skippydiesel

In my on going search for a replacement aircraft, I saw an advertisement (outside my price range ) for  a Liberty XL2 powered by a  "Continental IOF 240 B5B - On Condition due to calendar time". I was not aware that certified Ly/Cons had a calendar time (TBO) - comments?

Great little aircraft. All very neat BUT that catch can/repurposed peanut butter jar. ?????? 

Jackc - I had my own (mis) adventure with a "broker" - refused to sign his no responsibility for anything sale contract - whole deal fell apart and I now see the aircraft in question has been pulled from the for sale listings.

I suppose they (vendor/broker) must catch enough poor buggers , thus making their false representation (much more than "gilding the lily") pay off. Just a smidgeon of due diligence will reveal their duplicity and sour the sale.

The aircraft for sale, that I know of,  has its when new photo used (without mention) and other possibly minor (depends on how you view these things) misrepresentations in the details. The first viewer will be pissed off that the aircraft is not as presented and from there I would expect the negotiations to go down hill.

Just a random thought or two about aircraft advertising:

If you use a, when new photo, of a 15 year old aircrafts - Is it just a question of ethics or does the law require that  the photo have a explanatory caption/note ? ie is this considered miss representation?

And

Are there any repercussions for telling a "porky pie" about an aspect of the aircraft, which is unlikely to have any safety repercussions?

3 hours ago, Flightrite said:

How many times have you lot seen a fuel filter of any brand clogged or severely contaminated? In 50 years of tinkering with donks from lawn mowers to turbine donks I’ve never seen a severely effected fuel filter! 
get over it!😂

I have - because I "tinker" people bring me their dead mowers/chain saws/brush cutter/pumps/etc -  Man the crap that comes out of the filters/carburetors/fuel tank/even sumps (sometimes very little of anything) BUT this is just ignorant owners. Regular preventative practices/maintenance and non of this happens. Like you I have never had a blocked filter on my own vehicles/equipment but once I had a tank full of dodgy diesel - drained the lot & replaced with fresh, as soon as we limped home in low gear.

3 hours ago, Roscoe said:

Buy them from Jabiru, support local Industry. _ hardly! more like supporting an inflated price put on top of imported product by Jab , but then they do have  handling, admin, interest and storage costs

And Jabiru will supply you with an Invoice which is handy and may be useful for a warranty claim. - very true and quite likely worth the additional  cost above

Same day shipping and advice if required.

9 hours ago, kgwilson said:

They look exactly the same as the fuel filters sold at Supercheap for $5.00.

When it comes to filters - looks can be deceiving as can price.

The filter medium, the surface area and the integrity of the casing may look the same/similar but have quite diffident capabilities.

Price is as always a poor indicator of quality - just a few short years ago 🤣 my marketing lecturer told me  that human psyche equates price with quality, so rather than dropping the price of an underperforming (sales) product, put it up and it will likely sell like "hot cakes" (true there is a bit more to it but as base a telling observation).

The SCA product may be better /worse/equal,than the Jab recommended and the price almost certainly 200% or more than the purchase/production  cost($5)  has no relevance, as a quality assessment, what so ever. 

3 hours ago, kgwilson said:

I reckon it is mostly air with some fuel vapour present. If the filter is mounted horizontally the pump (electric or mechanical) will suck air through till there is enough fuel in the filter to exit the filter. The air pocket will slowly shrink as oxygen & probably nitrogen slowly become absorbed into the liquid. If the filter is mounted vertically it is likely to have a much larger air volume as fuel enters falls to the bottom by gravity and exits via pump suction. The air volume will remain fairly constant as it will always be at the top of the filter but the filter will slowly get more fuel volume as the gasses become absorbed.

So, in a vertically mounted cylindrical filter, with central in/out fittings , how do you explain an visibly clear area, above the liquid ?

Logic would suggest, that either the air/gas migrate back up the inlet pipe (if so oriented) OR if the other way around the pump/engine would remove the air/gas, until exhausted, leaving just liquid fuel in the filter - this is not what happens..

25 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I'm impressed that you guys have been happy with the water 2 pack stuff. There was a guy at Gawler who painted his Pulsar with something like that and the result looked awful. Mind you, it was thought that he was going to die on his first flight in that plane, with all his previous experience being in slow high-drag stuff.

He has long since retired from flying, so I can't get more details...  It may well have been a different and earlier product.

Hi Bruce: I would speculate;

Paint finish is often at the "discretion" of the painter, being a reflection of their skill and or adherence to the manufacturers preparation/application recommendations.

I have used the Stewart System (water born 2 pack) aircraft certified system, to very good effect. Being an almost total novice (have screwed up a number of automotive paint applications) I followed the Stewart application instructions to the letter (completely out of character) and was pleasantly surprised at how well it turned out.

Good things come in small packages 😁

30 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I've suggested it's air  and it can be tested by say putting an ice pack around it and see what happens.  That will decide the matter. Nev

Nev; In my experience, transparent filters fitted to ground based engines, is that it is common for a nice clean filter to only have a small amount of liquid fuel showing at any time.

Over time, the filter may progressively become "blocked" and the level of liquid fuel rise accordingly.

So my low tech interpretation/speculation is;

The fuel enters the larger volume of the filter canister and much of it vaporises (clear) leaving a small liquid pool, with a vapour layer above (not air). I assume that the out going pipe is filled (mostly) with liquid fuel.

As the filter becomes less permeable, the effect of a change in volume is diminished and so the visible liquid level rises.

This effect is most marked in gravity fed filters fitted/lying in the horizontal plain but can also be seen in those fitted vertically. Filters subject to vacuum (pump) seem to be less prone probably because of the more positive/aggressive fuel flow.

9 hours ago, robinsm said:

did we ever get an answer about why there was no fuel in the original filter...???

 

Pretty much - fuel vapour occupying the space.

6 hours ago, onetrack said:

Ian, I think Skippy made the point he detests (sharp-edged) barbed fittings because of the potential for hose damage via movement to the hose where its in contact with the sharp edge of the barb.

That is where the Hengst filter is Skippys preferred choice, because the Hengst filter doesn't use a sharp barb, it uses a smooth spigot. But the best solution to prevent hose slippage, is the rounded bulge in the spigot.

 

Thanks Onetrack: in addition to your correct observations'

I feel that old style  multi barbed (still available & many fitted) do not seal as well as the smooth pipe with collar or even just plain pipe (spigot).

It also seems to me that people who use the multi barb, tend towards an over reliance on the hose clamp for making a seal - to achieve this, they use what I would consider, to be excessive tightening of the clamp (often still not completely successful).

I also tried to make the point that hose ID must be a close match to fitting OD for a successful long term seal. Using the clamp as a hose "reducer" is, at best a short term solution and at worst a failure just waiting to happen.

9 hours ago, Ian said:

Hi Skip,

We weren't talking about sales were were talking about design. You sited Kitplanes - a promotional publication closely allied to sales as is journalistic commentary on most products.

You were of the opinion that paper filters were no good  - My comments centered on what I see as garden engine fuel filtration product's (the small el cheapo paper types ). Never said they are no good, strongly suggested they are not appropriate for aviation use. and ventured the opinion that mesh filters were the "aviation grade" ones which could be seen as a sales gimic. - Who said anything about aviation grade? True I see a fine mech filter, encased in a light weight, transparent, almost indestructible casing, pretty much guaranteed not to leak,  as a preferable product to the aforementioned garden variety

Nev mentioned that he wouldn't use a filter without barbs as the filter you displayed didn't have barbs. So?

You then stated that barbs were just for a warm fuzzy feeling. Yep! The good old barb, very much superseded by the better designs I  (& you) referred to.

Thruster88 showed a hefty turbine with an paper filter I acknowledged the Aviation Certified pleated "paper" media filter, fully tested, quality controlled throughout manufacture and suggested it bore little resemblance to the garden variety that this post centered on - your point?

I stated that barbs and raised collar provided a mechanical advantage especially when used with a clamp. I have always supported the raised collar/single smooth barb design of fitting (along with the plain pipe/tube) and the use of appropriate clamping system. I am implacably apposed to the old style multi barb (beloved by so many) but agreed it gives a "mechanical" security , completely negated by its poor sealing performance and potential to damage the inner lining of the hose - what is your point?

 

The rest is just going around in circles. Like so many oft repeated  discussions on this Forum - still little gems arise from time to time to keep one interested

Hi Ian,  All sales people will offer commentary/opinion based on A Risk (to them) minimisation B Greatest financial gain and then suggest, in some subtle/unsubtle way, that the choice is of course yours. This is pretty much what the Kitplanes article is doing. Those who are uncertain, conservative (disinclined to accept change) or keen to have bragging rights (the over the top expenditure types) will fall for this every time.

The reality is, push hose fittings (fuel/oil/coolant/vacuum) have been around pretty much for ever. The design of the male fitting has matured away from traditional multi barbs to either a single raised collar or just a plain pipe. I have been using this system on my little aircraft for about 10 years now (true miniscule compared with the 100 + years of powered flight) with no issues what so ever. Its cheap, light, secure (when properly fitted), causes me no anxiety. The only down side ,as far as I am concerned, is its poor visual appeal.

"The automotive industry moved away from push on fittings without a mechanical retainer on fluid and electrical connectors decades ago." - I was unaware that they ever used hoses without clamps of some sort (even if its just a twist of fencing wire). I do not advocate not using clamps, only that they should not be the mechanism that provides the  seal. Many people incorrectly view the clamp as the sealing mechanism, when it should be a good fit/match between hose ID & fitting OD with the clamp providing security.

We all have our comfort zone/limits -If you were to purchase my aircraft new, it would come with the latest automotive spring type clamps (just like my Ford Ranger) - I draw the line at this point - give me any one of the variose , injector style, screw clamps available.

32 minutes ago, Ian said:

I won't comment from a push fit perspective however when used with a clamp a barbed or raised fitting does provided a significant mechanical advantage and added safety, you can also buy aviation clamps with safety wire holes which should give you an extra feeling of safety if you've ever had a fuel hose come loose.

The following kitplanes link also provides an opinion as to the mechanical advantage or barbed or raised fittings. It's written by an A&P mechanic, Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR), and was a member of the EAA Homebuilt Aircraft Council so I'd rate this advice above the general run of the mill fluff.

Raised collar -  by far the best system for push fit hoses.

Smooth fitting - perfectly acceptable when installed correctly.

Barb type - basically a visual marketing gimmick that does not improve sealing (may actually make it worse) , may enhance security/"mechanical advantage" (coming/pulling off) and can damage the internal lining of the hose causing particles to enter the fuel stream.

The Kitpanes article is promoting certified or certified like fittings - great if you need/want this complexity. The short paragraph on push fittings does little to add to the body of knowledge in this area. Understandably, A&P /LAIM  mechanics will always lean towards certified type & aviation tried solutions. This does not in any way diminish the effectiveness of automotive applications to aviation, where a modicum of mechanical logic is applied.

A push type hose fitting is simple, light & effective, when treated with basic mechanical logic:

Hoses must be:

As near as possible to the correct ID for the intended fitting OD. This will ensure a good seal, without the need for clamping (should still use a clamp).

Cut to precise length, so as not to have tension, that may cause the hose to slip/drift off the fitting. Where a hose must "span" between a relativly fixed fitting, to a moving one, (eg firewall to engine) the hose should be of sufficient length so as not to have tension applied and is best located in parallel or as close as is practical to the moving surface.

Hose & fitting must be well supported, to reduce movement, which can work to remove hose from fitting.

Of a quality that will not react adversely with the fuel/oil/coolant type and retain its flexibility/elasticity for the anticipated service life.

Not be used where high pressures are anticipated. With the exception of hydraulic brakes, this is a very unlikely situation in RAA class aircraft.

Replaced at the recommended service interval. The use of expensive substitutes (eg silicon)  to quality "rubber" hoses, of unknown in service characteristics and often greater weight, is more of a hanger talking point than a practical & economic decision. 

Clamps;

Should be of the fuel injector type - that is having a smooth inner surface & edges and a design that promotes 360 degree equal pressure.

Within the correct size range for the hose.

Only tightened so as to retain the hose (mechanical security) on the fitting 

Are a security/retaining device and should not be used to force a hose not to leak (get the right sized hose for the job).

Many adherents to the barbed fitting, use the clamp to seal the hose against the barb - false logic that may work in the short term but will almost certainly damage the hose internally making successful refitting (should this be required) a doubtful prospect.

May be reused many times IF not subject to damaging tightening forces.

Fittings;

This subject has already been well debated.

My position is, the old multi barbed style fittings (much loved by many) are now obsolete and should not be used where a smooth or raised collar type can be substituted. The automotive industry moved away from the barbed fitting many many years ago for good practical reasons.

4 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

This is a fuel filter from a 1100 hp turbine ag aircraft, pleated paper about 150mm long. All the fuel has to flow through it. The pt6 engine also has a paper filter in the fuel pump.

 

Yeah! fully tested/certified for use in that application - not much similarity to the B&S mower filter, probably made in some Asian sweat shop, by 5 year old kids, in 44032's example.

If you use the correct hose size : push fit, length and support your filter (dont let it hang or move about) "barbs" are completely redundant. They give the bad mechanic that warm & fuzzy glow  from being sucked in by a marketing gimmick.

No offence 44032 but I would never ever use a filter of the type shown, any where near an aircraft (or engine above 5 hp)

2 hours ago, 440032 said:

Pleated paper type - yes. I like to keep things simple and use what it's supposed to have Skip.

I have used what was recommended by the engine manufacturer for the last 16 years, no problem. I shall fit the new Cooper filter probably tomorrow, and report my findings.

Will also be looking at a few other things, fuel pump too. Fuel pump is higher than the filter, so it's not draining up hill. Got me stumped.

 

Those Hengst filters look good - I shall read up on those.

I first came across this type of filter when I went trough a prolonged love affair with Mercedes, W 123, 300D, (diesel cars). Gauze prefilters were fitted. It turns out that the are several suppliers but Hengst is one of the few that make (actually manufactured in Israel) their casings transparent & almost indestructible.

I later found that ATEC  (the maker of my aircraft) are  fitting them in their factory built aircraft.

They are not designed as a serviceable components- however bit of carbie cleaner, and a high pressure air blast, usually removes any accumulated matter.

4 hours ago, Keenaviator said:

I used Stewart Systems water born 2 pack paint on my Jabiru. Watched all the videos and read all the Stewart Systems instructions. I made a temporary spray booth in my shed with filtered air extraction system and a heater to maintain the required temperature. I found one compressor insufficient for the HVLP gun and ended up running two in tandem. I liked the idea of using distilled water as a thinner rather than poisonous thinners. I'm definitely an amateur when it comes to painting but the results were pretty good.  Laurie

Me too.

Like you I made a temporary spray booth, insulated with bubble wrap - heated with an old $40 (from Gum tree) window rattler - worked a treat.

To get a reliable air supply, a spent the big bucks and purchased a Honda power Pilot Air K25PR compressor. Passed the air  through a pressure regulator/water trap, then toilet role dryer and then a small inline water trap close to the gun. Had to make the compressor mobile, so built a two wheeled sub frame & handles, to wheel it around like a wheel barrow.

Like you, I followed the Stewart System "bible" and the result was just beyond my wildest expectations.

Fuel filter sounds like a pleated paper (medium) type - if this be correct, no offence 440032, in my humble opinion your just asking for trouble using that type - ok for lawn mowers etc -  I would use one on anything larger .

Aircraft should only use gauze filters or those supplied by aircraft/engine manufacturer.

The best disposables I have found are :

Hengst 102 WK

Hengst 103 WK

3 hours ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

Or a drone, or a satellite ? 

I need to proof read - satellite but yes a drone too.

What does the Fletcher do that a safelight cant?

I have been using an iPad mini for quite a few years.

Its encased in a heavy duty all weather, shock resistant, casing and mounted in a RAM. I have a dedicated in inflight semi permeant charger for it (the probable cause of the overheating). The pad has let me down twice due to overheating. Both times in winter, full sun on panned and cabin vents closed.

After the first overheating event, I tried improving the iPad passive cooling by:

Punching holes in the back of rubber all weather casing.

Followed by using a hole saw on the RAM bracket.

This was not sufficient as I had another overheating event so:

I designed and installed a mini eyeball vent located behind the RAM mount and directed at the back of the iPad.

Problem solved.

Eye ball vent can just seen.  second hole from bottom, behind RAM mount

3 hours ago, RFguy said:

Good post ARO !

looks like Decalin and Alcor get the thumbs up from Rotax.

 

The way I read it Rotax were not actually endorsing either - just not apposing their use.