Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=171.71.176.71; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <438F7E9C.6080107@nc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:52:12 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel/brake lines
References: <list-853617@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-853617@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ed Anderson wrote:

> Having had aluminum brake line tube fail from fatigue,  causing a 
> uncommanded departure from the runway, resulting in a fireball which 
> ignited my wheel pant, I would suggest you consider "real" brake lines 
> (SS braided with Teflon lining).   But, just a personal opinion of 
> course.
>
...and a good one at that.  My plan is to run the aluminum 'in the 
middle'.  I'll have a real line from the reservoir to the master 
cyliner, and then to an anchored bulkhead fitting.  The aluminum picks 
it up from there, running to a T and across to each wheel where it 
terminates in another anchored bulkhead fitting at the outer main gear 
pivot blocks.  Real lines pick it up to carry it down to the calipers.  
I think this is the best compromise for weight, cost, and easy 
maintenance.  I'd want to have each of those fittings and anchor points 
even if I ran the real brake line everywhere.

-- 
         ,|"|"|,                                    |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----        Dyke Delta         |
        o|  d  |o          www.ernest.isa-geek.org  |