skippydiesel

3 hours ago, onetrack said:

Not in my neck of the woods, and possibly against refuelling regulations in every other State. If you try to refill even a jerrycan sitting in a vehicle (ute or anything else), the servo operators will de-activated the bowser until they can see the jerrycan sitting on the ground. 

This regulation is based on reducing static fires potential, and there's hardly a single servo in W.A. where you can refuel a petrol fuel container, that's sitting in a vehicle.

And as for trying to fill a 200L petrol drum from a servo, good luck with that. There are signs in every servo stating that 20L (or 25L) containers are the maximum allowed size for refuelling.

Once again, regulations around fire, obstruction to other customers waiting to refuel, and the quantity of fuel being splashed around.

 

https://www.artc.com.au/uploads/Safety-Alert_2009-09-01.pdf

 

OMG! the Nany State Strikes again - What do all the farmers do? Not everything runs on diesel and only big operators would find it economic to truck in petrol.

Never seen the like in NSW but perhaps WA is a hint of future draconian rule. Bureaucracies seem to be on some sot of race to the bottom. You will probably be banned from flying non certified aircraft, FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY.

Could you get a tanker to fill your 44 on site?

43 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Years ago, a guy published how he filled his wing-tanks from a 44 gallon drum ( mounted on a sack-truck ) by pumping air into the drum. Well the safety complaints were deafening ! So I like skippy's idea, but in the meantime the hand-pump will do. We have the drums on a wheeled base to easily push them around.

Thee worst bit is taking the full drums off the trailer. We use a pair of aluminium ramps for this but the drum is just real heavy.

Any ideas would be appreciated... it is not an option for us to get the big tanker truck to come to the airfield just for us.

Hi Bruce,

If you are in a  group/club situation (purchasing power) 44 gallon drums are they way to go. I would suggest having it/them permanently on a road registered , nice cheap box trailer AND purchasing an industrial quality 12 volt refueling pump, which more than likely, will have its own replaceable filter system. Going on outdated costings, I would estimate about $2-3K. So easy to fill up at your preferred servo and transport to/from airfield AND don't forget the potential for the club to claim the road tax back on the fuel so purchased.

The pressurisation of the fuel container idea has been around for a long while (sort of tried it myself) - you can purchase the Tanami system https://www.rv4x4.net.au/tanami-pump-metal-jerry-can-transfer-pump-diesel-y however you will need a suitable compressor to get the system to work.

I ended up with my concept because I wanted; low cost, ease of transport, compatibility with existing 12 V systems and fuel containers

8 hours ago, onetrack said:

Skippy - All 20L containers sit flat on the ground, AFAIK. The pump is all that needs to be held - in one hand, while you rotate the handle with the other hand. The hose handpiece has a bend in it, and it also has a hook on it.

Perhaps the only modification needed, may be a new section of suction pipe, as the "belled" ends of the MacNaught suction pipe are designed to hold the foot valve, and I suspect they may not fit into the smaller openings of 20L containers.

I'm currently using my MacNaught poly pump in 60L and 200L drums. I can assure you, the MacNaught pump is very light to handle, nothing like the agricultural quart stroke/litre stroke MacNaught pump.

I've done my time on MacNaught quart stroke pumps, they're good contractors/farmers pumps, but not suitable for carrying in aircraft, thanks to their cast-iron and steel construction.

Onetrack - Yes they (20L) sit flat but they are not so stable as a circular bottom 60 litre or larger drum and tend to wobble from side to side (increasingly so, as they empty). This will be exacerbated on an uneven surface eg grass

Also I use 20L x 2 collapsible fuel  bladders, for away trips - they are much less stable than a regular rectangular cross section 20 L fuel container. There is no way I could safely empty a 20 L bladder with a hand operated pump.

I like SAJ's solution - I believe Pipistrel offers  a similar factory version of this concept .

There was a time when I could hold a 20L fuel container above my head almost indefinitely, without so much a  quiver. Unfortunately those days are long gone.

Now in my latter years, I find I must use my brain more than my vanishing brawn.

If you want an efficient , cost effective fuel refuelling system, that is also relatively light/portable, will suck out of any 20L container, lift fuel effectively to at least 2-3 m (I have never tested the max head) and if so desired run of 12V aircraft power, you will need to find a 12 volt petrol compatible, positive displacement (vain) pump - this is what I have done and you can too.

For the not so young, this solution removes all the physical effort, at minimal cost and as far as I am concerned would have a safety standard not so far behind a hand pump/pour and most likely equal to a store purchased item (that is if you can find one - I didn't)

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

Peter, here's the full list of chemical compatibility for the polypropylene MacNaught rotary pump. It shows "excellent" (A) compatibility with "Gasoline, high aromatic", and "Gasoline, leaded".

 

https://www.aimsindustrial.com.au/assets/files/Macnaught-L-MACP200-Rotary-Chemical-Pump-Chemical-Compatability-Rating.pdf

All good Onetrack - that is until you try to use it on a 20L fuel container "Compatible with 60-205L drums (3 additional bung adapters)" Peter will find that he will need , at the very least, both hands , preferably three or four:

• One hand to turn the pump handle,
• One to steady the pump in the 20 L fuel container
• One to steady the 20 L fuel container
• One to hold/direct the nozzle (or make a hook bend compatible with your aircraft fuel tank)

If he takes it on an away trip & wants to use 20L bladders (collapse fuel tanks) he may need even more assistance as they offer no structural support at all

The big problem (asides from cost) with  pumps that are designed for petrol transfer is that most require a stable tank to draw from.  In practise this means having an assistant or a "hooked" nozzle that will stay in place while pumping.

Also most of the hand pumps are bulky and heavy (although Onetracks's one looks petty good). They are usually designed for 60-240L drums and do not do well pumping out of 20 L containers. Those of us who carry 20L fuel bladders, for refilling away from home ,would not be able to use a hand pump, without an assistant.

There will always be concerns/risks about electricity and fuel in close proximity but this can be managed by using quality wire & connections, shielding your on/off switch and using an earth lead to the aircraft. Always transfer fuel in a well ventilated location (outside is good). Spark, from static or faulty connection/contact can & does cause ignition BUT its not common and is usually accompanied by other factors leading to the incident.

I would speculate there is more risk to your health and your aircraft from spillage (than ignition). Petrol  is a known carcinogen, does not do well in your eyes and is generally unpleasant to have splashed on your clothing/skin. Your aircrafts paint may be adversely effected as may "plastic" canopy's & other fittings, to say nothing of pooling in cavities.

Maaate! this topic has been done to death - try doing a search.

I made a perfectly good 12V fuel (petrol) transfer pump out of a Chines copy of a Holly positive displacement pump for under $100. I have been using it for about 8 years now without any issues. - you will find all the details in your search. Get back to me if you cant find it.

12 minutes ago, facthunter said:

When the Cessna's first came along they didn't use headsets. Just the  speaker, The earlier 172 had the six cyl Continental  0- 300. The 175 had a geared version.  Nev

We was tough (and going deaf) back then

Must admit my Zephy was very quiet inside (compared with GA types) and being composite, transparent to radio transmissions. I found my phone could be tucked between ear & headset and function quite well. UHF has a mike extension so again speaker held to ear while mic in front of mouth. New aircraft, metal, may not be so accommodating.

Whey back when, I was fling VFR GA,  the only time I was required to file a flight plan, was when planning to transition Richmond (military) air space,. If failing memory serves, for other controlled airspace, you could seek permission when in the air, before to entry ( I never did, preferring to lodge a flight plan, prior to departing home).

3 hours ago, BrendAn said:

Seriously,did you not see my post where I said I was joking . Like I said. I can take a photo of the aircraft log for f**ks sake.  Why wouldn't it be 10 lph . Climb out to 1200 ft. Cruise the circuit at 4500rpm. Descend on idle.  Stall practice we climb to 3000 ft and back up again after each stall. Cruise at 4500 rpm also. Rf is convinced I am wrong but I know I am not. The plane is not being thrashed around at high rpm so it gets great economy.

We crossed in out posts however if you read again, you will see I was actually supporting your claim.

On 10/12/2022 at 3:54 PM, Yenn said:

The reason that RAAus don’t have these things is that they have only been around for 30 years and CASA only works slowly.

AND they may be unduly prudent in their approach. 

May be I missed it but has anyone mentioned the WW2 "Quonset Hut" - It was probably the Yanks that developed them, as prefabricated structures, easy to build transport and amazingly resistant to even the worst weather. Came in all sizes. 

28 minutes ago, Ian said:

The stabilised earth  floor is starting to look attractive.

Just had my new Sonex on a compacted earth floor - I am sure its cost effective but it smelly, dusty and if there was oil involved in the mix, sticky.

Just wondering why you would want a built in UHF -  Understandable, if you are in regular communication with non aviation  persons on the ground (property owners, etc). I have found a hand held UHF and a mobile phone are all that I seem to need, on those infrequent times, when trying to make contact with those below.

21 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

Yes . I made it up. I didn't really check the fuel computer and dip the tanks . I was surprised at how good it is in fuel. Better than the j160 I had been in before.

Maaaate! tut tut, etc etc BUT you are not so far out IF you are not trying to race around the circuit AND your climb out to 1000ft is around the 22-24L/Hr AND your low speed cruise is about the 10-12L/hr 

20 minutes ago, RFguy said:

you sure about your addition in those calcs  SKippy? 

 

Let me see:

TO & Climb: 24L/Hr /60 min x 1 min=0.4L

Down Wind: 8L/Hr/60min x 2min = .26L

Base & Final: 5L/Hr/60min x 2.5 min =0.2L

Total .85L - even better than my appalling addition in the first go.

My guess: A 300 kg aircraft, 75kg pilot & 47kg fuel all in a low drag aircraft, with long wings, makes for very low fuel consumption:

31 minutes ago, RFguy said:

10lph average sounds a bit low for a ol tecnam.

well what do we have,  TO roll, climb to 1000' in favourable condix , total 90 seconds at 27 lph. = 675mL

probably low cruise 65% for 120 second  at 15lph = 0.5L

base, final average 30% for 150 seconds  maybe 8 lph =333mL
total time 360 seconds, total fuel 1.508L. equates to 15.08lph

well that's my guess, anyway .

 

Hmmm! Never flown a Tecnam but my Zephyr/912ULS could loiter at 70-80 knots @ 8L/hr. Short field take off/climb out power delivers 22-24L/hr . Base/ Final, idle power not sure but would guess 3-5L/hr

So using your times that would be:

Take off 0.4L

Down wind 0.26L

Base/Final (glide approach) 0.21L

Total 3.2L

I find it quite extraordinary that those comparing Rotax 912ULS fuel consumption with the 0-200 (or others in the same hp class) go on to bag the 912's , because it may not be motivating an aircraft weighing in at many more kgs. That Rotax tend to be used in lighter aircraft, is their good luck (fuel wise) -  hardly a failing.

Those that choose to fly heavy (er) iron must bear the additional running cost, irrespective of the engine used.

My ATEC Zephyr, at a nominal 300 kg, was capable of 100 knots indicated, sipping around the 12 L/hr (single POB) and 120 knots at 18L/hr (sea level). The combination of an efficient (Rotax) engine, light and aerodynamic airframe,  all contribute to excellent fuel efficiency.

TOP - BOTTOM - SIDES

What is/are the best locations? for cowling exit air and why? - are there ant negatives to your recommendation?

5 hours ago, coljones said:

That would appear to be the case at Camden but they haven't sought the protection of an ASIC and they don't have RPT.  If you decide to go to lunch and visit HARS at Shellharbour you will need an ASIC (now $290.40 - inc CC fee)

Shellharbour (WGong) ASIC just NUTS.

With cynical view, I note that RAAs is refusing to investigate incidents involving its members aircraft  - did anyone see an open letter to the Minister(s) regarding ASIC??????

3 hours ago, MattP said:

I............................................

Additionally, flying into C/D airports means ASIC, there's another $240 bucks thanks.

I................................

 

 

You sure ? - my local is Class D and as far as I know ASIC not required.

Thanks IBob - will get myself "up to speed"

You can get an aftermarket ignition system, that has long leads, allowing the modules to be located away from engine heat & vibration.

Okay - you got me BSing (just a bit) - what I described was a simple choke found on most lawn mowers, very old motorbikes and the like. I need to read up on the Rotax, view a few diagrams, etc. The principal will, I assume,  be much the same with  some variation on how its achieved. 

FYI I stand by my two peg system - it works very well.