Lots of discussion on this topic.
Couldn't find anything in Advisory Circulars or FARs on this subject.
Lyc installs Alum lines on the engine (which is FWF)
I have my FF sensor mounted to the FW on a 1/4" thick alum angle with a 4" run of alum tube from firewall fitting to the FF sensor with a slight Z bend in the middle and wrapped in firesleave. From the FF sensor to the engine is flexible hose with the first three inches of flex hose supported by 2 adel clamps on the Fire Wall to provide smooth outlet flow for the sensor and relieve any stress on the FF sensor outlet fitting.
I don't see how a 4" run of alum tubing is in any jeopardy of fatigue failure any more than the alum tubes running just behind the FW would be. Properly supported alum lines mounted to the firewall should not be a problem from a fatigue life point of view. Fire, fire..yes I know, we've covered this.
Does anyone have a technical reference discussing this topic?
Couldn't find anything in Advisory Circulars or FARs on this subject.
Lyc installs Alum lines on the engine (which is FWF)
I have my FF sensor mounted to the FW on a 1/4" thick alum angle with a 4" run of alum tube from firewall fitting to the FF sensor with a slight Z bend in the middle and wrapped in firesleave. From the FF sensor to the engine is flexible hose with the first three inches of flex hose supported by 2 adel clamps on the Fire Wall to provide smooth outlet flow for the sensor and relieve any stress on the FF sensor outlet fitting.
I don't see how a 4" run of alum tubing is in any jeopardy of fatigue failure any more than the alum tubes running just behind the FW would be. Properly supported alum lines mounted to the firewall should not be a problem from a fatigue life point of view. Fire, fire..yes I know, we've covered this.
Does anyone have a technical reference discussing this topic?