfall



#40579



PDX



 



 



  _____  



From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob-tcw

Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:50 PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing



 



Over the last couple of weeks we had a thread on flexible fuel lines and the

Van's hard tubing lines.    I've made my choice and decided to machine

bushings to allow the use of standard bulkhead fittings at the tunnel and

wing root.     I've added a photo gallery on this on our web site.   Here's

the direct link.   Just scroll to the bottom of the page on this link



 



http://www.tcwtech.com/RV-10%20construction%20project.htm



 



Bob Newman



TCW Technologies

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing

John W. Cox wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		                     

Flexible fuel lines are exactly the kind of consumable that must be periodically replaced in all aircraft (based on date of product manufacture) and are subject to the ravages of Ethanol mandated into gasoline.   

 	
 The steel braided, teflon lined hose should be rather immune to ethanol.  Or any other 'new' additive to gasoline ...... or 100LL

 Linn

 do not archive

 [quote]      

 We need to hear Dick VanGrunsven weigh in on Oregon’s new bill – HB2210B.  Numerous states were approached by Greenies at the same time (Michigan, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania).  Oregon’s Department of Agriculture just had a meeting yesterday and admitted a poorly crafted and detrimental piece of legislation and yet the freight train is still coming down the tracks next month.   

    

Choose those lines wisely.  Know if the VAN supplied fuel quantity sending unit gaskets are susceptible to Ethanol laden gasoline products in our tanks.  The Help Desk at VANS needs to hear your concerns.  GAMIs PRISM product remains years from availability to help with ignition timing control.   

    

John Cox - 40600   

 [b]

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:37 am Post subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing

Ben Westfall wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		           v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  <![endif]-->   st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }  <![endif]-->          <![endif]-->       <![endif]-->         

I have been fretting over the fuel line installation lately and I too have considered installing standard bulkhead fittings in some similar fashion.  The one thing that has kept me from making up my mind and doing this is the following from the 43.13.  I don’t think this was mentioned in the last go around on fuel lines so I thought I would bring it up.     

    

Chapter 8, Section 3, Paragraph 8-31, part c Alignment states:   

    

“Never install a straight length of tubing between two rigidly mounted fittings.  Always incorporate at least one bend between such fittings to absorb strain caused by vibration and temperature changes.”    

    

Does the fitting in the tunnel wall qualify as a rigidly mounted?   

 	
 Yes.

  	  Quote: 	
		        

  If so does anyone “in the know” know what qualifies as a proper bend?   

 	
 Strain relief for hard tubing is usually a 360 degree loop.  The biggest problem is accurately making the tubing so that no tension or compression forces are placed on the tubing.  That will cause premature cracking of the hard tubing.  For flexible (read hoses) tubing, a little extra length is sufficient.  No tension allowed, however.

  	  Quote: 	
		        

  I am wondering if this is the primary reason for the way Vans has done it without fittings?   

 	
 Reading Vans mind has been tough for me.  It could be that making the tubing one single part is time consuming and helps qualify the kit for the 51% rule.

 Linn

 do not archive

 [quote]      

  I’m curious of others thoughts.   

    

Ben Westfall   

#40579   

 [b]

MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:48 am Post subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing

MauleDriver wrote: [quote]    I came to understand the purpose of this istem 43.13 before I knew it was a standard.  I found it aggravating to no end that none of the components of the fuel system that reside in the tunnel are lined up.  Each one (boost pump, filter, flow meter) are all misaligned slightly so one can never "install a straight length of tubing between two rigidly mounted fittings".   the fittings all require a job in the tubing between them.  

   

 I did the same bulkhead fitting thing that Bob and others have done.  Note that there are 90 degree bends in both pieces of tubing so it would appear to conform to 8-31.  Bob did a real nice job on the bushings so that there are 2 inner bushing to keep the fitting centered in the oversize hole, and 2 outer bushing to capture it in the hole.  I took a simpler route and just used 2 outer bushing that depend on being clamped in place by the nut on the bulkhead fitting.  Given 8-31, the lazy approach would possibly provide even greater allowance for vibration and temperature changes.  Though I would emphasize there is no need for this in this situation.  And Bob's bushings really looks like the proper way to do it.

   

 Overall, I'm thinking that the bulkhead fitting is the best way to handle this situation next to Van's original design.   It simplies the bending required and  facilitates installation of the Andair valve.  It does add more points of possible failure.

   

 Bill Watson

   

 Ben Westfall wrote:    	  Quote: 	
		               v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  <![endif]-->   st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }  <![endif]-->            <![endif]-->       <![endif]-->               

I have been fretting over the fuel line installation lately and I too have considered installing standard bulkhead fittings in some similar fashion.  The one thing that has kept me from making up my mind and doing this is the following from the 43.13.  I don’t think this was mentioned in the last go around on fuel lines so I thought I would bring it up.       

      

Chapter 8, Section 3, Paragraph 8-31, part c Alignment states:     

      

“Never install a straight length of tubing between two rigidly mounted fittings.  Always incorporate at least one bend between such fittings to absorb strain caused by vibration and temperature changes.”      

      

Does the fitting in the tunnel wall qualify as a rigidly mounted?  If so does anyone “in the know” know what qualifies as a proper bend?  I am wondering if this is the primary reason for the way Vans has done it without fittings?  I’m curious of others thoughts.     

      

Ben Westfall     

#40579     

PDX     

   	
   

 [b]

rnewman(at)lutron.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing

I looked into this straight tube between rigid supports thing as

discussed in 43.13 and I identified two issues regarding this specific

installation that allow me to be satisfied that in this particular

installation I'm not going to have a problem.  



      First, the mounting point at the tunnel is not very stiff.   The

tunnel is 0.050" aluminum and there is no support stiffening in the area

in the same axis as the fuel line. (ie no other bulkheads at a right

angle to the tunnel)  So effectively there is not a lot holding the

tunnel end fitting thereby allowing expansion, contraction and vibration

to provide little stress to the tube.  Try pushing on the tunnel

sheetmetal near the location where this tube fitting goes and you'll see

how much and easily the tunnel flexes at this point.

     Second,   This area of the aircraft is incrediblly stiff in the

bending direction allong the axis of the fuel tube.   The fuel line is

running parallel to the wing spar and about 8" in front of the spar, 

the amount of structural flexing in this area better be darn little!   

    So those were the two things I considered before I made the

bushings,    



I do note though, ensuring the fuel tubing length is correct is now

much more important, and if I'm not satisfied with this approach, I'll

loose the bulkhead fitting at the wing root and just use the one that

allows a nice transition into the tunnel.

-Bob Newman

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:01 pm Post subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing

If you builders can find other RV-10 builders who ignore this maxim.  Either conclude they understand little on fluid dynamics or they are just uninformed and need to open the book for a refresher.  The danger is just not worth it. Pictures of tunnels can show a lot about understanding tubing bends and use of flex tubing.  Ben’s edit is DEAD ON.  “Never”.  

   

John Hilger’s tunnel is one of the most beautiful jobs I have laid eyes on yet.  John… its time to post a picture or two as a tease for clarification.  

   

John Cox  

#40600  

KUAO  

         

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MauleDriver

 Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:21 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: fuel lines, tunnel to wing  

  

   

MauleDriver wrote:   

I came to understand the purpose of this istem 43.13 before I knew it was a standard.  I found it aggravating to no end that none of the components of the fuel system that reside in the tunnel are lined up.  Each one (boost pump, filter, flow meter) are all misaligned slightly so one can never "install a straight length of tubing between two rigidly mounted fittings".   the fittings all require a job in the tubing between them.  

 

 I did the same bulkhead fitting thing that Bob and others have done.  Note that there are 90 degree bends in both pieces of tubing so it would appear to conform to 8-31.  Bob did a real nice job on the bushings so that there are 2 inner bushing to keep the fitting centered in the oversize hole, and 2 outer bushing to capture it in the hole.  I took a simpler route and just used 2 outer bushing that depend on being clamped in place by the nut on the bulkhead fitting.  Given 8-31, the lazy approach would possibly provide even greater allowance for vibration and temperature changes.  Though I would emphasize there is no need for this in this situation.  And Bob's bushings really looks like the proper way to do it.

 

 Overall, I'm thinking that the bulkhead fitting is the best way to handle this situation next to Van's original design.   It simplies the bending required and  facilitates installation of the Andair valve.  It does add more points of possible failure.

 

 Bill Watson

 

 Ben Westfall wrote:   

I have been fretting over the fuel line installation lately and I too have considered installing standard bulkhead fittings in some similar fashion.  The one thing that has kept me from making up my mind and doing this is the following from the 43.13.  I don’t think this was mentioned in the last go around on fuel lines so I thought I would bring it up.    

   

Chapter 8, Section 3, Paragraph 8-31, part c Alignment states:  

   

“Never install a straight length of tubing between two rigidly mounted fittings.  Always incorporate at least one bend between such fittings to absorb strain caused by vibration and temperature changes.”   

   

Does the fitting in the tunnel wall qualify as a rigidly mounted?  If so does anyone “in the know” know what qualifies as a proper bend?  I am wondering if this is the primary reason for the way Vans has done it without fittings?  I’m curious of others thoughts.  

   

Ben Westfall  

#40579  

PDX  

   

   [quote]  http://www.matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com [b]

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:44 am Post subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing

Here are photos of John's line that he sent me to post.  If you're

going hard lines, John's are about as nice as I've seen.

http://www.myrv10.com/miscphotos/JohnHilger/fuel_lines.html



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

John W. Cox wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   If you builders can find other RV-10 builders who ignore this maxim. 

  Either conclude they understand little on fluid dynamics or they are 

 just uninformed and need to open the book for a refresher.  The danger 

 is just not worth it. Pictures of tunnels can show a lot about 

 understanding tubing bends and use of flex tubing.  Ben’s edit is DEAD 

 ON.  “Never”.

 

  

 

 John Hilger’s tunnel is one of the most beautiful jobs I have laid eyes 

 on yet.  John… its time to post a picture or two as a tease for 

 clarification.

 

  

 

 John Cox

 

 #40600

 

 KUAO

 

  

 

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com 

 [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *MauleDriver

 *Sent:* Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:21 AM

 *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 *Subject:* Re: fuel lines, tunnel to wing

 

  

 

 MauleDriver wrote:

 

 I came to understand the purpose of this istem 43.13 before I knew it 

 was a standard.  I found it aggravating to no end that none of the 

 components of the fuel system that reside in the tunnel are lined up.  

 Each one (boost pump, filter, flow meter) are all misaligned slightly so 

 one can never "/install a straight length of tubing between two rigidly 

 mounted fittings".  / the fittings all require a job in the tubing 

 between them.  /

 /

 I did the same bulkhead fitting thing that Bob and others have done.  

 Note that there are 90 degree bends in both pieces of tubing so it would 

 appear to conform to 8-31.  Bob did a real nice job on the bushings so 

 that there are 2 inner bushing to keep the fitting centered in the 

 oversize hole, and 2 outer bushing to capture it in the hole.  I took a 

 simpler route and just used 2 outer bushing that depend on being clamped 

 in place by the nut on the bulkhead fitting.  Given 8-31, the lazy 

 approach would possibly provide even greater allowance for vibration and 

 temperature changes.  Though I would emphasize there is no need for this 

 in this situation.  And Bob's bushings really looks like the proper way 

 to do it.

 

 Overall, I'm thinking that the bulkhead fitting is the best way to 

 handle this situation next to Van's original design.   It simplies the 

 bending required and  facilitates installation of the Andair valve.  It 

 does add more points of possible failure.

 

 Bill Watson

 

 Ben Westfall wrote:

 

 I have been fretting over the fuel line installation lately and I too 

 have considered installing standard bulkhead fittings in some similar 

 fashion.  The one thing that has kept me from making up my mind and 

 doing this is the following from the 43.13.  I don’t think this was 

 mentioned in the last go around on fuel lines so I thought I would bring 

 it up.  

 

  

 

 /Chapter 8, Section 3, Paragraph 8-31, part c Alignment states:/

 

 / /

 

 /“Never install a straight length of tubing between two rigidly mounted 

 fittings.  Always incorporate at least one bend between such fittings to 

 absorb strain caused by vibration and temperature changes.” /

 

  

 

 Does the fitting in the tunnel wall qualify as a rigidly mounted?  If so 

 does anyone “in the know” know what qualifies as a proper bend?  I am 

 wondering if this is the primary reason for the way Vans has done it 

 without fittings?  I’m curious of others thoughts.

 

  

 

 Ben Westfall

 

 #40579

 

 PDX

 

  

 

  

 

 * *

 

 * *

 

 **

 

 *

 

 **

 

 **

 

 *

 

 **

 

 **

 

 **

 

 *

 

 **

 

 *

 

 *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*

 

 *

 

 **

 

 *

 

 **

 

 *

 

 **

 

 **

 

 **

 

 **

 

 **

 

 **

 

 *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*

 

 **

 

 **

 

 **

 

 *http://forums.matronics.com*

 

 **

 

 * ********

 

 ********

 

 

 ********

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:14 am Post subject: fuel lines, tunnel to wing

Thanks for posting Tim.  And oh by the way, John Hilger discarded the

VAN kit supplied 1100 tubing for the 5100 series from Lancair to get

those beautiful bends and straight runs after the radii. (A really smart

touch).



I will be doing the same.  The 5100 is for guys who want it looking

professional. The 1100 is for guys bending it with a spring or broom

stick of wood cause it will never be seen.  In any case a straight run

of tubing between two fixed points has to be too short to install and

then remove.  Once flow begins the tubing flexs.  No one wants a fuel

leak. Hence the beautiful flowing lines found in John Hilger's tunnel,

which are 43.13 compliant.



John



--

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum