William. The question is not so much legality, but rather if the rubber is compatible with the Dot 5 fluid.
I am all for DOT 5 , since it keeps the water out. But what about the rubber cup compatibility? Hartmut From: William R. Bayne Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 9:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Re: MLG Problems, long post, Need Help! Donald, As an automobile enthusiast (also), I have long advocated the superiority of silicone brake fluid (DOT 5), which is not hygroscopic (does not absorb water from the atmosphere), over "classic" brake fluid (which does). Some who rush to accept without question the FAA mantle of suffocating regulation over common sense and function will put forth the opinion that DOT 5 fluid is "not approved". IMHO, balderdash. When the Ercoupe was designed, there was no silicone brake fluid to approve, and it IS "brake fluid". The Ercoupe's engine gauges installed in production became "approved" by virtue of being on approved production drawings, and NOT because they conformed to some later "TSO" standard. I'll wager that the specific brake fluid (by brand) is no longer available; and most military specifications of that era were written to call for a "meet or exceed" standard of performance. While it is true that it is not suitable for racing applications involving continuous high heat conditions, use in a typical disc brake installation on a LIGHT plane, competently flown, will not result in conditions that would produce a measurable difference as to efficiency or longevity. In any reasonable "real world" test, silicon brake fluid would prove to be as good as or better in service as any brake fluid available in the 1940s. Could an insurance company deny coverage on the basis that use of silicone brake fluid renders an Ercoupe "unairworthy"? If you've paid your premiums and everything else is in order, it's still a crap shoot depending on what state the owner lives in and/or what state the accident occurs. In a perfect world, if the accident were not related to the use of silicone brake fluid it would seem that the "burden of proof" would be on the insurance company. Unfortunately, in a world where the NTSM and it's "judges" are, to all intents and purposes merely a rubber-stamp "enforcement arm" of the FAA bureaucracy, outcomes have less to do with justice and more to do with reinforcing the absolute authority the FAA purports to exercise in the conspicuous absence of logic and/or accountability. WRB -- On May 24, 2010, at 14:08, Donald wrote: > > > I would also question the use of brake fluid, of the ordinary type. > According to something, when you put the cup seal on the piston, you > use brake fluid. > The spring cap on one was highly rusted, the same thing that happens > when you spil some brake fluid on something. I would wonder if > silicone brake fluid would be a far better juice for those. > I got my stuck struts off this morning, not too bad a job, took a > couple hours. Going out and put on the spare set, if I can figure out > just how to put the bolt back in the upper end and how to get the nut > started after that. Not an easy one for sure.
