RFguy

We got an Uber for USD$196 from o-hare. By the time you get to o-hare, you are pretty toast. that was OK split between two. couldnt have flown to Appleton for that. If I'd been better organised, I might have got a car for 2 weeks from a small outfit near o-hare (not the airport that charges $$$) , but driving the car after 28 hours to that point of travel is a very time limited thing- I think I am good for about 90 miles max. (and I have lived there and am comfortable with driving on the 'wrong side of the road') . but then you got to pay $10/day to store it once you are there, because you wont use a car while you are there guarenteed.- just the bus to get to and from the event, and your bus ticket also works for all- you-can eat buses around Oshkosh town. and you can walk into town in the evening to eat and you ofr course can drink and dinner and drive so.... so it is a bit borderline unless you are going to travel around afterwards like we did up into minnesota, and then down the Dayton Air force museum. interstaes are fast. next time, dunno yet whether fly to appleton, or get a car, or do the same. The buses that leave o-hare arrived too late at Madison or Milwaukee to get the next bus to Oshkosh. you are stuck unless u overnight at O hare. One you you could do is overnight at Madison. That's a nice spot. bus leaves in the morning. next time I might get there a couple of days early and then hire some sh1tbox cherokee for $150/hour wet and fly that around and see my friends around the place. (I used to live there for a time) .

that was 5 nights - and 'later' meaning January !

that's right, it's an IF.

Sideslip aviation was a good start. we'll see what else turns up, I will advise if I find further info , thanks for input - glen.

What factory alternative options are there for rings for 912 engines? Rotax have ONE set of rings for ONE cylinder at $275 !!!! all I can say to the factory is F.O. I am not going to pay that (they want you to buy new engines) I have a 912 with 1900 hours that might want a set of rings. -glen.

Tyabb - Cowra - Moree - Caboolture ?

Not sure how that all happened at BRM. Seems a rookie mistake having a airplane get into production and then to need to add that mass....

skip, you said : "taking into account the afromention effect on spin characteristics.." and just how are you going to "take into account the effort on spin characteristics" ? Going to go off and do this with a airframe parachute etc ? Start sweating when she doesnt recover from a developed spin when you are down to 3000' ? I'm not being flippant, just being real about effects and consequences ....

I've now read the rest of this thread I would STRONGLY advise not adding weight to the tail ! (to get CG in right place) . no way. You will affect spin recovery / stall behaviour. Do what you need to do to maintain the original CG location. add or subract or move weight within a meter of the CG location ...... This may require the result to be that the outcome is heavier than original. IE sure you can put 1kg in the tail instead of 4kg behind the pilot. BUT you will change the dynamic stability of the airplane, and affect stall/spin recovery, things your aircraft was tested to . IE you are making a different aircraft and it in my mind would no longer meet the specifications of the certificate it holds.

I'd think that you'd want it as fixed equipment.

updated my post

For easy weighing for LSA, during rotax install, I bought three of these floor industrial scales. (not RAAus approved but accurate) https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/285144918758 A fairly inexpensive investment for one wanting to engage in modifications that affect the CG location.. For a 912ULS in a J160, I'd expect something would need to be moved to the baggage..... Ideally any mods should result in a CG that is in the same location and little change to the moment of inertia around the CG location . in order to satisfy the pub test.... Beware though that adding ballast to the rear , for example, I would not recommend as it may change spin recovery behaviour (because it increases the moment of inertia). If the rotax whole kit weighs more (likely for the 2200) , I would expect it likely you'd need to add weight in the baggage- and the likely best way to do that is move the lead-acid battery to the bags. I have seen some Oil cans moved to the rear and I would be careful with that because it will require UPSIZING of the suction side hose for the long length. (which was not done in one I saw) ....

In the US , it is not 'imperial'. it is "US or British " units (but then there is the british gallon and US gallon) . As for sportpilot- they should use what is recnognized by our regulator for aviation, which is non metric units, except for visibility and RWY length . (which is wierd ) . Glen. (am also a US citizen) .

Let's see here. specs. empty 985lbs(447kg) with Titan340 . mmmm I'd want a 140 hp engine for that plane with those numbers and role. So a 915 is an excellent choice I think, Mark. But 914 too small. 916 is unnecessary. The weight (447kg empty ) would be only 400 kg empty with a rotax, so even 130hp would be good. Mike, according to the datasheet, the conty in MOGAS compatible format (you'd surely want that) is 8:1 and 174 hp. I am sure any issues with the CG / aft load etc could be solved with the 915 by moving sh1t around. ....-glen.

yeah I was in suboptimal shoes also (Volleys) . my feet killed at the end of each 14 hour day on my feet even with silicone insoles.

I'd reckon rotax would dot their i z and cross their t z, I'd have no concern with buying a 916 if I could spend that sort of money. (But then I'd buy an IO-360 instead of a 916) Remember- Maximum continuous power is 137hp for a 916. 160hp is takeoff power, and short term climb power. 200hp IO360 can do 200 hp all day if you keep the CHTs down...... and does not have any complex electronics nor water At altitude, the Lycoming will still make good. I reckon usual story for turbo if you consistently operate hot and high, then the turbo engine is for you (or buy a slightly larger Lycoming an IO-390 ) 8.5:1 IO360 can run MOGAS. not sure about 8.7:1 version (check) . dont think 8.9:1 '390 can. I like having the extra HP in my bird so that I can still put out good speed/power even when leaned extreme (65-70%) . Gearbox is nice on the rotax though- low speed prop- more efficient slightly, AND not same issue if you have a prop strike.... Might have to think about weight though.... not having the boat anchor up front will change things. Wonder if the 916 will have a oil thermostat as standard- they SHOULD have IMO. (for fast warmup and stabilized, correct oil temp)

Putting aside spark plugs connections (I dont think that's the problem) ---I'd ensure all the plug in connectors in ALL the harnesses and plug in sensors are well seated and fixed down so they cannot free vibrate. You might cycle the harness and sensor connectors and inspect terminals under light and magnification . Of course, I am guessing, but this would be my immediate checks

maybe some issue with a combination of higher vibration (low RPM) and less than perfect crimped connectors. someone must know at factory.

Howdy I've heard of this from an aircraft on the sunshine coast. cant remember which.. I would be sure rotax have a diagnostic log in their box. This will contain the info.... Many engine shops, not sure about Berts, are generally low tech affairs and shy away from this data.... Talk to the factory . is this at low idle or moderate power ? gather in a flare so it is occurring at idle stop ? - glen

Mark, BTW according to Mr Factory Rotax (at the show) , while 912, 914, 915 are similar beasts, 916 is new crankcase, new gearbox, new turbo. .....also, old turbo in 914 is no longer available. Has your S21 got the big bore 912ULS in it at 10.5:1 ?

How about gearbox compatibility ?

For those wanting a different wing, a wing change would require a lot of engineering and test. I think the existing wing is fine. If you want a shorter landing airplane, just get the drag up. there is a way to do this. (apart from ensuring your idle speed is lowest possible/safe) Jabiru actually reduced the flap max deflection in its aircraft 2007 ish because it was found that it didnt provide anymore lift, just more drag, and that it wouldnt climb in a go around terribly well at max flap.... I think that extra drag is definitely useful to reduce landing distances, and will modify my aircraft I think (move the flap motor stops ) . Sure it wont climb easily in a go around at the max flap , but neither will my part91 certified aircraft. I know another owner that used the extra available unused motor travel to reflex the flaps, for slightly higher cruise speed.... but it turns out the most drag at cruise is not the wing but the nose and the gaps and the mains. -glen

Well , deadly silence from Jabiru upon the question this morning amongst other correspondance. Must be true. Maybe I will keep my J230 and finish the rotax conversion. (need to do a customized exhaust system, or just use straight pipes out the side) . Maybe inject some avgas into the outlet pipes for effect instead of the strobes.

Today, in email conversation with Jabiru regarding current engine delivery (about 9 months for a Gen 4 3300 is the answer) I have asked the question about the company sale.... No response, so far. We'll see.