skippydiesel

Are you using a 'Mr Filter' in this refueling procedure. If not I recommend using such. Cheers

Agree 100% with the sentiment however I find Mt Filter funnels to be virtually unusable in my application. You pretty well need a, close to, horizontal fill point for Mr Funnel to work. An expensive failure in my situation.

I have made up two filter funnel, using off the shelf funnels with long flexiable delivery spouts, bit of fencing wire bent into a hook and covered with shrink tape to prevent scratching paint work,

the same filter media (cloth) as the fuel stations and the another using a carefully modified in line filter. One for home one for going away.

I can now fill without having to hold the funnel.

 

The Turtlepac site is good. A must have. Thanks Skip.

Bit pricey but have been repeatedly tested to well exceed aviation standards - I guess you gets what you pay for. The principal Lazlo is quite the character, with many truly great adventures to his credit.

I feel for those youngins who have the desire to fly commercially it's pretty much a dead end road for the foreseeable future?

Just think of the "down stream" impacts on flight training and aircraft hire - There will b a "glut" of highly trained pilots, all looking for a job. No room for the "up and coming" . Even the economy will be depressed so fewer aspiring private/recreational students. Not the time to be in flight training ! Me thinks CV-19 will continue to negatively impact all aspects of the aviation sector, for at least 5 years (from end) and may still be being felt for 10 years.

On local then cross country...

At the moment, I fill up the airplane I train in at Cowra from the 98 bowser (in Cowra) into Jerrys and cart them to the airport, and fuel 'my plane', I do the alcohol test on new fuel, and and dump the bottom of the jerry cans .

 

Now, if I am planning a cross country, seems I need to either

 

a) go avgas : dump the MOGAS out of the system and go to AVGAS for the trip. Nooooo - its quite easy to plan a X country that will facilitate MoGas refills AND almost every airfield will have a friendly face to facilitate (just make a few advance phone calls)

b) stay mogas : have a sufficient endurance to en route via MOGAS availability either at the airport, or get into local town with a couple of 20 litre jerrys or transport bladders. Or carry extra inboard Thats the way - you will be amazed at how willing most locals are to help. I have even been lent the ute to go to town for a feed and to fill my 2 x 20 L bladders.

 

is this the general method ?

Regarding the "Or carry extra inboard" - Probably the best collapsible/bladder ferry tanks come from "Turtle- Pack" -https://www.turtlepac.com/ made in Qld - easy to fit in the passenger seat or in the "cargo" area. With the addition of a small transfer pump you can have 40 litres or more, additional in flight capacity

Related question

 

Is it better to put fresh 100ll in your Rotax and change the plugs and oil more frequently - Its not just halving the service interval (double the cost & inconvenience) of the plugs & oil - you will also need to have your gearbox/engine inspected & de-sludged at (from memory) the 1000 hr marker

 

or

 

fill it up with stale mogas which is what you are most likely to find at and airfield with very low turnover - I agree that it is better to purchase your PULP from a high turnover supplier (Servo)

 

compared to the local servo??

Mogas availability is a concern, it has a very short shelf life ( a couple of weeks). If it is 'Too old'

 

It can damage your engine.

 

I usually buy Mogas from busy Sevice stations.

I am surprised at you Planesmaker - the longevity of MoGas has been thoroughly debated in this Forum and the consensus is that

• MoGas can last for up to 12 months, in a sealed container @ 75% capacity or better, with minimal quality change.
  
• There is no evidence that MoGas that is even a couple of months old will damage your engine - may have impacts on ease of starting.
  
• You can "revive" MoGas in your aircraft tank, by adding fresh MoGas befor a flight - obviously this needs to be in advantageous proportion
  

Armidale NSW has a public servo within a few metres of the airport gate - just bring a collapsible bladder or two and fill her up

Hi Skippy,

 

Any tips on where to source the lightweight carpet and firewall blanket? I have to start thinking of cabin finish soon.

 

Thanks, Marty

Got mine from a Sydney wholesaler.

Go on line, find the stuff with a fire & UV rating (avoid anything else). When you know what you want Google suppliers.

Best to make your colour/texture/weight selection either by visiting the store or asking for sample swatches.

Ships Chandlers/Boat Supply are probably your best bet

I used three three different grades; a very lightweight flexible, for cabin walls etc , a denser heavier grade for floor mats and a slightly stiff black mat for an anti glare,on my instrument panel (dash) top

You will need nice sharp scissors, sharp craft knife or similar, a clean flat working surface, marking chalk (for drawing a pattern) and flat "square", strait edge & dressmakers measuring tape

This stuff, has no "grain" & cut edges do not fray, can be easily moulded & slightly stretched, if need be, around bulges/corners etc. "Dry" fit everything befor sticking

The side walls are all contact adhesive attached, (its easier to use the spray adhesive but you will need to do a preliminary coat on the fabric - let dry befor applying second coat) the floor mats and "dash" matt (black) are sticky backed Velcro (dont purchase the cheap no name stuff) in place-

For engine side - Proper fire wall "blanket" material needs to come from aircraft or race car supply. If you blanket the cabin side of the firewall, you could use a denser thicker version of the light weight stuff with "space blanket" glued on.

I would steer away from any automotive/boat heavy sound insulation - adds too much mass.

Like Walrus #15 - I can have a non shouted non headset conversation in flight (912 ULS). Active Noise Reducing headsets are not required

I would speculate (some experience): that composite aircraft, motivated by relativly slow turning propellers (Rotax 912 range) are likely to be considerably quieter than their metal relatives ("spam cans") with a noise gradient somewhere in between, for mixtures of construction/motivation thereof.

There are things that can be done to mitigate noise":

• Do not get sucked into a straight through exhaust system (keep the muffler) - there a few if any benefits for aircraft not used for racing and you will annoy all the "neighbours" you fly over
  
• Operate the engine at some comfortable point below max continuose cruise power - makes a big difference to vibration/noise and improved fuel consumption.
  
• Line the cockpit with light weight, fire retardant, carpet - cheap, comes in variose colours/shades, easy to apply and improved temperature insulation.
  
• Cover the firewall with a fire resistant "blanket" - addition benefits are reduced heat into cockpit
  
• Make sure all firewall holes/pass through's are well sealed - in addition to noise mitigation, reduces the chance of CO poisoning.
  
• Seal up canopy/fuselage gaps (gap sealing tape. caulking, replacing rubbers, etc) and keep vents closed, if not required - wind noise can be a significant noise generator on some aircraft.
  
• Etc
  

Until a few days ago I was in the LSA market to purchase. After an exhaustive search , much complicated by CV-19, I narrowed the field to two quite different aircraft.

The preferred aircraft, one that I was familiar with , had briefly flown, knew its history quite well, was eventually eliminated due to the owner's unwillingness to move on his asking price.

The second, an unusual type, I had admired, for probably 40 years - always wanted , never even been a passenger in one.

I conducted an exhaustive background check, got the (second) owner to respond to a long list of questions regarding maintenance, fit out, accident history, etc.

Contacted the factory & the president of the owners club. Down loaded the POH and read it through. Found & phone interviewed people who knew the aircraft, several others who had many hours of experience in the make/model - all good.

Eventually made a 20+ hr round road trip to inspect the aircraft .

Day befor - read through parts of the very comprehensive build log and the the Log Book - disturbingly brief.

Aircraft maintained by LAIM - in hindsight a bit "slap dash"

I conducted a three hour inspection of the aircraft, static checking every point on my long list - all very good.

Up to the point of engine start & taxi (with LAIM demo pilot) I had emotionally already purchased the plane.

From my perspective it was a disaster - probably a combination of poor carby sinc and prop balance but it was not a smooth running as a Rotax should be BUT WORSE the cockpit filled with exhaust fumes. I started to feel unwell - my pilot glibly informed me on occasions, he had seen the CO tab go black but it would clear when airborne. Still feeling nauseous, I tried to do some air work - slow speed handling (aircraft did not feel right to me) stalls etc but gave up feeling too unwell.

On landing the owner dismissed my concerns.

I was too disappointed and unwell to conduct a negotiation - perhaps if the owner had dropped $10k off the price, I would have purchased, knowing it was a work in progress but that didn't happen.

Took 2-3 hrs, with the window open, on my drive south/home to start to feel "normal" again.

In short my points are:

• Even an exhaustive "background check" may not highlight issues with the aircraft .
  
• Fly the plane - even if there are no airworthy issues it's flight characteristics may not be to your liking.
  
• Do not accept third party endorsements alone.
  
• Do not purchase, if you have even the slightest doubt - listen to your "gut"
  
• Lastly fly the plane (deliberate repetition)
  

I have imported about 4 aircraft over the years for my own use and have never been disappointed other than by the Australian side of the transaction ie. Assembly, CofA, instrument changes etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do not let the heart get in the way it is a business transaction, do not part with any money until proof of completion of each part of the deal can be confirmed.

Great advice - with the exception of country of origin - I am guessing but you seem to be focused on GA level aircraft (apologies if wrong) Quite possibly the best performing LSA/RAA aircraft & gliders come from Europe - so if you want one, you must deal with Europe. We have half the experience you have but so far importing from Czech Republic has been without incident EXCEPT for the absolutist horse s--t that happens on arrival in Au

I'm not 100% sure but possibly some instruments may need to be changed to "southern hemisphere" spec?

 

Could be expensive in a certified aircraft....

 

If it is a less common aircraft and there is an Australian dealer, you could be blacklisted by them for parts and sevice.

 

If you do need any maintenance or service, it may be cheaper to get it done before it arrives also....

 

If it is an LSA or going to be RAA registered, check that it will meet Aus standards. - As long as there are other aircraft, of the imported type/model, in Au all will be okay, subject to the private import meeting the same standards as the factory/dealer imports.

 

A few RAA aircraft imported have a lower mtow than Aust sold aircraft - As long as there are other aircraft, of the imported type/model, in Au that have been upgraded to 600 kg, the private import will also be at this TO weight.

 

And as OME said, your gst will be on everything......all the small things add up. Customs inspections, various BS warf fees, etc. - Yeah! licensed robbery

 

I think there were 17 different charges last time I brought something in, in a container.

Inspection/Fumigation of the container may be required at certain times of the year. If you want to avoid this cost - schedule departure for winter time, in the norther hemisphere (check details with Boarder Force)

Not at all Kyle - I believe the improvements, on the aircraft you have been "incrementing " with. I just wanted to find out if the same benefits translate to a less draggy air-frame.

I hope you will be able to try the E-prop on an aircraft that has similar characteristics to my Zephyr (currently in need of a prop but that's another story).

So if you get the chance: around the 300 kg empty weight, Rotax 912 ULS powered, max cruise 120 knots or so, econo cruise 110 -110 knots.

Hi Kyle - I dont want to get into a debate based on conjecture but the two "Reviews" you have quoted do not stack up;

1. They are not what I would call "first hand experience", or third party independent, being sourced from the E-prop web site

2. Both suggest there were problems with the "tuning" of the existing Fiti propellers, that should have been addressed first. Certainly before making a comparison with another prop.

3. The performance of MR (2020-02-20) Faeta is below expected norms, with both Fiti & E-prop, as to be quit concerning, although the E-prop has made significant improvement - there would seem to be problem with that aircraft.

I would like to see an independent review, where the existing prop had been "tuned" (static & dynamic balanced and if adjustable. pitched for best performance) compared with the E-prop similarly treated - performance for both props documented for TO role, Climb, Cruise for close to the same climatic conditions, aircraft weight, etc ie a fair & transparent comparison.

I guess the answer to my question #112 is no.

Hi OME - I think you will find Camden & Bankstown were sold off, by the Fed's, quite some years ago now. Now in "private" hands, I think Sydney Airports Co.

Post #89 has the specs recorded for a CTSW which is a high performance aircraft. They didnt supply any fuel specs. To be quite honest my opinion on the fuel is that it doesnt matter...in the schemem of things you get so many nm per dollar spent the difference is the airframe which determines the fuel consumption..drag is the measure for fuel consumption. It takes a certain amount of fuel to power the engine at a speed..the prop load will make a difference .... but really a litre extra or less in an hour does that really make a difference. If the fuel consumption was really 20% or greater worse then you would be seriously thinking

Thanks Kyle - no offence to anyone/aircraft but 89's CTWS figures do not seem to be much of an improvement on the specifications I found on Flight Design web page or on Wikipedia.

As you say - fuel consumption at a given air speed & rpm is a measure of energy needed to deliver the performance quoted. As such it is a valuable "tool" in assessing performance. When comparing like aircraft I think it would be fair to say fuel consumption will indicate,

to some extent,the ability of the propeller to convert the fuel energy to forward motion

Kyle - any first hand experience with the E-Prop performance improvements, when fitted to more "slippery" aircraft ? - existing economic cruise 100-110 knots @ 12.5-13.5 L/H - max cruise 120 knots @ 17-18 L/H

I owned a FS Texan for five years, it had good performance without being an expensive toy. Owners swear by them as simple and practical. I would have another.

There you go -another satisfied "plastic" plane" owner. Looks to have a good cross country cruise and at the same time a nice low stall.

 

I still fail to understand why people pay absolutely vast sums of money to buy European ultralights. Have to disagree Onetrack - True the Jabiru fleet (& others) represent great value for money BUT some of the European composite aircraft are not that much more expensive (assuming similar avionics/prop value) and in most cases are far more capable aircraft, having lower stall combined with higher cruise (not so long ago this was considered near impossible). Other features often associated with EU composites are Rotax power - quiet operation (both cabin & eternal), smooth running, great fuel and operating economy.

 

Sure, they're slippery, but they're also lightweights, Yes they are often light weight, frequently with an empty weight of around 300 Kg

 

they come with the added burden of extraordinary parts and servicing costs, and there's never any immediately-available parts. . No the service/maintenance cost is usually lower than a comparable metal aircraft. Thanks to the composite air-frame, there is very little maintenance required . The Rotax engines fitted to most, are expensive (compared with Jab) to purchase but would seem to be cheaper to operate. Engine parts are readily available and cost effective, through the Au Rotax agent B Floods, or can be sourced from overseas. Air-frame parts -the only wearing parts that I am aware of are brake components and so far I have had no supply issues.

 

All that to gain some speed advantage? Its not just speed - for a given engine horsepower/fuel consumption, a faster aircraft is usually more fuel efficient (cheaper to fly). If the same aircraft also offers very low stall & exemplary low speed handling, this has safety benefits in the event of a crash, make's marginal/short landing grounds a safer option and potentially, cross wind landings easier to manage.

 

IMO, there are numerous locally-built aircraft and kits that have higher MTOW ,At the moment , I believe we are all limited to 600 kg MTOW. True not all Eu aircraft have been certified to 600 kg but many have. So for those that have 600 kg this will be about 300 kg of Pax/fuel/luggage - pretty good!

 

at the simpler and more robust construction and components, You cant get much simpler or robust than a composite air-frame & undercarriage.

 

and which provide far better value, Depend on what your expectation are for the aircraft

 

for a lot less money spent. Of course you can pay less, if you can get what you want, congratulations. Yes you can pay upwards of $250 K - if your tastes run to very exotic avionics, leather interior, auto pilots, constant speed prop & retractable undercarriage, with go faster paint scheme, to top it all off - again if you can afford it and that's what you want, great! Most of us are not so financially blessed, so something in the $100-170 K is more what we are about.

 

The choices are yours - I regret, the more efficient aircraft, all seem to come from an other land (not Australia).

My preference would be to own an Au aircraft, whose performance envelope, could equal or better, those currently only available from overseas - I stand to be corrected but I dont think there is one.

Vne 180 knots

Vh 162 knots

Vsr 35 knots

"Suuuuper attractive

Amazing what can be achieved with composite construction and once again by the Czech/Europeans - they seem to be leading the charge to ever expand the flight "envelope" of ultra light aircraft.

Great empty weight. Max take off could possibly be upgraded to 600 kg in Australia - potentially giving a lot more load capacity

Fuel consumption figures would be interesting. Using quoted range/capacity it is using 18.5 L/hr. At stated speed, that is giving the equivalent still air 8.76 l/km or 5.33 L/100 km - excellent fuel consumption. For Au conditions it is at least 50 L below competitors fuel capacity.

Terrific cruise speed - for credibility, would need to be verified by interdependent third party

Great stall - courtesy of very capable looking "Fowler" type flap system.

Only 18 knots between Cruise & Never Exceed speed - a bit concerning

Strangely the propeller has a max operating temperature of 40^C

With retractable undercarriage, I think I would want to restrict operations to sealed or very smooth grass runways, however trailing link may mitigate rough surfaces - be interesting to find out.

How did you manage to take my post as been against Mark as the agent.

I wrapped he is and will be looking into getting one in the future.

Mark has posted true experiences from people who have test flowen with these props, not just taken convenient figures off some website.

My apologies - my reading of the post (s) referring to Mark, suggested to me, that he is the agent for E-Props - my mistake. Oh! & by the way, I too only quote, my own experience or other reliable source figures.

Hope so

Hi Mark - BE FOREWARNED! it seems to be open season (in this Forum) on anyone who might be trying to sell an aviation product - no matter how objective your advice or how good your product.

Skippy, don't worry about it......seems that you have been nominated as the new whipping boy since they flogged Don out of the way.

Ken

Thanks Ken - you have restored my faith, shaken by some proceeding commentators, in human nature.

I dont know why I bother with this baseless attack but will give it another shot, just to be polite if nothing else.

Everytime (Gross exaggeration) someone mentions an aircraft Skippy, you jump straight up on your soap box deriding it (Please back this statement with a quote(s) or withdraw it) and promoting the aircraft YOU ARE SELLING. (Only if doing so may add to the debate)

I'm just really starting to get sick of it...... (Entirely your prerogative to mention your ill health your point is ...?)

I'm not on this site to listen to your self promotion in EVERY THREAD at EVERY OPPORTUNITY. (Again gross exaggeration, I actually only participate in a few conversations/threads, where I feel I have something to contribute. Most of my contributions have nothing whatsoever to do with selling or promoting aircraft and have everything to do with sharing experience in engine maintenance, etc)

I try to be tollerant but it's getting out of hand and bringing my overall enjoyment of this site down. (It would seem that you dont like/approve of debate, would dogma may be more your "cup of tea"?)

Rather than running with the pack, energised by hearsay - try actually reading what I have said in my contributions. You will find I do not deride or run down other aircraft - they all have their place, I try for factual statements. I try to be polite and not make personal comments. I may attempt a little humour and occasional sarcasm. I stay away from emotive statements ( eg I'm just really starting to get sick of it"...."I try to be tollerant"... "you jump straight up on your soap box" ...etc) as these do not in my opinion contribute to balanced debate. I am ready with an apology or acknowledgement of an incorrect statement/understanding.

Every reader of this Forum has the prerogative to question unlikely aircraft performance claims - this is not "deriding" the aircraft, which makes no claims, but is a "call out" to the claimant. If you dont like the resultant " heat" dont make claims you cant substantiate.

If you want to criticise me or my product, try factual, truthful, balanced comments - if you can.

They can load salt water in open sea swell (up to 1.5m) as when they put on a show on the Gold Coast 10 years ish ago.

I stand partly corrected - but my concern over sea water being used routinely, still stands as does the distance of the water from all but coastal fires. One of the 515.s claimed attributes is their ability for fast turn around, compared with other aircraft. This will be significantly degraded if they must load like non amphibious aircraft.