Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Early "Cub" with 45º brake line fittings

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like

    Early "Cub" with 45º brake line fittings

    Anyone know what automotive brake hose fits the early J-3 with 45º brake lines and fittings? I think it was a Plymouth hose. Don't know year and model. Old hose is definitely original and is marked, LP-3-46 1/4. Thanks so much...........

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,859
    Post Thanks / Like
    Try this thread (the search function works).

    http://www.supercub.org/phpbb2/viewt...ght=brake+hose

    John Scott

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,596
    Post Thanks / Like
    I went out and got one - the threads for the end that goes into the brake master are straight, which is correct for some of the Cubs. The rest use pipe threads - I believe it is 1/4 NPT. The end that goes to the copper line is #4 Weatherhead.

    If you need the pipe threads, the part number given and an adapter is one good approach. The part # for the identical hose with pipe threads would be greatly appreciated.

  4. #4
    wirsig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Rocky Mount, VA
    Posts
    305
    Post Thanks / Like

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like
    My brake hose has the 1/4" npt threads on the MC end; 7/16 X 24 tpi, 45º female on the other. This looks promising........

    "I found the part number of the brake hose I bought, it is 4136549. Again, these parts are not FAA approved."

    My brass ends are good; maybe a hose builder could fabricate hoses using them; is that a legal repair?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,596
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have been looking in to this issue. I think, but am not sure, that AC43.13 gives approved data for building hoses out of Aeroquip and reusable ends for any application. I also think, but am not sure, that if you have FAA approved documents describing a part, you can go to a hose builder and have your hoses made as owner-produced parts. The question is, since Univair has a PMA part ($115 for a ten dollar hose) does "owner produced" still work? Its purpose is when parts are not available - like Warner pistons, for example.

    Most Cubs now have Aeroquip 37 degree hoses and fittings, so somebody surely has thought this through - the change from 45 degree to 37 degree is most likely considered by mechanics as a minor mod.

  7. #7
    j5mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    North Alabama
    Posts
    191
    Post Thanks / Like
    Will can you send me a good picture of your brake hose?

  8. #8
    mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    11,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bob turner View Post
    .....
    Most Cubs now have Aeroquip 37 degree hoses and fittings, so somebody surely has thought this through - the change from 45 degree to 37 degree is most likely considered by mechanics as a minor mod.
    thats all I use, have seen used for years..... never even thought about it....

    allot of people are now using that Teflon?/stainless covered hose for brakes & skis,

    that stuff kinda scares me if something would snag it off your gear leg, not much holding end on hose, to me... but many are using it....

    (but I guess if it can HOLD 1500 lbs inside trying to PUSH end off, I would think it would take more than that to pull end off hose???)

    1500 lbs don't seem high enough pressure rating for booster brakes to me.... or is there a higher pressure hose like this?
    http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/aq666.php

  9. #9
    mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    11,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    duh....

    answerd my own question, guess it is 8000lb burst strength, 1500 working

    http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...eroquip666.php

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,596
    Post Thanks / Like
    The original Cub hose was automotive. Univair's part looks like Aeroquip or similar built-up. Since 1967, all automotive hoses must meet 4000 lbs test, 5000 lbs burst. Some of the Aeroquip lines do not go that high.

  11. #11
    T.J.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    3,211
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bob:
    Your statement "...does "Owner Produced" parts still work? Its purpose is when parts are not available."
    Quote the FAR that states that please.
    Thanks.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,596
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is from a Bill O'Brien document:

    If we cannot find PMA, TSO, standard, or production holder replacement parts, we are left to make the part under the owner produced option under section 21.303(b)(2).

    I have not a clue where he got that from, but that is why I qualified my statement. I sort of hope there is no FAR that solidifies that. I just did a quick check of 21.303(b)(2) and can find no reference to owner produced parts - is it possible that they changed something?
    Last edited by bob turner; 07-11-2011 at 01:11 AM.

  13. #13
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    3,885
    Post Thanks / Like
    http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/ccf7daac581048cd862575e6006ca078/$FILE/AC%2023-27.pdf

    An AC, not an FAR, but is stated to be "approved data". Looks like the emphasis for Owner Approved Parts is in the case where original parts are "impossible or difficult to obtain", in which case similar PMA'd parts or Owner Produced Parts may be substituted. I didn't take the time to read the AC in depth, but looks to me like Bob is on the right track, and it also looks like the mechanic / IA can use discretion - -

    As an aside, this AC specifically approves substitution for wheel bearings, Para 7.C.1. As I recall, there was a spirited discussion regarding replacement of tailwheel bearings a while back. So it looks like a Timken number is just fine, regardless of the source.
    Last edited by Gordon Misch; 07-11-2011 at 01:58 AM.
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO
    My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)

  14. #14
    mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    11,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 12 Geezer View Post
    ...... So it looks like a Timken number is just fine, regardless of the source.



  15. #15
    mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    11,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 12 Geezer View Post
    .....
    As an aside, this AC specifically approves substitution for wheel bearings, Para 7.C.1. As I recall, there was a spirited discussion regarding replacement of tailwheel bearings a while back. So it looks like a Timken number is just fine, regardless of the source.
    you must of skipped the FIRST section 1.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	23-27 1.jpg 
Views:	62 
Size:	49.1 KB 
ID:	2979

    not liking the price don't count.....

    If there IS a part that has gone through a PMA inspection process, thats available then thats what you must use..... even though they are the Identical parts.....

    kinda like Burls wheels, Grove wheels, but by him inspecting them under his PMA and giving them HIS part number, now they are legal parts
    Last edited by mike mcs repair; 07-11-2011 at 03:35 AM.

  16. #16
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    3,885
    Post Thanks / Like
    I thought that later, in the body, it got less absolute about that, but I sure could be wrong. Again though, it does look like the mechanic / IA has some discretion ("difficult to obtain"), particularly in regards to situations like Bob's brake fitting.

    This sea of regulations piled upon regulations is why my next plane, if there is one, will be experimental (and LSA). Now - up from the 'puter and out to the shop and my -12!!

    Hey waitasec - when we make something like boot cowl or, what I'm working on right now, false boot cowl, that PMA'd part is readily available. But we commonly make our own as an Owner Produced Part. What's with that? Seems like a short step from there to the wheel bearing? Not stirring the pot - honest question.
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO
    My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,596
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes - all honest questions. So we have a PMA hose for $115, and an owner produced part for $10. Just say for argument that the owner produced part is better - would a rational person say the more expensive part is unreasonable to obtain? If the FAA has not carefully defined the word "unreasonable" then I submit the answer is yes. My opinion, of course, does not make it so.

Similar Threads

  1. Brake line fittings
    By wpbrady in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-30-2008, 09:42 PM
  2. Brake line fittings?
    By sekps in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-17-2006, 02:43 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •