skippydiesel

Not "all good" - You should not cast aspersions/make derogatory statements, without strong evidence. A valid observation (evidence available) about you - in recent Forum conversations, you have not provide evidence to back up you claims. Now you make unsupported observations of my persona. I wonder is this is a regular occurance ? - NOT GOOD! Zephyr 19-3360 The fuel tank drain valves had had been rebuilt prior to the accident and were not leaking at all. As the aircraft ended on its belly/undercarriage smashed, it's highly likly the accident and or the transport back to my place, damaged them. Zephyr 19-3295 As for the photo you have provided - why don't you, take a moment, have a good look and try & see what I see?😈

In the mean time I have been trying to track down details of my Saf-Air wing tank drain valves. Part Number CAV-110, Thread Size 1/8-27 NPT. O Ring Viton Compound M83248/1-006 Saf-Air list them as brass. Aircraft Spruce as cadmium coated steel - have writen to NZ agents seeking clarification (& some prices). Prices so far; Aircraft Spruce - Valve $32.45, O rings $0.64/each (show 10 pack so may be $6.40) Pilot Gear - Valve $31.95 😈

Hi Blueadventure, How about you quote me an example(s) where I have been "always negative" - If unable to do so, the proper thing would be to post a retraction/apology. As for not "beleiving this is corrcet". I have an idea I might know of the pilot & the incident. If memory serves the fire started in the engine bay/under cowl - not from a leaking fuel tank. The fuel tank is located, in the Zephyr, under the pilot/passenger legs, roughly just in front of the main undercarriage. The tank fuel drain is at the lowest point of the fuselage directly below the tank. You can see, from the photo you posted, where the fire has had its main impact, the the engine bay (at the time of the photo). The fuel tank area is (at the time of the photo) untouched. There is no obvious scorching of the grass, flames or any indication of fire, in the area under/around the aircraft. I was not a witness to the event. If you were and you stand by your statements above (despite the photo evidence) then I accept your word with some scepticism.😈

I haven't done any business with Floods for about 18 months and before that 24. It may have been my imagination, I got the distinct impression , by the second visit, that moral had dropped. No idea why😈

I have no idea how to access fr24. I would rather contact Sydney Radar and ask if my transponder is working.😈

Thanks Thruster88, ".... if you don't see your aircraft on the screen all the time ....." do you mean if you don't see my aircraft on your FR24/screen??? On an earlier matter - I have mt SE2 in the aircraft, will not bring it home to check settings, for quite a few days. Heavy rain at The Oaks, will mean no flying, even if weather good, until field dries out enough for my 4" tail wheel.😈

At some stage in your technical to & fro, would you mind advising me - do I have a transponder conspicuosity problem or not?? Note: I have a transponder/ADSB, Mode S (OUT, 1200), SK.2 (ADSB IN/OUT) & OzRunways/iPad - hopefully all operating, reporting my position & showing the position of other aircraft.😈

My apologies - I understood the thrust of your questions to be; how does a claimed 30% reduction in 2/fuel ("Smartcarb") effect the lubrication of the engine, specifically where premixed fuel is used. The engine/carburettors you mentioned I took to be illustrative ie not part of the origional question.😈

"Oil Injection vs Premix: • On premix engines, any change in fuel flow directly changes the oil ratio." How is this statement correct ?? Never been a 2/ fan however my understanding of premix is that; The oil & fuel is added/ premixed at a certain ratio eg 50:1 in my chain saws. The mixture is then put in the fuel tank. The fuel mix is then metered through the carburettor to the combustion chamber, where it is burnt. During the above process there is no opportunity to change the fuel oil mix ratio - in my example it remains at 50:1, no matter how I tune the carburettor (rich or lean) 😈

I thought this discussion was about a particular fuel metering system/carburettor ("Smartcarb") - not a specific engine. Seems you are off on a tangent , as is your habit.😈

Yours is the first mention, I recall, of this course - Not your fault but a tad late in the day as course starts tomorrow. Where & when was it advertised?😈

Its a bit of both. My understanding: All fuels have a limit to the amount of energy they can deliver ie they can not deliver more energy than their chemical composition contains. With the exception of atomic systems (which I don't have a good handle on) all of our other systems involve the interaction (burn) of the fuel with oxygen, which liberates heat and causes the gas to expand (rise in pressure) which can be harnessed to deliver rotational energy or thrust. . The amount of O2 delivered, in the form of air, to the burn, will strongly influence the amount of energy released, for a given amount of fuel - thats why we improve air flow and or density (pressure) and use axillary air pumps (turbos & superchargers) often combined with heat exchangers (intercoolers) as cold air is denser (more 02) than hot. The burn may also be enhanced by increasing exposure/surface area to the O2 eg atomisation. Then there is the ability/efficiency of the system (internal combustion, jet, ?) to turn the energy liberated, into meaningful power, usually expressed as "work". The above has been improved with better materials, lubricants, engine design and cooling systems. "Modern" engines reflect our improved ability, to combine the above factors, so that we can harvest more of the fuel energy AND use it more effectively, to deliver more power, which can then be used to reduce fuel consumed for a given output OR more work (however we want to express this). I believe there is a limit to this improvement, that we are possibly close to acheiving.😈

Hi FlyBoy1960, I would realy enjoy discussing what you have just postulated but not within this already very shattered thread. I suggest you start another thread on the matter (general discussion?) - I will respond. 😈

Hi Arron25, Aside from the core topic, its quite interesting how some people, can make a claim, with little or no supporting evidence and expect it to be accepted without challenge. When asked for the evidence, the claimant may ignore the questions, becomes defensive and aggressive. The latter often manifesting as, strident references to their own expertees, combined with personal attacks on the questioner. This is irrational - the sensible person would either admit that the claim is speculative or provide the evidence and the questioner(s) move on. Its a sort of bullying tactic, by the claimant, that does nothing posative for the Forum, the topic at hand or their credibility. ""There's nowt so strange as folk". 😈

Hi Moneybox, I can see how the U tube might work but how do you remove the effcets of manifold pulsing?😈

Here we go again - more claims to pursue (strategy of distraction), rather than addressing the reasonable questions, arising from the first claim- . "The larger balance tube does give a better idle performance...... " "Please quantify - what is "better" about the idle AND what is the operational advantage of this improvement, over the OM design?" Until you either substantiate your claims, answear some fair questions, I have to assume this is just a load of BS and I advise others to be just as sceptical😈

"I can assure you Turbo I know what I am talking about." As I observed earlier, a self claimed expert, who wont even give his definition of a Rotax 912 idle, makes it very difficult to take any subsequent claims/statements seriously😈

Still no facts😈

Of course I will do as I want, just as you do. Its not whinging to ask for facts - something glaringly lacking, from all the opportunities you have had, to respond with data. You seem unable to even give your definition of idle (in this context) - a simple question, that is at the base of your support of the Big Tube - why is that? Instead of responding to reasonably/civil put questions, you attack me - not a good strategy. Makes your position on this topic look a tad shaky and puts into question all the other statement you have made. Your responses, very similar to others questioned on the Big Tube, do nothing other than make the concept, as an effective modification, suspect.😈

So the primary benefit is at idle. What do you define idle as? I don't know about your flying - my engine spends very little time at what I would call idle - sub 2000 rpm. Cold start goes straight to about 2300rpm. Warm up is at 2500 rpm. After flight, Taxi @ 2500+ rpm. Shut down my engine as soon as I park 1400-1770 rpm, for as long as it takes (likly less than 30seconds) to do a quick ignition check.😈

Yes. Rarely results in a more effective organisation but thats not what the takeover people are about.😈

Thats interesting - An hour or so, before I took off, there were quite a few blue bubbles to the north (Warragamba , Bringelly area) but none when I was up ????? Thanks for the "heads up" I will revisit the SE2 settings - I did not deliberately avoid entering my rego😈

What did you replace the Curtis valves with?😈

These are new valves - they should not need to have the o-rings replaced but if all else fails I will certainly replace them in the hope of a fix😈

Shouldn't have but wont discount completly; Tanks were well flushed before test flights. ALL fuel is passed through a Mr Funnel In 195 hrs, no contaminants appear in pre flight fuel drainings I have tried a prolonged drain/flush no improvement. Next time tanks are empty, will remove drain valves and attempt a clean - see what happens.😈