skippydiesel

Lift (Dump flap) as you flair (within .5m of ground or lower) works a treat. Pretty well overcomes ground effect/float. Doesn't work so well with electric (slow actuation) flaps.

10 hours ago, howe said:

The best part of flying is the take off and landing, the rest is well so so.😊

 

I agree, up to a point. True, the challenge of integrating all the varied, competing aspects that go into making a "professional"  landing/take-off at an unfamiliar field is very satisfying.

However that hard to describe feeling of calm satisfaction but not quite relaxation, a little after establishing my aircraft straight & level, on track, is worth every penny of my overly expensive hobby.

Wow! thatch one very nice looking set up. What brand/size cooler is that?

TERRIFIC!!!!!!

Most  Rotax 9 oil coolers seem to be mounted, with the in/out ports at the top, oriented across to the aircraft longitudinal axis and almost vertical (allowing for cowling shape) at the front of the engine compartment. This often results in long contorted hose runs and when new / replacing hose, the potential for air to remain trapped within the system, much reducing its cooling efficiency.

My Zephyr had the cooler almost flat, slight upward tilt on the inward side, mounted low, on the right (aircraft) side of the firewall, in/out ports facing forward. It worked very well.

I plan to have my Sonex/Rotax 912 ULS oil cooler mounted below the crank case, between the two front exhaust pipes.

Version 1. It would look as per my first sentence (quite conventional), however this brings the sides of the cooler quite close to the exhaust pipes. For my piece of mind I would fit some form of heat shielding. Future (5 year) servicing may be a tad fiddly, with  access being tight.  The hose runs would be quite long and curved, increasing the potential for the hose to collapse when hot. Then there is the usual concern about air trapped in the system and the need for much "purging" to ensure a completely oil filled system.

Version 2. The alternative would be to rotate the cooler 90 degrees. (Imagine holding the cooler at arms length, in/out ports at the top , now rotate the cooler 90 degrees, to your left, so that ports are on one side) Still located between the two exhaust pipes, now with much greater clearances all round.  In/out ports would be on the aircraft right side, with a definite upper/lower port. The side ports,appear to facilitate almost straight hose routing,  with shorter runs/lengths. "Purging" the system of air would be straight forward with little chance of air entrapment.

 I can see no down side to Version 2  (can you?)

My Zephyr nose wheel steering rods had no gap seals, around the firewall penetration. Winter flying often had a nasty "razor sharp" draft blowing yo my trouser leg. Ugg Boots hep let but were hardly "de rigeur" for walking around an airfield.

Rather than partially dismantling the steering system, to install corrugated/concertina boots, I made up 4  felt squares , with a single slot running from centre to on side of each. installed squares on either side of firewall around steering rods using HD air-conditioning aluminium foil tape. Cheap & easy. Worked a treat.

What do you imagine the boots would do?

• Inhibit engine bay fire & its products from entering cockpit ?
• Keep engine noise, fumes, heat from entering cockpit ?
• Prevent draughts ?
• Look cool ?

The answers may dictate your next decision and /or boot specifications.

Sound advice however in an an aircraft not fitted with an AH I would speculate that the only instrument that might be of assistance, in such a situation (incremental course changes to achieve a course reversal) would be the good old "whisky" compass. Not an easy instrument to guide the pilot in VMC.

There is little point in wishing for a higher capability, during such an event, however the fitting of a basic  automatic pilot/wigs leveler or better, must shortly be at the top of the list for getting the hapless pilot out of trouble in such a situation.

After 2 overheating shutdowns (over about 3 years) I installed a dedicated iPad mini eyeball vent - no problems after that..

My new aircraft is fitted an iPad mini docking station  that has its own forced air supply- yet to be tested.

Be safe, have whatever systems you feel will give you confidence/reassurance (consistent with being able to leave the ground) but dont expect your emotive needs to make sense to others

Humans seem to be driven to make change/enhance, even when there is little or no demonstrable benefit. Example: Fire sleeves may look "cool" but if they are not correctly fitted (at the RAA end of the aircraft spectrum,  most are not) they serve little practical purpose, may give a false sense of security and reduce the pilot/maintainers ability to see a failing rubber hose.

On 08/02/2022 at 1:16 AM, rgmwa said:

As far as I know, kts is standard terminology in Australia. Having ASI in mph would be annoying, but then in the USA they seem to use both so I suppose it's just what you get used to.

 

My theory: The Yanks just want their aircraft to seem faster (marketing/boasting/etc)

I made up my own seals using Mylar strips & HD double side tape. As  above sugestion, left hinges exposed. Subjectively worked well.

Take great car that you dont restrict control surface movement.

Check out :

 https://wingsandwheels.com/gap-seal-tape.html

 https://www.cumulus-soaring.com/store/bowlus-tape-white-1in

https://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/threads/aileron-gap-seal.20995/

Geoff - there is no offence intended - just us Doubting Thomas's - the trouble with much of your agreement is you keep throwing in references to GA type aircraft - way heavier, bigger engines, etc etc.

I have no doubt that the heavier, more complex, more powerful the aircraft the more lily a "firewall" will buy the crew time to land and abandon ship.

I just doubt the effectiveness, of such a feature,  at the very light end of the sport.

2 hours ago, Geoff_H said:

Proven system.

In what way???

I dont think anyone is trying to design/reinvent the firewall/wheel here.

It seems advice/opinion is being sought as to a functional material, from which to make a firewall ie a material which will  confer heat/fume resistance, to an engine bay fire,  for sufficient time , so that the crew can land & survive

With the risk of stating the obvious -  it seems necessary to point out that  the engine bulkhead has several functions, one of which may be to act as a "firewall" should a fire break out within the engine compartment. Its primary functions are,to be a structural component of the airframe, separate the "crew" from noise & fumes generated by the engine and often to be the structure to which the engine is attached, through its mounting system, to the airframe (have I missed anything?).

RAA class aircraft are super light, using martials unlikely to maintain structural integrity when subject to a high heat situation (no matter the exotic/expensive material used to construct/cover the engine bulkhead itself ).

To me, this debate is much like that of the fire sleeve one - merely slipping a brightly coloured (& expensive) fire sleeve over a fuel/oil hose does little for fire resistance - proper terminations (rarely fitted) at each end are required to get any real benefit. Sure strategical placed fire sleeve may confer a degree of heat insulation,  reduce the chance of  hose damage &  fuel "vapour lock"from  from near by exhaust systems however other techniques, cheaper  & potentially more effective  (not so visually attractive perhaps) are just as good/better.

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

You're better staying away from design, rather than getting involved and not knowing what the terms are, what the current standards are for performance etc.

Are you referring to yourself?

I still have my doubts - Bulkhead/Firewall ? - seems to me that firewall is just a fancy word for a bulkhead either made of something fire resistant or covered with something similar.

I just cant get my head around being reliant on IT (in a RAA class aircraft) to do anything other than lighten your pocket for the illusion of enhanced safety.

I agree that resitting smoke/fumes is possible, at least for a short time, which may be enough to get you to the ground (hopefully survivable) however ply wood with a heat blanket will probably serve you as well as a fancy metal bulkhead.

When you make vague references to aircraft mid airs etc are you talking RAA class or GA certified?

A burst fuel tank,  well away from hot engine components/electrical short, is literally a long way from an engine compartment.

Although this Forum is open to all interested parties, I dont see too may GA/Certified aircraft being discussed - hence my referral to RAA class aircraft, as a catch all for the aeroplanes most of us fly.

Most fixed wing aircraft will have an engine bullhead (to attach the engine to if nothing else) the question comes down to, in an engine fire situation, the material the bulk head is either made of or covered in, that will deliver a sufficient protection (for crew & components essential for flight)  for enough time, to facilities a landing & evacuation. 

Its not just the bullhead of course - its all those control/fuel/power penetrations.

Again I suggest that most of the existing fire litigation techniques/materials, we have for RAA class aircraft, are so much window dressing - your best bet is fire prevention by paying a lot of attention to maintenance..

Turbs, my question "How many seconds, of an air blasted fire (high intensity) does it take  to consume the structural supports for the engine and/or enter the cockpit ?" was rhetorical./ There are just too may variables.

13 hours ago, turboplanner said:

There are many types of fires, other than an immediate conflagration where you can't get down.

One of them is an electrical short, where you have a surprisingly long time from a very noticeable small, in which case, if the wiring has been done correctly you can turn the master switch off, isolating all wiring from the battery. 

I agree that there is more than one source (many??) and electrical is one.

I also agree that this is probably the one that has the best potential to be stopped/extinguished by isolating the problem (master switch off).

The other two most likely sources are fuel & oil.  Neither of which has the immediacy (response time) of an electrical off switch. 

I have never heard of an off valve for crankcase oil and although you can turn of fuel from the cockpit, by the time you are aware of the fire, turn off the fuel supply, there will still be fuel, on the engine side, for many more seconds.

How many seconds, of an air blasted fire (high intensity) does it take  to consume the structural supports for the engine and/or enter the cockpit ?

I recon you are all living in hope,  rather than reality - a fire in a RAA class aircraft (single engine, lightly built, possibly of flammable or low melting point materials, no inflight fire suppression)  is most  likely to end in death. Your best prevention/ action chance of survival is top notch maintenance.

20 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

 Missed that feature; where does this recommended level appear?

Fair cop - I put in my minimum safe altitude, weather and I get options  (for each" leg")- I choose the one that gives best projected ground speed that is above turbulence.

I occasionally wonder what preventative actions (beyond good aircraft mechanistically/systems maintenance) would save my life, should I experience an in flight fire in your typical recreational aircraft ??

My gut feeling - all the SS (& similar) firewalls, colourful fuel & oil hose fire-sleeves would amount to zilch! So much marketing hype!

Why? Well most of our aircraft are light weight aluminium or other alloys, composite, wood, fabric or a combination of all - not the sort of materials that stand up well to the intense heat of a fuel or oil fire being fanned by a high speed air blast.

May be the installation of some sort of in-flight fire extinguishing system, might help but then the aircraft may be so burdened that flight is rendered  impossible ( the ultimate safety system).

I guess I will just do my best  to maintain my little beauty's engine/systems to the highest standard I can and hope that this is sufficient to reduce the chances of an in-flight fire to a very low probability.

I nearly always fly at the level recommended by OzRunways, modified according to AT control steps, turbulence (stay above ) and good terrain clearance. Seems to work for me.

I fly for the  shear pleasure of it. Don't get me wrong I am interested in performance but mostly in how fuel efficient my baby is - So speed is important (trip time), as is whole of trip fuel consumption per hour and, fuel flow @ given rpm. To this end I keep a fuel log, with trip time and comments on relevant flight conditions, engine settings etc. Probably boring stuff for most but ticks the right boxes for me.

My last aircraft, a 2000, ATEX Zephyr/Rotax 912ULS, has a ply wood firewall, with some silvery  stuff that looks like air conditioning insulation. Great little aircraft, very quite in/outside the cockpit. No complaints.