skippydiesel

Just when I thought I had managed to survive all the excrement being delivered by the broker, settled on price & conditions, he hits me with his so called "Aircraft Sales Contract". 

Three pages of pseudo legal jargon. Big on quantity short on quality.

Inaccurate aircraft description, paragraph after paragraph of BS, most of which seemed to be saying thet the vendor could not be held to account for anything, including failure to deliver on the Aircraft Sales Contract

I found the following paragraph particularly disturbing;

"Except as provided otherwise in this agreement, this Aircraft is sold "as is". There are no warranties, either express or implied with respect to merchantability or fitness applicable to the Aircraft or any equipment applicable thereto including warranties as to the accuracy of the Aircraft's logbooks, made by Seller or agent. Buyer agrees that no warranty has been expressed or implied by Seller or agent and that Buyer has inspected the Aircraft and understands that it is being purchased "as is." Buyer hereby expressly waives any claim for incidental or consequential damages, including damages resulting in personal injury against Seller".

This is a 16 year old kit built aircraft - so is probably 20+ years old - I dont expect a "Warranty" of any description however I do expect that the legal status of the Log Book be respected and the vendor be liable for any known  (by him) undisclosed defect that results in injury/death.

In defence of the dyslexic - I agree that when making a technical report, accuracy is paramount, however even more important is the transmission of the message (communication) which does not always require the best spelling (much to the distress of the pedants)

Those days the panned can be anything from basic to eye wateringly capable, with associated cost/value - you need to get a good "handle" on this area.

What about prop hrs and type??

2 hours ago, KRviator said:

And here's another one... A "1968 A36 Bonanza"... Except AIUI, the A36 didn't come out until 1969 and the earliest ones on the register are 1970 models. A phone call to this broker went to voicemail, a message was left yesterday requesting a call back. 24 hours later, still nothing...

 

I'm still waiting on a reply to 2 emails sent regarding this '77 A36 Bonanza, the first was sent 03rd May, a follow-up sent on the 18th May - so to the owner of VH-KMT, you might like to ask your broker to actually do their f^&@*N JOB! At least, if you want to actually sell your plane, that is...🤬

 

Also still waiting on a reply to an email I sent on the 18th with a couple of follow-up questions about this nice-looking Debonair. Nothing too hard, I would have thought, just if there is a W&B newer than 1962, the total fuel capacity (the Deb had LR tanks as an option), wing bolt status and when the engine was overhauled.  These are all questions I would have thought a broker would have ready access to allowing a speedy response to a potential buyer.

 

Maybe I should show this to the KRviatrix and try "I've tried to buy a 4-seater, sweetie, but I can't...I might have to build an RV-10 if we really want 4 seats!"

 

Though my next port of call is to think of a few type-specific questions and email the contact for a Twin Comanche advertised in WA. IT'll need a full panel overhaul, but if the W&B works out, I'd take the Twinkie over anything else, bar the overhaul costs!

I try to be positive  - here goes;

The one (& only) good point to "brokers" is - from the first contact you have nothing but contempt for their lack of professionalism BIG POSATIVE - your bargaining style will automatically be in the realm of "take  no prisoners" - chances are you will do a great deal. Just remember, always be willing to walk away, with the attitude  - "there will always be another, probably nicer Bonanza, around the corner" - they will loose bladder control after a few days silence.

Naaa! As an expert journalists, who has exhaustively researched the field of aircraft identification , I have it on good authority (wishes to remain anonymous) that they are all Cessna's

11 hours ago, kgwilson said:

I am amazed that there seem to be plenty of people who will buy an aircraft sight unseen. Even if it is direct from the owner I would have to check it thoroughly myself, inspect the log book & test fly it. After that it would have to be checked by a Lame I specify if I figured out it ticked the boxes so far. If there was a broker involved then I have already lost interest. One bloke here bought a Jabiru SP6, paid for it, then went & picked it up & flew it home. He then complained to me about its condition & spent ages trying to find a fault with it running rough. The mind boggles.

Now I know - dont get involved when a "broker" is in the picture

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

He will probably cost himself the sale.

That would be a shame (for me) indeed. There will always be another (aircraft) If there is a next time, I hope there is no agent/dealer/broker in the party.

I have only the one experience with a "broker" and I certainly hope never to have any dealings with one again.

Tubo - your logically approach makes sense and is just what I have done. However the broker seemed to think my detailed check list to be excessive and this is from a bloke who doesnt know anything about (factory) Mandatory Modifications as applied to kit aircraft.

I think we all understand that brokers/sales people in general are all about making a quick sale at the highest price (% return to them) - what I dont get is the lack of product knowledge, the general BS,  demands for down payments, befor even doing a good inspection (I refused point blank) then when sale price and any condition's agreed to, hitting you with a 3 page agreement, which A fails to accurately describe the aircraft and its major components and B is largely unintelligible,would seem to attempt to undermine the standing of vital documents (eg Log Book) and the responsibility of the vendor to disclose any known defect that may cause injury or harm, etc etc  - I have refused to sign this. So far stalemate!

24 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Does a " broker " have to have Any qualifications ?.

spacesailor

 

Clearly the answear is yes - however the Forum managers would censor my description of what the qualifications must be.

KRviator - I am just trying to purchase a 2 seat RAA registered aircraft - should be almost as simple as "falling of a log" 

But Noooooo! there is a "broker" in the equation  and he seems to be doing everything in his power to make the process way way more difficult than it need be, all the while knowing "sweet FA" about the make & model of the aircraft he is supposed to be selling.

You have my understanding & sympathy - I hope never to be exposed to a broker again - ever!

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

Yes and when that pressure DIFFERENCE is exceeded it lets things into the OVERFLOW container AND the 23,000 feet thing was brought up by another poster as the ceiling for another version of liquid cooled  Rotax. so I used that to point out that the pressure  difference  affected the temp outcome achieved at height..  that IS at ANY height but more so at higher levels.  10,000 ft is where you need to carry oxygen . That is another effect of the lowered atmospheric pressure .Nev

No offence, Nev but the word "exceed" has, for me, connotations of going beyond/past a limit/margin - often used where limits on safety or structural mechanical integrity may be passed. In this case the opening/closing of a pressure sensitive valve (the cap mechanism) has no such connotations being a normal part of the cooling system operation.

Not sure why, in this context, you bring up the supplementation Oxygen  subject - its along time since I did my GA study, if dodgy memory serves me right, O2 for flight crew is mandatory from 12, 000 ft up and for passengers 14, 000ft up. Some people may require O2 below these  levels.

9 hours ago, facthunter said:

My point is you have to exceed the cap pressure to put fluid in the overflow bottle. IF the cap doesn't seal it won't pull the overflow fluid back later.. Nev

Exceed? - the cap is designed to release ,coolant into the expansion tank, at a predetermined pressure

9 hours ago, facthunter said:

IF you go to 23,000 feet you'd need some other pressure cap than the normal one.. Unpressurised you can't even have a hot coffee at that level. Nev

Hummm - Not sure of the practical application of your comment. These days I am an Australian RAA pilot - no intention of going above 9,500 ft (10,000ft VFR limit). My Rotax 912ULS seemed to handle this modest altitude without any evidence of misbehaviour from any of its systems.

I use RAM mounts to place my iPad & GPS within eyes scan & hand reach, without too much panel space compromise.

13 hours ago, facthunter said:

.................................  I'm not convinced that a normally operating motor should vent into the bottle at all. Your pressure cap should seal to allow the temp of the coolant to be above 100 C.  ..........................................

Nev; a by product of combustion is heat (even in a normally operating engine ). When more fuel is burnt  eg engine under load when climbing, more heat will be generated and must be managed. Less fuel during cruise, descent, taxi and shut down - less heat. These varying heat loads, must be managed/accommodated by the cooling system (in this case a liquid). If you accept heating a liquid causes it to expand, then you must also accept this expansion (increased volume/pressure) must be accommodated somehow. You could just vent it overboard or do what modern cooling systems do, contain it in a bottle/expansion tank (for reuse). If you dont allow the expansion then you risk damaging the cooling system. Alternatively you build a very much robust/heavier system (as in the past) to withstand the pressures generated - not so good for an aircraft.

"Your pressure cap should seal to allow the temp of the coolant to be above 100 C" - my understanding is that it does. In climb out, I  see approximately 110C in my system - reducing to the low 90C in cruise.

14 hours ago, waraton said:

Old thread, any new products or techniques being used?

Sorry Waraton, no further "break throughs" from me - my home made system is still working very effectively.

5 minutes ago, cherk said:

if its for a 19 reg A'ft   https://www.futurlec.com/sensor/gasflowmeter.shtml

Wow! that's a good price.

I am not so keen on the spigot size (may require some additional adapters = potential failure points) and the use of a separate energy supply has both + & - features.

2 hours ago, IBob said:

Nev, the coefficient of expansion of the coolant  will be much higher than the coefficient of expansion of the metal of the engine. So when engine and coolant heat up, the coolant  increases in volume more than the galleries in the engine, and since it is not compressible, has to vent somewhere.

 

Same with a hot water boiler, they have an expansion vessel, usually sized 2 x 4% of the system volume, 4% being the expansion of water from approx 4deg to boiling. Without that you'd lift the safeties on the boiler each time it fired.

 

If the Rotax had no venting, the damage would probably be to the hoses. What happens instead is that the level in the overflow bottle rises each time the engine is run up to temperature, and falls each time it cools. Or that's what mine has done, since new. I know this because initially I had a self-inflicted leak that took a lot of fixing (the engine, not me) and have watched my coolant level carefully ever since.

Back in the "good old days" of automotive cooling, best  practise was to fill the radiator to just above the core,  leaving the bulk of the  "top tank" volume for coolant expansion.

This worked, sort of okay (excess fluid being jettisoned by the radiator cap "lifting" due to pressure).

The down sides to this concept was, a heavy and bulky system, that when  cooled, went into considerable negative pressure (vacuum) potentially collapsing radiator hoses (particularly the lower one). The fix was to have a brass spring inside the bottom hose or a metal reinforced hose - not great.

As far as I know all "modern" automotive (& Rotax 91's) have the expansion tank system where the excess hot coolant is allowed to escape the system, be contained (in the expansion tank) and return as the system cools - a two way pressure cap facilitates this flow.

The main benefits  are a more efficient cooling system (it should always be completely full of coolant) facilitating a smaller lighter cooling system  and very low negative pressures - no collapsed hoses

9 minutes ago, IBob said:

Hi Skippy, I don't disagree, but I think it's potentially dangerous to suggest using the overflow as a coolant indicator.
Someone posted a link to footage of an EFATO here recently........was a Drifter or something similar, I think, Rotax 2-stroke....and some eejit had piped the overflow into the top of the bottle instead of the bottom. I expect that setup showed plenty in the overflow, as the engine progressively took in more air from flight to flight until the cooling failed entirely...

Cant account for such errors.

1 hour ago, BirdDog said:

Hmm... I thought there was - or is it oil?

 

 

You can have a "thermostat" one one or both - common in cold climates to aid in warm up and I suppose if cold enough maintaining a constant engine temperature. Anecdotally, the oil thermostat is the most common.

The cheapest way of addressing cold weather running is to to block of sections of radiator/oil cooler (very common "fix") - down side risk,  is that you may overdo it and run your engine very hot.

1 hour ago, IBob said:

Hi Skippy. Rotax moved from monitoring CHT to monitoring coolant a while back (2015?). As noted, the difference is in the heads: you either have sensors on the bottom (CHT) or top (coolant). You don't get to choose (unless you want to swap heads).
All the recent 912 installations I have seen have the little sight glass in the front of the coolant reservoir.
You can't check coolant level by looking at the overflow bottle: in the event of a coolant leak (for instance) you are quite likely to have good level in the bottle, but a lot of air in the coolant system.

Fair comment - thanks for the update.

As for the overflow tank - that's why I said indication.  It a pretty good indication, because if you have a significant leak you should see evidence of this (coolant residue all over the place) where a small leak/weep will give you a progressive drop in the cold reading/inspection of the reservoir/overflow tank (always fill to a known level so that any drop is obvious).

To be absolutely sure , your little window in the top thingy or removing the radiator cap from the same, will certainly give you a clear understanding of where your coolant level is.

Just remember - like your oil level, coolant level should be checked when engine is stony cold.

1 hour ago, IBob said:

So far as I know, the 912 does not have a coolant thermostat.

Have you checked your coolant level? There is a little window in the coolant reservoir on the top of the engine, where all the hoses run to. With the engine cold, you should be able to see a coolant level there.

I Bob - I think you will find they are are CHT sensors, not coolant. You can purchase a coolant sensor kit - usually located where you expect Max temperature to be  - close to radiator inlet point.

Cant say I am familiar with the most recent Rotax 912 installations or with the multitude of variations available, but every one I have seen has no " little window". There is the coolant expansion/overflow tank, normally translucent so you can get an indication of coolant level by looking at this. For a slightly more definitive check you must remove the "radiator cap"  - should be full to the brim (no air gap)

59 minutes ago, IBob said:

So far as I know, the 912 does not have a coolant thermostat.

Have you checked your coolant level? There is a little window in the coolant reservoir on the top of the engine, where all the hoses run to. With the engine cold, you should be able to see a coolant level there.

Coolant thermostats are available - just Google to see the range 

3 hours ago, BirdDog said:

Thanks Skippy.

 

So I take it only one cylinder on each side is monitored?

 

In evry set up I have seen only one cylinder per side is monitored - usually a front/rear diagonal.

27 minutes ago, BirdDog said:

Yeah - don't know!  I will pay closer attention to it next time, but it did appear like it was say when the thermostat would kick in, and the engine would cool, then it would close, and it would heat up again.  If you know what I mean.  But weird that only on one side.  I need to look at where this sensor is!  I have Left and Right!  So is it one Cyl on the left and one of the right?  

If its a Rotax 912 you will have left & right cylinders - CHT is not coolant temperature (although pretty closely associated) - You have stated that EGT's are even -- suggesting same combustion heat on each side. So I still think sensor or wire.

I always advise going with the simplest lowest cost option first - so check your wiring make sure insulation is good and all connections firm.

If that doesnt fix the problem, try swapping CHT sensors and see if the problems moves with the sensor.