Jump to content

5 yr. hose and rubber parts replacement


corvette33

Recommended Posts

Roger, I went to the website you gave for the oetiker pliers and clamps. Your post says to order extra clamps in addition to the clamps that are in the kit and you list the following sizes: 13.3mm, 14.5, 17, 18.5, 21, 25.6 and 33.1. Would it be possible to provide a ballpark estimate of the total number of clamps of the various sizes needed to do this job? I don't mind have some extra clamps left over to do other jobs with, just trying to not have too many.

 

Response from Jeremy or others who've also done the replacement would be welcome too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • 2 weeks later...

When does the 5 year clock START? Date of engine manufacture, date of airplane manufacture, date placed in service? I am a December 2006 build date (serial number). Airworthiness certificate issued April 2007, plane first put in service May of 2007. Am I due at the end of 2011? April 2012? May 2012?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When does the 5 year clock START? Date of engine manufacture, date of airplane manufacture, date placed in service? I am a December 2006 build date (serial number). Airworthiness certificate issued April 2007, plane first put in service May of 2007. Am I due at the end of 2011? April 2012? May 2012?

 

Dec 2011 :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

When does the clock start ticking on the 5 years, and when does it stop?

 

If I had a 2007 that was registered in July 2007, must the 5 year be done by the end of 2012 or by the end of July 2012 or by the end of the first annual in 2012 or when? What is the specific rule on when the clock starts ticking?

 

I've heard various guesses, estimates, swags and so forth, but I haven't had anyone cite a specific reg/doc yet. Thanks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jim,

 

I starts from the day your plane was registered. If you have a Dec. 2006 registered plane then is will be due by Dec. 201, no matter if other annual dates have been logged. Let's say you had that Dec 2006 annual due in Dec. 2007, but you do it in Aug. 2007. You are still due Dec. 2011.

 

There should have been a lot more people getting the rubber replacement done, but there haven't been enough Rotax parts being sold. That must mean a lot of people are waiting and that won't be good because they will all bunch up and cause a parts and mechanic shortage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an FYI on the Rotax rubber replacement,

 

 

In the Rotax manual under time limits for parts where the rubber replacement items are listed to be replaced and among this is the rubber engine mounts. Even those these may be supplied by FD these are a mandatory replacement.

You must remove the engine to do this and there is not way around it. If you try to do the rubber replacement with the engine on then this can not be performed and this would mean the rubber replacement was not finished and not complied with. These 16 rubber engine isolators get smashed under the weight of the engine and get deformed and crack.

 

Make sure you address these rubber engine isolators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an FYI on the Rotax rubber replacement,

 

 

In the Rotax manual under time limits for parts where the rubber replacement items are listed to be replaced and among this is the rubber engine mounts. Even those these may be supplied by FD these are a mandatory replacement.You must remove the engine to do this and there is not way around it. If you try to do the rubber replacement with the engine on then this can not be performed and this would mean the rubber replacement was not finished and not complied with. These 16 rubber engine isolators get smashed under the weight of the engine and get deformed and crack.

 

Make sure you address these rubber engine isolators.

 

Roger....this was discussed here http://ctflier.com/index.php?/topic/207-5-year-mandatory-hose-replacement-has-begun/ and unless there has been an amendment to the Rotax manual, my understanding is that the rubber engine mounts are a "replacement on condition" item. (05-10-00 Page 8 in conjunction with 12-20-00 3.1 Page 9)

I agree however with your comments where you say that with the engine removed, then it makes perfect sense to replace the rubber engine mounts however I know that many 5 year rubber replacement schedules have been done on the Rotax 912 without removing the engine.

Quite a few Rotax 912 engines are mounted in airplanes 5 years old but with very low hours and the engine mounts are in very good condition.

If you have a later amendment or information to the contrary, then I stand corrected, however I would be interested to see it.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dave,

 

After years of CT owners talking about and seeing the engine sag, seeing cracked mounts, changing a least 15 sets or more and seeing the crushed rubber, deformed rubber and no way to scientifically test the dura (rubber hardness) and rubber stability after 5 years in the heat, cold and mounting pressure these need to be done. The rubber mounts on the inside are deformed and crushed many times and we can't see these at all. There is no real way for an owner to tell if a mount is really good. Bad mounts cause misalignment's and excessive vibration to everything. I haven't seen a set during the hose change that I would leave in. The same theory for the hoses. You can only visually see the outside, but no way to test it and usually the wear is on the inside which may be flaking or splitting out of our eye's purview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't required, but one of those items that should be and would not be a very good decision to leave them in place. These are the only items on our list that aren't on the Rotax list. There is no way for someone to determine if a hose or the rubber engine mount is in good condition just by looking at it. You can't even see half the engine mounts. After changing a bunch of these and while you have the engine off this is absolutely the best decision for and owner to make. These can only be changed with the engine off and will cost you double to do it later. These do have a lot of weight on them and get crushed and FD should have these on a required change list. I believe it's their mistake and the owner will pay for this with an engine out of alignment and generating more vibration. The idea behind the hose change and the rubber engine isolators is to be proactive and not be reactive after something has already gone wrong. Then you would have to find someone (near impossible) to tell you that these are absolutely in perfect shape. That could only be done by a lab test. It's like oil. Show me someone who can look at it and tell me it still has all it's properties and can still function for X amount of hours and what particles my be trapped within the oil. Only a lab could actually do that.

 

There are good proactive decisions and poor reactive decisions. If I have a choice a head of time I;ll pick proactive. Too many trashed engines and planes from the poor reactive decision makers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I talked to Arian Monday (Matt is at Oshkosh) and the engine mounts I have on back order did not come in FD USA's latest shipment from Germany. My A&P has some and I have some for a total of 16 so I'll be covered for mounts for my 5 year replacement which will commence tomorrow, Wednesday. This is going to be a huge bottleneck for anyone doing the 5 year. Is there a source for the mounts, other than from FD for those owners who still need to obtain these?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the engine mounts replaced at 200hrs (in 2008). I believe that reset the 5yr clock for that component, if I'm careful to track it in the engine logs. However, I also have the droopy nose problem, the top of the spinner is aligned with the cowling. So, by the book, I think I could defer replacing the engine mounts. However, I will do it with the 5yr work in December. Now a related

question -

 

How can one tell if the large engine mount is deformed, and that is the cause of drooping?

 

I'd hate to do all the work for rubber replacement, then find the engine is still drooping.

 

I did have a hard landing in the past, and the wheel attachments to gear legs were replaced. The legs were Ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 5-year occurs in 2012, but is there any lead time that is useful to gathering up the parts? Or will they all be generally on hand within a few weeks when the time comes? (I'd hate to put off getting the parts and then find the plane down when I could have ordered them ahead of time.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, I'm now doing my 5 year replacement. Advice is to do your homework as to what materials are available here in the U.S. and are standard parts/materials sold by most auto performance shops. There are now hoses that we are OK'd to use, such as Gates fuel injector hose in 1/4" and 5/16". This is a major item since even the domestic Gates hose runs over $5/foot and 12 feet of each size is needed. Shop around and make sure that you pay premium only for those hoses/parts that one cannot find here in the U.S. or that can only be obtained by buying from Rotax. I believe that maybe the only hose that is now difficult to get is the 17mm coolant hose. CPS apparently has purchased this hose in bulk and can supply you with the amount needed for your CT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After adding $1000/year to the operating/ownership cost of a Rotax plane, there is the added risk that something doesn't go together right or there is an infant failure. Didn't the Air Force figure out 60 years ago that replacing things when they actually may be wearing out creates less failure than replacing things on a fixed schedule?

 

The guy in the next hangar down from mine has some really old hoses in his 172.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Run to Eat, your pictures make me very unsettled, indeed.

 

No disrespect to mechanics, but mistakes happen. My only difficulties have come shortly after invasive tinkering..... one minor improper re-installation, that may not have anything to do with the original problem, and potentially catastrophic failure. Risk analyis should favour IROAN.......the only problem is that would be all together too sensible.

 

IMO Tearing these machines apart to replace materials that don't need it brings much greater risk than sensible inspection and approval on condition. The systems appear to be quite simple, the greatest risk arises from human hands. I take a look at what is involved, and shudder in fear.

 

Roger, my questions are: What is the HONEST condition of the rubber that you see being replaced? Or can you answer that question without facing liability yourself? Is the rubber that is justifiably being replaced identifiable prior to removal of the engine? ie cracks on ends or at the stress points where rubber tube overlaps metal tube ends?

 

IMO exhaust mounts and engine mounts clearly take wear and tear and need replacement as per visual inspection, sure, but these hoses, unexposed to UV and weather, operated regularly and inspected regularly? Who is being protected from what with this? Sort of like rules that preclude -12 flaps, or variable/constant speed props, despite their proven function.

 

 

regards

Mike Glatiotis

C-ICEY 2003 CT2k

Nelson BC, Canada.\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Run to Eat, your pictures make me very unsettled, indeed.

 

No disrespect to mechanics, but mistakes happen. My only difficulties have come shortly after invasive tinkering..... one minor improper re-installation, that may not have anything to do with the original problem, and potentially catastrophic failure. Risk analyis should favour IROAN.......the only problem is that would be all together too sensible.

 

IMO Tearing these machines apart to replace materials that don't need it brings much greater risk than sensible inspection and approval on condition. The systems appear to be quite simple, the greatest risk arises from human hands. I take a look at what is involved, and shudder in fear.

 

Roger, my questions are: What is the HONEST condition of the rubber that you see being replaced? Or can you answer that question without facing liability yourself? Is the rubber that is justifiably being replaced identifiable prior to removal of the engine? ie cracks on ends or at the stress points where rubber tube overlaps metal tube ends?

 

IMO exhaust mounts and engine mounts clearly take wear and tear and need replacement as per visual inspection, sure, but these hoses, unexposed to UV and weather, operated regularly and inspected regularly? Who is being protected from what with this? Sort of like rules that preclude -12 flaps, or variable/constant speed props, despite their proven function.

 

 

regards

Mike Glatiotis

C-ICEY 2003 CT2k

Nelson BC, Canada.\

 

Mike, I did one a few weeks ago for a customer and found one of the lower coolant hoses was turning into jello. There is a reason for this replacement. However, most of the lines looked fine. I am sure most of this requirement is CYA on Rotax's part, but that hose was going to fail and my customer was glad he chose to do the replacement. Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...