skippydiesel

Perennial debate - Do small aircraft lights (strobes/wigwags) actually confer a significant benefit for aircraft to aircraft (air to air) visual capture in day VFR conditions???? Many say yes, especially if using modern LED technology. Past research says no, however may not have been done with modern lighting LED systems. There is no doubt that lights are effective for seeing an aircraft from the ground or in low light (VFR?) conditions but air to air????? We instinctively think that lights will improve an aircraft visibility, we compare with ground based vehicles and argue something is better than nothing - none of this is science based. Current Australian regulation do not require day VFR aircraft to be fitted with lights - I believe this to be a reflection of the research ( as stated may be out of date) Personally I think that the best visual capture system, for day VFR, is good radio communication - this gives the pilot a clue as to the other aircraft location in space, thus minimising the area to be searched.😈

If your a VFR day only pilot - save your $$$$😈

" The cable price is $1488.30. WOW!!!! that hurts & I'm not even the purchaser😈

I try not to make dogmatic statements, however in this case both your instructors are just wrong. "....never used unless there was an engine problem that needed sorting out inflight" The whole point of carby heat is to preempt an icing problem - it may be far too late to fix a carby ice problem, once symptoms occur, as availability of hot air may have already reduced and time to clear ice, may be insufficient to prevent forced landing. "For every take-off, landing and maneuvers both were turned off." Carby heat on take-offs is a highly unlikly scenario - high engine power and icing do not usually go together - so okay not to have on. Always use fuel boost pump (if fitted) on take-off/landing and when conducting manoeuvres were a failure of the mechanical fuel pump may jeopardise continued safe flight (close to terrain)😈

My comment only applies to engines fitted with an in flight, pilot controlled, carby heat system. My current Rotax has the liquid heated inlet manifold - so no in flight carby heat control.😈

Great news/terrific report Moneybox. One small point (can't help myself) "Even though I was taught to not use the carby heat I pulled it on when turning base and off half way down final." I have no idea who or why you have been taught not to use carby heat - makes no sense to me. If the aircraft you are flying, is fitted with carby heat, it should be used. There is no down side to the correct use of carby heat - basic safety / common sense. Make using carby heat a safety habit. Correct use - in flight, carby heat should be used before reducing power ie you likly reduce power on descent to circuit height or on down wind, before slowing to safe flap speed, before practising stalls, etc. For best power delivery, carby heat should be closed ie as you did, on final, just in case of a go round. Reasons - Your carby heat (hot air)is likly comming from your exhaust system. When you reduce power, your exhaust system will cool quickly ie its ability to deliver hot air to the carburettor inlet is reduced. Apply carby heat when exhaust at high temperature. When you you close the throttle, there is an increased chance of carby ice formation. Apply carby heat when carburettor delivering high power. I have experienced carby ice, before first flight of the day, in the run up area. So far never in flight. 😈

No nibbles???? Price? - check out one from a retail outlet. I am open to negotiaton😈

Hi Flyboy19660, I beg to differ as to the cause of automotive bottom radiator hose collapse; Older cooling systems (before two/way radiator caps & overflow reservoirs), in which the expansion tank is the top section of the radiator, were prone to bottom hose collapse. The cause is primarily (not exclusively) due to overfilling the radiator. When the engine runs/gets up to temperature, the coolant expands & the surplus liquid is forced out of the radiator via the one way cap. When the engine cools, the coolant returns to its preheated state (shrinks). The radiator cap closes and a strong vacuum is created in the cooling system. This vacuum plus any pump action (as you have mentioned) and often the length/diameter of the bottom hose, all acts together to collapse it. The solutions are: Only fill & old style radiator to the top of the coolant tubes ie leave a significant space above the tubes for coolant to expand (expansion tank). Combine the above with a reinforced bottom hose - internal reusable spring or spring part of hose construction. Note: In a poorly designed cooling system (UK cars very prone) combined with an unusually hot engine, sufficient coolant can be driven of as steam, causing the above problem, even when the correct amount of coolant has been added. Modern coolant recovery system do not have this problem, due to the two way radiator cap (hot ciilant can escape & return when system cools) & coolant reservoir returning coolant to the system, thereby minimising the chance of a significant vacuum being created. Rotax cooling systems use the modern two way cap & coolant recovery reservoir system😈

I await the results with great 😈

Saga continues. Managed a 1.7 hr flight with new daughter in law today. 30C on ground - 14C @ 6500' - very nice. Spectacular view to south & east. Sydney (north) obscured by what, I assume, is fire smoke. First problem - pax headset not working properly. No need for pax to hear anything. Departed - The Oaks - Wedderburn (3500")- Port Kembla (500' beach run south) - Shellharbour - (6500') Mittagong (some additional mucking about Burragorang Dam/Lake)- The Oaks (2500' - down to circuit ht 1900' - Landed). Once again - no aircraft close enough to test AvTraffic and headset Bluetooth adapter I have one more hour flying before the 200 hr service, that will take me considerable time to work through the schedule, so don't know if I am going to prove/disprove the AvTraffic/Bluetooth any time soon😈

One of the many things that I like about this Forum, for the most part members are tolerant, only very occasionally does someone make a "thing" about my spelling foux pas. 😈

It's pretty bad when my brain doesn't recognise the error mm/nn😈

Connunicaton - a new word that can be used in place of Communication (especially when the dyslexic dont proof read) 😈

I just gave you an example of an engine in continuous power demand. Briggs and Stratton manufacture 10 million stationary engines per year. You wrote a story based on the words. The design of the two types of engines are based on the Industry Constant Power Demand/Intermittent Power demand terms. My apologies, if I stepped on the misuse of words, by industry. Not an uncommon situaton, often created by the marketing department. I don't recall you mentioning B&S - a much respected builder of small air cooled engines - sometimes used in very light aircraft. I do not actually see the relevance of your comment, to what you have just writen or to the general thrust of my comments, ground based engines V aircraft engines. Still, I would like someone to either factually agree/disagree, in part or whole, with my observations😈

Quite a good article from Flight Safety Australia; Dangerous dialects | Flight Safety Australia I don't recall advise , in the article, about asking for clarification, if confused by or missing part of, a transmission.😈

I think you misunderstand me- I tried to be careful with my use of language. The often used, dismissal of auto engines, for use in aircraft, is that the auto engine is not designed for a constant power application. Aircraft do not operate at constant power, any more than auto engines ie the power is adjusted by the operator for diffrent stages. At a constant power, yes! for one part of the stage, Cruise. Sure their power use cycle differs in its application & frequency - with the exception of aircraft that spend most of their operating life in the circuit (more like a town car), the Cruise (low constant power) tends to be longer relative to the TO/Climb (high) & Descent (low) power bit like a car towing a caravan on a freeway. As I pointed out - Ground based vehicles are generally supported against the effect of gravity on wheels. This means they do not need to expend energy to stay aloft, as an aircraft must, instead most of the engines energy is devoted to delivering horizontal movement. So in Cruise (not towing anything) the engine can "loaf" delivering just enough power to mainatine speed. An aircraft in Cruise, will usually have the power reduced in Cruise (just like a car) but must still deliver sufficient energy, to forward motion/speed, to stay aloft, in addition to its assigned Cruise speed. Ground vehicles are subject to constant changes in slope. Aircraft tend not to be (unless doing aerobatics), So ground based vehicles will have frequent changes in power to mainatine a contestant speed - this is likly to be detrimental to a long service life as heat generated, likly to fluctuate (cooling/expanding) along with power demand. Liquid cooling will assist in reducing this effect but can not be 100% effective. Ground based engines, that spend relatively long periods in work, (trucks, taxi's, etc) often have remarkably long service lives due to near constant operating temperature. This suggests the other argument (short operating life), against auto engines in aircraft, is also based on urban myth. I think you will agree, that there are significant number of auto - aircraft engine conversions, that undermine the traditional argument against such application. That the auto engine is usually "tweaked" (Onetrack) does not change the fact that the engine is at its core the same engine. Tweaking is no diffrent from say shortening the oil change/service regime or removing unnecessary (to aircraft) accessories/fitting, adding a gear reduction, changing the ignition timing, to better reflect the duty. One one more speculation; For a truly successful auto conversion, a gearbox will be required so that engine & prop can operate at their optimum rpm. this is where the power to weight argument against auto engines comes in - this can also be dismissed - example Rotax. Personally I would prefer to fly behind an engine designed for my aircraft. Trying to "tweak" an automotive engine to have similar performance/reliability, may be doable but why bother? The "tweaking" likly to raise the cost (time & $$) to something not to dissimilar to a dedicated aero engine. Once done there may be savings in parts, fuel economy performance smooth, quiet operation, feeling of achievement, etc ??? 😈

Onetrack "You are showing ignorance and an overwhelming belief in your own "knowledge", which is different to the manufacturers advice and systems." Try not to make judgements of people you don't know - You are demonstrating your ignorance, in more way than one , in the above statement "Each engine application, despite using the same basic engine, can have multiple dozens of subtle design changes and different internal components - and vastly different power ratings, RPM ranges, and fuel settings, and even engine timing." The above statement is of course correct and supports my contention that IC engines are for the most just that. The tweeks you refer to, are to optimise a given engine, for a given use, its still the same basic design as all the other "subtle" variants in it's "family". Tweeks are the norm for many engine families - eg Rotax 912 80hp - 914 115hp- essential the same 3 engines. 6 cylinder Cummins (forget the family) were used in trucks, marine & all sorts of industrial applications - same engine. With the exception of engines that are used for application like pumps/generators /agriculture (almost constant power demand) all engines are subject to similar power changes through an operating cycle ie TO /accelerate -high power, Cruse - constant power, Descend/slow - low power. Its the frequency that differs not the cycle. It could be argued even pump/gen/agricultural engines must accelerate to full required power and slow when shut down, however the relative time at each end of the cycle is so short as to have little relevance to the power demand. The often used argument that aircraft engines are diffrent to automotive because they run at near constant power is demonstrably incorrect - which is what I said/illustrated. If you were to argue that aircraft engines must be designed & maintained ti a higher standard, than automotive, to reduce the potentially catastrophic result of failure, I would agree with you. However its is obvious that certain automotive engines can be successfully "tweaked" to performer reliably in an aircraft. 😈

Speculation: There are not many engines designed specifically for generators/bore pumps. Most will be the same engine used in a range of commercial applications eg truck, dozer, tractors, marine, etc

I don't have any experience of the Avid Flyer or the clones you have mentioned. I do have experince of 912ULS mounted in a ATEC Zephyr & Sonex Legacy . Rotax make an engine Ring Mount that must be connected to the firewall frame/mount via 4 vibration (rubber) isoltaters. Two frames. This is the best & most costly arrangement. Good second hand ones do come up for sale. Talented people are know to make their own . The Zephyr used an ATEC factor mount, The engine frame, mounted to 4 points on the engine via rubber vibration isolators, went back to the firewall ie one frame. Worked well. The Legacy has Rotax to Arovee engine mount adapter - two double rails, separated by 4 rubber isolators. This is what I think is called a "bed mount". It connected to the bottom of the engine. Workable but not ideal for the Rotax, which generates considerable rotational torque, producing significant movement, particularly on shutdown/start up. Sonex has recently developed a firewall Ring Mount connection for the Rotax engine Ring Mount (purchase from Rotax) - a much better system for the 912. 😈

I remind you of ; VW/Mercedes diesel/Honda/Suzuki/GM?/etc (then there are the small engines B&S/Kawask etc) that have been successfully modified for use in aircraft. Yes most, non commercial, ground based vehicles will be loping along at very low power demand when in cruise. Bit diffrent when I when tow a fully loaded double horse float (estimated at 2.5-3 tonne + built in headwind) with my Ford Ranger, I can easily cruise at 110 kph, on the flat, up most freeway hills, occasionally being reduced to 90-100 kph. The ute is under load all the time - just like an aircraft. Same goes for most agricultural engines - they can be under load for many hours in a day.

Thank you for bring me up short on this BrendAn. I apologise to those who may have taken offence. On reflection, I feel ashamed of allowing myself to be sucked in by the unwarranted personal attacks on me (TROLLING?) in this thread. I draw your attention to the personal comments (not addressing my observations of the SE-1) that start quite mildly, on page 2, get progressively more personal & insulting from then on. It is both expected and fair, that an opinion you do not agree with, or wish for expansion on, should be challenged - its not reasonable that this should deteriorate into a personal attack. Having heard no logical/factual comment to the contrary, my opinion of the SE-1 has not changed. I would not purchase one, all the best to those that will or aspire to. 😈

Interesting - hold a mirror up & Dogs don't even recognise themselves😈

Which one (s) of the old blokes is the Dog Pack?😈

If your so adamant that I don't make a single good point ("rant") Why do you keep the conversation going??😈