skippydiesel

Some thoughts on Cue International;

A private airstrip strip only needs to be as wide & long, as you & your aircraft can safely operate from at Max TO weight. 

If possible, it should be aligned with the prevailing winds, however it may be that from time to time you will need to consider a TO/landing with a cross wind and if operating direction limited, a tailwind.

Take into account;

• Runway surface - loose will affect braking distance. Dirt,will be impacted by rain. Grass will extend TO role. Etc
• Surrounding obstructions - from your photos my guess is that trees unlikly however significant natural terrain(rises/gullys) and man made creations (heaps/structures) should be considered.
• Where you will put-down should you have an engine failure

It may pay you to have a run-up area/pad that can be kept free of loose dirt/gravel/etc to reduce the chance of damage to prop & airframe.

Operational safety. not only depends on the length/width, aircraft capabilities but also on your preflight decision making (risk analysis).

Should you allow  aviation "friends" to fly in be sure that they have a complete understanding of the strip, its limitations & hazards. 😈

One of my local flight schools uses exclusively Jabiru aircraft - all parked outside, most for very many years now. Only one or two with some very basic shade. The external surfaces are no longer shiny but appear to be in good order. 

I am impressed by their weather resistance.

What sort of composite are Jabs made of ??😈

OzRunways has a very handy W&B calculator, that can be customised for your particular aircraft. Very easy to use, instant report on in/out of balance.

Word of warning; Computer W&B calculation aids, are only as good as the information put in 😈

Saved by another pilot.

Called in to the Sydney Recreational Flying Club, on the way to my Sonex - mentioned the need for small amount of 2" (51mm) ID SCAT. A member & gentleman,  said he had he had some unused pieces I could have,  he drove drove off, returning an hour later with the stuff. How good is that???

I used the donated SCAT, minus wire, to make two short (35mm) cuffs. Fitted perfectly to airbox/carbs, with a small amount of slack in middle for movement  & secured with nice thin hose clamps - job almost done. Looking good. Will finish off during the week & go fly.

My thanks, to all those who made suggestions/gave advice😈

4 hours ago, danny_galaga said:

Nope. I'm tired of working on it. If it's safe, I'm flying it as is 😄

Aspirational my friend - when you find it flies with a bit of yaw, or there will be less vibration if you do a dynamic prop balance, there is an annoying noise/draft, etc etc, I guarantee you will scratch that itch😈

Most of the silicon hose/ducting, I have found on the net, is quite heavy & thick - aimed at intercooling & the like. 

I specifically need, lightweight, good hear/fuel resistance & as flexible as possible so as not to impact on the carburettor being able to move/absorb vibration.

I may have to use SCAT with the coil removed.

I have written to a lay flat fuel hose supplier that has the necessary 51 mm(2") ID hose which may be suitable.

In the meantime I have some Gates, automotive, aluminium, concertina ducting that will do the job for a while (longer?)😈

30 minutes ago, Moneybox said:

Now onto something different. I'm going to need a flight computer, if not to navigate certainly to pass the written test. I spotted the CX-3 and got excited but a friend told me 'No electronic aids during the test'. So back to the EB6. Are all brands equal? Is there good and bad or best?

It's a long time since my PPL & RAA conversion when no electronic navigation devices (ED)were permitted (weren't available for small aircraft). I hear (on this Forum) that  all sorts of electronic devices are permitted  by SOME training establishments. 

I think the question is , does RAA permit ED's during exams/flight tests???😈

I only need about 30-40 mm flexible (must not transmit any load/restricton on the carb) straight (no bends) ducts between my air box & carburettor flange.

Despite my hope, the SCEET does not seem to be the right choice for the job.

Suggestions welcome.😈

Yeah! Great job. 

If anything like my Sonex, you will now spend the next  (?) months optimising many of the systems😈

Gave it go yesterday - SCEET does no behave the way SCAT does (in the videos) - the wire does not come away without causing damage to the inner membrane/lining

HELP NEEDED

I have my SCEET, Dash 8, 2' ducting.

I would now like to cut it to length, prepare & install it.

Naturally I have Googled how to do this. So far have only found SCAT video/information on how to.

SCEET has an inner membrane/lining (SCAT does not) making the SCAT videos of academic interest only.

Anyone able to help????😈

19 minutes ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

"The "plastic" is a Thermosetting Resin, usually Polyester Resin."

 

It could also be epoxy resin, Polyester is so last century.   Need to follow your good advise and check with the manufacturer!

That's interesting - I was advised to make my cowling out of polyester,  it's supposed to have greater heat tolerance than epoxy. I know very little about composites, so I just followed the advice of my local composite materials supplier.😈

1 hour ago, FrankPilot said:

No, which Is mainly why I at age 74 swapped over to Class 5. Class 5 means that there are certain restrictions on your flying, like only 1 passenger, not above 10,000’, no night flying, no IFR, no acrobatics, no formation flying etc, but all those were ok for me. Cheers.

Remarkably similar to RAA😈

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

.........Then there was the guy who bought Ford oil hose from Supercheap, and down he went. Good forced landing but a lot of damage. I can remember him saying "God made sh!t; Ford turned it into cars.

Seems to me the moral of this story (fictional or true) is don't use materials equipment on/in your aircraft that you don't know meet/exceed the manufactures standards.

If in doubt purchase OM  products😈

I used to do the hose clamp/safety wire thing on my oil filters (piece of mind) however now on my fourth filter without and so far none of them have moved😈

4 hours ago, Moneybox said:

I'll get to it shortly. 43° forecast today so I'm busy getting some welding done on the carport before I reach meltdown. I've been looking at the Rotax site and most seem to fit a coper washer even though it's not allowed. The plug is wired anyway so even if it was to loosen it would never come undone.

I have used the same size copper crush washer, as used on the oil tank drain, perfect fit, on my last & this new 912ULS. May not be required but satisfies my mechanical urges and will do no harm. I agree that the washer is not required to make a oil tight seal, however having the crush washer means you don't have to tighten the magnetic plug to the recommended torque - makes it nice & easy to remove/inspect, at your 100 hr service or earlier if you wish.

On removing the old hex socket style magnet plug - I did this on my last engine. Be sure to have the new style ready to put in, as you will likly trash the old one. From imperfect memory, I employed all the "tricks' mentioned above, to get the darn thing out - in the end it was careful use of a cold chisel that cracked the seal (if it had had a copper crush washer it would not have been a problem).

7 hours ago, Moneybox said:

https://decalinchemicals.com/products/decalin-runup-fuel-additive/

 

Decalin RunUp is approved for use with the new 100VLL (Very Low Lead) fuel announced by the FAA on Special Airworthiness Bulletin NE-11-55. 

Hi Moneybox,

What is your interest in Decalin?

It's been around for quite a long time - seems to be aimed at minimising lead deposits in aircraft using leaded fuel.

I do hear of Rotax owners, using predominantly/exclusively AvGas, spruiking its efficacy.

As far as I know, its use in Rotax engines, does not extend the 600 hr gearbox inspection, when Avgas is used.

Better to stick with ULP and avoid the added cost & bother of Decalin😈

Onetrack,

 I think I said "how can the same engine run equally happily on either Australian or US petrol"  - "happily" in this context means without apparent problem/loss of efficiency. If the fuel was "vastly" diffrent I doubt the engine would be happy. 

40 odd years ago my boss had a very high performance Fiat (can't remember the model). He pinched what he thought was petrol from the farm bowser - diesel. The car somehow traveled about 5k before he realised there was a problem. When I got the call for help, arrived some 20 minutes later, the car was still sort of running - wouldnt turn off. We used to call this "dieseling" proving your point,  that a high compression spark ignition engine, can start on petrol and continue on diesel (or shandy theroff). We got the engine stopped. The internal damage to the engine rendered the any thought of repairs uneconomic - I would not say it ran happily.

I would categorise your knowledge, in particular the historical developments, as being far greater than mine , if not expert than not far off.

Despite your superior knowledge, I still dont think whatever regulatory additive differences there are between US & Au petrol, the practical differences are minor resulting in no discernable (to the user) performance differences.

I do understand that the colder parts of the US & the World, have winter fuel formulations, to cope with the very low temperatures - this could be another topic in itself, does not have much application in AU.

Hi Marty,

Propeller thoughts;

Before fitting your blades - weigh each in total (vertical if will balance on scale) and at each end by using a "bridge at the non scale end. You will need a good solid flat surface out of any drafts to do this.

Compare weights - If single bled heavy, adjust the heavy blade down.  If single blade light add weight. If blade root hollow, this is where weight can be added. subtracted

When adjusting pitch angles; If your blades are a friction/clamp fit ie can be rotated with loose clamp, try using a smear of Carnuba Wax on the root. This will allow you to apply some clamping pressure, while allowing smooth movement of the blade. This will reduce over/under adjusting movement and the tendency for the blade to change pitch as the hub is tightened.

Balancing of the engine carbrettors (static followed by dynamic) is a must but will not help an out of balance propeller.

Have your propeller dynamically balanced - you and your engine will be glad you have this done.😈

Hi Marty, 

I am a tad disturbed by photos of a fuel tank with what looks like short piece of fuel hose with some other (plastic?) hose pushed into it - is this your kit suppliers recommended practise.

Further hose concerns - in one or more photos, there were semi transparent hoses depicted - these are rarely suitable to be in contact with fuel.

On 21/12/2024 at 10:44 AM, Thruster88 said:

Calibration is done with a correction card, like a compass card. 1/4 =20litres etc.

Far easier to calibrate the gauge.

Choose your increments  eg 5L

Make a blank card in the shape of an arc, to suit the gauge - could go under glass or over

Add 5L mark position of pointer on gauge card 

Repeat until tank full.

You now have a calibrated gauge.

As other have noted DO NOT RELY ON THE GAUGE TO REMAIN ACCURATE - always cross check with dipstick or sight gauge.

Onetrack,

I have to call you out on this statement:

"................fuel and refining standards are vastly different between the U.S. and Australia.

You are clearly the expert on Australian fuel BUT  "vastly diffrent" ???  if this is correct, how can the same engine run equally happily on either Australian or US petrol??😈
 

1 hour ago, Moneybox said:

I don't know if anybody takes the time to read previous posts but I find information in this thread quite confusing?

 

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

I use  exclusively 91 RON in the last 30 years and on previous occasion 91 or 95 RON. 

 

I have never, repeat never, had a plug fouling, starting, carbon build up or any other fuel related problem, while using this grade of fuel.

 

Those that promote the use of higher RON fuels (including AvGas, WTF!!!!!) in such engines are, without so much as a sceric of credibility.

 

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

I have no experince and only anecdotal knowledge of using ULP in LyCons, Jab engines. My local flying school is exclusively Jab aircraft, they all run on ULP 98 RON, have done for very many years, apparently without any negative effects. My Rotax powered aircraft has a preference for 98 RON - will run on 95 RON and if needs be AvGas .

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

 

Perhaps I'm being a little picky but if you were trying to learn something by following this thread I doubt you'd have much success.

 

 

Fair comment.

I think you will find that, for the most part, the responses you have listed are in answer to a prior statemnt, by another contributor but may not be a logical continuance of the thread topic they are in.

It likly that your observation is the result of "Thread Drift" Thread Drift can be entertaining, informative, confusing and bloody frustrating,  depending on your personal perception of the drift you are reading.😈

Mogas, Motor Gas, Auto Gas, Gas, Unleaded, Lead free Petrol, Petrol, ULP, E10 (10% ethanol blend with petroleum) are all country terminological variations on petroleum fuel, for ground based engines. 

AvGas, Aviation Gasoline is formulated specifically for aircraft use. Is usually very much more expensive than ULP. Yes, ground based engines will run on it. The only ground based engines that will see a significant benefit (increased performance), in using this fuel, are those with higher than standard compression ratios. 

With ULP, there may be some country formulation differences (particularly summer/winter blends in very cold climates) however the same engine will run just fine, no matter which counties fuel is being used ie the fuel meets the engine manufactures specifications.

Most western counties (inc. Australia) will have petrol with diffrent Octane (anti knock) ratings to meet the needs of engines with higher compression than others. Australia expresses the diffrent in Octane ratings as RON (Research Octane Number)  91 - 95 - 98.

Petrol blended with ethanol (E) to a certain maximum percentage (%) is available in Australia, USA, most of Europe. Rotax engines are approved to use up to 10% E (E10) with the caveat that the aircraft manufacture approves its use. Reason E attacks some "rubber"  components that may be used in the fuel supply system. E10 is cheaper to purchase than non E blended fuel but contains less energy, so the engine will use more to deliver the same performance - this may negate the cost advantage. To my knowledge Rotax is the only  aircraft engine manufacturer to approve the use of E10.

I have no experince and only anecdotal knowledge of using ULP in LyCons, Jab engines. My local flying school is exclusively Jab aircraft, they all run on ULP 98 RON, have done for very many years, apparently without any negative effects. My Rotax powered aircraft has a preference for 98 RON - will run on 95 RON and if needs be AvGas .

While I accept that AvGas is produced to tighter standards than ULP, in Australia ULP is of sufficiently high standard (when vendor selected with some care) to meet the needs of Rotax and apparently Jabiru aircraft engines, where the manufacturer has specified or accepted its use.

The use of AvGas in engines designed to use ULP, does not confer any significant advantage ( I am told this may be diffrent for operating above 10,000ft) and may result in a higher maintenance cost (Lead fouling in Rotax engines), will cost more to purchase and is particularly detrimental to the environment and persons inhaling the exhaust fumes.

Terrible thread drift but cant let the, possibly faith based utterances from above, go unanswered/challenged;

(My comment below are not to suggest for a moment, that I would not defend the right of any person to use whatever fuel they wish) 

I have owned/operated and serviced a wide range of petrol (including 2/) powered small engines fo some 50 plus years.

I use  exclusively 91 RON in the last 30 years and on previous occasion 91 or 95 RON. 

I have never, repeat never, had a plug fouling, starting, carbon build up or any other fuel related problem, while using this grade of fuel.

Those that promote the use of higher RON fuels (including AvGas, WTF!!!!!) in such engines are, without so much as a sceric of credibility.

I assume promoters of using higher RON fuels, than the small engine needs to run efficiently, or the manufacturers specifies, have some sort of obscure vested interest in spreading such drivel.

I have no doubt that the engines will run on 98 RON/ AvGas, however the ONLY benefit will be in your perception that they somehow run better(?) and your wallet will be unnecessarily drained for this gratification.😈