What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

More Bad Flares on Fuel Lines Found, What's up with this?

Walt

Walt

Well Known Member
To be honest folks I'm really getting tired of finding these bad/cracked flares made with substandard tools. Making new fuel lines for already completed aircraft is not my idea of fun. Please folks, fuel lines are really important, how about using the right tools, get someone to show you how to do it properly and inspect your work (using a magnifier) before installing a bunch of defective fuel lines, please do if for me :D

These are off a customers RV10, found in the tunnel.

Cracked Flares
IMG_6720a.jpg


You can see the crack here at about 2 oclock on the lower edge of the flare!
IMG_6717a.jpg


Cracked from 12 to 2 o clock
IMG_6722a.jpg


Left is good flare, Right is BAD flare
IMG_6726a.jpg


This is an example I grabbed from my junk drawer to show what an acceptable flare should look like.
IMG_6725a.jpg
 
Last edited:
Give us a lesson

So I bought my new handy dandy Parker Rolo-flair. It has a bump stop to establish the relationship between the die and the end of the tube. When flairing small tube the bump stop doesn't reach the point where the tube will bump against it.

In other words, I'm finding it difficult to place the tube in the flairing tool at the correct location. For that matter, what is the correct protrusion prior to flairing?

I am using a drop of oil on the flair.

While the Parker tool seems to make a nice flair, I'm finding it a little awkward to use. Overall, I'm not that impressed with it.

Give us a few pointers.

Thanks in advance.
 
Tubing that meets specifications would help!

The tubing that vans sent with my kit, in my opinion is not fit for any critical plumbing purpose!

That said I was happy with most everything else.

The trick for good flares are, Material, Tools, and Technique.

For Aluminum tubing we sell alot of spec WWT/700-4 in various sizes.

Tech page here http://www.gen-aircraft-hardware.com/images/pdf/tubing+info.pdf This link also shows the specs for popular Stainless Tubing.

For tips on how to single flare tubing, here is a good link. It is demonstrated with Stainless because that is what most people have trouble with, but the principles work well with Aircraft Spec aluminum.

http://www.gen-aircraft-hardware.com/Flaring_Stainless_Steel_Tubing.asp
 
Last edited:
I've often thought of getting a more expensive tool but the Rolo flairing tool does a more than acceptable job if you take the care to do it right, here are some of the things I do:

1) Preperation is everthing, after cutting the tube sand/file it flat (tube cutters do not leave a flat end), debur inside and outside, remove all sharp edges, polish with emery cloth then a scotchbrite pad (gray) inside and out.

2) I find the "stop" on the Role flair is to far up and makes the flare to big, I just eyeball it. when the flare is the right size the OD of the flare will match the OD of the ferrule.

3) Go slow, like you're tapping treads, back and forth just going a little at a time and use plenty of 50W on the flare tool. When the tool meets some resistance stop, it very easy to overflare so don't apply to much force.

4) Inspect with a 3x minimum glass for defects.
 
Last edited:
In all my years of Airline aircraft maintenance there where several common items found when it came to fuel line leaks;

1) Over-torqued "B" nuts at the fuel line attachment point (this can cause flared tube end cracks).

2) Fuel line chaff through (improperly positioned/routed fuel line which made contact with other parts and chaffed through).

It is always critical to inspect fuel line flared ends for cracks prior to install. Small cracks only detected by magnifying glass will even cause leaks so be vigilant. Also, make sure your fuel line routing is clear of possible chaff contact points.


BTW, Walt this is a great subject and thanks for sharing with the forum!!!
 
Can you photoshop in some arrows to the cracks you're pointing out? Even zoomed in on my iPad I can't see what you're talking about.
 
Great thread Walt. I must admit I am a rookie when it comes to flairs and I have been using the stop on my tool thinking it was correct.
 
Thanks for reminder Walt. This hairline circular crack might happen if you over flare.


badflare.jpg




Leak.jpg
 
humptybump said:
20111027-073205.jpg


Walt - I think I am close but I'll remove the image if you disagree.
Click to expand...

You nailed it, thanks! It is clearly visible when looking at it with a 5X loupe, this was the best pic I could get with my amatuer photograpy skiils.
 
Last edited:
rhill said:
Not the first time I have heard this,Weight vs Safety,I would like to know which grade of aluminum tubing is best for this use,or would stainless steel be
x times safer? Over the years,and now on the Ten's,Fuel fires have been an issue.
Click to expand...

The 3003 tube Van's supplies is more than adequate for the RV systems IMO, if you want something a little better go with 5052 but it's also a little harder to work with. Stainless is way over kill unless you have a 3000 PSI hyd system going in.

I do recommend and use 5052 for the brake lines going to the calipers due to the higher fatigue life.

No matter what you use, if you don't manufacture it correctly it can/will fail.
 
A perfectly flared, properly torqued tube can crack if there is not good alignment. In other words, the B nut should thread on by hand. If it isn't easy to do so, the tube is probably not aligned. Now add a little cyclic loading, either bending or tension, and it will fatigue crack. I'm guessing the tube in the first picture was not cracked at the time of flare or tightening. I certainly could be wrong.
 
No matter what you use, if you don't manufacture it correctly it can/will fail.[/QUOTE]

Thank You Walt for this thread,I remember a 8 driver who bailed out sans chute due to a cockpit fire.Smoke in the cockpit put Ted Chang down in a field this year (up right I might add) and now Rick Gray is recovering from burns he received when he had to put a Ten down.(Best wishes Rick,get well soon!).
This is a very important safety issue that needs more attention than it gets now.IMHO
Bob
 
Excellent comments as usual from Walt. In addition this recent thread below contains my comments on the damage that can be done to flares on aluminium lines if the AN-818 nuts are done up to the same torque as specified for aluminium fittings. I am amazed at how many builders are unaware that the specified torque values for AN-818 nuts are dramatically different for aluminium tube and aluminium fittings.

Sometimes builders make nice flares and then stuff them by over-torquing the AN-818 nut.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?p=589037#post589037
 
I would love another thread on how to properly torque these fittings. I read where counting flats was a suitable method where a torque wrench won't fit. I'm still tracking down info on how many flats to turn for what size and material. No joy yet and I am the point of plumbing my 9.

I hate regular plumbing...can't imagine this is going to be a fun part of the build for me. I just want to do it correctly for all of the obvious reasons.
 
Don said:
I would love another thread on how to properly torque these fittings. I read where counting flats was a suitable method where a torque wrench won't fit. I'm still tracking down info on how many flats to turn for what size and material. No joy yet and I am the point of plumbing my 9.

I hate regular plumbing...can't imagine this is going to be a fun part of the build for me. I just want to do it correctly for all of the obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

Go to the Van's site and click on the "Torque specifications for aluminum fittings" link for the "flats" method...its a handy document to have in the shop

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/confaq.htm
 
This thread would also be handy. This may be the first one I've rated and I've given it 5 stars.

Walt, is there a good way to test your finished flares? The reason I ask is that my friend who built the PropJet had a pressure fitting fail on him. It didn't break, it just un-flared and pulled out of the fitting. A metallurgist's report showed that the tubing was incorrectly marked by the manufacturer. Fortunately, it caused the gear to fail to retract, not the other way around. I'm just wondering if it could have been caught before the failure.
 
RV7Ron said:
Go to the Van's site and click on the "Torque specifications for aluminum fittings" link for the "flats" method...its a handy document to have in the shop

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/confaq.htm
Click to expand...
Actually, this may not be correct for the soft alumininum tube, Ron. That guide is from/for Aeroquip hoses which use harder fittings. If you read the thread referenced below in Bob B's post, you'll see that Van's provides (seemingly) contradictory torque values in other sets of instructions. I picked up on this when I was doing my fuel tank service bulletin. Van's SB recommended 110-130 in-lb for that size 6 fitting. The Aeroquip guide was 150-195 in-lb for a size 6. Thus, the number of flats one would add would be different as well, depending on what type of tubing/fittings you're using.

The problem seems to be that Van's posted that Aeroquip guide without making a distinction between the type of tubing/fittings you're using. So builders use those Aeroquip values for connections other than their FWF hoses. That said, maybe the difference between 130 and 195 in-lb is insignificant for our purposes (??? I really wouldn't know ???), but still it's a contradiction that it would be nice to get some clarification on.

Captain Avgas said:
Sometimes builders make nice flares and then stuff them by over-torquing the AN-818 nut.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?p=589037#post589037
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This goes back to a point I made about a year ago that braided, TSO'd fuel lines are the safest choice for E-AB aircraft.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with aluminum lines; they have their place in aviation. But given the home-builder scenario and the critical nature of fuel lines, I'd rather see TSO'd lines with manufactured fittings inside the airplane.

Yeah I know they are heavier, yeah I know they can fail too, yeah I know they need to be replaced every 5 years, yeah I know the factory planes don't use them. I've heard all the reasoning but none of it tips the scales in safety vs an amateur plane builder standing in his garage. Most likely it's something they have never done in their life and if they have they probably haven't perfected the skills required because it's not a task they do frequently. Unlike riveting, you aren't given thousands of opportunities to hone a skill on parts that aren't critical before moving on to more critical components. This is a task that's only done a couple of times in the airframe.

On a side note: Vans should send a dozen 6" sticks with their kit to allow folks to practice with before they start hacking on their own lines and end up with nothing left. That's a contributor to the the problem. People will use what they have, for the airplane, on the airplane. They don't want to have to order more material, wait a week, and then have to re-bend those *&#$ lines. This encourages 'it's good enough' syndrome to take place and a less than desirable product gets installed. Practice material to build 20-30 practice flares would go a long way toward getting better flares on the lines at the right time. - IMHO

I have aluminum lines that are nicely flared and nicely bent in my aircraft today and I'm still considering a replacement of those lines.

This is one of the areas where I think it makes sense for a home builder to put something in that's much more predictable and reduces the risk window in the typical E-AB aircraft.

Phil
 
Last edited:
The aluminum lines in aircraft like my 1955 Cessna have not been replaced and there are no ADs on them.

A properly made aluminum line ought to last as long as the airframe, if not longer.

Dave
 
Though I agree it requires knowledge to make and install aluminum lines correctly and the consequences for not doing so can be severe, I'm curious whether these issues are manifesting themselves in significant numbers of accidents. Anyone have data?

-Rob
 
EAA "Tips for Homebuilders" video

I knew less than nothing about properly flaring aluminum tubing when I built my RV. Because I had to replace my electric fuel pump and had learned a bit more about flaring from reading posts here, I took more care and was much more persnickety about my flares when I plumbed in the new pump. It's a miracle that I don't have any leaks.

This thread is very helpful, as is an EAA video that can be found here:

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=3727487001

It's a pretty good tutorial on how to properly flare tubing. Wish I'd known all of this stuff before I made my first flare. :rolleyes:
 
alpinelakespilot2000 said:
Actually, this may not be correct for the soft alumininum tube, Ron. That guide is from/for Aeroquip hoses which use harder fittings. If you read the thread referenced below in Bob B's post, you'll see that Van's provides (seemingly) contradictory torque values in other sets of instructions. I picked up on this when I was doing my fuel tank service bulletin. Van's SB recommended 110-130 in-lb for that size 6 fitting. The Aeroquip guide was 150-195 in-lb for a size 6. Thus, the number of flats one would add would be different as well, depending on what type of tubing/fittings you're using.

The problem seems to be that Van's posted that Aeroquip guide without making a distinction between the type of tubing/fittings you're using. So builders use those Aeroquip values for connections other than their FWF hoses. That said, maybe the difference between 130 and 195 in-lb is insignificant for our purposes (??? I really wouldn't know ???), but still it's a contradiction that it would be nice to get some clarification on.
Click to expand...

well, gosh, thanks for pointing that out...I didnt realize. Btw...I concur, this is a great thread.
 
David Paule said:
The aluminum lines in aircraft like my 1955 Cessna have not been replaced and there are no ADs on them.

A properly made aluminum line ought to last as long as the airframe, if not longer.

Dave
Click to expand...

Yet it's a common replacement item on the Grummans and the dealers always have them in stock. No ADs, just a common replacement item.

The Grumman ones are also made of the heavier, stronger 5052-0 material mentioned ealier in this thread.
 
tubing

Add to the accident list the Rocket in Northern CA many years ago and the recent Rocket in San Diego. Both loose fittings on fuel pump, not directly related to tubing, but equally important.
 
tubing

If anyone can prove to me that any US certificated light aircraft built in the last 40 years uses anything less strong than 5052-O, I will donate an extra $25 to VAF in the name of the first person to come up with this info. The tubing provided in the kits is hardware store junk, completely unsuitable for aircraft use.
 
This goes back to a point I made about a year ago that braided, TSO'd fuel lines are the safest choice for E-AB aircraft...
Click to expand...

There is also significant and viable evidence that the safest choice for E-AB aircraft is to leave them in the hangar.

I think we need to keep in mind that we are constructing airplanes here, not assembling a kids bike on Christmas morning. There are going to be some areas that require skill and craftsmanship. The inspection criteria for proper flares is not difficult to determine, so there really is no reason that we are flying with junk. If you have to make a whole bunch before you get a good one, so be it. This is suposed to be an education, right?
 
So true

Toobuilder said:
This is suposed to be an education, right?
Click to expand...

Reminds me of what I tell people who say "I could never do that!".

I tell them they can do it too, they just have to be willing to do what I do - do each thing twice. The first time is for practice, the second time (okay, sometimes the third time:eek:) is for real.
 
Last edited:
jrs14855 said:
The tubing provided in the kits is hardware store junk, completely unsuitable for aircraft use.
Click to expand...

Obviously Van's doesn't agree with you on this (and neither do I). The material Van's supplies is more than adequite for job of low pressure fuel and brake lines. Proper construction and quality control is more important than which material you choose.
 
I do want to emphasize one thing, INSPECTION TOOLS

Today I re-made a **** load of lines, even though I've done this a thousand times before and feel very confident in my work, I still use my 7X loupe to inspect EACH AND EVERY flare for defects before proceding.

You must use a 5X-10X maginfier to inpect these, the naked eye is just not capable if seeing a cracked flare or other surface defect.
 
jrs14855 said:
If anyone can prove to me that any US certificated light aircraft built in the last 40 years uses anything less strong than 5052-O, I will donate an extra $25 to VAF in the name of the first person to come up with this info. The tubing provided in the kits is hardware store junk, completely unsuitable for aircraft use.
Click to expand...

Jim,

I do believe the 3/8" tubing supplied by Van's is 3003-0. According to ACS it is rated at 520 psi working pressure. The 5052-0 is rated higher than 3003-0 but they don't give a number.

Either will do the job if properly fabricated. 3003-0 is used with RV's (and was also recommended by Burt Rutan with his EZ's) because it is easy to bend and flare. 5052-0 is better but it is over kill for this application as is stainless steel. All of these materials will fail if not properly fabricated. None will fail if properly fabricated.

This is an excellent thread on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Walt said:
Obviously Van's doesn't agree with you on this (and neither do I). The material Van's supplies is more than adequite for job of low pressure fuel and brake lines. Proper construction and quality control is more important than which material you choose.
Click to expand...

Yes... but we are usually told to follow tried and true certified aircraft practise for safety - there is more history out there and brake systems are not very unique or different on Experimentals.

The use of 3030-0 is not the usual material for brake lines, 5052-0 is...:rolleyes:
 
az_gila said:
Yes... but we are usually told to follow tried and true certified aircraft practise for safety - there is more history out there and brake systems are not very unique or different on Experimentals.

The use of 3003-0 is not the usual material for brake lines, 5052-0 is...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeh, I'm with Gil on this one. I tossed all of the Vans supplied 3003 and replaced it with 5052 throughout my aircraft. You won't find any 3003 on certificated aircraft. 3003 is a low cost commercial grade aluminium tube typically used in less critical applications such as air conditioners and refrigerators.

Vans probably supplies grade 3003 tubing for two reasons:

1. It's cheap cheap cheap (Vans loves cheap).

2. It comes rolled up in a coil (easy to transport).

The real aviation tube 5052 comes in straight lengths so transportation of longer pieces can be problematic.

Incidentally, comments that 3003 is easier to work with are completely incorrect. It's exactly the opposite....5052 is vastly superior to work with. In the first instance it's so much nicer to start off with a perfectly straight length of tube than a piece of tube that's roughly rolled into a tight coil and needs straightening.

Another little know fact is that aviation grade 5052 has a .035" wall whereas 3003 has only a .032" wall. That 10% thinner wall combined with a MUCH softer alloy makes forming flares with 3003 more problematic. It also makes using the correct torque on AN-818 nuts more critical.
 
Last edited:
Poof test

For critical lines, ie fuel & oil, it might be a good idea, to poof test the line. A pressure gauge and hydraulic hand pump plumbed into the newly built line should do the trick to test for leaks and cracks before installing the line in the plane (would think Harbor Freight would have what you need). I've made numerous hydraulic, fuel, oil, o2 ect.. lines and have pressurized some of them to 3000psi. You wouldnt need to go nearly that high, but if you filled the tube with fluid and capped the end and pressurized it to even 500psi, that should be sufficient for this application. After you get the pressure set, let it sit a while and make sure it holds psi and doesnt leak. Just make sure you have the tube pointed in a safe direction, because if there is a crack on the line it could shoot the b-nut and plug like a .50 caliber bullet. As the others have said, prepreation is very important, a little sandpaper on the end to be flared will go a long way, and make sure you use plenty of lube. I have found that it doesnt really matter what kind you use......wd-40, 5606, LPS.....its all good, just dont skimp on it. My .02
 
Tom Randel said:
For critical lines, ie fuel & oil, it might be a good idea, to poof test the line. A pressure gauge and hydraulic hand pump plumbed into the newly built line should do the trick to test for leaks and cracks before installing the line in the plane (would think Harbor Freight would have what you need). I've made numerous hydraulic, fuel, oil, o2 ect.. lines and have pressurized some of them to 3000psi. You wouldnt need to go nearly that high, but if you filled the tube with fluid and capped the end and pressurized it to even 500psi, that should be sufficient for this application. After you get the pressure set, let it sit a while and make sure it holds psi and doesnt leak. Just make sure you have the tube pointed in a safe direction, because if there is a crack on the line it could shoot the b-nut and plug like a .50 caliber bullet. As the others have said, prepreation is very important, a little sandpaper on the end to be flared will go a long way, and make sure you use plenty of lube. I have found that it doesnt really matter what kind you use......wd-40, 5606, LPS.....its all good, just dont skimp on it. My .02
Click to expand...

That just won't happen if the line is full of fluid.
 
Optional!

rhill said:
Not the first time I have heard this,Weight vs Safety,I would like to know which grade of aluminum tubing is best for this use,or would stainless steel be
x times safer? Over the years,and now on the Ten's,Fuel fires have been an issue.
Click to expand...

You can see the strengths for the tubing sizes and materials in one of the links I posted in post #3 of this thread.

I have not yet done my fuel plumbing in my fuselage yet.

I may consider using stainless tubing for the inside plumbing for increased safety. I would need to use cad plated aircraft steel fittings for material compatibility.

Forward of the firewall I plan to use steel or stainless bulkhead fittings.
I will use compatible firesleeved hose assembies.
 
GAHco said:
The tubing that vans sent with my kit, in my opinion is not fit for any critical plumbing purpose!

That said I was happy with most everything else.

The trick for good flares are, Material, Tools, and Technique.

For Aluminum tubing we sell alot of spec WWT/700-4 in various sizes.

Tech page here http://www.gen-aircraft-hardware.com/images/pdf/tubing+info.pdf This link also shows the specs for popular Stainless Tubing.

For tips on how to single flare tubing, here is a good link. It is demonstrated with Stainless because that is what most people have trouble with, but the principles work well with Aircraft Spec aluminum.

http://www.gen-aircraft-hardware.com/Flaring_Stainless_Steel_Tubing.asp
Click to expand...

Tom, your link does not show strengths for 3003-0 tubing.

This table shows that 5052-0 is almost twice the strength of 3003-0, and as mentioned above is also about 10% thicker in the sizes we use...

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/properties-aluminum-pipe-d_1340.html?mobile=false

A blank in the temper column in the table is a "-0"
 
Thanks Walt-

We all should stop and look over our work. You brought up some very great points!. I think Spruce has a 'bargin bad'of aluminum tubing guys can buy to practice. It does take practice with the particular flaring tool that you use. I have one from GAHCO that I like---but it took SEVERAL practice tubes to get used to it. I still do that occasionally---just for practice and QA.
Tom
 
Practice, Practice, Practice....

Back when I built my -8, I found out that a 50' roll of 3/8" 3003 tubing was about $20 from ACS. It's about $30 now, but that is next to nothing when it comes to learning to make good flares, as Walt is telling us all we need to do! I am still using that same 50' roll BTW, getting close to finishing the second airplane. I have thrown away LOTS of pieces that didn't quite meet standards for fit and quality in the airplanes. (...and when you screw one up, don't throw it away immediately - cut it up into pieces to use for flaring practice!)

Don't limit yourself to what Van's packages in the kit - buy a roll so that you have no reason NOT to remake them until they are right.

Paul
 
Ironflight said:
Don't limit yourself to what Van's packages in the kit - buy a roll so that you have no reason NOT to remake them until they are right.

Paul
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's what I did. I bought a couple of extra rolls to augment the kit on my own. It saved me lots of frustration in the long run.
 
Ironflight said:
... I have thrown away LOTS of pieces that didn't quite meet standards for fit and quality in the airplanes...
Click to expand...


I can relate. I have fabricated a lot of tubing in my day and I still mess them up... and I'm an A&P! More often than not, it is an especially complicated tube assembly that is "perfect" up to the final flare...

Anyway, I think the point here is that we are building airplanes not only to enjoy the finished product, but to learn new skills. Building junk serves neither purpose. The inspection criteria are available and so is help from more experienced builders/mechanics if you really get stuck. I replaced every tube assembly on the -8 because of poor fabrication - and there's really no reason for that. We can and must do better.
 
Just picked up 12' of 5052 from Spruce, I'm going to see for myself what the difference is.

This thread is interesting from a QA standpoint and prompted me to go back and reevaluate the few hard lines I have, but without an outside perspective some of the 'material choice' posts might lead one to believe that plans-build RVs are falling out of the sky wholesale due to fuel line problems.
 
nauga said:
......but without an outside perspective some of the 'material choice' posts might lead one to believe that plans-build RVs are falling out of the sky wholesale due to fuel line problems.
Click to expand...

And of course, they aren't. I'd guess 8,000 flying around the world, probably 7,000 of those with the fuel line material supplied by Van's...;)
 
Phil said:
On a side note: Vans should send a dozen 6" sticks with their kit to allow folks to practice with ... Practice material to build 20-30 practice flares would go a long way toward getting better flares on the lines at the right time.
Click to expand...
Wow, so the 2 or 3 foot pile of mis-bent tubing I have, is actually just practice!! That sounds a lot better than mistakes! :)

I ordered more tubing from Vans, then bought yet more from the Sacramento SkyRanch (it's a 20 minute drive away). The Ranch carries only the 5052 tubing (the stiffer stuff). Oh, and ordered more from Aircraft Spruce. Don't have much left...all went to "practice".

Speaking of the SkyRanch, I highly recommend their software Mechanic's Toolbox. Second only to the AC 43.13 in usefulness to me.
 
Last edited:
Aircraft Grade!

az_gila said:
Tom, your link does not show strengths for 3003-0 tubing.

This table shows that 5052-0 is almost twice the strength of 3003-0, and as mentioned above is also about 10% thicker in the sizes we use...

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/properties-aluminum-pipe-d_1340.html?mobile=false

A blank in the temper column in the table is a "-0"
Click to expand...

That's why we call ourselves Genuine Aircraft Hardware, 3003 is most likely commercial refrigerant tubing. That's my guess!
 
Ironflight said:
And of course, they aren't. I'd guess 8,000 flying around the world, probably 7,000 of those with the fuel line material supplied by Van's...;)
Click to expand...

The 3003 tubing may be more successful for the fuel lines than for the brake lines although it is supplied for both by Vans.

Failure of flares in 3003 material for the RV brake lines is well documented and has proven to be extremely widespread.

There have been literally dozens of reports of such brake failures on VansAirforce. Here's a couple of random threads for those in any doubt on this issue.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=12297&highlight=brake+flare

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=14176&highlight=brake+flare
 
Ironflight said:
And of course, they aren't. I'd guess 8,000 flying around the world, probably 7,000 of those with the fuel line material supplied by Van's...;)
Click to expand...

The story of the 8 pilot jumping without a chute is enough for me,Thank you Walt for a great thread ,your point about magnified inspections is not lost on me. Considering the Relative low cost of tubing,Vans supplied all the practice tube I will ever need.The 3003 would be fine for vent lines if it didn't always look so bent up,for appearance and continuity I'll go "Genuine Aircraft Hardware" for these also.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top