X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:05:44 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-d04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c4) with ESMTP id 2681844 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:57:06 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.157.42; envelope-from=MikeEasley@aol.com Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.228]) by imr-d04.mx.aol.com (v107.10) with ESMTP id RELAYIN6-74794b2953c1; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:56:21 -0500 Received: from MikeEasley@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.3.) id q.d30.22f65dff (30739) for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:25:54 -0500 (EST) From: MikeEasley@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:25:54 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Flexible hose assemblies X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1200925554" X-Mailer: Unknown sub 34 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-AOL-IP: 172.18.150.228 -------------------------------1200925554 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brent, I disagree with a couple things you said about hoses vs. aluminum tubing. First, I didn't find the 1/2" aluminum tubing "easy to fabricate". I didn't have the very expensive tool and used an inexpensive one. I had significant collapsing in the radius bends and scoring of the outside tubing wall. Neither of those was acceptable to me on a fuel line. So the downside of aluminum tubing for me is the same reason you give for Aeroquip, the potential for poor workmanship. Second, aluminum tubing needs to be properly secured to prevent chafing just like Aeroquip, but if you get chafing on Aeroquip, it's the airframe that will wear, not the hose. That seems to give the advantage to Aeroquip, at least unintended chaffing won't cause a fuel leak. I agree on the cost, weight and lifespan issues, and I appreciate your comments. Mike Easley Colorado Springs **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 -------------------------------1200925554 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Brent,
 
I disagree with a couple things you said about hoses vs. alum= inum=20 tubing.  First, I didn't find the 1/2" aluminum tubing "easy to=20 fabricate".  I didn't have the very expensive tool and used an inexpens= ive=20 one.  I had significant collapsing in the radius bends and scoring of t= he=20 outside tubing wall.  Neither of those was acceptable to me on a fuel=20 line.  So the downside of aluminum tubing for me is the same reason=20 you give for Aeroquip, the potential for poor workmanship.
 
Second, aluminum tubing needs to be properly secured to prevent chafing= =20 just like Aeroquip, but if you get chafing on Aeroquip, it's the airframe th= at=20 will wear, not the hose.  That seems to give the advantage to Aeroquip,= at=20 least unintended chaffing won't cause a fuel leak.
 
I agree on the cost, weight and lifespan issues, and I appreciate your=20 comments.
 
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs



Star= t the year off right. Easy ways to stay in=20= shape in the new year.
-------------------------------1200925554--