'Thanks for the response. This is about the conclusion we have come
to. The MIL-H6000 hose has been changed to MIL-H6000-C or something
like that. When this change occured I'm unsure, somewhere around 2000?
Whether it is a physical change or just wording change is unknown. It
is now "not recomended". A guess is from auto fuel STC's. I have an
older Spruce catalog and it
specifically states for use in fuel, oil, coolant, etc. I had MIL H-
6000 in an experimental running auto fuel(good stuff too, I check it
for alcohol)and after 1 year the hose appeared OK but while servicing
the filter the I.D. had contracted from 5/16" to 3/16". Replaced with
a premium auto hose and fine after 4 years. Is this possible with the
previous postings relating to slow fuel flow? I cannot recall but
doesn't a 24 have hose sections and breeze clamps at the wing to fuse
junction? Champs, Citabrias, Wacos, Pipers, and just about every
other light ship has MIL H-6000 slipped over aluminum tube at the
wing to fuselage juncture. Again this is no problem for a Kitfox but
how are all these older ships going to legally deal with this? So is
it safe to say that there is no longer an approved use for barb
fittings and clamps in certified aircraft fuel systems? No hose, no
fittings! Crazy thought ,huh?
--- In
fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, danMichael wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2005, at 02:23 PM, ranger440c5 wrote:
>
> > What type hose should one use for the fuel line...say from a barb
on
> > strainer to a barb on carburetor?
>
> Per my IA, I used SAE low-pressure fuel hose when I replaced my
fuel
> lines ahead of the firewall. The fuel line had been stored tightly
on
> a spool and after a few months I noticed that it was starting to
split
> longitudinally. I replaced it with similar hose from a different
> source and havent had a problem since.
>
> I dont know of any aircraft hose that is approved for avgas and
doesnt
> require end fittings.
>
> :Dan
'