what (not) to use on fuel line fittings

[Doug Dayson]

Thanks Gar...excellant rebuttal...(:>)

Now...back to EGOR...LOL!

Have a great holiday everyone...

Doug

Garfield Willis wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 07:21:29 +1000, Peter Gargano
> <peter at ntserver.techedge.com.au> wrote:
> 
> >More things to watch out for on fuel line fittings. Alas, there
> >is little EFI content in this very interesting article, with an
> >important message for engineers of both mechanical and software
> >persuasions...
> >
> >  http://www.asktog.com/columns/027InterfacesThatKill.html
> 
> Pretty surprising from a press reporter; he almost got mostly everything
> right. There are a couple things to point out, tho.
> 
> (1) Most all the Av guys figure "what really killed John Denver" was his
> ignorant low-level flying in an airframe very new to him. Altho everyone
> agrees the fuel selector was in a stupid place, there are MANY things
> that can cause you to have to turn around and reach back, and as a
> neophyte in this aircraft, push your foot on the right rudder pedal. The
> REAL problem was he was flying WAY too low to allow for any margin of
> any sort. Exhausting of fuel tanks in aircraft is often done routinely
> in some setups (as weird as that might seem); you just have to make sure
> it doesn't happen when you're 300ft AGL. Even if no unplanned manuever
> had occurred, you can easily lose that much altitude getting the fuel
> reselected following exhaustion. He was just TOO low; period. When you
> fly that low over ANYTHING where you cannot set it down, you have to
> understand you're in a very high risk mode; flying hundreds of feet over
> the ocean may be dramatic site-seeing, but it's VERY risky. Not
> something anyone with good sense does in a fairly new or unfamiliar
> aircraft, and most would not risk at all.
> 
> (2) The author made no distinction between GA (general aviation) and XA
> (experimental aviation), but Denver's LongEZ (as are all custom-built
> airframes) was in the Experimental category. Just in case yous guys
> care, General Aviation is a category of aircraft where factories are
> certified to build the planes, ONLY certified A&Ps (airframe &
> powerplant mechanics) can work on them, and there are tons of
> regulations on having to use JUST the right repair part, etc. etc. It's
> intended that people flying in this category can expect their airplanes
> to be as safe and well-tested as any (albeit higher risk) consumer
> product. In sum, it's a highly regulated INDUSTRY and product, aimed at
> protecting the consumer.
> 
> Experimental Aviation is totally different, is assumed to be high-risk,
> is for those willing to incure those risks in the pursuit of what these
> days would/should be called an "extreme sport". Altho there are still
> inspections and regulations governing experimental aviation, they are
> WAY different in depth and purpose. In Experimental Aviation, you can
> use auto engines, auto parts, non-AN hardware, experimental airfoils and
> airframe configuration, etc, as long as you can convince the FAA
> inspector that the craft is "airworthy", you are allowed to begin
> experimenting inflight. There is always a "fly-off" period where you're
> restricted near an airport, away from major population centers, etc. The
> point being, the FAA's regulations on XA aren't intended to render these
> aircraft a "safe & effective" consumer product that's unlikely to bite
> unexpectedly.
> 
> The sad fact is that many seeking higher performance or perhaps
> foolishly, lower building and maintenance costs, have mistakenly
> gravitated to the sport, because it's possible to buy these aircraft
> used, get checked out in them, and go off flying. That's what Denver
> did. Unfortunately for him and music lovers, he apparently didn't
> ratchet up his caution level sufficiently.
> 
> The main reason I mention all this is to take the opportunity to educate
> on the basic differences between "General Aviation" (GA), and
> "Experimental Aviation" (XA). Lumping them together as the reported did,
> tends to give BOTH a bad name.
> 
> Orville and Wilbur Wright built what would still be considered today an
> Experimental Aircraft. Cessna on the other hand builds GA aircraft.
> Obviously we still need both types to allow for developers and
> experimenters, as well as ordinary consumers. Bad when you confuse them
> tho.
> 
> Gar
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes)
> in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org