skippydiesel

I am running a Trigg transceiver/intercom, into David Clark, noise canceling, headset - annoying background clicking. Othered than experimenting with location (limited options in my case) has anyone come up with a fix?

Your greatest assurance with all aircraft is comprehensive records (log books) of how it has been maintained including any accidents. In my view comprehensive log books are worth every penny of a premium price. We have been brainwashed into thinking metal & composites are the only way to go but all materials have their problems; Metal fatigues & currodes. Aircraft "living" near the sea, in areas of sustained humidity, need to be viewed with suspicion. Unfortunatly aircraft types/models known to suffer from metal fatigue have usually been involved in a crash - have AD on components like wing spares. Composites are supposed to be very hard to assess. Plastic can spring back after an impact, leaving little evidence of damage. Repairs can cover weakness/damage, rather than restore structural integrity. Wood, generally does not fatigue, can under certain conditions rot. Rot, even so called "dry rot", is caused by moisture, as the result of lack of protection, poor sealing/varnish - "Dry rot occurs when Serpula Lacrymans fungal spores settle on wood with moisture levels in excess of 20%. Timber that is not already damp prior to growth will not germinate dry rot". Find your well maintained Jodel - it will be a beauty.😈

Just back from another fly - Found that Kiwis observations at correct. If I turn me head, can receive or block the clicks. Putting my hand up close to the SK2 also blocks the interference. Touching the instrument panel , not sure Turning off my noise cancelling has some effect but this could be background noise drowning the clicks. I am going to try a foil shield next time round - I will try & place/ size it, so as not to block the SK2's function. Seems odd that only you few respondents have come across this phenomena.😈

My sensitivity comes from you airing your incorrect and negative opinions in this "thread" which was my attempt to promote the sale of someone's aircraft - a posative act. " ...helping..." ????? I dread to think what your idea of not helping is. Your opinion (which you could have expressed privately) has done nothing but undermine my efforts to assist another pilot/owner sell his aircraft. You have proven over & over again you neither know the aircraft in question or the rules around 19 construction & maintenance. If I was in your shoes, I would be incredibly embarrassed and remorseful but no you plough on regardless of the damage you are doing. That you don't know about the weep holes speak volumes. Any aircraft that may retain water (however it gets in) must have provision to allow it to drain. As the builder you can nominate the Max TO weight - of course the builder should consider the factory/designers nominated weight but you don't have to adopt it. The whole point of being a homebuilder (19) is that it gives the flexibility to make modifications/customise your aircraft. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, it sounds to me that you are confused by some of the US rules around homebuits and or factory builds, either that or you are just trolling for the sake of your own amusement. Nasty! No more! 😈

"The problem is condensation inside the wing drops down and runs to the trailing edge causing them all to rot out." BS - If skin has been installed correctly there are "weep" holes all along the trailing edge. These with correct varnish of the wood frame, will prevent all but the most persistent water (as in a wing stored under a leaking roof). You really should get your facts straight before you put this sort of opinion into the public realm. "Regardless of what the owner thinks he can do with the 19 registered aircraft he is incorrect. You must still follow the manufacturer's guidelines to the letter." More BS - The builder IS the manufacturer. You are consistently mixing the rules of factory built and home built . "If an aircraft is built following a certified or accepted design then you must follow the maintenance schedule regardless of the registration category. " It just doesn't stop - The homebuilder (in Au) can do as he/she wishes. This does not mean that the aircraft will be passed as airworthy, when it has its final inspection before test flight but does imply a wide scope of modification and freedom to decide what goes in to the aircraft and how its maintained. Here is a simple example - Rotax 912 engines (not certified), fitted to a 19 aircraft, have a recommended service/maintenance regime. What happens when the owner fails to maintain the engine according to Rotax advice NOTHING. The ramifications (see below) may be severe but it aint against any law. Should an aircraft owner fail to maintain an aircraft in an airworthy condition, there may be insurance & liability consequences, in the event of an incident - this is a seperate debate.😈

Have you tried moving around the cockpit?😈

Hi Bosi72 "Since SE2 is light and portable, try moving it around until the interference is minimised, but it may never go completely away." Done! - "...............moved it about a meter, from where I had it and the interference went away" I seemed to have stumbled on the solution while at 5500ft however my interest/question is; have others had a similar experince?????😈.

I stand to be corrected: True anyone can go for their RPL and then use an RAA registered aircraft, to enter CTA. I am not sure why, I get the impression it may be a bit of a grey area. I know its done, have myself, I wonder what would happen if there was a serious incident, involving an RAA registered aircraft in CTA????😈

Blue, "MY present aircraft is my build #19 and I follow manufacture bulletins and advice." Commendable attitude - Good for you! "I will not follow your apparent disregard for designer factory advice about care for wooden wing and covering." Unfortunatly your commendable attitude/a tad "holier than thou" has led you to make an assumption & accusation that is totally wrong - I have not nor will I debate/list my maintenance activities, in an open Forum, for an aircraft that I no longer own. Nor will I do it for my current aircraft. I keep a detailed log book of all build, maintenance & repair actions undertaken (with photos). These records go with the aircraft and are not for public debate. 😈

It's actually happening!! We live in hope but don't expect anything to happen fast - this is a Government bureaucracy.😈

Today was my first proper in flight test for my SE2. It worked very well indeed. One small point - it seemed to be causing a minor radio interference (regular tapping sound). I know it was the SR2 because it stopped as soon as I pressed its off button. I turned it back on, interference, unstuck it, moved it about a meter, from where I had it and the interference went away. The first location was very close to my headset jack & my Dyon ADHARS module- ? Dont recall any reference to radio interference/location in the install instructions. Just wondering if anyone else experienced this???

No idea why you are pursuing this with such vigour & a hint of venum - RAA 19s are the sole responsibility of the owner to maintain/or have maintained in an airworthy condition. The recommendations of the component parts supplier/factory are just that, recommendations. This not a certified or factory build aircraft, the rules for such do no apply. If you acquire an aircraft (of this type 19) that has its genesis on the other side of the World, you do so with the understanding that factory support is likly to be nominal at best. How you interpret and act/or not, on factory recommendations, is up to the owner. Your "freinds" aircraft has been flying for about 30 years (l forget the actual rego date) was involved in one major accident - your friend purchased the damaged aircraft "as is". The photos, he has sent me, suggest he has done a terrific job in rebuilding it. I believe he has had it inspected (RAA?) prior to returning it to flight. He seems to be very pleased with his acquisition and confident that it is airworthy. I understand that your "friend" had a Zephyr, prior to acquiring my one. I don't know how long he had it for however if he is on the second model, it suggests a depth of posative experience/knowledge of the mark, that could easily exceed mine. Although no longer an agent for ATEC, I continue to be an admirer of the aircraft. As such I am happy to assist owners where I can - what more do you want? 😈

No idea - as all aircraft 19's, it's up to the individual owner to keep airworthy. You could try Dexter Berkill, ATEC Aircraft Australasia ,https://www.atecplanes.com.au/faeta.htm

246 views and not a single enquiry/comment. In the immortal words of one red headed fish & chip lady "Please Explain"😈

Europa is not a wing fold - its similar to a glider. The main spare overlaps & is secured inside the fuselage/cockpit. It's not so easy to do - the few who actually go down this track, build a jig or two, so that the wings can be removed/installed by one person. You will also need a custom designed trailer - started down this track with a 1975 Viscount Supreme caravan - used it to pick up my Sonex. Performance wise, the Europa and FS Storch are pretty much at opposite ends of the envelop/handling characteristics - interesting choices.😈

Agree with the inference made by Blue. As the builder, you can put a V8 & a dometic fan blade on the front if you wish - it may not pass its safety inspection or get off the ground but those are two other matters/hurdles. People have crafted their own prop - how did they manage to be aproned????😈

Hi Blue - the new owner, who put the aircraft back in the air after I had crashed it, is in touch with me, has all the documents (logbook etc). He knows he can consult with me at any time (which he has done) regarding the aircraft & its history.

I have always preferred to use 98 RON however this is so that I am sure that, in the event of fuel mixing/adulteration, I am using no less than 95 RON. 912 80 hp have a lower compression ratio compared with the 100 hp engine - the 80 should be far more "tolerant" of lower RON fuel than the 100 hp. Octane rating is about knock/pre ignition. How you load the engine has a significant part to play in knock generation - high load, greater chance of knock. Aircraft propeller pitch setting and angle /speed of climb are the principal (not only) contributors to knock. Rotax have recently changed their engine speed/MAP recommendations - Used to be that the engine should make no less than 5200 rpm STATIC @ WOT. This very safe simple easy to understand advice has been dropped in favour of https://aquila-aviation.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/SL_912_016R2_914_014R2_Rotax_Notes_engine_handling.pdf, a rpm/WOT chart/graph that the pilot/maintainer can select from. The chart shows diffrent results for 95 & 98 RON. The take home message is that 98 RON allows for a greater margin of operation/error than 95 however 95 is still okay to use, provided you operate the engine within the advised parameters.

I run 98 RON in my Rotax 912ULS - the last ULS, on away trips, occasionally, used 95 RON and once maybe twice, AvGas. The 95 & AvGas would have been plus whatever 98 RON was still in tanks (a shandy). Can't say I ever noticed a change in performance. I use 91 RON in my many mowers, chainsaws, sundry brushcutters, etc and a Suzuki paddock basher - Never a problem. My understanding has always been - use the grade of petrol that the manufacturer recommends. Sure you can go for the highest RON, if it makes you feel good - there is no performance or service life advantage/disadvantage. Of course you will pay more for the feel good factor. To get the best (take advantage of higher energy yield) from a higher octane fuel, the engine needs to have a higher compression ratio. I don't think the advice on this matter has ever changed.

My limited understand is; 95 RON has a narrower safe (non knock) rpm/MAP band. Is still okay to use subject keeping within the recommended rpm/MAP 98 RON has a much wider rpm/MAP band so will tolerate operating over a wider rpm/MAP range without fear of destructive knock (pre ignition)

Turbo; Are you really comparing a possible up to 1% ethanol contamination of 95-98 RON, with straight methanol???????? I remind you that Rotax approve up to 10% ethanol, subject to the rest of the fuel system being compatible. I don't think Rotax would do this if there was some possibility of this fuel causing a blockage/engine failure.😈

Nice idea - might give it ago. My wood one is a pain - leave it in for a smidgeon too long and the fuel migrates up. My perspex, finger on top type, is pre is pre marked, so level must be compared with a calibration chart - pain on the aft region!😈

"Not talking about E10 as it is appropriately labelled. I am talking about the Fuel Quality Standards Act which allows up to 1% Ethanol without labelling and commonly found (according to the fuel companies own data) in 95 and 98 RON fuel in Oz." If there happened to be up to 1% of ethanol in my 98 RON would I or anybody else notice??? The way fuel is transported (mostly tankers) in Australia, it makes sense to allow for very small levels of harmless contamination. It is impractical to expect otherwise. The question is, will this sub 1% actually result in free water contamination or any other performance inhibiting characteristics??? - the answer is no! The lead in AvGas is likly to have a more damaging effect, particularly on Rotax engines. Despite this, there are many advocates of AvGas (in Rotax) without a shred of evidence to suggest any improvement in performance below 10,000ft and only a marginal one above.😈

No offence intended - You Dont know what you are talking about. I love wood - it great. Has stood the test of time (we still have Tiger Moths, DC3 & I thing DH Mosquito's, etc,etc flying around). It's a wonderful material to work with - little chance of an allergic reaction, cacogenic exposure. It incredibly strong for its weight and easy to repair if needed. It has one aviation weakness - it does not like prolonged exposure to moisture/weather - best kept in a hanger (as the sale one has been all its life). First you miss quote me - I actually advised a pre purchase inspection. Then you assumed I had no experince in the model; I owned (12 years) flew and reconditioned, a much older Zephyr (possibly one of two original imports) than this one for sale. You went on to BS about a damaged aircraft; Damage through neglect or accident, should never be quoted/held up as an example of any aircrafts maintenance requirements - shame on you!. If I recall correctly Malcolm refurbished ONE aircraft (not several) that had been stored in a leaking container or shed for many years-hardly a good example for you to quote. Further the ATEC Czech factory recognises that Australia is not in the next valley and is very helpful/accommodating to the Au enthusiastic home builder/renovator.

To me 'Good Airmanship" is not only knowing & acting on the rules, it's also about courtesy. Courtesy is; Not just about keeping your aircraft safe by communicating appropriately, it's about the other aircraft as well. Recognising the dynamic nature of flying and being flexible (about the rules) when appropriate. Understanding that not all pilots are "top guns" - the other pilot may be under a lot of stress (low time/student/etc) and need some space/encouraging words. Speaking up when you think that an unsafe situaton may be in play.