We had no brake problems for several years after buying WF. Then we had to change a slave. We had regular problems for years, using DoT4 and Aviation spec.
After we changed all cylinders to aviation spec, and used aviation spec fluid, we had no problems.
Check carefully before fitting.
Maoraigh wrote:
Automotive brakes use a different fluid from aviation brakes. Cylinders are not compatible with the other fluid. Original Jodel cylinders were auto. Later Robin replacements were aviation. The lot had to be changed, with piping rinsed out.
I believe that automotive brake cylinders and synthetic rubber seals are compatible with MIL-H-5606H aviation hydraulic fluid, the red stuff in common use on light aircraft. However as per your example you should not use e.g. DOT 3 or 4 automotive brake fluid in aircraft systems.
“The colour of the cat doesn’t matter as long as it catches the mice.” -Deng Xiaoping (1894-1967)
When you are operating a Rallye you have to get in a certain mood, a little gallic indifference. If you have brakes, and they work, then carry on.
I got a hint that Renault R9 or R11 (the same thing) rear brake cylinders (8 euros with interior included) fit to a Ralley Club. Can you find any reason why they would be “not safe” to use? After all the brakes are used only in very slow speeds compared to cars, so to me it is really difficult to figure out any other reason than this multiplied income for certain companies. Well, not yet heard/read about the shoes – if any car has similar ones.
The statement about the bearings is only half true. The basic model designation (typically a 4- or 5-digit number) describes the size but says nothing about techologies, materials and tolerances. For example, FAG makes many different 6211 bearings. However, if you take a complete part number, e.g. 6211 MAP6F10A, then it defines the bearing unambiguously, and it makes no difference where you bought it (except counterfeit ones, of course). The basic number (6211 in my case) may be shared by a number of manufacturers, whereas the rest is manufacturer-specific.
I googled for the above quote text and it appears in lots of places, all copying text from each other, e.g. here.
I think it is nonsense too, technically.
Legally, it may depend. For example aircraft tyres may be in a special category; you can’t just change to a different type, of the same size, from what the MM lists (even though just about everybody does exactly that). Can’t find the reference for it though… may have been an FAA thing only, or only if listed in the airworthiness limitations section.
mh wrote:
IW if you know the industry standard or the car part number, it is perfectly legal in the EU to install these parts into EASA aircraft.
What you are saying is that for example main wheel bearings that have basically same part number as those we can buy in car store but with “FAA” sufix are legal to install!?
They make you to buy 4x more expensive bearings with statements like this:
I assume that Timken bearing will hold up in cessna, even with this “high” rpm number of 1384…
[ < pre > formatting replaced with < aside > on the quoted part; pre text does not flow ]
Rallye wrote:
A friend said me that the keys are the same keys than a citroen,i even ignored it.
I know that the Robin have the lock mechanism from the Citroën 2CV (actually even the handle is the same). I once used the keys of Robin in my 2CV, no problem, so I guess I could have used the keys of the 2CV to open the Robin and probably to start it also, but I have not tried :-)
For the brakes, I don’t know, but I would hope that they are a bit more efficient than on the 2CV :-)
Peter, the only restriction in parts used are not life-limited, nor part of the primary structure, nor part of the flight controls; and that is a quite reasonable restriction. Brakes and gear parts are not among them.
And you don’t have to have matching part numbers, you have to be able to identify the standard or vendor part number. Also, this is not limited to new parts, NOS can be used, too.
There are various restrictions on this – eg. see here – but presumably wheels and brakes are not affected by these?
The identification provision is generally successfully frustrated by the aviation practice of marking items (those that are marked) with P/Ns which don’t translate to the automotive parts (and removing the automotive markings).
Socata automotive-business parts tend to be extremely hard to track down and – if you can track them down – to buy, for several reasons e.g.
A lot of the Socata parts are Renault parts, used on various 1970s models but still manufactured for the car market. For example I am advised that the flap motor is a Renault windscreen wiper motor which is still available (2018) from the Czech manufacturer for about 12 euros!
A lot of Socata parts are made by very small and “well hidden” (no website, etc) French firms, some of which make bits for the homebuilder market, which Socata then recertify under their Part 145 / Part 21 approvals.