skippydiesel

Now this looks like real fun - not a fake vintage "wonabee". Love all the young fella's in attendance/flying😈

Addition to above post; Most of comment is only relevant to experimental/homebuilt Rotax powered aircraft. Factory or certified aircraft/engines, will have to stick to manufactures instructions/requirements.😈

Hi Moneybox, I am concerned about the Bush Air video. The presenters advise on one aspect of landing is completely absent - the forced one, when you may not have engine power. Much of what he said, was the way I was taught - power controlled landings - won't help you when the power is absent. Yes we did do a few glide approached - however C172 (depending on variant near 1,000 kg )has very diffrent glide to a sube 600 kg aircraft. I strongly advise "getting up to speed" with your light weight aircrafts simulated forced landing characteristics. and through regular practise, maintaining that skill. One day it may save your life. Power controlled landings are the way to go for all of your normal landings.😈

Not a bad idea. Both EFB's use ERSA, so would automatically publish if the information was therin. FYI: Have writen to Airservices & CASA -received the expected polite bureaucratic response - something along the lines of - outside their remit but will file away for future consideration (Ha!) Have now writen to the relevant Minister(s) - will be interesting when The Hon King/Wells MP's (or their lackeys) respond. Working hard to change this annoying & unnecessary deficit in ERSA😈

Where do you get this from; Read & Understand FlyBoy 1960 excellent history of Rotax Oil & AeroShell Sport Plus 4.(ASSP4) If an oil meets or exceeds the manufactures specification, it does not matter who makes it, what its called or the colour if the container it comes in. Sure we all have our favorite (trusted) brands - thats fine as long as the above is met. Rotax were happy to advise the specifications their engine owners should go for. As there was no alternative (AeroShell or similar product back then) thats what owners did and it all worked out just fine, as long as the owner/operator was burning ULP or not more than (if memory serves) 30% AvGas. Those wishing to use 100% AvGas or in excess of the 30% presented a problem, as the motorcycle oils, that met the Rotax specification, were not formulated to deal with the high lead contamination delivered by AvGas. The main, not only problem, with AvGas & Rotax 9's is the build up of lead in the gearbox - hense the 600 hr inspection of the same (1000 hrs for ULP). ASSP4 first became available, in large part to address the needs of owners wishing to us AvGas (I suspect mostly N American) It may be a coincidences but I feel it was about the time that that Rotax started to suggest that not using their OM products may lead to engine failure/shortened service life (scare tactics). The published oil specs. no longer appeared, replaced by ASSP4 For the most part, owners who were happy with the motorcycle oil kept using it to good effect (cant remeber but likly cheaper than ASSP4) and some with particularly long lived engines are still doing so. Much of this went on when a Rotax engine TBO was 600 hrs, with incremental increases over 20 years to 2000 hrs - an unlikly progression if the wrong oil was being used by the fleet. Rotax engines routinely exceed TBO, without costly life extending interventions, in part because owners adhered to the earlier (motorcycle) oil specification advise and have continued to do so, with the advent of ASSP4 (and the no longer published oil specifications). I do not recomend using other than ASSP4, however I do believe that someone who is able to find the earlier Rotax oil spec and match it to a current motorcycle oil, could do so, as long as AvGas is not a significant part of the fuel used. 😈

My guess its oil temperature. Is it possible you have two or that the other (not pictured) is something else like CHT?😈

Its a very old marketing ploy, to claim you are releasing new & improved product onto the market, when all you are doing is repackaging (black- red) - normally just words. Where does it state that the formulation (blend to you) has actually changed ie documented change of standards and or specification sheet (one for the black bottle & one for the red). 😈

FlyBoy 1960 WOW!! Other than the undue emphasis on AvGas use (Rotax 9's are designed for ULP, with grudging allowance to use part of whole AvGas) the above should dispel ALL the weird left of field commentary😈

Thanks Garfy, No, not into "....hour long "Webinar"..". Had a quick brows - very similar to the presentation (in person) we received at The Oaks, from the same crew. Full of jargon, a lot of tangential information, not of help to VFR pilots wishing to transit the Bankstown airspace. I still say the the overwhelming bulk of information Bankstown IN/OUT centric - which I communicated on the day. They seemed uncomfortable with concerns raised about a possible increase in training (& other) aircraft density due to the changes to Sydney basin airspace. No movement on requiring and standardising transponder / radio (2 channel) when operating in the Sydney Basin. I exited the talk/seminar, more confused than when I entered.😈

The problem with ALL the advice & presentations to date, is that they are Bankstown Focused. To some extent this is understandable; Likely to generate the most movements The main rout of entry passed through Bnakstown airspace Aircraft moving from & to the south, using the ( via Bankstown) routs barely get a mention. Even ERSA is scant on details for aircraft transiting, rather than departing/arriving, Bankstown airspace.😈

Your doing its again - Is making unsupported (& unlikly) observations a habit?😈

Dear Blue - You made the claim (s). The ball remains in your court, never to leave it, until you demonstrate the truth (?) in your words.😈

I didn't want this Thread to be about oil, but if you cant beat the divergents, you might as well join in. "......blend of Sport Plus 4 was altered by shell, black bottles to the red bottle." Do you know for a fact ,that the Sport Plus 4 Black Bottle oil, was chemically any diffrent to what was in the Red bottle? FYI: When talking oils its usual to use the term formulation, blending is what they do with wine, whiskey, cake mixes etc. What is "...inappropriate..." about using an oil, which meets/exceeds the specifications set by the manufacturer (Rotax)???? Many of the early Rotax 912's, that used an appropriate oil, are still going today & still using the same oil, that meets the above specifications. 😈

I am concerned about the SCA suction caps. I used a SCA shade thingy, held in place by suction caps. The caps have reacted with the perspex and I now have 4 round "scar's" on the inside of my canopy. I have a static cling shade, purchased from AutoBarn, will try it this comming summer.😈

It has been stated (in another aviation Forum) that China has no private pilots or industry supporting the same - does this tragedy make the statemnt untrue?😈

In the final analysis, if the transmitter (me) is not getting the desired message to the receiver (you) the blame must rest with the transmitter (me). I am sorry if I have failed to communicate my concerns about the impropriety of an RAA official appearing to spout the marketing words of a commercial entity. Either the above or I have struck a rich vain of illiterate receivers. Got to be one or the other. 😈

Read my last post. This is not about the oil as such. Can I make it any simpler for you? Your vaguely offensive comments, are so far of the subject as to be laughable. FYI: - I use & have always used Aeroshell Spot Plus 4, in my last & current Rotax 912. 😈

Those that are going off on some oil appropriate tangent, are wilfully missing my now stated, at least twice, point. Once Again: Its not appropriate for an RAA official (as such speaking for RAA) to be endorsing the product & marketing strategies of a commercial company (Rotax in this instance). 😈

Ye gads! - You seem to be off on some odd tangent. My post is about the impropriate of an RAA official, appearing to support a commercial (Rotax) marketing ploy (scaring its engine owners) to the point of quoting from the entitles advertising. Nothing about engineering, servicing advice or materials.😈

Your generous interpretation of Mr Calders /Rotax statement is not what was stated. I have no problem with Rotax recommending a specific oil for their engines. Rotax, in the advertisement in the RAA publication, do not discriminate between engine types ie 912 , 916, etc neither does Mr Calder The scare message is obvious - use Aeroshell Plus Sport 4 or XPS OR YOUR ENGINE WILL BE DAMAGED Mr Calder has endorsed this. "Rotax do not make any profit on Aeroshell oil." Your absolutly sure of this. Shell develop an oil specifically for Rotax 912's and Rotax derive no benefit whatsoever ????? 😈

Its one thing for RAA to publish advertisements , even ADs, from manufactures (Rotax) its quite another to spout the same rhetoric, in a staff members (Mr Calder) publication ie giving direct support to what is a falsehood, by quoting Rotax scare marketing ".....use only Rotax-approved oil to avoid engine damage...." When Rotax 912's were first launched onto the aircraft engine market (1989) the lubrication advise for the engine(s) was to use automotive engine oils, meeting their detailed specifications (mainly motorcycle engine oils). Rotax no longer give detailed specifications, preferring to recommend Aeroshell Sport Plu4 and their in house XPS. Wont be long before Aeroshell is dropped. Its my understanding that many of the earlier 912's are still doing their job and using whatever motorcycle engine oil was originally advised, - NO DAMAGE! Rotax have, for some time now, been attempting to scare owners into just using OM supplied products - this is a marketing/profit driven initiative. Mr Calder, as an RAA employee, should retract that part of his statement, which appears to support the Rotax scare marketing. 😈

It would seem that Cody Calder, Chief of Aviation (RAA) is supporting the alarmist propaganda being used by the Rotax marketing strategists "Rotax-approved oil ............... Owners and operators are reminded that it is essential to use only Rotax-approved oil to avoid engine damage....." 😈

I am astonished that there is so little comment on the pilots story, that likly comes down to his very poor communication practise. This story & your silence, is a vote for the status quo - the wofull state of pilot communication, that puts us all in danger. I reticently had a very close shave with a "silent" Bankstown training aircraft in the circuit . A friend died, some months back, when another silent training aircraft, with two experince GA pilots (both died) on board, entered our circuit unannounced & possably not on the CTAF. Its almost an hourly (day) occurrence that aircraft overfly our field, without any acknowledgement and likly not listening on the CTAF. Apathy Rules 😈

Jesus wept! You could be $7,000 + down the tube by that time. Subject to number of available instructors - make your decision to change instructor/move school within the first 3 hrs. Dont be shy - hang around the school office, talk to the other students, get a feel for each instructors "teaching style" (hint the most relaxed are likly the best) Find the instructor that you feel sympatico with. Stick with that one, don't chop & change - you will will learn faster, it will be vastly more enjoyable and you will save $$.😈

I It may be appealing but is it not another high wing, STOL aircraft, entering an already crowded (kit & factory) market place?😈