Ed Cesnalis Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 Rotax 912 5 yr Rubber Replacement Kit (15-08264) vs Light Sport Five Year Rubber Replacement Kit (15-08189) Roger and all, Flight Design gave me this part number 'ROTAX 874-911' as the complying line that is used on certificated engines and SLSA but not needed for experimental. Roger and Jeremy say this hose is not available. Flight Design also gave me the part number of the 5 year kit '15-08264' Google search and her it is: http://www.rotaxpart...?idProduct=6106 the Rotax 912 5 yr Rubber Replacement Kit (15-08264) original Rotax fuel line included. Also I find this: http://www.cps-parts...?idproduct=1483 Light Sport Five Year Rubber Replacement Kit(15-08189) - designed by Roger Lee for the CT. This kit comes with 'GATES FUEL INJECTION', the line that has been problematic for 2 reasons. After experiencing an alarming amount of degradation and a power loss on departure I assume I would want the original hose even if I was experimental. I would also recommend testing hose before installing if it is not original or if is one with a history of degradation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 May 09, 2012 Resolution of Safety Alert regarding CPS fuel hose kits [after] carefully reviewing the information we were provided, we believe that the contamination was an isolated incident not specifically related to the type of fuel line sold by CPS. My opinion is that this is not an isolated incident, Jeremy says this 100% degradation, no question. From: Dave Armando [mailto:topservice@flightdesignusa.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 12:27 PM Subject: Resolution of Safety Alert regarding CPS fuel hose kits Dear Flight Design CTSW and CT2K owner: We are following up with more information regarding a Service Difficulty Report senton last Thursday about fuel line shipped with CPS (California Power Systems) kits for compliance with the Rotax 5 year rubber part replacement requirement. After discussions with CPS who worked with their supplier, the mechanics where the problem occurred and carefully reviewing the information we were provided, we believe that the contamination was an isolated incident not specifically related to the type of fuel line sold by CPS. As a precaution we do recommend that anyone that has done a rubber component replacement in compliance with the Rotax requirement, inspect the gascolator screen and the float bowls of the carburetors on their engine prior to their next flight. In addition, CPS will now offer a separate rubber replacement kits using only Rotax specified parts and materials as an option for SLSA aircraft. Flight Design may soon issue more specific guidelines for compliance with the Rotax replacement. Flight Design USA has in stock OEM replacement fuel line as well. I regret any inconvenience that this event and our subsequent letter caused anyone. We were acting with the best intentions to provide immediate safety information on a potentially very serious subject. If you have any further questions regarding this subject, please contact Dave Armando at 860-963-7272 or topservice@flightdesignusa.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 Dave, Another question: In your letter resolving this issue in May you mention that CPS created another 5 year kit that contains the original Rotax fuel line as an option for SLSA. On the phone you said that the original part was mandatory for certificated engines but not experimental. After I asked you a bout SLSA you said the original part was required there as well. There is a conflict, it can't be both optional and required on SLSA. My mechanic relied on your letter stating that the issue was an isolated incident and that the original part was optional. Please clarify. Thanks, Ed Cesnalis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 Hi Ed, I think your getting issues and resolutions mixed. All this above is all past tense and was discussed and the issues resolved many months ago with FD, CPS and this forum. We can't help the direction each chose to go, but we did take care of the issue here on our board. First the incidents are as CPS stated, extremely remote to say the least compared to the number of people that have used this hose if it is even the same batch. Did it come from the same batch? You're only guessing until you call CPS to investigate. Then you have to figure out who damaged their hose during installation verses who had real deterioration out in the rest of the world. Just because someone claims it one way or the other doesn't make it so. Second, FD is wrong. Rotax has no part numbers in their parts manual for any of our (FD specific) fuel hose except the red Teflon carb feeder hose. The only Rotax engines that have certified hose is the 912S on a certified plane and or engine and those parts come from Rotech in BC, Canada. Lockwood and everyone else buys those certified specific parts from them. If you don't believe that look in the Rotax parts manual. The FD factory did not use any certified hose for our aircraft except that which was already supplied by the Rotax factory. That part number FD gave you (ROTAX 874-911) is only the red Teflon carb feeder hose. What about the rest of the plane? The fuel hose that used to be certified on our engine was the fuel pump hose intake and pressure out, but once the FD factory cut that for the gascolator fitting that rating was gone too. Hundreds of aircraft has used that very hose you used without any issues (if it was the same batch). Did you get a bad piece, sure, but it wasn't anyone's fault, but Gates. My name associated with the hose kit on the CPS site was news to me until you posted that link. I'll take care of that Monday, especially since I told them to quit using the fuel injection hose on the CT. None of the Rotax 3 distributors use the same fuel hose so there again there is no Rotax specific hose to use on our engines. If FD claims so then ask them what certification the hose in the wing root has, or the instrument panel or the fuel re-circulation line or any hose that attaches to the gascolator. I warned CPS to stop using the fuel injection hose for this, but they chose to continue. I also told everyone here months ago to use the standard carburetor hose and use a scalpel like cutting edge to help eliminate hose debris and mechanical damage. I even posted pictures and where to buy cutters. Anyone that has chosen to use fuel injection hose or different installation practices takes the risk of having issues. That's why the ones who even had issues posted here to help others before they made the same mistakes. There is no way to control what any fuel line a Rotax distributor sells, but you can personally control it by buying your own better fuel line and use fuel line better suited for our purpose, i.e Gates Barricade standard carb fuel hose or something of your choosing. That said even they (Gates Barricade hose) had a recall a long time ago when it first came out. This is one reason I do so much research and post my findings and some of that is gathered and confirmed with the help of other mechanics around the country. IT IS TO STOP THE REPEAT OF HISTORY. To help learn from others unfortunate mistakes and even then it isn't a perfect solution all the time. Some problems take time to show up or find enough commonalities to find good solutions and some solutions take money to find. Call me and I'll tell you all you every thing you wanted to know about the who, what and why. The very bottom line is no matter who's hose you can get a bad piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 Roger, Bold lines below are quotes by Roger Lee I think your getting issues and resolutions mixed. 1) The resolution in May "[after] carefully reviewing the information we were provided, we believe that the contamination was an isolated incident not specifically related to the type of fuel line sold by CPS." is problematic. It is based on information that FD was provided at the time and the conclusion seems to be wrong. You (Roger) have stated that there are tens of millions of vehicles running mogas and not realizing fuel line degradation. 5 year old Flight Desgin Aircraft do not amount to a percent of a percent of a percent of these vehicles yet we have multiple failures. This is now clearly a statistical anomoly not an isolated incident. 2) The original OEM fuel line is available from CPS and Lockwood. That part number FD gave you (ROTAX 874-911) is only the red Teflon carb feeder hose. What about the rest of the plane? As part of this resolution: "In addition, CPS will now offer a separate rubber replacement kits using only Rotax specified parts and materials as an option for SLSA aircraft" If this is not true then why not ask flight design / cps to provide the other lines? Their position remains that this is an isolated incident but the are wrong and need to take the next step. The very bottom line is no matter who's hose you can get a bad piece. No the bottom line is a safe resolution to this issue. Has anyone had their OEM hose degrade? I don't believe so but multiple failures have happened on gates lines, including barricade. Why insist that if our gates hose degrades we are just victims of bad luck? That doesn't wash. You keep focusing on mechanical damage that can be avoided but ignore the degradation in favor of "bad luck" Jeremy said that my case was 100% degradation, do you not trust his assessment? Final issue, even if Rotax 874-911 is the only fuel line with a part number on the CT does that give us permission to not use this part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 Hi Ed, You don't have that hose part in your plane. You have stainless lines in their place so the Rotax part number 874-911 does not apply to you,k only newer engines than yours. I trust Jeremy's eval, just not necessarily all others as I have been fooled too many times after I actually saw the damage parts. You can't buy the fuel hose that Rotax uses because it isn't available and they have switched coolant and fuel hoses too many times too and that hose comes from Europe. Ed, There is nothing in this world that can make a hose to be non fallible. It is man made. Any thing made can fail and probably has a some time no matter who makes it. Look at the space shuttle disaster for parts failure. I'm sure everyone thought they were always perfect in design and function. Look at the auto industry for the mass recalls. Sorry Ed, but these are isolated incidences compared to their overall total uses in the field. We aren't the only ones that use this hose, so does thousands of other applications in different manufacturing. All you can do is pick a hose and use it. You can use what is suggested here and learn from others trials, tribulations and research or purchase something of your own choosing, but nothing will be for sure until it's installed and run. There just aren't any 100% guarantees. Then it still may fail due to installation and not degradation. We all do what we can with what we have to work with and what we learn along the way, but anyone can branch off and experiment on their own all they want. If you want use Aeroquip hose. I feel very comfortable with Gates Barricade hose and believe it's a step up over the Rotax factory hose. It is made to withstand more corrosive fuel over other standard fuel hose. Many of the fuel hoses in or plane are from FD and not Rotax and are nothing special. I don't have any further resolutions that can help you and you'll have to do the investigation with CPS and Gates, then make your decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 The only way to truly to protect yourself is to pull the carb bowls every 5 hrs up to 20 hrs. It may be inconvenient, but it would satisfy your safety needs. Hose that has gone bad has happened within 5-12 hrs. Ed, Your hose is the worst and most wide spread of any debris I have seen in our group. Most issues have been a few small specs only in the carb bowls and they all came from the short supply hose from the fuel pump to the fuel distribution valve on top of the carb balance tube. I would say the huge majority of that debris was mechanically caused and not degradation. You had it every where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 Roger Lee: ...I trust Jeremy's eval... Jeremy MacGregor:...As you can see from the pictures above there was a huge amount of rubber flakes found in both carbs, the fuel pump screen and the fuel sump. This is consistent with a line failure since the flakes are showing up in so many parts of the system in such large quantities.... Roger Lee: ... I would say the huge majority of that debris was mechanically caused and not degradation. You had it every where. Is "having it every where" consistent with mechanical damage or degradation? Me thinks the answer is degradation. I just can't buy that his is a problem that is unavoidable and that I am just one of the unlucky 500hr+ CT owners, I can't swallow it, it just won't go down. I'm confident there is a better solution then calling it an isolated incident. Even if you argue installation damage vs degradation you cannot seriously argue that it is isolated. A fix that covers both makes sense to me. You really want to be sure before you install because the fix involves removing the wings and perhaps the engine a 2nd time. You talk of 5 hour inspections, Jeremy says even after all the clean out that Woodstock isn't safe for the 1 hour flight home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 Hi Ed, Having it everywhere is degradation. A flake or two only in the bowl would be more consistent with mechanical damage. I would have removed all the lines and split them down the middle to check. take pictures and send them to Kevin Kane at CPS. I have personally taken steps to reduce any mechanical hose damage, but there is no perfect system. Woodstock would be safe if all the lines are removed and replaced. Sorry, but with the amount of flaking you had that is the only way to be sure. You still never said if you guys used the fuel injection hose from CPS? You also need to contact Kevin at CPS and that should be Jeremy as he has the expertise to go toe to toe on a solution and the problem solving. No matter who's hose you buy or how ever many thousands of feet are sold there always exist a chance you may get the 12" of bad hose. It's the lottery and shy of never using any hose ever again it can't be avoided. You have only addressed the fuel hose. What about the coolant and oil hose? People have had those spit prematurely too. You need to ask Jeremy about his oil hose adventure. All those hinges on howe far you want to go. It may be infinite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 High winds and 3 days of snow in the Sierra Nevada have brought things to a stand still. I have not yet seen any of the used hose but Art did get the CPS kit with the Gates fuel injection hose. I have tried Kevin kane a few times and we are now playing phone tag. I have no issue with the oil or coolant lines, plus they do not communicate with the carbs. The fuel lines set me up in an insidious fashion, no clue that my fuel system has been loading up with debris as I travel as much as 400 miles in a day over high mountains. I realize that any of the lines can bring my aircraft down but the technical challenge that isn't being met seems to be in fuel lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 Hi Ed, I think the fuel hose issue was addressed here, both on the mechanics side and don't use the fuel injection hose side. The speculation on its integrity was also talked about on the forum. Now, why CPS still sold the hose is anyone's guess and that was a company decision, but if I were a CT owner coming up for a hose change and was privy to our forum information I wouldn't use it. I have two hose changes coming up in the next few weeks and I'll use the Gates Barricade standard carburetor hose with the techniques for a clean install as described in the maint. section. I have not had an ounce of problems since the change. I know your frustrated, but the only thing to do is replace all the fuel line because even if it gets flushed what's to stop it from further degradation. I would certainly pull a few pieces and split them down the middle to confirm it was truly degradation. With as much flaking as you had it should be obvious. The fuel line can be replaced without pulling the engine. Just pull the muffler to gain upper firewall access and build the fuel hose assemblies away from the engine a set all clamps in place before you put it back on the firewall.. It's like anything else in life no matter what it is, as we gain experience from trials, tribulation and successful applications, procedures and materials will always be ever changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 Roger, So you recommend Gates Barricade instead of Gates Fuel Injected. Gates Fuel Injected for modern fuels is also Barricade. What product does CPS sell as Gates Fuel Injected? Is it an old product or is it Barricade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 CPS doesn't sell Gates Barricade hose. I believe it is just Gates fuel injection, but don't quote me on that. You are going to have to call and deal with Kevin. All of Gate's hose isn't Barricade hose to my knowledge. If you find out different let me know. I have talked to FD. Just remember it isn't their fault or their hose that had this issue. They can't solve it or fix it for you. They had nothing to do with the actual hose or the installation and you will have to handle this through CPS. The only real thing to do here is inform CPS, remove your hose and replace it with hose of your choosing and split the other hose to check for the degradation and where it occurred. FD has really nothing to do with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 ...FD has really nothing to do with this. Roger, My mechanic used the resolution letter below to determine that the CPS hose is not an issue. Certainly this resolution is suspect. Flight Design Clearly played a role and at this point needs a better resolution that doesn't end up with people at risk and spending thousands of dollars doing the work twice. Gates has an array of products that have changed over time. The Barricade is their solution to degradation and has been used on Fuel Injection hose as well as their lower pressure line. So are you replacing Fuel Injection / Barricade with Carburetion / Barricade that has the same protections? What, precisely is the Fuel Injection that CPS sells? Is CPS selling a pre-Barricade Fuel Injection hose or are you wrong about Barricade being an upgrade to protect better from degradation? From: Dave Armando [mailto:topservice@flightdesignusa.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 12:27 PM Subject: Resolution of Safety Alert regarding CPS fuel hose kits Dear Flight Design CTSW and CT2K owner: We are following up with more information regarding a Service Difficulty Report senton last Thursday about fuel line shipped with CPS (California Power Systems) kits for compliance with the Rotax 5 year rubber part replacement requirement. After discussions with CPS who worked with their supplier, the mechanics where the problem occurred and carefully reviewing the information we were provided, we believe that the contamination was an isolated incident not specifically related to the type of fuel line sold by CPS. As a precaution we do recommend that anyone that has done a rubber component replacement in compliance with the Rotax requirement, inspect the gascolator screen and the float bowls of the carburetors on their engine prior to their next flight. In addition, CPS will now offer a separate rubber replacement kits using only Rotax specified parts and materials as an option for SLSA aircraft. Flight Design may soon issue more specific guidelines for compliance with the Rotax replacement. Flight Design USA has in stock OEM replacement fuel line as well. I regret any inconvenience that this event and our subsequent letter caused anyone. We were acting with the best intentions to provide immediate safety information on a potentially very serious subject. If you have any further questions regarding this subject, please contact Dave Armando at 860-963-7272 or topservice@flightdesignusa.com barricade.bmp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanik Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Turns out I did have some debris. This was all dry shavings from gates carbeurator line http://ctflier.com/uploads/gallery/album_10/gallery_29_10_101605.jpg http://ctflier.com/uploads/gallery/album_10/gallery_29_10_309758.jpg Not deterioration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Hi Kurt, That's mechanical in nature from a hose end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Hi Kurt, That's mechanical debris and that's why I made some immediate changes, but no matter how careful someone is that possibility will always exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Hi Ed, It was nice talking to you again today. When you get further along in your investigation and have a chat with CPS will be a good time to look at some real facts and not everyone working on just conjecture. I'm looking forward to to see what the hose looks like on the inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanik Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 It wasn't too bad and I expect not to find more but a piece about that size did just about stop my engine a month ago. Seems the gates barricade line is the way to go, but I did my 5yr before that became the tentative consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Hi Ed, It was nice talking to you again today. When you get further along in your investigation and have a chat with CPS will be a good time to look at some real facts and not everyone working on just conjecture. I'm looking forward to to see what the hose looks like on the inside. Roger, It was good to catch up, its been a long time. I want to see it as well but I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter. The CPS fuel injection hose ( whatever it is Barricade or not ) does not fit over fitting nipples without damage and resulting debris. This may not happen 100% of the time but it does happen repeatedly and given the severity of rubber in your carb jets this product should not be sold for this purpose. These are carbureted engines so why the need for fuel injection hose that gets damaged? It is a poor choice whether it degrades or not. A related issue is selling this fuel injection hose to 912 owners because they are experimental. I have heard that this is or was the intent at CPS from multiple sources. Some of our CTs are experimental but that in no ways makes the issues with this fuel line go away. The hose is not a good choice for our SLSA CTs and for the same reasons it is not a good choice for experimentals either. I began relying on CPS for Rotax parts in 1990, I can't see why they sell fuel injection hose for 912s experimental or not, given the history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Hi Ed, Talked to Jeremy for a while on the hose. From what he saw on the first one (which is preliminary at this point) it looked like the damage to the one hose he looked at was at the ends of the hose right after the clamp and not down the line. Before you take what I'm about to say to heart all these lines need to be removed and split open for an inspection. Jeremy thinks the problem flaking or degradation was right at the fittings. If this is the case throughout the system then it could still be mechanical damage. If the hose was over crimped then the fitting barbs cut into the inner liner of the hose, thus allowing fuel in between the liner and the rubber hose that was not meant for the fuel. If this bares out then even your problem was from over tightening mechanical damage. This is why all this needs to be investigated before claims of blame go around. It's too early to tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Just a couple thoughts/ideas... 1) I posted this image before: It shows an inline filter immediately before the Bings on my airhead BMW R100GS. A fairly common mod. I'm not suggesting cheap plastic inline filters on our planes, but a filter of some sort right before it hits the float bowl would seem a good idea. Barring that, how about buying two cheap inline filters and making it SOP to do an extended runup with them in place any time the fuel system is worked on? Seems like it would avoid most of the incidents listed here. 2) I did buy an inline filter to augment the gascolator screen which is the only "filter" in my Sky Arrow. Installed it recently as part of the 5-year hose change. I'm Experimental, so no issue there. I figure it can only help. Though there's still lots of rubber "downstream", if there's a general degradation in my lines is should show here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Hi Ed, Talked to Jeremy for a while on the hose. From what he saw on the first one (which is preliminary at this point) it looked like the damage to the one hose he looked at was at the ends of the hose right after the clamp and not down the line. Before you take what I'm about to say to heart all these lines need to be removed and split open for an inspection. Jeremy thinks the problem flaking or degradation was right at the fittings. If this is the case throughout the system then it could still be mechanical damage. If the hose was over crimped then the fitting barbs cut into the inner liner of the hose, thus allowing fuel in between the liner and the rubber hose that was not meant for the fuel. If this bares out then even your problem was from over tightening mechanical damage. This is why all this needs to be investigated before claims of blame go around. It's too early to tell. The initial reaction was 100% certain and I think it did throw us off. The reason the problem wasn't found last go around is because the focus was on the hose and no-one could cause the hose to fail on its own. The problem is becoming obvious to me. This is clearly the wrong product that CPS is selling for 5 year placement on 912s. There are no 5 year old 912s with fuel injection so why would CPS ever being selling fuel injection hose in the first place.? The fuel injection hose is rated for 180psi Reinforcement: To achieve the desired working pressure for a fuel hose fabric is either woven or spiraled over the tube. The more fabric and tighter weave or spiral gives a higher working pressure. Barricade fuel hose has a working pressure of 50 PSI while MPI fuel injection hose has a 180 PSI working pressur The reinforcement is the layer that doesn't permit the hose to stretch over the fittings and then to be clamped down without likely damage. There is not a fuel injected engine and working with the difficult fuel injected hose was completely unnesesarry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Hi Ed, I'm guessing here, but I think that old and new CPS thought fuel injection hose would cover all their bases in the industry and instead of carrying both they picked what they thought was better and would serve all uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Hi Ed, I'm guessing here, but I think that old and new CPS thought fuel injection hose would cover all their bases in the industry and instead of carrying both they picked what they thought was better and would serve all uses. I'm guessing that you are right. I am not guessing that CPS sucked my mechanic in with their advertising that the kit was designed by Roger Lee even though Roger Lee told them to stop using the fuel injected hose in the 5 year kit. Art thought that he was following Roger Lee's lead when in fact Roger Lee had already taken the position that line should be avoided. The damage that you were trying to avoid in your practices as well as in your posts was realized by me. CPS should stop selling it with your name on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.