Sourcing Coolant Hose

[cscotthendry]

The plastic joiners that Gates or anyone else make, might be ok in land based vehicles where if one fails, you can pull to the side of the road. They have NO place in the cooling system of an aircraft.
I don't think stainless joiners are such a great idea with an aluminum engine, but they're still preferrable to plastic!

[skippydiesel]

9 hours ago, cscotthendry said:

The plastic joiners that Gates or anyone else make, might be ok in land based vehicles where if one fails, you can pull to the side of the road. They have NO place in the cooling system of an aircraft.
I don't think stainless joiners are such a great idea with an aluminum engine, but they're still preferrable to plastic!

Maaaate ! - You are so far out of date. This sort of attitude belongs with the certified crowd (& the high cost that go with it), not RAA/Experimental.

 

I have been using Gates (Fuel/Coolant/Oil) hoses for the last 10 year plus. Never an issue. Most if not all gates products have a detailed test QA specification sheet that you can look up . The standards (for the products I have used) all exceed the airframe/engine manufacturers standards.

 

I am sure there are other component manufacturers out there who also provide similar products with similar QA standards - I just happen to have latched onto Gates and am happy with what I get.

 

As for the joiners - I used the catch all term "plastic" to describe what Gates describe as;

• Glass reinforced nylon resists coolant additives, gasoline, diesel, oil and LPG.
• Resistance to extreme temperatures from -65°C to +250°C (-85°F to +480°F).
• Working pressure up to 2 MPa (20 kg/cm²).

Does your opposition to plastic extend to plastic airframes????

[Blueadventures]

8 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Maaaate ! - You are so far out of date. This sort of attitude belongs with the certified crowd (& the high cost that go with it), not RAA/Experimental.

 

I have been using Gates (Fuel/Coolant/Oil) hoses for the last 10 year plus. Never an issue. Most if not all gates products have a detailed test QA specification sheet that you can look up . The standards (for the products I have used) all exceed the airframe/engine manufacturers standards.

 

I am sure there are other component manufacturers out there who also provide similar products with similar QA standards - I just happen to have latched onto Gates and am happy with what I get.

 

As for the joiners - I used the catch all term "plastic" to describe what Gates describe as;

• Glass reinforced nylon resists coolant additives, gasoline, diesel, oil and LPG.
• Resistance to extreme temperatures from -65°C to +250°C (-85°F to +480°F).
• Working pressure up to 2 MPa (20 kg/cm²).

Does your opposition to plastic extend to plastic airframes????

Many things and materials have their own fail points; your mentioned example nylon when under manufacture has a content of trapped water, over time this dries out (in the use of engine coolant systems this will occur from outside in)  and this leads to cracking and eventual failure.  Therefore any use of nylon fittings in the close fitting engine cowls will require similar periodic inspection in similar manner to metal parts.  For my personal peace of mind I will continue to use and recommend metal hose joiners with rubber or silicone hose etc in coolant systems of owner built RAA aircraft.  I hope my comments are of benefit to BirdDog and others.  Cheers.

[skippydiesel]

22 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

Many things and materials have their own fail points; your mentioned example nylon when under manufacture has a content of trapped water, over time this dries out (in the use of engine coolant systems this will occur from outside in)  and this leads to cracking and eventual failure.  Therefore any use of nylon fittings in the close fitting engine cowls will require similar periodic inspection in similar manner to metal parts.  For my personal peace of mind I will continue to use and recommend metal hose joiners with rubber or silicone hose etc in coolant systems of owner built RAA aircraft.  I hope my comments are of benefit to BirdDog and others.  Cheers.

Strange that Gates, with  years of experience across automotive & industrial equipment,  would use such a dodgy material to make their hose connecters.

 

Note; the temperature & pressure ratings - way above anything you should see in a normally operating internal combustion engine. This suggests to me that the margin for failure is so high with these fittings, they will probably outlast me and possibly the aircraft.

 

Not only will they not corrode, / chemically react in any way with the coolant, they are lighter than most if not all metal equivalents and probably cheaper (if in doubt replace every 5 years with the rubber)

[cscotthendry]

5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Strange that Gates, with  years of experience across automotive & industrial equipment,  would use such a dodgy material to make their hose connecters.

 

Note; the temperature & pressure ratings - way above anything you should see in a normally operating internal combustion engine. This suggests to me that the margin for failure is so high with these fittings, they will probably outlast me and possibly the aircraft.

 

Not only will they not corrode, / chemically react in any way with the coolant, they are lighter than most if not all metal equivalents and probably cheaper (if in doubt replace every 5 years with the rubber)

I can only reiterate that plastic fittings in coolant systems might be fine in automotive and industrial applications where you can pull to the side of the road if one fails. I know the major auto makers use a LOT of plasic in cars, including the coolant systems. But have a look at any major aircraft company's products and see if they use them. Better yet, ask Rotax what they think of them.

Also, it's not just the temperature and pressure factors, there's also vibration and stress and temperature differentials. This is particularly true where it applies to a homebuilt plane where the builder usually has to cobble up a cooling system from available hose bits. Those hose bits may not perfectly align (as they do in bespoke parts in cars and industrial equipment) and thus cause residual stress on the joiners. Then add in engine movement on top of that. 
But I get the message that you're not persuadeable in your opinions. For you to use plastic parts in your plane is fine. I think advocating them for others is not wise.

[skippydiesel]

9 hours ago, cscotthendry said:

I can only reiterate that plastic fittings in coolant systems might be fine in automotive and industrial applications where you can pull to the side of the road if one fails. I know the major auto makers use a LOT of plasic in cars, including the coolant systems. But have a look at any major aircraft company's products and see if they use them. Better yet, ask Rotax what they think of them.

Also, it's not just the temperature and pressure factors, there's also vibration and stress and temperature differentials. This is particularly true where it applies to a homebuilt plane where the builder usually has to cobble up a cooling system from available hose bits. Those hose bits may not perfectly align (as they do in bespoke parts in cars and industrial equipment) and thus cause residual stress on the joiners. Then add in engine movement on top of that. 
But I get the message that you're not persuadeable in your opinions. For you to use plastic parts in your plane is fine. I think advocating them for others is not wise.

Always persuadable - no offence intended but it seems to me that your position is in the realm of cant.

 

Its not about my/your wisdom,  it is about recognising the many many thousands of hours of real world component usage, published specifications and an internationally recognised manufacturer that has been around for a very long time (reputation). So the component manufacturer is not a dedicated aviation supplier - this is "tribal" thinking or is it clever marketing by the certified aviation community? So many certified aviation components come off the same assembly lines as non cert.  Only diff. a lot more paperwork attached - Check out Rotax 912 UL/S.

 

As always you are entitled to your opinion, however I would point out that my perspective comes from the experimental direction (more open)- not only am I not bound by the, of necessity (litigation), extreme conservative approach of the Certified world,  I welcome the challenge of a more rational approach.

 

My last aircraft, pretty much 90 degrees to what would seem to be your philosophy, an ATEC Zephyr, was  the ultimate in composite (plastic, wood, fabric) construction and all metric. All nuts/bolts/screws available from your local supplier. All measurements expressed in wonderfully simple progressive metric. This aircraft was truly intuitive to fly, has an astonishingly wide flight envelope and is positively stingy with its fuel consumption. My example flew for 920 hrs/21 years of completely trouble free operation, until the overconfidence of the pilot (me) has grounded her (hopefully temporarily). The oldest example, now approaching thirty, is still flying, dont know the hrs but believe over 2000, somewhere in Qld.

 

After a two year search for a replacement composite aircraft, I have settled on an all metal  Sonex. I hope this aircraft (yet to fly) will be a worthy successor to the Zephyr. However this aircraft is built as one might build an American GA/Certified aircraft. With the exception of the engine (Rotax) its uses the archaic aviation imperial system throughout - a torturous/illogical/over- the - top/expensive system, that should have been ditched (for light aircraft) about a squillion years ago. Being an all metal aircraft, I will have to be constantly on guard against metal fatigue and corrosion (electrolysis). Yes I have compromised my own philosophy of light aircraft construction but sometimes one has to be pragmatic(persuadable) .

 

These two aircraft are in many ways diametrically opposite in design/construction philosophy. The Zephyr much more mine, the Sonex much more yours.

 

My point is simply - go your way, it will cost you a lot more $$$$  You might just equal the level of durability/safety that carefully researched, well made/ tested off the shelf (non certified) components might achieve - as the advocate of increased (unnecessary) metallic mixing within a cooling system, I obviously have my doubts.

[cscotthendry]

13 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Always persuadable - no offence intended but it seems to me that your position is in the realm of cant.

 

Its not about my/your wisdom,  it is about recognising the many many thousands of hours of real world component usage, published specifications and an internationally recognised manufacturer that has been around for a very long time (reputation). So the component manufacturer is not a dedicated aviation supplier - this is "tribal" thinking or is it clever marketing by the certified aviation community? So many certified aviation components come off the same assembly lines as non cert.  Only diff. a lot more paperwork attached - Check out Rotax 912 UL/S.

 

As always you are entitled to your opinion, however I would point out that my perspective comes from the experimental direction (more open)- not only am I not bound by the, of necessity (litigation), extreme conservative approach of the Certified world,  I welcome the challenge of a more rational approach.

 

My last aircraft, pretty much 90 degrees to what would seem to be your philosophy, an ATEC Zephyr, was  the ultimate in composite (plastic, wood, fabric) construction and all metric. All nuts/bolts/screws available from your local supplier. All measurements expressed in wonderfully simple progressive metric. This aircraft was truly intuitive to fly, has an astonishingly wide flight envelope and is positively stingy with its fuel consumption. My example flew for 920 hrs/21 years of completely trouble free operation, until the overconfidence of the pilot (me) has grounded her (hopefully temporarily). The oldest example, now approaching thirty, is still flying, dont know the hrs but believe over 2000, somewhere in Qld.

 

After a two year search for a replacement composite aircraft, I have settled on an all metal  Sonex. I hope this aircraft (yet to fly) will be a worthy successor to the Zephyr. However this aircraft is built as one might build an American GA/Certified aircraft. With the exception of the engine (Rotax) its uses the archaic aviation imperial system throughout - a torturous/illogical/over- the - top/expensive system, that should have been ditched (for light aircraft) about a squillion years ago. Being an all metal aircraft, I will have to be constantly on guard against metal fatigue and corrosion (electrolysis). Yes I have compromised my own philosophy of light aircraft construction but sometimes one has to be pragmatic(persuadable) .

 

These two aircraft are in many ways diametrically opposite in design/construction philosophy. The Zephyr much more mine, the Sonex much more yours.

 

My point is simply - go your way, it will cost you a lot more $$$$  You might just equal the level of durability/safety that carefully researched, well made/ tested off the shelf (non certified) components might achieve - as the advocate of increased (unnecessary) metallic mixing within a cooling system, I obviously have my doubts.

“So many certified aviation components come off the same assembly lines as non cert.  Only diff. a lot more paperwork attached - Check out Rotax 912 UL/S.”

That's pretty naive. That “extra paperwork” represents “extra testing and inspection of components” not just “paperwork”. An example would be of a critical component was visually inspected for non certified, vs. xrayed for certified.

And regardless of your wordy justification of your position, I still believe you are wrong. Industrial components or automotive components are not designed for an aviation application. And I'm certain that if you queried the manufacturer of those types of components, they'd balk at their use in that kind of application.

In any case, it's your life that you are gambling with. Just be sure to tell your passengers that you're gambling with theirs too.

[skippydiesel]

9 hours ago, cscotthendry said:

“So many certified aviation components come off the same assembly lines as non cert.  Only diff. a lot more paperwork attached - Check out Rotax 912 UL/S.”

That's pretty naive. That “extra paperwork” represents “extra testing and inspection of components” not just “paperwork”. An example would be of a critical component was visually inspected for non certified, vs. xrayed for certified.

And regardless of your wordy justification of your position, I still believe you are wrong. Industrial components or automotive components are not designed for an aviation application. And I'm certain that if you queried the manufacturer of those types of components, they'd balk at their use in that kind of application.

In any case, it's your life that you are gambling with. Just be sure to tell your passengers that you're gambling with theirs too.

You do understand cant ?

 

Respectfully, draw your attention to the many thousands of operational hours that non certified, experimental aircraft fly safely every year - how can this be? - do you have an explanation?

 

Certification is, without doubt ,absolutely necessary, in the world of commercial, heavier and more complex aircraft. It is also a system ripe for abuse by the money grabbers & the bureaucrats.

 

For those unwilling/unable to make rational decisions about the quality of components, Certifications it is also a wonderful crutch,  removing all responsibly - go for it .

 

We are poles apart - you have not provided a shred of rational evidence to suggest there is a practical flaw in my argument - just repeated homespun mythology - cant! 

[cscotthendry]

Ok, you win. 
Write to Gates and ask them if their automotive prroducts can be used in an aviation application and post their answer here.

I'll wait …

“We are poles apart - you have not provided a shred of rational evidence to suggest there is a practical flaw in my argument - just repeated homespun mythology - cant! ”

 

”You do understand cant ?”

I understand “projection” I've provided you with evidence, the aviation manufacturing industry doesn't use automotive parts in aircraft, but you choose to ignore that and instead simply repeat homespun mythology and your opinions as “facts” and accuse me of that - projection.

You state that the extra paperwork with certified parts is just “paperwork” and imply that it's just money grubbing without a shred of proof. A claim that I'm sure those who certify those parts would love to debate with you.

This will be my last word on this, I will not respond to further posts. 
I think you are and obstinate and dangerous fool and fear for anyone who chooses to fly with you.

Edited April 8, 2022 by cscotthendry

[skippydiesel]

Cscotthendry - It would seem I have offended you, if so,  please accept my unreserved apology. 

 

Our otherwise quite interesting/vigorous/ entertaining debate has deteriorated into name calling - most regrettable.

 

We are both pretty opinionated and are unlikely to accept or understand each others points of view, so lets just leave it at that.

[spacesailor]

Cscotthendry

Please except that not all ' things ' are  equal !.

Some are made from uncertifide wood & cotton , made into uncertifide canvass,

Some motors are home made to the designer/builders specs !  AND one of the BEST back yard mechanic,s engine, is very sought after, fetching six figures . " SAINTY  speed works " motors were made under his house. Now at a designated high tech facility.

Hospital blood tubing is ' certifed '  by Two operators, one standing beside the other, each reads the number off the automatic machine, looks at the tubing, then writes that no., on a ' A4 paper ' while the second one does exactly the same !. All stored for many years. Hence that cost blowout.

Without cetifying,  that machine could make a years product each day, without an operator at all.

Should l put certified components on my half VW powered plan built home made plane ?, will half a certified motor be more safe , than the same motor the designer called for.

spacesailor

 

 

[onetrack]

Forgive me for thinking that it's made clear to all and sundry, who ride in "experimental: aircraft, that the ride risk is far higher than certified aircraft - thanks to the large plate affixed inside the cabin that states the aircraft is not built to the same standards as a certified aircraft. The vast majority of people who ride in experimental aircraft seem to be happy to accept that statement and the higher risk that goes with it.

 

It's an unfortunate fact of life that even certified parts and components fail, too. The largest majority of certified aircraft have backup to major critical failures, but there are plenty of components in them that have no backup, either.

If your fully certified IO-520 "hangs a leg out of bed", thanks to a manufacturing flaw that wasn't picked up, you're in not much different position as Skippy with a blown piece of plastic tubing in the cooling system.

 

Personally, I would shy away from plastic or even nylon tubing in the cooling system of an RA-Aus aircraft, and my preference would be for stainless tubing - because good coolant additives suppress any corrosion potential between dissimilar metals.

[Thruster88]

There is a lot of freedom in the experimental world. Van's aircraft as an example are nearly always built with the same certified components found in Cessna and Piper. It might cost a bit more however the confidence and hence enjoyment when flying such aircraft is worth every cent for me.

 

The problem with going towards uncertified / unproven products and practices is it can be a slippery slope. This fatal accident at Maitland was caused by the use of automotive oil lines on a lycoming engine. A few hundred dollars saved ends in a world of grief 

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-028/

[walrus]

I've had both metal and plastic fail in cooling systems. The metal from corrosion and fatigue, the plastic from over temperature and mechanical failure, so you are both right.

 

I've used automotive fittings in some areas but they are not a cure all. In my case I found wonderful fittings for teflon and braided stainless racing hose - a joy  to work with and 1000psi+ rating BUT overtighten the sleeve nut on a fitting and it will split, leaving you with a potentially fatal fuel leak. Similarly plastic fittings - their strength is highly temperature dependant. What happens when the coolant temperature is 120C at switch off on a hot day  how does your heat soaked plastic fitting behave when it is at 130C under associated pressure AND the fitting is misaligned and under stress, perhaps with an overtightened hose clamp as well?

 

The joy of the old AN fitting and fastening system is that it works. The failure modes are very well known and in any case if you follow AC13b they are idiot proof (I hope!).

 

Just because something looks the same doesn't make it the same either. having said that, there are quite a few Rotax parts that are Bosch automotive rebranded items.

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

There is a lot of freedom in the experimental world. Van's aircraft as an example are nearly always built with the same certified components found in Cessna and Piper. It might cost a bit more however the confidence and hence enjoyment when flying such aircraft is worth every cent for me.

 

The problem with going towards uncertified / unproven products and practices is it can be a slippery slope. This fatal accident at Maitland was caused by the use of automotive oil lines on a lycoming engine. A few hundred dollars saved ends in a world of grief 

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-028/

A quick read through your, thoughtfully provided, Osprey accident  report says nothing about the source (automotive or otherwise?) of the oil lines only that they were in poor condition and a mismatch for a previously damaged oil cooler (or have I missed something ?)

 

Its all too easy to have your preconceptions confirmed by a biased interpretation. My reading of this report tells me that the builder of the aircraft skimped on a range of basic mechanical standards. This suggests a cavalier attitude to safety in general - probably the main cause of the crash.

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, walrus said:

I've had both metal and plastic fail in cooling systems. The metal from corrosion and fatigue, the plastic from over temperature and mechanical failure, so you are both right.

 

I've used automotive fittings in some areas but they are not a cure all. In my case I found wonderful fittings for teflon and braided stainless racing hose - a joy  to work with and 1000psi+ rating BUT overtighten the sleeve nut on a fitting and it will split, leaving you with a potentially fatal fuel leak. Similarly plastic fittings - their strength is highly temperature dependant. What happens when the coolant temperature is 120C at switch off on a hot day  how does your heat soaked plastic fitting behave when it is at 130C under associated pressure AND the fitting is misaligned and under stress, perhaps with an overtightened hose clamp as well?

 

The joy of the old AN fitting and fastening system is that it works. The failure modes are very well known and in any case if you follow AC13b they are idiot proof (I hope!).

 

Just because something looks the same doesn't make it the same either. having said that, there are quite a few Rotax parts that are Bosch automotive rebranded items.

Hi Walrus - Certainly all materials and systems can fail and yes we (my former debating friend & I) both have right on our side - I think that you have made the point I was trying to get him to move to; There is no doubt that certified components/systems offer a high degree of certainty (because they meet standards specifically set for aircraft us) however with a modicum of mechanical know how and a lot of common sense,  it is possible to safely use automotive parts for aircraft, especially in areas not critical to continued flight (a Rotax 9 will still get you to a safe landing even if all your coolant has been lost). 

 

Rotax aircraft engines are a great example of this.  They utilise automotive push on oil fuel & coolant hoses, hose clamps, Ducati ignitions, spark plugs, etc.  Though not original/unique, they also utilise automotive engine speeds/through a reduction gear box - much to the derision of the direct drive exponents. I doubt anyone can deny the success, built on reliability, of Rotax engines.

 

As for heat damaged components - I draw you attention to the Gates specification, for the "plastic" hose joiners, I quoted above  

• Resistance to extreme temperatures from -65°C to +250°C (-85°F to +480°F).
• Working pressure up to 2 MPa (20 kg/cm²).

If your engine reaches any where near these temperatures & pressures, you most likely have a boat anchor.

 

The Gates hose joiners resemble plastic irrigation hose joiners - they are definitely not the same.

 

You also mention misalignments/overtightening - these are equally problems of certified components. The failure of the human installer is not confined to any one system.

[Blueadventures]

24 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

A quick read through your, thoughtfully provided, Osprey accident  report says nothing about the source (automotive or otherwise?) of the oil lines only that they were in poor condition and a mismatch for a previously damaged oil cooler (or have I missed something ?)

 

Its all too easy to have your preconceptions confirmed by a biased interpretation. My reading of this report tells me that the builder of the aircraft skimped on a range of basic mechanical standards. This suggests a cavalier attitude to safety in general - probably the main cause of the crash.

It does in the report refer to auto parts being purchased a few years before fitting.   Suggest a better re read and digest of the info.

[skippydiesel]

4 hours ago, Blueadventures said:

It does in the report refer to auto parts being purchased a few years before fitting.   Suggest a better re read and digest of the info.

Okay, I was a bit quick with my read through however oil hoses in poor condition,  mismatched and damaged oil cooler are, to me, the key points.

 

See what I mean about bringing prior bias to a debate - we see/read/"digest" what "fits'with/confirms our bias - just human nature but if you dont recognise the possibility (my friend from earlier) then there is little hope for bias movement/adjustment.

Edited April 9, 2022 by skippydiesel

[BirdDog]

OK... So I have been away for a bit and looks like a bit of banter went on!  LOL!

 

So an updated.... I have found that there is absolutely no way of finding ANYTHING remotely like I need for 2 hoses that I have on myt radiator.  SO...  It would appear my only choices are.... contact Bristell and find out if they can send some over. (doubtful and the long wait) OR.... move to something like below which is a Gates UniCoil.

 

Other than that, I can't see any other solution.

 

[Blueadventures]

1 hour ago, BirdDog said:

OK... So I have been away for a bit and looks like a bit of banter went on!  LOL!

 

So an updated.... I have found that there is absolutely no way of finding ANYTHING remotely like I need for 2 hoses that I have on myt radiator.  SO...  It would appear my only choices are.... contact Bristell and find out if they can send some over. (doubtful and the long wait) OR.... move to something like below which is a Gates UniCoil.

 

Other than that, I can't see any other solution.

 

Yesterday I saw a mate had two coolant hose for his Bristelle.  He said he purchased from the company.   If you want his contact pm me and I'll send to you so you can ask him about the hoses and may be get an image of his setup.  Cheers

[Thruster88]

I have used this style of gates universal coolant hose on ground vehicles. Has a wire inside and won't collapse, bends to any shape.  Has to be the correct length, can only be terminated on the straight ends.

[RFguy]

I used silicone hoses throughout for the LCH on the Jabiru.

Particularly because the hose inlets to each head run up underneath the heads amongst the exhaust system....😀

They were all 16mm ID.

then for manifolds to pumps etc motocycle radiators all 19mm ID.

and the RED Nulon high temp coolant (127C)

Edited June 22, 2022 by RFguy