skippydiesel

https://www.atecaircraft.eu/storage/app/media/references/clanek_Australie_Faeta West to East.pdf

4 hours ago, Geoff_H said:

Yes a good quality Meyer with a very high input resistance would probably indicate a conductive paint.  A Fluke or equivalent meter, not a cheap Chinese one.

First measure the substrate, without any paint, push the probes as hard as possible into substrate.  The resistance should be infinite.  Then paint the surface, at dry remeasure in the same spot, if the resistance is less than infinite do not use that paint.

I have made a resistor by mixing black carbon ochre with epoxy.  When set I could measure resistance across the part.

Another was is to download an RF Meter on Apple/android and see the effect of putting the phone in a painted box.

Geoff

I have quite the collection of matt/flat black paints - was thinking more along the lines of sticking the "probes" into variose pots of paint & seeing if there is a conductivity.

• Conduct/ low resistance likely to have high level of carbon/metal content.
• Nil/low conductivity/high resistance minimal/nil carbon/metal content.

Does this sound like a valid hypothesis ??

Do you think that measuring (with a multi meter) the electrical  resistance of the paint would be meaningful?

4 hours ago, Blueadventures said:

It does in the report refer to auto parts being purchased a few years before fitting.   Suggest a better re read and digest of the info.

Okay, I was a bit quick with my read through however oil hoses in poor condition,  mismatched and damaged oil cooler are, to me, the key points.

See what I mean about bringing prior bias to a debate - we see/read/"digest" what "fits'with/confirms our bias - just human nature but if you dont recognise the possibility (my friend from earlier) then there is little hope for bias movement/adjustment.

3 hours ago, walrus said:

I've had both metal and plastic fail in cooling systems. The metal from corrosion and fatigue, the plastic from over temperature and mechanical failure, so you are both right.

 

I've used automotive fittings in some areas but they are not a cure all. In my case I found wonderful fittings for teflon and braided stainless racing hose - a joy  to work with and 1000psi+ rating BUT overtighten the sleeve nut on a fitting and it will split, leaving you with a potentially fatal fuel leak. Similarly plastic fittings - their strength is highly temperature dependant. What happens when the coolant temperature is 120C at switch off on a hot day  how does your heat soaked plastic fitting behave when it is at 130C under associated pressure AND the fitting is misaligned and under stress, perhaps with an overtightened hose clamp as well?

 

The joy of the old AN fitting and fastening system is that it works. The failure modes are very well known and in any case if you follow AC13b they are idiot proof (I hope!).

 

Just because something looks the same doesn't make it the same either. having said that, there are quite a few Rotax parts that are Bosch automotive rebranded items.

Hi Walrus - Certainly all materials and systems can fail and yes we (my former debating friend & I) both have right on our side - I think that you have made the point I was trying to get him to move to; There is no doubt that certified components/systems offer a high degree of certainty (because they meet standards specifically set for aircraft us) however with a modicum of mechanical know how and a lot of common sense,  it is possible to safely use automotive parts for aircraft, especially in areas not critical to continued flight (a Rotax 9 will still get you to a safe landing even if all your coolant has been lost). 

Rotax aircraft engines are a great example of this.  They utilise automotive push on oil fuel & coolant hoses, hose clamps, Ducati ignitions, spark plugs, etc.  Though not original/unique, they also utilise automotive engine speeds/through a reduction gear box - much to the derision of the direct drive exponents. I doubt anyone can deny the success, built on reliability, of Rotax engines.

As for heat damaged components - I draw you attention to the Gates specification, for the "plastic" hose joiners, I quoted above  

• Resistance to extreme temperatures from -65°C to +250°C (-85°F to +480°F).
• Working pressure up to 2 MPa (20 kg/cm²).

If your engine reaches any where near these temperatures & pressures, you most likely have a boat anchor.

The Gates hose joiners resemble plastic irrigation hose joiners - they are definitely not the same.

You also mention misalignments/overtightening - these are equally problems of certified components. The failure of the human installer is not confined to any one system.

3 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

There is a lot of freedom in the experimental world. Van's aircraft as an example are nearly always built with the same certified components found in Cessna and Piper. It might cost a bit more however the confidence and hence enjoyment when flying such aircraft is worth every cent for me.

 

The problem with going towards uncertified / unproven products and practices is it can be a slippery slope. This fatal accident at Maitland was caused by the use of automotive oil lines on a lycoming engine. A few hundred dollars saved ends in a world of grief 

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-028/

A quick read through your, thoughtfully provided, Osprey accident  report says nothing about the source (automotive or otherwise?) of the oil lines only that they were in poor condition and a mismatch for a previously damaged oil cooler (or have I missed something ?)

Its all too easy to have your preconceptions confirmed by a biased interpretation. My reading of this report tells me that the builder of the aircraft skimped on a range of basic mechanical standards. This suggests a cavalier attitude to safety in general - probably the main cause of the crash.

Cscotthendry - It would seem I have offended you, if so,  please accept my unreserved apology. 

Our otherwise quite interesting/vigorous/ entertaining debate has deteriorated into name calling - most regrettable.

We are both pretty opinionated and are unlikely to accept or understand each others points of view, so lets just leave it at that.

1 hour ago, Geoff_H said:

Carbon black paints are offer used as RF absorbers. Other forms of colouring may have been used on your GPS antennas.

 I would find out what pigments are used in any coloured paint and check the  conductivity of the pigment before applying them else you create a Faraday cage.

 

 

 

Thanks Geoff - my other GPS receivers are encased in what I would call black plastic (generic description).

I take your point about the carbon/Faraday Cage and will do my best to reduce the likelihood of a paint that inhibits GPS signal.

4 hours ago, Geoff_H said:

Black pigment is often carbon, I expect that would attenuate significantly.  White is titanium dioxide, I think that as it is an insulator and non conductive why every GPS receiver that I have ever seen is white

I have two GPS receivers, designed to be placed on the glair shield or similar location, within the aircraft, that are black.

I suspect antenna that are designed for exterior mounting are mostly white/cream.

Horsham Aviation (Dynon) say okay to paint as long as paint does not contain high metal content (metallic paints). Waiting to hear from Dynon USA.

• Is it okay to paint a GPS receiver?

• If so, are some paints better/less of a problem, than others?

I am contemplating purchasing a GPS receiver that only comes in white. I would like to mount it on my glare shield, where everything is mat/flat black.

I imagine the exitance of a white bump  in a "field" of low reflection black, will, at the very least look odd and may even be a visual distraction - hence the above question (also asked of the suppliers).

9 hours ago, cscotthendry said:

“So many certified aviation components come off the same assembly lines as non cert.  Only diff. a lot more paperwork attached - Check out Rotax 912 UL/S.”

That's pretty naive. That “extra paperwork” represents “extra testing and inspection of components” not just “paperwork”. An example would be of a critical component was visually inspected for non certified, vs. xrayed for certified.

And regardless of your wordy justification of your position, I still believe you are wrong. Industrial components or automotive components are not designed for an aviation application. And I'm certain that if you queried the manufacturer of those types of components, they'd balk at their use in that kind of application.

In any case, it's your life that you are gambling with. Just be sure to tell your passengers that you're gambling with theirs too.

You do understand cant ?

Respectfully, draw your attention to the many thousands of operational hours that non certified, experimental aircraft fly safely every year - how can this be? - do you have an explanation?

Certification is, without doubt ,absolutely necessary, in the world of commercial, heavier and more complex aircraft. It is also a system ripe for abuse by the money grabbers & the bureaucrats.

For those unwilling/unable to make rational decisions about the quality of components, Certifications it is also a wonderful crutch,  removing all responsibly - go for it .

We are poles apart - you have not provided a shred of rational evidence to suggest there is a practical flaw in my argument - just repeated homespun mythology - cant! 

20 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

So your not getting the "in" bit? Don't you fly out of the western Sydney basin, one of the busiest bits of uncontrolled airspace in the country.?   

Yep! I do fly out of the (drowning) Sydney Basin and yes, knowing exactly where other (potentially conflicting) aircraft are, would be handy. Up to now I have found OzRnwys and ATC (my last & current aircraft both have Mode S transponders )very helpful in this regard. I also fly the hemispherical levels, even under 5000ft (now mandatory) in clear (eyeball) weather (mostly).

Dynon tell me that I can upgrade at any time - subject to providing the appropriate amount of dosh.

5 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

 

Sorry Thruster - my last correspondence (in reply to you appeared) and  could only delete the words not your nom de plume.

My thanks to all respondence - seems the SV-GPS-250 (the cheaper slightly less capable of the two offerings) will do all that I require from now and into the foreseeable future.

The SV-GPS-2020, with the correct module, will deliver ADSB Out & In. The Dynon Skyview will allow the pilot to see ADSB equipped aircraft in the vicinity - great for VFR operations but of limited value(7 much higher cost) for the relativly low/slow Day VFR only aircraft/pilot.

Geof_ H -I hope you find a good home for your surplus equipment - would you be inters ted in a slight bent /repairable aircraft??

1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

Skippy, just ring the Dynon dealer and ask will X gps receiver work with my transponder to provide (insert your requirement). I personally would buy the one which gives adsb in and out. With the government subsidy available why skimp.

 

In you application just say that you are buying this equipment so you don't collide with an Airbus while flying near Ballina, how can they refuse that.

Thruster - A non Forum adviser has suggested that the ADSB In capability will have no benefit for an aircraft that does not have the ability (equipment) to "see"  other ADSB aircraft ie  ADSB Out allows aircraft and ATC equipped with ADSB In to see the transmitting Out aircraft.

So I guess the question is (& I will ask Dynon) will the SV-GPS-2020  allow my Dynon SkyView to receive ADSB Out signals/see other aircraft ? If not the SV-GPS-250 will be the GPS receiver for me.

A question for all the aviators who have their ear tuned to the trends in aircraft legislation.

Is Australia planning to implement and/or require ADS-B for light aircraft? 

Do the propose Class E airspace changes impact on the carriage of this equipment?

Have I totally lost the plot?

Where are all the electronic experts? Need some advice here.

• Geoff H (nice bloke) just wants to unclutter his collection (I also have lots of bits I need to get rid of.)

• Is rgmwa on the money? If so what are the implications?

9 hours ago, cscotthendry said:

I can only reiterate that plastic fittings in coolant systems might be fine in automotive and industrial applications where you can pull to the side of the road if one fails. I know the major auto makers use a LOT of plasic in cars, including the coolant systems. But have a look at any major aircraft company's products and see if they use them. Better yet, ask Rotax what they think of them.

Also, it's not just the temperature and pressure factors, there's also vibration and stress and temperature differentials. This is particularly true where it applies to a homebuilt plane where the builder usually has to cobble up a cooling system from available hose bits. Those hose bits may not perfectly align (as they do in bespoke parts in cars and industrial equipment) and thus cause residual stress on the joiners. Then add in engine movement on top of that. 
But I get the message that you're not persuadeable in your opinions. For you to use plastic parts in your plane is fine. I think advocating them for others is not wise.

Always persuadable - no offence intended but it seems to me that your position is in the realm of cant.

Its not about my/your wisdom,  it is about recognising the many many thousands of hours of real world component usage, published specifications and an internationally recognised manufacturer that has been around for a very long time (reputation). So the component manufacturer is not a dedicated aviation supplier - this is "tribal" thinking or is it clever marketing by the certified aviation community? So many certified aviation components come off the same assembly lines as non cert.  Only diff. a lot more paperwork attached - Check out Rotax 912 UL/S.

As always you are entitled to your opinion, however I would point out that my perspective comes from the experimental direction (more open)- not only am I not bound by the, of necessity (litigation), extreme conservative approach of the Certified world,  I welcome the challenge of a more rational approach.

My last aircraft, pretty much 90 degrees to what would seem to be your philosophy, an ATEC Zephyr, was  the ultimate in composite (plastic, wood, fabric) construction and all metric. All nuts/bolts/screws available from your local supplier. All measurements expressed in wonderfully simple progressive metric. This aircraft was truly intuitive to fly, has an astonishingly wide flight envelope and is positively stingy with its fuel consumption. My example flew for 920 hrs/21 years of completely trouble free operation, until the overconfidence of the pilot (me) has grounded her (hopefully temporarily). The oldest example, now approaching thirty, is still flying, dont know the hrs but believe over 2000, somewhere in Qld.

After a two year search for a replacement composite aircraft, I have settled on an all metal  Sonex. I hope this aircraft (yet to fly) will be a worthy successor to the Zephyr. However this aircraft is built as one might build an American GA/Certified aircraft. With the exception of the engine (Rotax) its uses the archaic aviation imperial system throughout - a torturous/illogical/over- the - top/expensive system, that should have been ditched (for light aircraft) about a squillion years ago. Being an all metal aircraft, I will have to be constantly on guard against metal fatigue and corrosion (electrolysis). Yes I have compromised my own philosophy of light aircraft construction but sometimes one has to be pragmatic(persuadable) .

These two aircraft are in many ways diametrically opposite in design/construction philosophy. The Zephyr much more mine, the Sonex much more yours.

My point is simply - go your way, it will cost you a lot more $$$$  You might just equal the level of durability/safety that carefully researched, well made/ tested off the shelf (non certified) components might achieve - as the advocate of increased (unnecessary) metallic mixing within a cooling system, I obviously have my doubts.

Is this some weird porno debate??

2 hours ago, Geoff_H said:

Hi Skippy I didn't realise your craft was composite .   I also have a garmin one like the picture above ( but with plug fittings ) again hanging around.  I think that it is waas.  Let me know if you are interested.

 

Geoff

I was quoting you Geoff - my Sonex is mostly alloy.

22 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

Many things and materials have their own fail points; your mentioned example nylon when under manufacture has a content of trapped water, over time this dries out (in the use of engine coolant systems this will occur from outside in)  and this leads to cracking and eventual failure.  Therefore any use of nylon fittings in the close fitting engine cowls will require similar periodic inspection in similar manner to metal parts.  For my personal peace of mind I will continue to use and recommend metal hose joiners with rubber or silicone hose etc in coolant systems of owner built RAA aircraft.  I hope my comments are of benefit to BirdDog and others.  Cheers.

Strange that Gates, with  years of experience across automotive & industrial equipment,  would use such a dodgy material to make their hose connecters.

Note; the temperature & pressure ratings - way above anything you should see in a normally operating internal combustion engine. This suggests to me that the margin for failure is so high with these fittings, they will probably outlast me and possibly the aircraft.

Not only will they not corrode, / chemically react in any way with the coolant, they are lighter than most if not all metal equivalents and probably cheaper (if in doubt replace every 5 years with the rubber)

1 hour ago, rgmwa said:

I currently have the SV-GPS-250 but plan to upgrade to the SV-GPS-2020 when the ADSB rebate becomes available in a couple of months. 

If you can wait you might get it for half price.

I think I can wait a couple of months but will the 2020 actually give my SkyView ADSB ? In other words will I also have to upgrade to SkyView HDX?

Dear Geoff ,

"My project is composite.  No need for it"

Don't know why a composite aircraft might be different to a metal aircraft, in this particular debate - please expand.

Nice looking antenna - already have a Commant whip style , with 45 degree bend, for ground clearance (belly mount). 

This is what the Dynon SV-GPS-250 & 2020 looks like; If there is no argument against, I will have it on my "glair shield" (top of instrument panel) along side my Garmin Glo Blue Tooth antenna for my Ipad/ OzRunways. I think it will get excellent reception in this location, reduces the amount of wire that will need to be secured and will make use of an existing access hole, that I have cut into the glair shield,  just for this sort of situation.

1 hour ago, Geoff_H said:

Hi Skippy I have a dual VHF/GPS antenna.  I bought it but it did not get into the air.  I upgraded to WAAS.  This is not a waas antenna. Let me know if you are interested.

Geoff

Me thinks you doth confuse my dim intellect - I seek advice not more choice.

Tell me (in very basic english) why I might be interested in your device.

Attention Electronics  Wizards;

I seek your wise council.

I have a Dynon SkyView  display in my new Sonex - It has come to my notice that the addition of a GPS receiver will make significant  improvements to its utility.

Dynon make two GPS receivers; the SV-GPS-250 and the SV-GPS2020.

It seems to me (the epitome of technological ignorance) that the 250 is likely to do all that I may want  for now and at 1/3 the price of the 2020 appeal to my short arm/deep pocket principals.

However the 2020 seems to have features that are pretty much required by Uncle Sam. As Australia often follows the direction set by Sam I wonder if I should dig deep and purchase the more capable unit?

Your thoughts Gentlefolk

9 hours ago, cscotthendry said:

The plastic joiners that Gates or anyone else make, might be ok in land based vehicles where if one fails, you can pull to the side of the road. They have NO place in the cooling system of an aircraft.
I don't think stainless joiners are such a great idea with an aluminum engine, but they're still preferrable to plastic!

Maaaate ! - You are so far out of date. This sort of attitude belongs with the certified crowd (& the high cost that go with it), not RAA/Experimental.

I have been using Gates (Fuel/Coolant/Oil) hoses for the last 10 year plus. Never an issue. Most if not all gates products have a detailed test QA specification sheet that you can look up . The standards (for the products I have used) all exceed the airframe/engine manufacturers standards.

I am sure there are other component manufacturers out there who also provide similar products with similar QA standards - I just happen to have latched onto Gates and am happy with what I get.

As for the joiners - I used the catch all term "plastic" to describe what Gates describe as;

• Glass reinforced nylon resists coolant additives, gasoline, diesel, oil and LPG.
• Resistance to extreme temperatures from -65°C to +250°C (-85°F to +480°F).
• Working pressure up to 2 MPa (20 kg/cm²).

Does your opposition to plastic extend to plastic airframes????