skippydiesel

Rodgerc,

Yes almost any device that will cause drag/deflection of airflow will do the job (depending on aircraft weight/speed).

Both BrendAn & I are trying to come up with KISS in-flight/in-cockpit adjustment systems, rather than a fixed tab.

As a general rule, fixed tabs will not work for significant changes in lateral ( a Pax) load.😈

On 10/01/2026 at 12:51 PM, BrendAn said:

.....................   xair ailerons can't be adjusted independently otherwise i could get what i want with adjustment.  that idea might be wrong anyway.

 

 

Hi BrendAn,

To the best of my understanding; A conventional aileron (differential movement) can not be adjusted to alter lateral trim (even if the ailerons are independently adjustable, as they are on my Sonex). 

The ailerons will "centre" automatically with air loads, negating any adjustments you make.

You can use a fixed trim tab on an aileron to "deflect" one side or other, as the air load will force that aileron up/down but this is not the same as adjusting for variable load once in the air.

Adjustable trim (spring/bungee, mechanical, electric) is the usual way of inflight aileron trim adjustment.

My Sonex lateral trim has been done by adjusting each sides flap position - very effective😈

26 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

All good, even in May the one he bought off you also has a badly leaking drain valve, one in particular. He was unable to stem the leak. I said to him that if he flys a least pull the aircraft forward away from the pool of fuel, while I finished prepping mine I saw him just start up and go so if he didn’t fix the two drains he may have a repeat incident. I won’t comment any more detail about either event. Think of it how you like.

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

😈

On 17/01/2026 at 11:52 AM, Blueadventures said:

For forum members information (excluding Skip because he is always negative and won't believe this is correct).  The leaky fuel tank drain has flames at it, burnt grass area to starboard side of front end as that's where the vapour would have been going (refer smoke plume drift).  Ignition occurred and source spread, prop wash extinguished grass fire but not the aircraft fuel areas.  Owner was seated in cockpit doing a start to provide an engine run (wing cover on and still tied down).  When fire observed he made a radio call to alert airports fire rescue, they don't monitor outside of RPT, he made further communication to ARO and operator about this.

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.😈

7 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

I went off you try to find some Bert Flood info.

 

They have a website but this forwards to FlyRotax that has only very general information.

They have a Facebook page which appears to have not been updated since 2019.

Eventually found some current posts on Linkedin but again without any detailed information - https://www.linkedin.com/company/bert-flood-imports/posts/?feedView=all

 

Wierd - a business selling a not cheap product that appears to have no interest in selling itself.

 

 

 

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😈

3 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

If your transponder is not visible to your SkyEcho2 then it is not visible to other aircraft. Your SkyEcho2 would be making you visible.  Next time you fly turn off the transmit function of the SkyEcho2  and see if you appear on fr24.

I have no idea how to access fr24.

I would rather contact Sydney Radar and ask if my transponder is working.😈

31 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

FR24 can see you. When you go flying if you don't see your aircraft on the screen all the time then it is the SkyEcho2 that is most likely making you visible.  

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.😈

2 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

He was quoting what I said.

Read the earlier posts

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)

😈

15 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

A.       In-an-engine-we-are-assessing-less-fuel=less-power.

B.       On another engine, say a "modern injected 2 stroke outboard" with its fraction of fuel - if it's given less fuel there will be less             power.

 

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.😈

On 14/01/2026 at 9:54 AM, Blueadventures said:

Just bumping question, are any forum members attending this course?  

 

The date should have read 2026 (My bad)  19 to 21 January 2026.

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?😈

29 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

That's not true. It's  how efficient the engine is. Modern injected 2 stroke outboards use a fraction of the fuel the old ones did for the same horsepower. Same with trucks and a lot of cars.

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Less fuel = less power. That's acceptable in many stationary engines, but usually an aircraft is looking for more power.

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.😈

48 minutes ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

I just love it !    There are only about 10 people left on this forum, and now you are all fighting amongst yourselves!

 

This resource is slowly self-destructing.

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. 😈

12 hours ago, Arron25 said:

Nothing to do with the topic, Just a comment

Ignoring upsets the flow of a 'conversation' BUT as 'Fly Tornado' (former name?) was the most ignored member Is skippy trying to re-emulate the 'record'

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". 

😈

On 16/01/2026 at 1:35 PM, Moneybox said:

If you want a foolproof balance between manifolds use a Slack Tube Manometer.

 

The only thing I did wrong was that I started using green coolant in the tube. It was too light with the balance well out all the fluid went up one tube. Fortunately it had a shutoff preventing the fluid entering the manifold.

Once I filled the tube with Mercury it worked perfectly. Disconnect the crossover and attach one tube from the Manometer to the LH manifold and the other tube to the RH manifold. When you have balance the Mercury will be balanced.

The next mistake I made was leaving the Mercury in the plastic tube. It's now badly stained. I already had one so I didn't have to buy it but this is a very cheap accurate and long life device.

Hi Moneybox,

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

24 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

Flywheel balance is linked as the pipe effect is to reduce vibration, comments welcomed.  What's needs to reduce is the doubters that keep asking to verify (especially they almost never verify their stuff.)

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😈

27 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

The engines have been "blueprinted" pistons all weighed and made the same crankshaft balanced conrods weighed and made the same. The whole assembly balanced on a running balancer. I can assure you Turbo I know what I am talking about. Including balancing model jet turbines with my own 100k Schenck balancer I was balancing turbines that ran at 250,000 rpm. I do know just a little bit about balancing...oh and also I used to fix engine balancers for motor builders too.

 "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😈

2 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

Agree to disagree You do you and I will do me

 

Still no facts😈

38 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

Do what you want to do Skippy and stop having a whinge about it..you either do it or stop creating internet slop. Arguing about it is a waste of time. Unless of course you want to be king of the opinion brigade. People will do what they want. You have no intention of doing it so why even comment

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.😈

2 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

Ok then the tacho is more stable at idle..there is imperical evidence for you. Depends on where you live. Warm up times can be quite long depending on temperature.

Did you also know that no Rotax 912 or even other series have the flywheel balanced. You have a engine that does 5800 rpm in a aircraft and it is not even balanced?

Rotax dont do that so why should they improve a crossover pipe..they just need "something" to balance the manifolds.

There are lots of things that Rotax could and should improve but they dont.....and do you know why?

Because they say after 2000 hrs you throw it away and buy another one. Thats why they dont improve anything

 

 

 

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.😈

6 minutes ago, sfGnome said:

Welcome to Venture Capital takeovers… 🫤

Yes.

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

1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

Replay on fr24 shows plenty of enemy aircraft just to the north of you in the Bankstown training area, could you not see them on your screen? Your SkyEcho2 is not showing your rego, just 1200, maybe that's the way you like it, should be Rxxxx.

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😈 

12 hours ago, BrendAn said:

I replaced my Curtis valve. Not cheap at $54 but now it's always dry under the plane. Used to be greeted by a big wet patch on the floor each weekend. Didn't like that when av gas is $2.80 p/l

What did you replace the Curtis valves with?😈