skippydiesel

Contact me direct

Hi Nev - "and as mentioned by others" - that pretty well acknowledges all previous advice, dont you think?

I find this conversation quite concerning - X wind landings are something best discussed and demonstrated by your instructor and as mentioned by others, often practised to stay proficient.

Sorry about the typos - forgo to put my glasses on

FYI One agin people are being sloppy with technical English -  Electrical "Generator" is the common / generic name for a deice generating al electrical current. ALTENATORS and DYNAMOS are both generators

Taken from Wikipedia:

• Dynamos generate pulsing direct current through the use of a commutator.
• Alternators generate alternating current.

"

Point of clarification -  ULP... it has a much lower Reid Vapor Pressure (a much higher boiling point, to avoid boiling, or vapor lock, at altitude."

The altitude matter may be more of a concern for IFR pilots and pilots operating VFR in countries that allow operations above 10,000f.

In the Au summer, temperatures vapour lock is a real potential, to the engines disadvantage - I have found that it is a manageable issue by avoiding take offs when temperatures exceed 30C. On those occasions where I must take off in 30+C conditions I am very careful to do a long run up to clear any "gas", use as much runway as available,  and have an "abort" plan in the event of low engine power.

Some Rotax 912 installation's are fitted with oil and or coolant thermostats.  Mine doesnt have either.

I know of one person with an oil thermostat fitted , he swears that he gets a significantly faster "warm up" - makes sense.

I have often contemplated fitting one or both  - have yet to do so. Unlikely to make any difference to cruise/climb out temps and  the added complexity (potential failure point) worries me.

Probably more popular in the colder reaches of the northern hemisphere (or Canberra ha!)

Its common, in the colder months, for operators to partially block a coolant/oil radiator. The risk of course is then overheating but I guess that down to pilot attention.

Hmmmmmm - bit odd !!! Rotax recommend a "static"  (tied to the fence) minimum of 5200 rpm and the same for climb (for 912ULS).

f your static is 5500 rpm I would expect reduced cruise performance, poor fuel consumption and high WOT - perhaps your aircraft has a high empty weight? This might explain the need for such high static rpm.

If you have a CS prop, I guess you might expect something else again.

When I do my "run ups" its at 4000 rpm - much more on grass/dirt and I will be moving forward.

My take on your run up rpm fluctuations - suggest checking:

Wind velocity & direction 

Prop pitch adjustment

Carburettor synchronisation

Carburettor linkage slip

Carburettor malfunction

Change in fuel quality (unlikely) 

4 hours ago, Yenn said:

Mogas is good if you can get a consistent quality. I ran my RV4 on mogas for a short while and there was no difference in performance. I went back to Avgas because of the mogas affecting the proseal used in the fuel tank, Only ever used it in one tank and only had problems with that tank. Mogas can vary greatly in quality from different servos, which I think is a bit of a  gamble.

In about 600 hrs of Rotax 912 ULS flying  - NSW & into Qld - never had so much as a hiccup with ULP.  At "home" all 98 RON - "away "both 98 & 95 RON.. On two occasions, circumstance  had me try out a "shandy" of ULP/AvGas. No discernible performance differences.  Always tried for servo's that were likely to have a high turn over of fuel and if possible one of the main brands, but in the end fuelled up with whatever was available.

Hardly scientific observation but real experience.

Can an owner/Pilot do Scheduled Oil changes and Inspections on own Aircraft only used privately?

Or must this be done by an L1 or 2.

Just remember to enter ALL actions performed in the log book

Agree with the article, have had it demonstrated and practiced it with an instructor. It is a type specific thing. Unless you have trained for it and practiced it in your own aircraft, DON'T TRY IT.

I agree - further: the type of aircraft, its stall & glide speeds, are very much a factor in this manoeuvre. Your avenge GA "spam can" is unlikely to make such a turn/landing safely.

My limited understanding of the Balance Master (BM) is that it works to correct out of balance propellers - if your prop has been well static/dynamically balanced you are unlikely ti see any benefit from the BM. That is until your prop goes out of balance.

Lot's of "24" have faults that can be improved.

My take on why they are reluctant to provide letters of approval is because they don't want to admit liability or fault for the original setup.....for EVERY aircraft manufactured the same.

Which makes it hard to legitimately improve a poor design .......... when the mfg's response is to stick their head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.

One common issue I've seen on Rotax powered aircraft is WAY underspec battery to starter cable......probably to save weight.

Even high end euro designs having cable below Rotax recommended minimum spec.

Constant poor starting ends up with a failed "sprag clutch" which then costs thousands to replace.......

In my view you ae reading the "rules" far to rigidly - I can not believe that replacement of some thing as mundane as a battery cable should be a problem. The factory specifications are in the category of a minimum required ie you must replace with the same or verifiably higher spec.

The rules must allow for changes in technology or obsolesce, you can replace your battery with a higher performing one, as long as its physical dimensions fit within the cradle and there is no change to your weight & balance.

In my, admittedly limited experience, the manufacturer was cooperative when presented with a reasoned argument and a solution/recommendation - I would not bother them with a battery cable replacement.

Type 24 aircraft cannot be modified in any way without a manufacturers Letter Of Approval and manufacturers seem very reluctant to provide them.

No offence but I think this is in the category of a sweeping statement - not all manufactures are so rigid.

I had one on and noticed improvement. Took it off at present as a mate loaned me his dynavibe unit and the balance is close to perfect. And the engine feels great. I’m keeping the balance master as I will put it back on after next time I do a dynamic balance. Worth getting and fitting.

Just an idea - I agree 110% with you static & dynamic balance of your propeller. I would suggest tat you replace your "Balance Master" - if you happen to get a chip out of one blade,the prop will go out of balance, perhaps severely. The Balance Master may just get you home without shaking your aircraft and its components .

Other than being unsightly and smelly (an odour I dont mind) does the risk of cow pats coating your empennage worry you??

No offence taken - all advice welcome-

 

I have gone to considerable trouble to spark "arrest" my system - all electrical joints are double shrink taped.

 

............................................................................................................................................................................................

 

Yes there is still a risk but then leaving the ground is a risk, as is driving, riding horses,, alcoholic beverages and smoking substances, etc etc

 

Its all about management & acceptable levels - life is risky and I wouldn't want it any other way

I knew I had missed something:

My quest to find a less physical way of fuelling my aircraft.

In my mind, I have not aged but the mirror and my inability to hold 20 L of fuel at chest hight for more than a few minutes, tell a different story.

You talk of "risk" - well what risks are involved with a less than youthful old git trying to put fuel into his aircraft using a 20 L drum held at chest hight?

I can tell you.

Its all good as I hoist the 20 L up -Ssloooowly tip the opening/nozzle toward the funnel. Splosh splosh, gurgle gurgle... DAMN! I am starting to shake. SH........T its splashing over the side of the funnel. Every expletive I know - I have a fuel drenched leg - it stings it stinks and I dont have a thought about fire. Put the damn drum down -, take a brake, try again.

There is a better way and it may have risks but probably less than having carcinogenic hydrocarbons repeatedly splashed on large areas of aged skin, never mind the discomfort of the the smell or the stinging .

Skippy, you may have been using a Holley vane-type fuel delivery pump successfully for 5 years - but all I'm saying is, that your connections to the Holley pump are not explosion-proof, not certified for pumping petrol, don't meet any Australian Standard for petrol-pumping equipment - and you may find yourself in trouble if you start a fire, and damage results. Your insurance may not cover you.

 

IMO, the simplest and most foolproof method of fuel transfer involves a little air pressure. You only need 2-3psi to transfer fuel, and all fuel containers will handle considerably more pressure than that figure.

 

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/goatthroat.php

No offence taken - all advice welcome-

I have gone to considerable trouble to spark "arrest" my system - all electrical joints are double shrink taped.

My switch is similarly "coated" and on the end of a long lead.

My power supply is via long lead and Anderson plug in cockpit - connection is made befor opening tank, fuel can and only disconnected after all closed.

I have a earth connection to ground and the engine - aircraft is compost, as is tank, so no ground there.

I only fuel up with hanger doors open, keep fill spout down in funnel (low Oxygen) and suction spear almost fills the neck of fuel can.

This fuel transfers system is fully portable and goes away with me on long trips, for decanting 20 L fuel bladders.

Yes there is still a risk but then leaving the ground is a risk, as is driving, riding horses,, alcoholic beverages and smoking substances, etc etc

Its all about management & acceptable levels - life is risky and I wouldn't want it any other way

Hi One track .yes all correct ! you wont find me using an electric pump with wires dangling out of it near gasoline, unless the cable is double sheathed in stainless braid, the connection double strain relieved and fuel proof flex plastic over-molded into a pump with a failsafe internal barrier between the motor and the liquid housing. I agree there are safe pumps, but the hand pump us OK for me only 60-150 litres... . I'm not pumping 500 litres in. The certified intrinsically safe explosive atmosphere gasoline pumps with all their suitable wiring and connections all foolproof is not cheap. Call me risk averse, but fueling an aircraft with gasoline is a hazardous activity IMO, and hence I will do it in a suitable risk mitigated manner.

I bow to your academic knowledge - however with care & attention to detail ( remote switch, sealed pump, static line and well vented area) the risk is negligible. See my comment above.

You can utilise an electric automotive fuel pump, but the connections you install are the critical area. A properly-designed petrol pump is totally flameproof. Arcing at connection points is a real threat.

No "consumer level" electric pump is designed for pumping petrol, they all specify "diesel only".

The danger is in the fumes, not the liquid. Remember, petrol fumes in confined spaces have substantial explosive power - and even in unconfined spaces, they will start a fire from many metres away.

After you've watched a 200 litre drum, containing nothing but petrol vapour, travel 300M after it's been ignited (purposely, for demonstration purposes), you gain a whole new level of respect for the power in petrol fumes.

Sorry - Not true! I use a Holly type "vain" positive displacement petrol transfer pump - have had no problems over the last 5 years or so. You will find this discussion/photos etc elsewhere on this Forum

RF - Remember wear and tear does not just happen to engines.

In theory training aircraft go through many more "cycles" than privately owned ones. This suggests more rapid wear of parts subject to heating & cooling and stressed components like undercarriage & brakes.

Most of us know that engines are designed to be used, so hanger queens are not a good thing but then the other aircraft systems will be in great condition (not if its metal and lives by the sea)

Seems to me that the best bet (if you can find one) is a well used, privately owned aircraft, that had a comprehensive log book.

.....................................

 

Now, I need to look for a suitable hand pump , hose , caps. Will fit a big dog clip at the filling end so the output end of the hose can clamp to Mr Funnel edge.

Suggest 12V electric. Powered from aircraft battery or portable. Can be assembled from between $70 - $100 - you will find all the details on a prior conversation

Interesting - I too have used a filter funnel for perhaps 400+ hrs or so and although only a very very small amount, I consistently have contaminants in my fuel.

I use well sealed "plastic" fuel containers, fuel/oil grade delivery hose, have both ends of my funnel caped, when not in use and a petrol (rather than diesel) rated fuel pump, so the contaminants can only be coming in the fuel.

My aircraft's in line fuel filters rarely have any contaminants at the 50 hr inspections.

I have on occasion opened my ground based vehicle fuel filters and there is always a good quantity of contaminant trapped therein. True this can come from a range of sources not just the fuel.

I would speculate that, if you are using a Mr Filter Funnel, you are, in effect, washing out any contaminants, every time you empty the funnels "sump"

Whatever you come up with, make sure your enjoyment of other radio activity/recorded music, etc does nor compromise aviation related communication

Just this morning a saw some interesting potential firewall insulation in SCA Aerospace

Aluminized Cool It Mat 24"X48" Noise & Heat Insulator

Details

https://www.supercheapauto.com.au/p/thermotec-aluminized-cool-it-mat-24x48-noise-and-heat-insulator/SPO5044178.html

$117.99

Aeroflow Heat Barrier - 20" X 12" Sheet, AF91-6000

Details

https://www.supercheapauto.com.au/p/aeroflow-20-x-12-aluminised-heat-barr/SPO3822703.html

$64.99

Car Builders Heat Shield - Light Face, Thermal Insulation, PS_HSL_L_x1

Details

https://www.supercheapauto.com.au/p/car-builders-peel-and-stick-heat-shield-light-face-600-x-1060mm/SPO7481118.html

$122.00

Most seem to be available in different sizes