On Mar 21, 2014, at 10:43 AM, David Joyce <davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk>
wrote:
> Any sort of fitting adds weight and leakage possibility. Going
straight through the firewall with the hoses immobilised on both sides,
with the passage sealed by silicone adds nil weight ,no leakage
possibility and works in the sense that having already replaced hoses
twice on a five year life basis, the pipes showed no sign of chafing
wear. Why complicate things?
David,
Thanks for the description of your installation as well as your report
of trouble-free operation over a ten year period=85yours is simplicity
itself, and I salute you for it while I also admit to envy of your
accumulating all the hours of airtime which you have while my kit
remains in my workshop.
>> Why complicate things?
I suspect that one person=92s =93complication=94 may be another=92s
sense of =93proper kit=94, both being subjective assessments for dealing
w/ the task at hand, whatever it may be=85and...a reflection of one=92s
=93comfort zone=94.
In my case, I recall a sense of discomfort at the thought of simply
running a rubber hose w/ fuel under high pressure through the firewall=85I
was also keen on matching the FWF SS jacketed fuel line which my engine
supplier had already used connecting the injector rails=85the firewall
seemed like the logical place for the transition, and the weight of the
aluminum fittings was not a detriment for me.
As my fuel lines are under high pressure for a fuel-injected engine with
the pumps located aft, I paid little attention to the build manual
references to routing of the low pressure fuel lines for the Rotax
engine, relying instead on an old dog-eared copy of an EAA publication,
=93Firewall Forward=94 by Tony Bingelis.
What I=92ve done made perfect sense to me at the time the work was being
done=85
Cheers,
Fred
|