Ed Cesnalis Posted December 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 According to CPS we need approval from Flight Design to use replacement fuel line that is not OEM. Mr. Cesnlis, 4]Thank you for sending the pictures of the fuel hose from your aircraft. It is clear that the amount of debris in your fuel system is cause for concern, and I'm happy to hear that you landed safely without permanent damage to your aircraft or yourself. 4]Josh Solis, our Product Manager, and myself have spent hours researching the Gates fuel injection hose to verify its compatibility for use on our customer's aircraft. We have found no evidence that the Gates fuel hose installed on your aircraft is faulty. As always, we take safety seriously and would never knowingly sell faulty products to our customers. 4]We have found that the OEM for S-LSA aircraft are required to provide part numbers or specifications for parts, and replacement instructions in the appropriate maintenance manual. If the OEM manuals do not cover a particular component, then the OEM must provide special approval, at the request of the mechanic or owner, to maintain the airworthiness statement. 4]The Gates fuel injection hose you purchased is suitable for all types of fuels that Rotax recommends for their engines, however Flight Design does not provide a part number or specification for the fuel hose on their aircraft. Therefore, the mechanic should not have installed the hose you purchased without approval from Flight Design. Even with approval, it appears to me that some other important steps were skipped. The amount of debris in the pictures leads me to believe that the hoses were not cut properly, nor were they blown or flushed out before installation. I am an Airframe and Powerplant Technician, and it is a requirement to flush all lines and hoses before installation. 4]We have seen issues similar to yours, and without a third party investigation that can account for all the steps taken during installation we cannot conclude that the hose is faulty. Also, with the amount of this same hose we have provided to other customers without issue, it simply cannot be the hose alone. 4]Therefore, we cannot agree to your claim for the downtime or repairs to your aircraft. If you would like to discuss this further please feel free to call or email me. 4]Sincerely, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin, Thanks for the kind words regarding my safety. After reading your reply above I see that I am submitting a claim based on 2 reasons: 1) suitability and 2) false advertising and yet you are denying my claim based on lack of product defect. There is no product defect and you have not addressed my claim. You and John Solis, in spite of your hours researching the Gates fuel injection hose to verify its compatibility for use on your customer's aircraft missed the critical point. The Gates fuel injection hose is not faulty but as Gates states in their FAQs as well as their product brochures [their] rubber hose is not compatible with barbed fittings. Rotax engines and Flight Design aircraft use barbed fittings. I am basing my claim on 2 points: Gates fuel injection hose is not to be used on barbed fittings according to Gates yet you sold me a kit developed for Flight Design CTs that utilises this hose. The reason that Gates provides is that barbed stems are for use with plastic tubing only is the sharp ferrules and serrated teeth. False advertising: your E-commerce page http://www.cps-parts...?idproduct=1483 selling the kit sold to me states "...It was developed by Roger Lee for the Flight Design CT but will work for other aircraft as well...." Yet Roger Lee will not use fuel injection hose due to resulting rubber debris, Roger Lee didn't even know you were using his name. I suggest that you and John spend a few minutes inserting barbed fittings into Gates fuel injection hose. This process is quite illuminating, you will find that inserting the hose over barbed fittings results in the inside lining being shaved, or removed. You allege that my hose wasn't flushed or cut properly but you have to ignore the alarming amount of material removed from the hose by the barbs upon insertion. Can you see that the original texture of the inside of the hose? Can you see how that material with that rough texture has been completely removed? This is the source of the debris. Try the same insertion with other hoses and you will find that Gates fuel injection hose to be an extremely poor choice, it is extremely prone to this type of damage where other brands and type are not. Why did you choose fuel injection hose for carbureted engines? The fuel injection hose with its high pressure rating is extremely rigid and the result when inserting a barbed fitting is additional damage. I can insert fittings into my original Wurst hose and I get no damage at all. You allege that my mechanic should not have installed this hose without approval from Flight Design. He relied on this resolution letter (see below). The letter resolved one of the earlier incidents where fuel line supplied by CPS resulted in rubber debris contamination. The letter states that you worked with your supplier and mechanics to determine that the contamination was an isolated incident not related to the fuel line that you sell for this purpose. Was the supplier that you worked with Gates? Did they not point out that their rubber fuel line is not to be used with barbed fittings? I have talked to numerous Flight Design owners and as you know this is not an isolated incident. But then you already know that, you have announced that you are finally going to discontinue selling this fuel line for this purpose. Why did you decide that if the line is not problematic? I am supplying a copy of your E-commerce page below as well, it is the evidence that you are falsely adverting this product. I think its time to end the double talk about the hose not being at issue and instead take a more honest position that doesn't persuade people like me to purchase it and risk their money and lives. I have been a CPS customer since the 1980s and I request a reply that addresses my claim. Regards, Ed Cesnalis PS I now know most of the people involved in the investigation in April 2012 and the common reaction is "I can't believe they began selling that fuel line again." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opticsguy Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 It seems like a lot of money and time has been spent on the 5-year rubber replacement requirement. Have any of you mechanics out there seen a degraded part when doing the 5-year (on the old rubber), other than the engine mounts and carb gaskets/floats? It seems that Rotax and FD do not have the necessary supply chain in place to support such service (e.g., actual part numbers and supplier of hose), yet require it at the financial and safety risk of the owner/pilot. Hopefully, Rotax will come to their senses and make this a Hobbs-based requirement, e.g., 800 or 1000 hours, so that the second hose replacement is done during overhaul. Heck, 2 hose replacements pretty much pays for an overhaul, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Hi Scott, I know this whole subject is frustrating and we have many different views of the same problem and many different ideas to solve it. Rex and I have alone have done over 80+ changes just between the two of us and we have both seen bad hose at 5 years. I have been posting some pictures along he way, but not every single hose. I have had mechanics from other areas report the same and talked to Rotech in Canada and they confirm the same. Some of the guys here have also reported bad hose at 5 years. To get at he base of your question, Yes hose can and will last longer than 5 years. Yes hose can go bad before 5 years. It isn't just about whether a hose will last 5 years or longer, but there are mechanical wear areas that we can not see that causes problems and it would take someone to pull each hose off to check it. Anyone here ever see anyone pull all the hoses completely off an engine to check them and then replace the old hoses? I agree that a few hoses could be seen and checked, but most can not be looked at to determine when a failure may occur and several here as I posted back two post ago have found hidden damage that was getting ready to fail that was not visible and was only found because they pulled the hose off and found the damage. There are more forces at work to damage hose than some may take into account. It isn't just about age. It's what you can't see that will cause the problem and looking at a hose and saying it will last for whatever period is a false sense of security. Saying OEM hose will solve the issue is another false sense of security. How many people here have ever bought something at a store that was OEM right from a factory and you open it up and it doesn't work and you have to take it back? Probably every single person here on the forum. Buying OEM doesn't solve the problem. The problem is the users and installers. How do we go about fixing that issue? Let me ask you a question: If you heard from 300+ owners that had a hose change and 10 (3% of the total) found some debris in the carb bowls and all the rest were okay and they all used the same hose and those 10 were found to be mechanical damage that could be traced back to the install and none had been hose degradation what would you say? Then let's take it one step further: If I said these 10 could have been probably prevented by running the engine on the ground for 30 minutes after the change at 3500-4500 rpm and then popping the bowls off to check inside, what would you say? Last question: What if they all could have been prevented if they had just read about the hose change before they attempted it? Just because it looks easy and straight forward doesn't mean it is, that's another false sense of security. I'm not trying here to give anyone a hard time, but I'm am curious to what you have to say. Looking at it analytically and without emotion it points to one solution because these two questions are the same for any aircraft wide spread maint. where only a very select few have an issue from the same maint procedure. Some of these questions and answers are somewhat unfair on my side because some here on the forum only get to see or hear about 2-3 cases where I have been lucky enough to talk to many mechanics, dealers and distributors nation wide including Canada. This just gives me a bigger base and better numbers to compare the overall incident rate and what is being done to address the select few. As far as doing hose change at the overhaul, that is included, but then we have the people here that say the 2000 TBO is not enforceable and they won't do it. Then they have an engine failure and want action because the engine should have gone longer and there should be regs. in place to keep this from happening. The problem at the 1000 hr mark is it may take some 10-15 years to get there and hose rots. I have a couple of clients and they have 300-600 hrs in 10-15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Safety Officer Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Some one in the upper post mentioned a pattern developing. The pattern I see is everyone talking about why they shouldn't have to do a hose change or regular prescribed maint. from an MFG. The reasons vary from too much money, the regs don't say I'm forced to do it or I want to do it on condition and not on their schedule. Not, but two people have said on all these threads I want to do it to protect myself, my family or friends that fly with me because no one in actuality knows when a hose my fail for any reason. No one here in all these threads have said you shouldn't have to know how to change hose or perform a specific task before you do the procedure. So I take that omission and think that everyone believes that an owner and or mechanic should know how to do any procedure on a plane before they start. Which means some took it for granted they knew how to do this seemingly simple procedure and didn't research it and then found out in the end they really didn't know what they thought they did. Common mistake for all of us. There is always something we don't know when we are complacent and think we know. My two immediate safety concerns in all the negative post about hose change is no one seems to want to do it for safety concerns and all the time spent here on reason we shouldn't have to do it and the lack of pre-planning for the procedure. The latter seems to have lead to the majority of the problems. Safety first. The only way to be safe is through knowledge. Have a nice X-mas! And keep those family members and friends that fly with you safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 It would be nice to hear from all the positive experiences out there and the positive reasons for doing this and not just negative comments. Have you noticed the other hundred plus or so positive hose change owners haven't chimed in. Why hasn't any of the owners that don't want to do this procedure brought up any positives about a hose change as it relates to their maint and safety? That would concern me if owners thought there were no positives and only negatives. Some oil on a squeaky wheel from you positive guys would help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted December 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 ...What if they all could have been prevented if they had just read about the hose change before they attempted it?... Ok, lets review. I had not been flying for almost 2 years but I was vaguely aware of the rubber contamination issue. I confirmed that my mechanic was current on the hose change and the fuel line issues. He had recently completed a hose change, he followed the procedures in the Flight Design incident resolution document and he got a good result. I relied on the mechanic because he was current and I was not and he sourced the 5 year hose replacement kit, developed by Roger Lee and sold by CPS. Did he really butcher my airplane or did he use the same procedures the he used weeks before? So we had a talk and we learned there was only one difference. On the prior successful replacement the kit from CPS did not include the fuel line. CPS had announced that they would discontinue the fuel line from their inventory until the issue was resolved. With the fuel line omitted the mechanic sourced the same, Gates Barricade Fuel Injection hose from a local NAPA store. On my installation the kit came from CPS came with the Gates Barricade Fuel Injection hose. That was the difference. Gates does admit that their fuel line's inner surface (the surface that gets damaged) varies from manufacturing run to manufacturing run. How can anyone rule out the probability that if I would have not got the fuel line from CPS that had a history of rubber debris and power loss and instead got it from the same NAPA store as the previous replacement that I probably would have realized a good result? We have members making statements like: I only personally know of 3 hose changes and all have had some type of forced landings! We have a poll that suggests almost half are realizing debris and power loss. Roger used to realize debris and cleaned it up by changing hose and methods. Tom Baker got good results with OEM hose. Lockwood used to realize debris until they changed to known good hose ( Tecnam OEM ) Bad rapping me and my mechanic, ignoring facts that don't support your position and making definitive determinations right or wrong only serves to postpone the day when this procedure is adequately addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 I have pretty much stayed out of this until now. I have seen some things posted and said that I don't think are correct. I did one of the first hose changes and put up a parts list. I was really surprised by the cost of parts for the hose change, and it hasn't got any better. On that first airplane I ordered parts from just Flight Design and Rotax based on both parts books. I have seen it said that Flight Design doesn't have part numbers for the fuel hose, but they do. The part number is C9993184A for the main fuel hose DIN 73379 7.5x13. It has been stated before that if the manufacture has a part number or specification for a part that it must be used. This is why I have used the OEM hose. A hose of the correct size that meets the DIN spec would be OK too. I don't know if any of the other hoses that people have been using meet the DIN spec or not. If it does not meet the DIN spec then IMO you would need a LOA for installation of the hose. As a mechanic I saw that problems were going to come up after doing my first rubber replacement. Not the physical problems that showed up, but rather supply of the European sourced parts and the source of USA available replacements. I voiced this concern with members from Flight Design Germany at Sebring a few years ago. I said that there needed to be a list of approved replacement parts, or a better supply chain for the OEM parts. I don't think anything ever came from my conversation with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Opticsguy, Yes, I found 2 problems and posted them on Oct 4. Go to: http://ctflier.com/i...ar-hose-change/ Actually, I don't think either of these are due to faulty hose but more likely due to factory installation error. The first instance shown is clearly due to the oil hose rubbing on a firewall protrusion. It could have been detected if I had run my finger between hose and firewall at the first annual. I am more carefull now. The second problem listed, to the water hose, could only be detected by removing and straightening the hose. Would it have eventually failed at this location? Maybe not but I am glad it is out of there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Hi Ed, Not a single person here is trying to bad rap you. You yourself already pointed out, that you, after the fact did your research and learned all this new stuff. Everyone relied on everything being the same as it was 1 year ago or even months ago, but did not do current research. So now you are the go to guy for current facts. You have now done that research and you are now better informed than 95% of the people and you said you didn't know these things at the time of the install. My money is on you (and by the way always has been), that now you could do the hose change again with absolutely different and better results. Are we agreed that you would have better results if done again? I know you and the answer is absolutely yes and you would now ask questions of whomever does the next hose as to what and how they plan to proceed. The only thing that is different now is you are armed with current information and as you found out it was out there for the taking on quite a few different sites. You and I have been friends for 6 years (and I hope for many more) and have always attacked discussions from an analytic mathematical and scientific point view without emotion. until this time. Rotax told me a while back with a problem that I personally had that it sure feels different when it happens to us instead of the other 99.9% of the people. As much as we don't want to believe that about ourselves it's true. From the shipments I have seen out of Lockwood the hose they are using isn't necessarily Tecnam OEM, but the blue Aeroquip hose. They use the same I believe for oil hose. If someone knows different let me know, but that is what I have received from them. Nothing special about that hose. I believe it was meant for different fittings other than the barbed fitting and it can shave debris like any other hose if improperly installed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Hi Tom, The Gates hose easily meets the din specs and the Greenshield Barricade is rated even higher for more corrosive fuels. Up to 100% alcohol. I don't think the blue Aeroquip is rated for that. Also FD use of the 7.5mm is 19/"64 which is even smaller in ID than our 5/16" of 7.9mm which should go over these fittings even better. That said .4mm isn't much. It does go to show that either hose can be used and the difference is they use better install practices. I have talked to my friend at Rotax and with all they have seen around the US they are giving a very approving nod for the Gates Barricade Greenshield hose. They also agree that issues are stemming from the install process. With all the different LSA I have installed hose on I pull off many different brands from MFG's. FI and non FI. Metric and US standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Roger, can you show me where the Gates states that it meets DIN 73379? The fittings I was talking about are the ones that would fall out of the end of the 5/16" hose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 The term din is a German standard and we have the same here in SAE standards. DIN - Deutsches Institut fur Normung E.V. IHS is your source for standards and specifications from the Deutsches Insitut fur Normung E.V. (DIN), available in hardcopy or PDF download. DIN, the German Institute for Standardization, offers stakeholders a platform for the development of standards as a service to industry, the state and society as a whole. It is just Germany's standards division for many things and hose is one of them. They make sure hose like fuel hose meet test standards for pressure, tensile strength, chemical, temp standards, ect.... It is similar to our US SAE rating system. Gates makes hose in several countries and the spec of the same hose remain the same. Our equivalent to Din 73379 is SAE 30R7. Even within the 73379 rating there are different branches or types. Actually the Gates Barricade Greenshield technology is a step above the standard Din 73379 standard. I'm sure the German din numbers guide probably has an equivalent. Din 73379 is only recommended for Fuel, diesel and oils. The Gates hose has a much higher and wider chemical spec. The SAE code for Gates Barricade standard carb hose is SAE J30R14T1. As far as the fittings I think I know which ones you are talking about. For instance FD sent out the stainless steel tubes to be placed through the firewall instead of the hose and the 140 degree bent stainless tube in the instrument panel that was part of the fuel filter upgrade. The problem with FD was they sent 1/4" (6.3mm) tubing to fit 7.5mm or 5/16" hose. Even though they have the wrong size tubing it can work just fine with the proper clamp. How do we know this because all of us use it that way. Properly used Oetiker clamps can fix a lot of ills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Isn't it a safety concern if the hose provided is not correct for the application according to the manufacturer of the hose? That would also jeopardize me and my passengers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 As I understand it, the issue is not that it is Gates hose, rather it is injection hose vs. carb hose. Or did I miss something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opticsguy Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 I've had some fun explaining to the Cessna owner in the next hangar that my engine has to be removed and every hose replaced at 5 year intervals, and all those hoses end up in a landfill. He asked me if the manufacturer had identified a particular hose or hoses that had been failing, and why not replace just those? I told him Rotax and FD don't operate that way. I didn't mean to start the discussion all over again. I was just interested in whether the rubber parts had begun to degrade in 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 As I understand it, the issue is not that it is Gates hose, rather it is injection hose vs. carb hose. Or did I miss something? Doug, the original hose is a fuel injuction hose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 I've had some fun explaining to the Cessna owner in the next hangar that my engine has to be removed and every hose replaced at 5 year intervals, and all those hoses end up in a landfill. He asked me if the manufacturer had identified a particular hose or hoses that had been failing, and why not replace just those? I told him Rotax and FD don't operate that way. I didn't mean to start the discussion all over again. I was just interested in whether the rubber parts had begun to degrade in 5 years. I have seen hose problems while doing the hose change. GA aircraft manufactures also recomend replacing hoses just like Flight Design and Rotax. The thing is you don't have to use the manufacture check list for a annual inspection. You can use your own check list if it contains the scope and detail of CFR 43 appendix D. This gives an out for just checking hoses on condition. The lack of proactive action on changing hose has led to AD's on some aircraft. I have also seen GA hoses that failed, but they still looked good on the outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 It is not, and cannot, be required by Rotax or FD either according to the FAA. (Territory we have been over.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 Tom, if it is Gates fuel injection hose and Gates says it should not be used with barbed connectors, the problem is not solved, only complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted December 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 Tom, if it is Gates fuel injection hose and Gates says it should not be used with barbed connectors, the problem is not solved, only complicated. To be clear, Gates position is "Beaded stems are recommended for rubber hose. Barbed stems are for use with plastic tubing only, due to the sharp ferrules and serrated teeth." The incompatibility that Gates is pointing out goes beyond their fuel injection hose and even beyond their carburetion hose. I finally received a claim rejection letter from CPS where Kevin comes closer to addressing my issues, he does talk about barbed fittings and he makes at least one new point. Kevin says: "We have no way of knowing what types of fittings are installed on all of our customer’s aircraft. It is up to the installer to ensure compatibility..." "BRP does not supply Rotax aircraft engines with barbed fittings on the fuel system. The end user or installer may make changes to the fuel system at their discretion, and Flight Design chooses to use barbed fittings on their aircraft." #1 CPS is implying that their hose is not compatible with the fittings but the failure was on my end and that was to ensure compatibility. In other words, my take is that CPS is saying I had a responsibility to reject the hose or change the fittings. To my knowledge no-one to date has changed fittings. - to put this in context we are talking about the purchase of a 5 year rubber replacement kit that was developed for the CT yet CPS has no way of knowing what fitting type is used. It is noteworthy that CPS makes a choice of a potentially non-compatible hose and doesn't offer any warning that it might not be compatible. #2 What is Kevin saying here? Sounds like he is saying that Rotax delivered engines without barbed fittings and that Flight Design changed from non-barbed [beaded] fittings to barbed? This really doesn't sound likely to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 Tom, if it is Gates fuel injection hose and Gates says it should not be used with barbed connectors, the problem is not solved, only complicated. Doud, I think you missed my point. The problem is not fuel injection hose. The airplane was delivered with fuel injection supplied by Wurth. On the original installation the only Gates hose used that I have seen is from the fuel pump supplied by Rotax. This includes the 1/4" hose from the pump to the fuel divider, and the 5/16" hose that goes to the pressure ball or to just above the fuel strainer. These are the only hoses I replace with Gates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 It is not, and cannot, be required by Rotax or FD either according to the FAA. (Territory we have been over.) I know it sounded like I was saying it is required, but that was not my point. My point was that the cessna owner that Opticsguy was talking to has no Idea that Cessna recomends that he change his hoses on a schedule too. This has been recomended for years in most GA maintenance manuals, but as a general rule has been ignored in the GA community. This has cause AD's to be issued in some cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 Tim, that made me laugh! It sounds to me that CPS is selling a 5 year replacement kit without any clue what it is for! Basically, "We'll sell it to you as replacement, but you have to decide if it actually works before you use it." (Of course, if you actually test it, good luck getting your money back.) Can't decide if it is negligence or fraud. Oh, and the Pipestral we had in Oshkosh for the Rainbow course had barbed fittings too - quite a coincidence. Roger, have you seen any, non-barbed original fittings on this engine? Tom, Gates fuel injection hose IS the problem if Gates says it should not be used on barbed connectors, and CPS provides it for engines that have barbed connectors, irregardless of what originally came on the engine. Your second point is taken. What is the replacement schedule Cessna recommends for hoses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 Hi Guys, Just so you know Kevin is wrong on point #2. What do you think are on the ends of those banjo bolts, but barbed ends. 3-4 that I can think of. Kevin is right though that all end users are ultimately responsible for part compatibility because of the hundreds of different installations in the US alone. These kits are sold for a variety of light aircraft with the only change in hose lengths. This is where the installation and education part should be before it goes on the plane. First most light aircraft worldwide use barbed fittings. Rotax has been using them for many years (21 years on the 912) with fuel injection hose. Barbed fittings were in use with rubber fuel hose when I started to fly in 1980. Most of the other LSA aircraft use them to. I have not seen any LSA in my shop without barbed fittings somewhere. The only non barbed fittings are on the fuel pump. Most of the experimental guys use them too. I'm with Tom. This isn't about the FI hose necessarily, but still the installation process. I personally went to and have recommended the carburetor hose because it does help get away from some of the possibility of the inner wall scraping because of the less give in the FI hose. If you buy OEM hose from FD it will be FI rubber hose and the FD OEM hose doesn't have as good a rating as the Gates Barricade Greenshield hose. If FD's OEM hose (Wurth) gets installed wrong it will shave the inner lining too. I have seen over the years people use the smooth bore bulb end fittings, but they are not near as common as the standard barbed fitting. I wouldn't have any issues with the bulb fitting, but then clamps and clamp pressure are even more important. So it would still boil down to an installation education problem across the board. The two major hose players here in the US are Gates and Goodyear. They both recommend not to even use their hose in aircraft. Same with NGK spark plugs. It's right on the side of each box not to be used in aircraft. We have several parts that the original Mfg don't want it used in a plane. Just normal cover you butt liability disclaimer. I have used FI hose for a long time, but decided it better to move on and upgrade a step. I will tell you that from my first hose change there was a learning curve. I have tried to pass on these tips so others could benefit from the do's and don'ts and not repeat the bad parts. I have an email waiting for me right this minute from Australia about hose particles in the system. To get barbed fittings removed from the system you would have to get Rotax which has been using them with FI hose since the 80's to issue a service bulletin and have the world make the change and most would never do it because they aren't having any issues. You would then need to get FD to issue an SD and not an SB to have the entire fleet swap out. Then there would be all the other light aircraft Mfg's you would have to convince. I fully believe there are three reasons we are hearing a lot about this issue. 1. More people and aircraft Mfg's are recommending this procedure get done so the volume alone for the procedure has increase in compliance. 2. More people look at a hose change on their fittings as a piece of cake and there is nothing to know other than to pull the old hose off and shove another on and use any clamp you want and tighten it as much as you want. This is where all the damage comes from. 3. The world is a smaller place with the web and forums so now anytime someone has an issue it shows up in writing. Bottom line is FI hose and barbed fittings are used by everyone in the aircraft industry and and they can be used with success, but the individuals need to take the time and learn the right way. I'm sure if you told an A&P there was a specific way to change a hose for us he would look at you like you were wacked. I used FI hose for a while and those people are are still in the sky. Since FI hose and barbed fittings have been used for so many tears and successfully you will never get the industry at large to change. they actually have a good track record. It's the few individuals that have the poor track record. You have to ask yourself why the MFG's are having the same issues? So why are all the MFG's successful using FI hose and barbed fittings? Better installation techniques. With all the information that has come out about this in the last couple of weeks it should have been a great learning experience. We have all learned enough here to stay out of trouble with a hose change. So each of us should be able to go through our change out now without any major issues. It is more about matching components, installing and then applying them the right way. The last thing you can do after your change to hedge your bets is run your engine on the ground for 30 minutes at 3500-4500 rpm then pull the carb bowls and take a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 I have a Remos that is due here in a few days for a hose change and I'll use the kit except I will use the Gates Barricade standard carb hose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.