|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

01-07-2016, 08:18 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Big Sandy, WY
Posts: 2,567
|
|
I did an annual on a 78 hawk XP, everything bueno so I signed it off. It was late in the season so the owner decided to cover it up and tie it down for the winter at my FBO (full tanks). Springtime rolled around and when he came to get it the tanks were dry, no fuel evidence on the asphalt. Big hubbub because everyone assumed the gas had been stolen...until I filled it up. The stainless hose to the spider just poured fuel out through the braid. Original "lifetime" hose with cessna tag. During inspection there was zero evidence of leakage. I always figured the minus 30 temps on the ramp must have been the last straw.
__________________
Actual repeat offender.
|

01-07-2016, 08:30 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Boone, Iowa
Posts: 342
|
|
As another data point... there are several race supply places around us. The shop that makes some of our products makes fittings for a couple of them. They specifically ask for the parts to be cheaper and the quality to be inferior 'because these guys wreck the car on the weekend and replace the fittings anyway'. I know that the bulkhead fittings that are made here are not out of the right aluminum, or even of consistent dimensions to pass any kind of QC in the aviation world.
I agree that some are likely exactly the same, some are comparable, but some are certainly not.
|

01-07-2016, 08:36 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Jacksonville,Fl. 32246
Posts: 270
|
|
As a former (35+ yrs) car owner/engine builder on the tough north east dirt modified circuit, I can tell you Sumit , Russell, others supplying hoses , fittings, etc. withstand more abuse than any aircraft...REMEMBER MOST faa requirements and rules date back to the 20s-30s....I have many friends who wish they could put a Dynon or similar panel in their 40+- year old certified airframe like we can use in our experimentals...Tom
__________________
Tomcat RV4
RV4 gone to RV heaven !building Zenith 701
dues paid and worth every penny
Life is uncertain -Eat desert first !
U F O Member since Dec 2017
|

01-07-2016, 09:31 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gold Hill, NC25
Posts: 2,400
|
|
I get my hoses from Tom because I trust what Im getting and I can't afford a failure of this item. I cant make them like him, I cant test them like him, I cant understand the nuances like him, and I cant know all that he knows to make it right like him. As I get older, my risk threshold lowers on critical items like this.
__________________
Kahuna
6A, S8 ,
Gold Hill, NC25
|

01-07-2016, 10:17 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 5,766
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lr172
A very interesting discussion. I may consider building new hoses with higher quality components to increase safety. Russ, have you found the Earl's fittings to be of good quality in your testing? Are there alternatives to the Aeroquip 701 or is that the "go to" hose for our application?
Larry
|
Yes, the Earls fittings are the real deal in my limited vice testing. As someone else mentioned, we also see some brand X stuff with thicker walls (smaller ID) to make up for inferior material or heat treatment.
Earls originally came from the aviation world and has a rep for top quality stuff. Never had a failure of their fittings. They were acquired by the Holley group a few years back. I don't know if that changed anything about sourcing. Before, all of their stuff was made by them in the US. Aeroquip also states all their product is US made. These companies have been around decades, with reputations built on top quality products. They have not to my knowledge, offered any "offshore" el cheapo grade fittings to stem the tide from other manufacturers. They make good stuff from what I've seen and ask a commensurate price for it.
I just wouldn't try to save $300 on my airplane here by buying brand X.
Not all brand X stuff is bad but how do you know without testing? Saves some time to just to buy real stuff IMO from a trusted source. All the Earls hose has conductive inner liners to my knowledge if recommended for fuel.
|

01-07-2016, 11:51 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Frederick, MD
Posts: 821
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lr172
A very interesting discussion. I may consider building new hoses with higher quality components to increase safety. Russ, have you found the Earl's fittings to be of good quality in your testing? Are there alternatives to the Aeroquip 701 or is that the "go to" hose for our application?
Larry
|
I had failures in 2 hoses made from Earls parts and used for fuel (only 6PSI). A real fire hazard.
That said, I can't attest to whether or not the failure was caused by parts or the assembly of the parts by the original builder.
I replaced with Aeroquip 666 lines which came pressure tested, like Tom sells.
__________________
Dan Morris
Frederick, MD
PA28-140
Hph 304CZ
RV6 built and sold
N199EC RV6A flying
Learn the facts. "Democracy dies in darkness"
|

01-07-2016, 12:27 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 5,766
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RVDan
I had failures in 2 hoses made from Earls parts and used for fuel (only 6PSI). A real fire hazard.
That said, I can't attest to whether or not the failure was caused by parts or the assembly of the parts by the original builder.
I replaced with Aeroquip 666 lines which came pressure tested, like Tom sells.
|
2 Earls medium pressure hose assemblies failing at 6 psi 99.9% must have been assembled incorrectly. Pressure tested is the best way to go by far no matter where the parts came from.
|

01-07-2016, 01:03 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: silverdale, WA
Posts: 208
|
|
JEGS AN
fittings looked good and will probably be fine. The items I received were made in China. No markings on the fittings. Finish on the exterior was a little rough, but the sealing surfaces were well machined.
I will use them. I will also watch them closely during installation.
|

08-02-2016, 08:41 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,516
|
|
extending this old thread
I have the same questions as the OP. Doing research on just the Eaton/Aeroquip brands for the aero vs racing world. The application is attachment of an accumulator to the oil system. No continuous flow. -8 size. Also no pressure attachment of -10 from the Raven tank to the sump.
So the aero offerings are AE701 hose and 816 fittings, stainless outer braid and reusable fittings. For the racing side is the "AQP" offering from aeroquip. The hose is a stainless outer braid and reusable AQP fittings.
References - Aero products, Racing Products
Hoses - Both hoses have the same temperature range. The AE701 is 1250 psi max working pressure (-8) and the AQP racing is 1000psi. Burst pressures not listed for AQP hose. I assume the fittings do as well, although no documentation is available and Aeroquip won't discuss with a non affiliated individual. The inner and outer dimensions are NOT the same. NOT. NOT.
Fittings - the fittings look the same but since the hose dimensions are not, interchangeability is not considered. I have to believe that the fittings are matched to the hose and operating pressures. Different is different thus the 2X price premium for the 816 fittings.
BTW - there is an article in the latest Kitplanes by Ironflight. He talks about ACP fittings. I can find no reference to this name at all. Did I miss finding something?
I will be sourcing my parts locally through Hoerr Racing ( HRP) as I can talk to them about their sources by dropping in. Great guys too!.
The finished hose assemblies will be pressure tested to 300 psi (as I don't have Geordi glasses), and the -10 will be thermocoupled as there is no flow there, and it runs close to the exhaust pipes enroute to the Raven separator. The exhaust will have radiation shields, but still.
I am going to save the money, but will report later if something is sour.
Thanks for a good thread.
__________________
Bill
RV-7
Lord Kelvin:
“I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about,
and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you
cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.”
Last edited by BillL : 08-02-2016 at 08:43 AM.
|

08-02-2016, 09:31 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 63
|
|
If you measure the x-section diameter you will find the AQP is smaller than AE701 by about 15% of the x-section area. This may or may not be an issue for you. Bob
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:07 AM.
|