X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:19:11 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.63] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.3) with ESMTP id 1682201 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:17:24 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.63; envelope-from=rtitsworth@mindspring.com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=aABw1MMZZdIjLLGIUNCLk1IMwTNKnyooDBMb/uybI6aSC9QYMCeigx0gPGObU044; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [69.241.250.143] (helo=RDTVAIO) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1GvpK9-00073s-H5 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:16:37 -0500 From: "rtitsworth" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: Flaring brake line tubing X-Original-Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:15:48 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <005301c721a2$cbf99ae0$6500a8c0@RDTVAIO> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0054_01C72178.E32392E0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 Thread-Index: Acchi98RafeEP85pQcGoeg7lghLlSgAFZmaQ X-ELNK-Trace: b17f11247b2ac8f0a79dc4b33984cbaa0a9da525759e26545523876bb916faffee7df552e7aa48e1a30146a21c727840350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 69.241.250.143 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01C72178.E32392E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All, I have both a single and a double 37 degree flaring tool and have experimented with both. (FYI - for those not familiar with it, the double flaring tool, first collapses/rolls the tubing inward and then expands it outward to essentially make a double wall'ed flare.) I understand that many/most builders use the single flare and it generally works fine. However, the double wall'ed flare looks stronger with less likelihood of a crack/leak. I'm looking for any insight/experience regarding double vs single flares. Rick Titsworth ES-building ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01C72178.E32392E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

All,

 

I have both a single and a double = 37 degree flaring tool and have experimented with both.  (FYI – = for those not familiar with it, the double flaring tool, first collapses/rolls the = tubing inward and then expands it outward to essentially make a double = wall’ed flare.)

 

I understand that many/most = builders use the single flare and it generally works fine.  However, the double = wall’ed flare looks stronger with less likelihood of a crack/leak.  = I’m looking for any insight/experience regarding double vs single = flares.

 

Rick = Titsworth

ES-building=

 

------=_NextPart_000_0054_01C72178.E32392E0--