VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #41  
Old 12-05-2017, 01:44 PM
TS Flightlines TS Flightlines is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ridgeland, SC
Posts: 2,046
Default

David that is a great point. My thought was that IF there was compatibility issue they would say so. Beringer has 2 different versions of their stuff---one for DOT4 and one for mineral oil meeting Mil-PRF-87257. So I would think that unless the ATF met the 87257 specs dont use it in Beringer systems. Grove, Matco, Cleveland, dont know.

Tom
__________________
Tom Swearengen, TS Flightlines LLC
Teflon Hose Assemblies for Experimentals
Proud Vendor for RV1, Donator to VAF
RV7 Tail Kit Completed, Fuse started-Pay as I go Plan
Ridgeland, SC
www.tsflightlines.com
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-05-2017, 01:47 PM
Toobuilder's Avatar
Toobuilder Toobuilder is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mojave
Posts: 3,985
Default

Of all the things to argue about on this forum, this has to be one of the more pedantic.

Two relevant/amusing experiences from my past.

When I was in the AF stationed in England, my Jaguar had a bad front seal leak. Being a poor airman at the time, I did not have the resources to keep throwing ATF into it every day nor the motivation to spend the weekend dropping the tranny and replacing the seal. What I did have though, was access to an unlimited supply of 5606. So that's what I filled it with. Every day for months. I'll bet I ran 50 gallons of the stuff through that tranny before I finally installed a new seal. Was still running fine on 5606 when I transferred back home a year later.

When I picked up my Tri Pacer and serviced the brakes, I found that the previous owner had serviced it completely with DOT 3 (automotive) brake fluid. The Certified Cleveland brakes didn't seem to mind one bit. (Yes, I went with 5606)


I have a lifetime of 5606 around, but I'd have no trouble at all adding ATF out on the road if required. Power steering systems use it as do convertible top systems.

Is it just a slow week on the forum?
__________________
WARNING! Incorrect design and/or fabrication of aircraft and/or components may result in injury or death. Information presented in this post is based on my own experience - Reader has sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for use.

Michael Robinson
______________
Harmon Rocket II -SDS EFI instalation in work
RV-8 - Flying
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65 -flying
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-05-2017, 04:55 PM
Walt's Avatar
Walt Walt is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dallas/Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 4,689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefPilot View Post
To claim that it is not safe because it is not "certified" is cowardice, done perhaps only to prop up ones own choice or to try to promote some kind of air of superior knowledge where none otherwise exists. Certified does not mean superior; if it did, we'd all be flying factory built aircraft which come complete with certified brake fluid.

Walt and others engaging in the FUD around lawsuits and such seem to be doing so out of ignorance - does it really pass the smell test that a lawsuit would zone in on the brake fluid while at the same time ignoring the amateur built status and use of uncertified parts *provided by the kit manufacturer*?
Hmm, never been called a coward before for sharing my opinion. Personally I don't really care what you think or prefer to use in your own system, but recommending it to others just because you think it ok is just plain wrong IMO.

Neither Van's nor any brake manufacturer I'm aware of has tested or approves using ATF in their brake systems, but I guess you're just smarter than they are.

Until they do, thank you very much but I'll stick with the "approved" fluids.
__________________
Walt Aronow, Dallas, TX (52F) RV7A, IO360, C/S, 1500+hrs

EXP Aircraft Services LLC
Specializing in RV Condition Inspections, Maintenance, Avionics Upgrades
Dynamic Prop Balancing, Pitot-Static Altmeter/Transponder Certification
FAA Certified Repair Station, AP/IA/FCC GROL, EAA Technical Counselor
Authorized Garmin G3X Dealer/Installer
RV7A built 2004, 1700+ hrs
Website: ExpAircraft.com, Email: walt@expaircraft.com, Cell: 972-746-5154
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-05-2017, 04:58 PM
cajunwings cajunwings is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: new iberia la
Posts: 554
Default Brake Fluid.

When I picked up my Tri Pacer and serviced the brakes, I found that the previous owner had serviced it completely with DOT 3 (automotive) brake fluid. The Certified Cleveland brakes didn't seem to mind one bit. (Yes, I went with 5606)


For what its worth: It was years ago, but I once spent days replacing parts and rebuilding the brake system on a Cherokee 6 that had been operated for a couple months with automotive (Dot 3) brake fluid. Many of the O rings were very soft and gummy. On my 9 I will use the higher flash point Aviation Grade Fluid or ATF. Only 5606 in the Pacer.


Don Broussard
RV9 Rebuild in Progress
57 Pacer
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-05-2017, 05:08 PM
Walt's Avatar
Walt Walt is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dallas/Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 4,689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefPilot View Post
I've been using Mobil ATF in my brakes for the last 5 years and 900+ hours. No problems. It has a higher flash point than 5606 - I had a much harder time inducing ATF to combustion than 5606 when I proved this for myself. It is compatible with the standard seals etc no only by specification but also by empirical evidence. In the world of experimental aviation, this is perhaps one of the "safest" experiments I have performed.
PS: In case you missed this in my previous post:

Flash point of Royco 782 (MIL-PRF-83282) and Mobil 1 ATF appear to be about the same 445F/220C.

http://www.qclubricants.com/royco/royco_782.htm

So unless you're just "very frugal" (I'm being nice here), or just want to be different, there's really no good reason not to use what the brake manufacturers recommend.
__________________
Walt Aronow, Dallas, TX (52F) RV7A, IO360, C/S, 1500+hrs

EXP Aircraft Services LLC
Specializing in RV Condition Inspections, Maintenance, Avionics Upgrades
Dynamic Prop Balancing, Pitot-Static Altmeter/Transponder Certification
FAA Certified Repair Station, AP/IA/FCC GROL, EAA Technical Counselor
Authorized Garmin G3X Dealer/Installer
RV7A built 2004, 1700+ hrs
Website: ExpAircraft.com, Email: walt@expaircraft.com, Cell: 972-746-5154

Last edited by Walt : 12-05-2017 at 05:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-05-2017, 05:43 PM
ChiefPilot's Avatar
ChiefPilot ChiefPilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post
Hmm, never been called a coward before for sharing my opinion. Personally I don't really care what you think or prefer to use in your own system, but recommending it to others just because you think it ok is just plain wrong IMO.
I don't believe I ever said anyone should use any specific thing, only that I use ATF. I also don't pretend to be morally superior by claiming to use something just because it's certified and I don't try to install fear of lawsuits for using something else.
__________________
Brad Benson, Maplewood MN.
RV-6A N164BL, Flying since Nov 2012!
If you're not making mistakes, you're probably not making anything
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-05-2017, 06:51 PM
Walt's Avatar
Walt Walt is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dallas/Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 4,689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefPilot View Post
I don't believe I ever said anyone should use any specific thing, only that I use ATF. I also don't pretend to be morally superior by claiming to use something just because it's certified and I don't try to install fear of lawsuits for using something else.
It has nothing to do with "certified", it's just what the aircraft and brake manufacturers have tested and approved for use in their systems.

It's like the rest of aviation, there are standards we follow in the industry that are considered accepted practices, like manufacturers manuals and AC 43-13, you don't have to do it that way but those are considered "approved" methods of aircraft maintenance and repair.

Can you do it any way you want because it's experimental, sure... but please don't imply I am being "morally superior" because I choose to use accepted aviation materials and practices and not the methods "approved" by some folks on VAF.

Ok I'm done.
__________________
Walt Aronow, Dallas, TX (52F) RV7A, IO360, C/S, 1500+hrs

EXP Aircraft Services LLC
Specializing in RV Condition Inspections, Maintenance, Avionics Upgrades
Dynamic Prop Balancing, Pitot-Static Altmeter/Transponder Certification
FAA Certified Repair Station, AP/IA/FCC GROL, EAA Technical Counselor
Authorized Garmin G3X Dealer/Installer
RV7A built 2004, 1700+ hrs
Website: ExpAircraft.com, Email: walt@expaircraft.com, Cell: 972-746-5154

Last edited by Walt : 12-06-2017 at 07:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-05-2017, 08:32 PM
RV7A Flyer's Avatar
RV7A Flyer RV7A Flyer is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: US
Posts: 1,530
Default

Again:

the technician's manual for Parker (Cleveland) brakes says:

Hydraulic Applications - Use fluids compatible with the system
MIL-H-5606 / MIL-H-83282 (Red Oils)
Skydrol Only compatible with itself

So...is ATF compatible with aluminum? I'd guess so. Is it compatible with the o-rings? Depends on the o-rings, I guess, but evidence is that it is compatible with the ones we're using. What else is in the brake system for it to be incompatible with?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-06-2017, 02:59 PM
BMC_Dave BMC_Dave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post
there's really no good reason not to use what the brake manufacturers recommend.
Except ATF is much more available, as several people have pointed out with specific example how 5606 isn't available at their airports...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post
recommending it to others just because you think it ok is just plain wrong IMO.
Kind of the point of these forums don't ya think? To discuss ideas and learn new things. So long as the points are valid and the discussion is honest, which in this case it seems to be. Welcome to the internet BTW

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post
Neither Van's nor any brake manufacturer I'm aware of has tested or approves using ATF in their brake systems, but I guess you're just smarter than they are.
"Hydraulic Applications - Use fluids compatible with the system" Sure seems like at least Cleveland acknowledges there are acceptable alternatives...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post
Until they do, thank you very much but I'll stick with the "approved" fluids.
That's the spirit! Better to not question things
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-06-2017, 04:06 PM
Toobuilder's Avatar
Toobuilder Toobuilder is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mojave
Posts: 3,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cajunwings View Post
For what its worth: It was years ago, but I once spent days replacing parts and rebuilding the brake system on a Cherokee 6 that had been operated for a couple months with automotive (Dot 3) brake fluid. Many of the O rings were very soft and gummy...
Yes, DOT 3 is nasty stuff, and I didn't mean to suggest that it's OK to use. Only brought it up because it WAS in use in my airplane and seemed to be working fine (at that moment).

Did a bit of Googling trying to find out the chemical differences between 5606 and ATF and didn't find much. I did find that people are using it interchangeably in automotive lifts, sailboat autopilot systems, industrial hydraulics and other stuff - some of it with claimed manufacturer endorsement of interchangeability.

So I guess if we want to ignore the empirical evidence offered by those who are using ATF in their brakes, a simple test would be in order. Cut a "certified" O ring in half and drop a chunk in a jar of 5606, the other in ATF and let it sit for a while. Once the soak period is over, compare each half and see if there is any sign of distress from the ATF half. Swelling, durometer, and general appearance, should be readily apparent.
__________________
WARNING! Incorrect design and/or fabrication of aircraft and/or components may result in injury or death. Information presented in this post is based on my own experience - Reader has sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for use.

Michael Robinson
______________
Harmon Rocket II -SDS EFI instalation in work
RV-8 - Flying
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65 -flying
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:55 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.