skippydiesel

28 minutes ago, BirdDog said:

UPDATE - I have preliminary approval from Evektor to install glass if I wish.  I am just waiting on the LOA.

 

They have provided info on 3 models they approve.  D700 D1000 and a Garmin unit.

 

Will keep you updated.

I would speculate that if you ae moving to RAA E the need to get factory approval is moot

From my limited perspective (PPL Ga & RAA Cert) - the little I saw of the RAA cert theory (when I did my conversion) seemed to be pretty much what I did as a PPL Ga. No idea what the pass mark/rate between the two is. As for as the PPL Ga is concerned - I recon almost anyone with a couple of low energy brain cells can get through it - perseverance & more perseverance, is the key, not academic ability or high IQ.

Thanks Fallowdeer ; While I live I learn - I always thought the 914 was a whole mechanical turbo/wastegate engine (didn't know it had an electronic TCU). Doesn't change the fundamental points of my description .

I dont recognise your (Mr Seaton's)  "altitude" or boosted engine" terminology but get the point - I would suggest almost all turbocharged engines make more Hp at sea level than their naturally aspirated origins.

Aviation is probably one of the few applications, where only a small gain at sea level is not uncommon (turbo normalising). The primary objective being high altitude performance.

Overwhelmingly, turbo charged engines (even in aviation) make a lot more sea level Hp than their naturally aspirated origin. Thus better engine power:weight ratios are achieved, while also gaining high altitude performance.

For a turbo charged engine the 914 is relativly "lightly" boosted at sea level, making only an additional 35 Hp over its 912, 80 HP origin (if you believe this was the foundation engine)

8 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Curious ! - kit built but somehow comes under factory built - anyone out there able to explain?

"SLSAs are a different category, SLSA homebuilts don't have to be 51% owner built according to my reading of the SLSA regulations.

So a homebuilt RV-12 built to the factory build plans would get its Certificate of Airworthiness under the SLSA provisions, and therefore need to be maintained as per Vans RV manual.

If you deviate from the plans it would be Experimental SLSA.

That's how I understand it, but I could be wrong, it has happened before 😁"

This makes no sense to me but stranger things have happened -Under RAA regulations, is it possible to have a kit built aircraft recognised as a factory build ???

Always loved the look of HummelBird's - just musing, what effect/good/bad/nil would  a full engine cowling have compared with the existing "pots" in the wind ??

35 minutes ago, RossK said:

SLSAs are a different category, SLSA homebuilts don't have to be 51% owner built according to my reading of the SLSA regulations.

So a homebuilt RV-12 built to the factory build plans would get its Certificate of Airworthiness under the SLSA provisions, and therefore need to be maintained as per Vans RV manual.

If you deviate from the plans it would be Experimental SLSA.

That's how I understand it, but I could be wrong, it has happened before 😁

Curious ! - kit built but somehow comes under factory built - anyone out there able to explain?

19 hours ago, SGM said:

Our Evektor Sportstar (and Birddogs presumably) is facory built LSA (specifically SLSA).  Which, as I understand it, is an international standard. 

SGM - was this your reply to my question?

SGM ; Soooo "Van’s RV–12 SLSA powered by a Rotax 912ULS, you are required by regulation to overhaul it at the 2,000-hour mark—because that’s what Rotax says to do" is a factory built aircraft in Australia ?????????

59 minutes ago, rhtrudder said:

Spot on

The VD ????

10 hours ago, Mike Borgelt said:

skippydiesel, as I said previously, if YOU think you'll benefit from flying with an instructor, go to it. Just don't force it on everyone else.

 

Facthunter, I'm not disputing that the licence status or otherwise of pilots has anything to do with their competence. I'm talking about media shaped public "perception" and the political hay that can be made out of it.

 

I'm amused by the exalted status that people seem to hold instructors in. They are just pilots like anyone else. Really good instructors are rare beasts indeed and should spend their time teaching their students to fly properly. If that is done right done right you'll be your own most severe critic on every flight.

 

In the Australian gliding movement far too many of what purport to be "instructors" have killed or injured their students, let alone the many students who have been turned off and left gliding by their incompetence. You never know when one of them will turn a simulated emergency into a real one and I know that has happened in RAAus too.

As a mortal person with very human failings, I value the third party (hopefully unbiased ) opinion/assessment by others, when it comes to maintaining a complex skill/knowledge base. This includes aviation and every other skill /knowledge set that I have/aspire too.

This has nothing to do with the instructor per-say but everything to do with a fellow aviator routinely (every 2 years) casting his/her eye over your skills/Knowles set and making hopefully constructive criticisms.

The instructor has been tasked with this role, as they are expected to maintain a level of "currency" above that of the average pilot. You are deluding yourself, if you feel that this has something to do with status.

It would seem that you would set yourself apart/above us mortal beings and ignore the safety practice that has evolved over generations of pilots and is entrenched in all levels of aviation (not just RAA/GA)

1 hour ago, John Robert said:

I. They will not be flying above 8500 ft, they are more likely to be at 3000 ft..   R

 

Why would aircraft drones fly at 3000f when pressurisation will not be required (except where freight /passenger need it) - seems to me the intercontinental freight drones will fly very high and courtesy of lighter non pressurised airframes carry greater loads.

Just now, SplitS said:

BFR's are a waste of time and money a couple of circuits yawn simulated engine failure which you know is coming up yawn and maybe a crosswind landing since I fly of a single strip I do this all the time.

They are just a tick the box exercise.

If that's how you view the importunity to review your skills & procedure, I guess you will "yawn" but then the rest of us mortals, who have human failings, might just benefit from an BFR.

4 hours ago, rhtrudder said:

That’s how it all works , the carby bowls are sealed and the breathers are vented to the air box which pressurises the fuel in the bowls , gives it more fuel when running in the boost range

So, was my rambling analysis/suggestions for locating sensor points (tubes) "on the ball" ?

Your "the carby bowls are sealed and the breathers are vented to the air box which pressurises the fuel in the bowls , gives it more fuel when running in the boost range" doesnt sound quit right to me.

The carby bowls are sealed is correct, in so far as being fuel tight and in the case of a turbo system the breathers (for the bowls) are vented to the air box  which normalises the air pressure between float bowl & carby inlet.

The function of the turbo charger is to deliver more air/oxygen to the carby/engine, so that it may burn more fuel for a given cylinder swept volume, thereby generate more power OR the same power, as a naturally aspirated engine, at altitude, as at sea level (known as turbo normalising) .

It does this by pressurising the air (over atmospheric) using an exhaust driven  turbine, hence the need to normalise/balance the pressure impacting on the float bowl to the same as in the pressurised air box (otherwise the high pressure would blow the fuel out of the bowl breather).

The carby, in tern, will be optimised (jet settings) to deliver more fuel (than the naturally aspirated version) to take advantage of the increased  air/oxygen - the resultant burn will liberate more power.

The method of fuel delivery is the same as for a naturally aspirated carburettor, that is by venturi (narrowing) in the carby throat, creating a pressure variation (partial vacuum) that draws the fuel up from the float bowl/chamber.

Gives it more fuel when running in the boost range - having no experience of the Rotax 914, so I dont know what this means. All internal combustion engines have a small rpm range over which they deliver their best performance - this is not exclusive to turbo charged engines.

My understanding of the Rotax 914 is that it is essentially a turbo normalised engine that has been configured so as to have some increase in power (115) over its  naturally aspirated 80 hp origins - this is done by using an automatic exhaust waste gate to moderate the amount of pressure being delivered by the turbine. The waste gate will be fully or almost fully open, at sea level and progressively close as the aircraft climbs and the atmosphere this. This will maintain sea level pressure in the air box/carburetors , so as to keep the engine running more efficiently at higher altitude than its naturally aspirated origins.

Yeah Gods I do go on and could however I will stop there, as I belatedly recognise the my terminal VD (verbal diarrhea) is probably boring you to death.

RossK - "They've used that word, mandatory, so to comply with the Special Certificate of Airworthiness for LSA, it is mandatory to overhaul the motor at TBO."

Only if you wish to maintained the privilege of being able to use your aircraft for hire  or reward (SCA). If you are willing to alowe the aircraft to move to E status you can continue to operate on condition. 

Rotax, in common with all  engine manufacturers, is not interested in having their engines go beyond factory TBO neither do they prevent such action.

I am trying (probably unsuccessfully) to read between the lines/understand:

Turbo pressurises air into carburetors (box) 

The fuel pressure to carburetors must be higher than the pressurised air from the turbo, otherwise the air would force fuel in the wrong direction (?)

You feel that it is important/interesting to know if the above situation is as desired/ expected.

If the gauge, you describe, is fitted to your panel you will have a "condition" monitor ie All is well OR not.

If the above is (sort of) correct: I surmise that you will need to connect to the up steam side of the carburetors (air box) where max turbo pressure will be found and to the fuel delivery line, somewhere between the main pump outlet and where it divides to each carburettor.

Plumbing into the down stream side of the carburettors (balance tube) will give a reading of sorts (might even be the same) but may no be as accurate/diagnostic as the upstream (air box) reading as its the air pressure entering and going through the carburettors which is of interest, not what is coming out/down stream of the carburettors.

Nooooo way am I going to trawl through pages & pages of intimate Jab intercourse

SGM ; Soooo "Van’s RV–12 SLSA powered by a Rotax 912ULS, you are required by regulation to overhaul it at the 2,000-hour mark—because that’s what Rotax says to do" is a factory built aircraft in Australia ?????????

Fuel pressure ? or air pressure/vacuum ?

Always amazing and the birds are so keen to go flying.

Makes me wonder if birds can actually see airflow/movement.

Why? Is this to do with controlling cooling air flow??

35 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Based on that comment, and the fact that the owner is considering updating it would be reasonable to conclude that the aircraft has been maintained to a high standard and operated within parameters. Therefore , unless keeping up with the Joneses has a higher priority, then an upgrade would be a better choice economically.

 

Continental recommends that, along with the engine’s published TBO, to determine the engine’s continued airworthiness, consider whether the engine has been operated regularly or has been in storage, as gaskets, seals and synthetic and natural rubber goods deteriorate over time. Environmental corrosion can occur internally and externally on the engine. This naturally occurring process can affect continued airworthiness of the engine and engine mounted components and accessories.

 

It was asked, "When does TBO start?".  For one method of calculation, TBO begins when the engine is first fitted to the airframe. That gives you calendar TBO. With a TTIS of 350 hours and approaching calendar TBO, this engine has stood idle more than it has been running. The problem there is degradation of the seals, engine mounts and hoses. That in itself would indicate an overhauls is necessary.

Once again, a simple bit of wording is open to misinterpretation. According to CASA, "On-condition" maintenance means an inspection/functional check that determines an item's performance and may result in the removal of an item before it fails in service. It is not a philosophy of fit until failure or fit and forget. Maintenance tasks (inspections/checks) used to detect potential failures, and consequently to avoid a total functional failure, are called "on-condition" maintenance tasks. This is because items are left in service on the condition that they "continue" to meet a desired physical condition and performance standards.

 

Aircraft and component manufacturers can make "Hard Time" recommendations usually referred to as Time Between Overhaul (TBO), which specify how long they consider their product should remain in service. These recommendations are based on average utilisation and conditions and usually recommend that the item be fully stripped and returned to the original specifications. 

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/awb-02-1-issue-1-condition-maintenance#:~:text="On-condition" maintenance means,failure or fit and forget.

 

Bit confused here OME - your responses (to 2 comments) seem a little generalised - see my Rotax 912 specific/targeted comments erlier/above.

As for calendar time start ; Rotax have a specified period "of grace"  between purchase an installation. If you do not install within this period (engine still in box situation) the calendar will start to count irrespective of installation. I am sure this happens quite frequently with kit /home built aircraft, that sometimes take 10 years or more to complete - engine calendar time would have well and truly commenced befor some much as a drop of fuel & been burnt. 

"Time Between Overhaul (TBO), which specify how long they consider their product should remain in service."  In the Rotax context (& I believe other engines) this really only applies to certified aircraft/engines - there is no hour/age limit on non certified, with calendar time running out for most (if not all) long befor engine time and even when this is reached, many well maintained/operated engines continue on indefinitely, subject to "on condition" checks.

Your last comment "usually recommend that the item be fully stripped and returned to the original specifications". My (limited to one 920 hr, 22 year old, engine, fitted to a RAA 19 rego aircraft) experience of Rotax "hard time"  recommendations do not involved dismantling the component , replacement seems to be the order of the day eg Primary Mechanical Fuel: pump 5 year (forget the hrs) replacement. Again Rotax do not require this of a non certified engine - it is a recommendation. My first fuel pump (as supplied with engine) was still meeting fuel pressure/volume specifications & no leaks,  after about 15 years of service (still have on shelf as an emergency back up) there was no instruction/order to replace  - I did so from an excess of zeal. This would be quit difference for a certified engine where there would be an obligation to replace on/befor factory recommended time.

I follow the Rotax service/maintenance schedule to the letter (in fact with oil changes I exceed the recommendation) but think that I could apply a lot more discretion to my non certified Rotax  if I wished eg spark plug replacement at 100 hrs (or is it 200) - I replace on the engine hours listed but they are in such good condition I suspect they could easily double/triple the service time without any problem.

3 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Disclaimer: I am not an expert.

 

I...........................................but with LSA's I am not sure what he would upgrade to. Cirrus? Bush plane?

Cant help myself - ATEC Faeta Check out its proven performance & compare with what you have now.

OME:

TBO & Certification implies a manufactures confidence and on going support of an engine for a defined period (similar to a warranty). It also gives the manufacture some control/influence of how the engine will be maintained (& used) after sale, thus extending the QA program.

I think you will find that without the manufacturers support (ie within TBO) Rotax engines (probably all certified engines) the aircraft so powered can not be used for commercial gain. Aviation authorities, always willing to devolve responsibility,  have used TBO & Certification as tools to reduce risk (to themselves) where  commercial operations are envisaged

You will also find that Rotax (along with a number of other manufactures) has "certified" and "non certified" engine production running in parallel. I believe that there is no mechanical/quality difference between the two engines , just that the certified has a detailed history of construction. The certification, is an assurance programme to facilitate commercially application. 

"With in TBO"  & "Certification" also implies a maintenance regime and manufactures support within the times (however measured) that must be followed ie failure to apply the maintenance regime  will void TBO/Certification .

You are absolutely correct that TBO is used as a marketing tool  - unfortunately its estimation is not based on standard criteria - we all know of  engine (lines) that routinely require major intervention (repairs) to achieve TBO while others seem to get to the projected engine hours, with just routine servicing/maintenance.

I would question the practical usefulness of TBO in non certified engines.

The marketing aspect of TBO  has become the measure that we all apply to an engine for sale - (Non Certified application) how many hours has it done ? how many years has it got left? has a lot to do with the value applied - clearly the hours is a better measure (but still flawed) the calendar times not quit useless but not far off.

5 hours ago, BirdDog said:

So I find myself at a crossroads, with a few options to consider, and so, have a read below and throw in your 2 bob!

F.................................................................................................

 

ALSO here's a question.... When does the clock start on the TBO?  

 

 

BirdDog The TBO on your Rotax 912/914 engine is set by the manufacturer, BRP Rotax GmbH Rotax & Co (Rotax) also set out how this is to me measured ;-

• Calendar time; if your engine is a fairly recent one (I forget the manufacturing year) this will be 15 years. If an older engine could be 12 or less. For people that take some time between purchase & installation, there is an allowance, I think 2 years is the max befor the calendar starts.
• Engine hours/Hobbs time; Again set by Rotax , who  say this is from engine start to shut down (no other measure applies eg air time or oil pressure reaching a certain level indicative of high power). This has risen progressively up to 2000 hrs for more recent engines and less for older ones.

The above is a legally condition (on the owner).

It seems that most privately owned & operated Rotax powered aircraft will exceed calendar time long befor engine time.

Some (probably most) aviation authorities allow the engine to be operated past TBO "on condition" which usually prevents commercial use and has requirements for on going engine condition monitoring (eg annual/100 hr leak down testing)

1 hour ago, kgwilson said:

True like the dickhead who killed those kids in Wellington recently.

Let us hope that this is viewed, by the court, as pre meditated murder just as drink/drug driving has become (although this took years and a massive cultural change to achieve)

1 hour ago, Blueadventures said:

Can you get the bolts and drill the holes yourself? Get an extra one or two in case you muck up drilling’s the holes.  Make a drill guide jig to get the holes perfect. Cheers.  If you want post to me and I’ll drill them, but sure you will get it done locally.

Of course you can. All that stuff about damaging the bolts - tosh! you would have to be a complete nincompoop to generate that amount of heat. Pedestal style drill, cutting compound, good vice and patience.