skippydiesel

Wow! Quite the craftsman. Admiration all round but  from an aircraft efficiency perspective, sadly a lost sole.

I am also impressed by the engineering/technology that goes into a military tank - as long as someone else is footing the bill I wouldn't refuse "a blast aground the block" - wouldn't want to own one.

1 hour ago, F10 said:

Will try putting down a tarp on the floor, that sounds interesting, and will close off engine better. Heating not an option, no power unless I can try a solar panel but that will start to get complicated, we have many cloudy days! Trouble is, will an open engine dry off faster? We’ve also had a lot more winter rain here at Yarram then in the past few years....very wet, but as I said, will definitely run the engine once a week, roll on spring!

Just remember the physics - if security not an issue might be more effective to leave doors open for a through draft.

On the original  Q,  I would speculate: 

From my own observation ( & a smidgeon of science) I support IBobs theory, that is where you have warm moist air, coming into contact with a cold surface (or air mass) the moisture will condense (free water/rain).

In an uninsulated structure eg tent, corrugated iron shed, even car windows, It is not unusually to have "sweating"  on internal walls.

I would suggest that the warm (carpet insulated) moist (permeable to ground water) floor is maintaining a higher temperature than the outside air. This will be particularly evident in the early morning.

The warm moist air inside the shed is condensing on the cold roof/ceiling & walls - not on your aircraft (its getting wet from the internal rain). 

Of course you can get condensation forming on your aircraft - again this is where your aircraft (usually parked outside over night) is colder than the warming moist air of the morning.

If you are concerned about condensation forming inside your engine there are only three possible preventions:

• Keep the engine warm, relative to the air where it is hangered
• Plug all external ports where moist air may get access
• Both of the above

Wow!!!!!!

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

Skip.

You,ve just described the Hummelbird !.

165 kph @ 6 lts per hour, or 3.5 L  per 100 klms .

Many happy owners out there.

Checkout , Dave kings 19-1942, l could be wrong on the 42.

No l don,t sell them, just think they,r the 'bee,s knee,s '.

spacesailor

I have always admired the Hummelbird range of innovative aluminum kit aircraft - they are in a winning class of their own.

I am far from being an expert on all things (LSA aircraft) European and I deliberately did not mention "fantastic plastic" because its not the only build martial cumming out of the Eu.

There is nothing wrong with aluminium aircraft (your defensive commentary might suggest otherwise) and used in context with a range of other materials can produce excellent weight to strength ratio - as you might remember I am an admirer of Robin Austen's Sonerai World Record aircraft VH SGS (aluminium, carbon steel, "plastic" & fabric).

It is beyond my simple understanding but I do believe a well made/designed structure can be both light & strong (check out a birds egg) and of course the construction material (or mix) can contribute significantly to this .

Aviation  history would suggest this is an ongoing debate - there was considerable resistance to the move from wood/fabric, to metal framed/skinned aircraft. Further history teaches us that when the chips are down (war) innovation/lateral thinking can produce fantastic results from an otherwise obsolete material reworked/configured eg wood &  the DH Mosquito.

One again I will acknowledge that the aircraft you promote/fly, excel - within the fairly narrow (STOL) flight envelope they are designed for. This is what you want and are obviously happy with  - good for you!

I on the other hand am looking for something diffrenet - an aircraft motivated by an engine in the +/- 100 hp range, with as wide a flight envelope as can be engineered:

• I want a low a stall (not as low as yours) for safety and grass strip operations,
• Place a high value on fuel econamy (delivering range and operational econamy) so want a Rotax engine & a slippery airframe, that will give a high cruise at low low fuel consumption.
• The construction material (s) that  will deliver this to me, are not so important as the result, however the potential for low maintenance (compared with all other materials) demand that "fantastic plastic" offers is certainly attractive.

Kyle me old mate, let us who live in glass houses not throw stones - stick to the facts and please compare like with like (you are mixing factory built prices with kit built - not nice).

The Eu  450 kg limit, is in many aircraft just as arbitrary as the Au 600 kg limit. Recent imports have been factory "upgraded" to 600 kg in Australia and I have little doubt that future imports are likely to be further upgraded to whatever limits are set.

True! many factory built Eu aircraft start at $150 k, or thereabouts, basic fly away. Of course  like almost every other aircraft, the addition of upmarket avionics, special paint job, nav lights , autopilot etc will add to the cost - I cant imagine this is any great revelation to the knowledgeable buyer.

If you are willing you can always purchase the same aircraft as a kit and save $20k or so.

It was a mistake, on your part to mention wood - the origination composite material - great stuff! Aircraft predominantly made of wood can have astonishing weight to strength ratios. The Europeans still make some excellent wood aircraft eg Alpi Aviation aircraft.

Am I mistaken does RAA now allow aerobatics - sure you can build. I could mention an aircraft that stalls at 30 knots can cruise at 120 knots and be built, as kit, for about $100k or so but dont want to go down that track

5 hours ago, spacesailor said:

 

Even many years later aircraft used ignition  to slow their engines for landing.

spacesailor

Intriguing! - more please.

I am not against the proposed weight increase but I do wonder how some of the aircraft that will then be able to comply, fit into the concept of a LSA type aircraft.

Once again it would seem that it is the European LSA manufacturers, that are better able to envisage & produce a viable aircraft that has an empty weight of 300KG or less, 30 knot stall and still able to cruise qt 130 knots , all on 100 hp.

I am not suggesting that there are no other countries doing this but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

On 11/03/2021 at 9:46 AM, facthunter said:

I don't want a GA copy either  Mike,  but the weight limits don't allow a safe structure for 2 people unless it's carbon fibre. 

No offence Nev but this rather sweeping statement does not recognise the safety inherent in a low stall speed  - there are plenty of LSA's with a sub 35 knot stall, quite a few with a sub 30 knot stall. I would hazard a guess that most of these aircraft are sub 300 kg empty weight and can be built of a number of materials not just carbon fibre.

Then there is the safety that comes just from having a lower mass (300 kg weight) to decelerate compared with say a Cessna 152

"If only mr Benz  had known. LoL"

Benz yes - but still dont know why you mention him in this context

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

SO

Fuel injection does Not require the venturi, as the fuel is delivered to the engine by pressure !??

Super  ( turbo  ) charging does away with the vacumme altogether. ( suction stroke  )

Both make the engine more efficient.

If only mr Benz  had known. LoL

spacesailor

Not so fast;

Fuel injection completely eliminates carburettor function. As the name suggests fuel  is  "injected" under pressure, either into the inlet manifold or into the combustion chamber. Can be one of three types 1. Single injector replacing carburettor. 2 One injector per cylinder, located very close to inlet valve 3 One injector per cylinder, injecting directly into combustion chamber. The injector nozzle (tip) is designed to deliver an aerosol (fine droplets) into either the inlet air stream or combustion chamber - so you are correct , venturi no longer required.

Turbo charging pressure (boosting of incoming air) can be used with a carburettor or with fuel injection. It is not actually part of the fuel delivery system - it is a way of increasing air/oxygen to the combustion process, so that more fuel can be burnt, generating more power for a given cylinder volume.

"mr Benz" ? Pleas expand 

26 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

With a transparent rotax 912 induction manifold and high speed camera it would be interesting to see if fuel droplets are failing to take the bend into the rear cylinder at cruise and max power, we know from looking at the plugs that the front is richer after some ground running.  

Hmm! - there are "droplets" in the above video, however the much more sophisticated Rotax system, the fuel should pretty well be vaporised (mixed with the air), from the point of entry to the "barrel" of the carburettor. I would speculate that the darker plugs on the front, would have more to do with cylinder head temperature, than significant variation in fuel/air mixture between from & rear cylinders.

24 minutes ago, Garfly said:

It was a well argued case, Kasper (and a useful review for the rest of us) but I don't understand why you thought Zoso might have needed persuading as to any of it. He gave no indication he did.  His disappointment had nothing to do with aeroplanes. 

 

True! - Nothing personal but if you inhabit one of the "great powers" of the day you will be criticised (hopefully with some objectivity) by those that do not - thus it has always been.

Kasper! - so well articulated  - I "tips me lid" to you. Your Rotax statement , a little over the top (lots of Jab lovers out there) but as a 912 driver I agree.

3 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

So, the throttle is the throttle and the mixture is the choke. Obvious to me NOW... Thank you so much for posting. 

This is a very primitive carburettor -

On a well designed/calibrated system the chokes, is an aid to starting (in a petrol) engine. Its function is to create a rich fuel to air mixture. Once the engine has started and importantly running (many engines will require partial choke to keep running until warm enough to maintain the cycle) the choke is opened fully and has no further role in the fuel/air delivery system.

The throttle is  used to meter the delivery of the fuel/air mixture, thereby controlling the speed of the engine. Without the throttle, the engine speed (rpm) will continue to rise, until the limit of the carburettor to deliver fuel/air is reached or the engine self destructs (This is called a "runaway engine").

Zoso - 

I apologise if you have been offended, however you do need to have a robust presence on this Forum - I for one, am somewhat opinionated (as are many of my compatriots) and revel in the opportunity, the Forum provides, to express that opinion - none of us intend to offend.

I think it would be true to say we, at the LSA end of aviation, promote our particular aviation positions with considerable vigour.

I hope you will reconsider your decision to depart

Awwwwwsome!!!!

3 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

 

 

Thruster - The message I heard from this excellent video is:

Buyers of aircraft (pilots) tend toward the tried and true (conservative)

The largest market for aircraft is in the USA - ergo conservative and I suggest nationalistic in their purchasing trends.

Most of the aircraft engine innovation is cumming from outside the USA - read the last point.

If you cant sell in the USA your engine/aircraft will struggle to be viable

My interest is  LSA class  aircraft - in this area the USA would seem to be far behind the Europeans (with just a few exceptions )in both engine & airframe innovation' -  the initial topic of this conversation being a good example of dinosaur reinvention.

2 hours ago, rgmwa said:

My mistake. Twenty seven gals is a lot better and would give it good range. If they can increase MTOW then the plane is starting to look pretty good in terms of performance, although maybe not aesthetics. 

We’ll have to wait and see whether they get serious about Rotax. These engines are probably gaining more acceptance in the US through the LSA market with aircraft like the RV12 and Sling, but no doubt the traditional engines are still well ahead in market acceptance. Time will tell.

Me thinks that any aircraft produced after about 1980 should have all specifications (including fuel capacity) in metric - no wonder you got confused.

FYI  - the RV12 & Sling look great but do not deliver the suggested good performance that their appearance & marketing suggest.

In the LSA class of aircraft, the Yanks, will remain well behind the existing aircraft/engine developments, as long as they are so emotionally attached to obsolete engine technology and airframe construction.  

Virus - agreed, not the best name in a CV19 pandemic but then Vishon doesnt exactly have the greatest ring to it either.

Who cares about the name - if it fly's great, you have it all.

8 minutes ago, Zoso said:

My sincere apologies for speaking first and reading later (geez, I'm such a Yank). I didn't realize when I did a search and joined this discussion that this group was geographically down under.

 

In any case, air is air and we all enjoy a good flyer. The second biggest fly-in in the States is Sun n' Fun. I've been every year for 27 years and always check out the new aircraft. Here are some of the reasons I went with the Vashon Ranger;

 

- I've owned 4 old airplanes, I recently retired and wanted something I didn't have to build or spend a ton to upgrade. Speed was less important than economy of operation. ALL used airplanes have needs, then add in the cost to upgrade to big screen avionics and things can get truly ugly.

- I prefer low wings, but as you get older (my wife and I are both tall), climbing in becomes an issue. The Ranger is an easy airplane to crawl in & out of. I also live in a sub tropical area and flying under a plastic bubble is too dang HOT!!! A high wing airplane offers a bit of welcome shade and a better view.

- The Ranger has room to spare and I'll give up a bit of ramp appeal for the larger cabin volume.

- I've watched numerous aircraft companies come and go as they burn deposits to keep things running and inevitably fail. Some attractive E. European products fall in to this category and then support domestically becomes iffy at best. 

- Vashon is a venture of the founder of Dynon, which by itself is an amazing product. Talk to Mr. Torode and you will share his vision.

- I would never buy an airplane from someone who hasn't done this before, Ken Krueger has been around and knows what makes a good airframe.

- It's all metal, destruction tested (I've seen video of this) and finished to a high standard.

 

I could go on, but for my second post I haven't earned the right to be too expansive. If any of you fella's ever come to Sun n' Fun send me a pm.

 

 

Hi Zoso -  Just having such an articulate opinion is always worth having/listening to. So WELCOME!

Speed. When talking aircraft -  speed/fuel consumption/hr is a measure of econamy (efficiency of the engine/airframe package) . EG You want a high wing for a host of very good reasons - Check out the Pipistrel Virus SW (Rotax 912ULS) can cruse at 145 knots @ 19L/hr, throttle back to 120 knots and you will be using about 16 L/hr. 100 knots about 13L/hr. Has a low low stall of about 30 knots (excellent short field performance & safety). Composite airframe for minimal maintenance and low internal noise level. Examples of this aircraft have circumnavigated the Globe & won the CAFE Challenge. Have no idea what the USA price is but probably higher then the Vashon. Pipistrel have been around for many many years, so you wont have any purchase/back up issues.

My opinion - Makes the Vashon look look dated, and will out performed it on just about every parameter.

Note: I am not a Pipistrel agent , nor do I derive any financial interest/benefit from this company.

Where do you get the idea that this is a cheap aircraft - the dollars are American. By the time convert to $AU ,you add freight/delivery, GST on the lot, it will be about $150/160 Au. At this price you can purchase a whole range of aircraft that equal/exceed the performance of the Vashon Ranger.  Most will be Rotax powered (so cheaper running cost), some Jab and  many composite, - less maintenance.

I have no doubt that this is a good solid aircraft BUT in my mind does not present as an advancement of any kind - just stuck in the past.

Do the Yanks have high performing, factory built, aircraft, in the 80-120hp range,  comparable to what is coming out of Europe ???

In kits, Sonex/Sonerai are the only aircraft,  that come to mind, that seem to approach European innovation.

Even Au does it better with the Jabiru range.

In my limited understanding of automotive "oil analysis" it is probably more about building a "picture" over time, than a one off diagnostic health check. By this I mean - the analysis must become a routine part of the service of the machine. A history  can then be reviewed at each analysis and 'wear" & contamination trends established. Over time it may be possible to advise for shorter/longer oil service intervals and also to project forward (given a consistent duty pattern) when the machine should be removed from service for either replacement or reconditioning.

I would guess that the greatest benefit is where a fleet of machines is being so monitored - giving a true picture of normal wear/tear and the abnormal signs of impending failure.

Oil analysis, by a reputable service provider, is not cheap so most of us go with the manufactures service intervals and estimated in service/duty span for components and total life.

If concerned - a cheap reassurance is to halve the manufactures oil service interval. eg Rotax 100 hr oil change, for engines run on ULP, can be reduced to 50 hrs - no need to change oil filter at 50 hrs. (this is what I do)

General observations:

• Insurers are not charities, they will seek to minimise payouts/increase premiums where ever they can.
• Insurers can not legitimately invalidate a policy/claim, just because you have, say a private /your use only, strip, on your land. There must be a causal link between the activity/asset that resulted in the claim for it to be invalidated, in part/whole .eg aircraft fire destroyed insured house. Not saying the insurer will try for an invalidation but when push comes to (legal) shove if no link exists, they can not reduce/negate the claim eg presence of airstrip had no bearing on house fire.