On live-steam applications…
Has anyone any practical experience of using flared rather than nipple type unions, for live-steam model "plumbing" ?
Advantages? Disadvantages? Pitfalls to avoid?
.
I have a Parkside (Lidls if I recall aright) flaring tool and have started experimenting with it.
It consists of two bars that clamp together, with holes of various sizes along the joint, to grip the pipe. Fine ridges on the hole walls enhance the grip. The flaring tool itself resembles a bearing-puller that straddles the clamp; and an adjustable protractor shows 90º included angle on its cone.
Its immediate disadvantage is that the holes are all metric for tube with mm outside diameters; whereas we normally use Imperial tube and fittings.
Its deeper disadvantage is that it needs the male fitting to have a coned end, whereas of course all our bought-in fittings and those detailed on the published drawings have internal tapers for solder nipples or compression olives.
.
However, I have a length of copper tube that seems neither one thing nor the other, but fits the 5mm clamp well enough for me to have flared a sample piece with apparent success.
I did anneal the end and remove the internal lip left by the wheel-type tube-cutter, first.
For the immediate application, supplying the blower on my steam-lorry, I can make the two fittings with male tapers. They are the bulkhead union bringing the pipe through the smokebox wall, and the stub on the blower-ring itself.
So the specimen tube is intended for this.
I used 1/8" BSP (a shade over 3/8" crest dia.) on the bulkhead connector, countersinking the inner face of the nut to hopefully nearer the flare's outer profile.
I have yet to cut the tube to length and flare the blower end; and this hiatus led to me finding a union nut a size smaller – 5/16" X 32 ME – fits the flare very neatly, though its tube opening is slightly over-size.
It might be harder to obtain a full seal – that remains to be seen – though a very slight leak is probably insignificant on the blower feed. Annoying because I want it right, but not as critical as, say, on an injector water-feed where an air-leak would be an invisible source of nowt but trouble.
'
Pros & cons?
– Potentially neater fittings (proportionately smaller union nuts).
– No soldering needed (may be best to anneal the tube first).
– Fittings need male tapers, with a short clearance diameter for the nut's internal run-out.
– The nut needs be a running fit on the tube, not on a union nipple, and an internal countersink to snug against the flare. This might require making the nuts, though standard ones can be modified.
The particular tool I have also indents the tube surface, analogously to vice-jaw marks. Passable inside a smokebox, but not for somewhere visible. It is also metric, but it may be possible to make split mm/inch adaptor liners that fit its larger clamp-holes. Or indeed and probably easier, make an Imperial copy, machined from square steel bar stock.
.
Incidentally, as a prototypical point, I think I have seen some of the larger union-nuts for iron pipes fitted with screw-on nipples, made octagonal to reduce their overall bulk. It may also be to help access in cramped installations.