skippydiesel

Thanks , I will look into AOPA. If RAA us unwilling to advocate, to Government & QUANGO's, on our behalf, they are not meeting the first item of core business . If they are not advocating at all, they are just O2 thieves. I am unaware of any; Significant advocacy on our behalf ie if they are advocating they need give us "chapter & verse" and keep us informed of progress. Surveys asking what our concerns' may be, such that RAA can pursue them with the authorities. 😈

Make your mind up. Which is it a "Limited Company" that does nothing for its members OR an "Incorporated Association is to be driven by its members and react to things that matter to them."????? 😈

Whats then is the point of RAA?😈

In my naivety, I thought that an important part of RAA's function, is to vigorously represent it's membership, in particular to Government and allied organisation (QUANGO's). This representation would be to inform the legislators, stand up for private/Recreational pilots in all matters, small or large and while doing so inform the membership of their action and progress. Seems to me that little of the above is being done. Am I wrong? 😈

Attention ALL Before I go ahead & install the, possibly higher flow crankcase drain elbow, does anyone foresee any negative issues? / problems?😈

Great weekend. Going, - Friday afternoon had 30 knot head wind Return - Sunday about 12 knots on the nose. (not supposed to be head winds in both directions). Spectacular scenery. Countryside wonderfully green (a tad short), Canola comming into bloom. About 40 aircraft flew in from as far as Qld with good representation from NSW, Vic & SA. Never knew there were so many Cessna variants. No less than two radials, several "bird dogs and an Italian made turbine variant, 140 -180's a plenty, 172's & 150 etc. Auster x 2. Ercoupe, a Tri- Pacer, Tiger Moth, Minicab, etc , etc Then there were the modern 'ring-ins" Sonex x 2, RV 4's, Jab 230, Foxbat, Savannah, couple of Piper somethings............ Very well organised, even a ground marshal/frequency (RAA could learn a thing or two). Good food, bus to ferry those that wanted to go into Leeton /return. Fuel delivered, by Massey 35 tractor & trailer, to every aircraft that wanted it. Some impromptu formation flying, STOL demo's, and a few very high speed strip runs. Quite a few TIF's on request/offered. 138 (or so) Ford Customline & Mainline cars, utes & even a hearse, arrived on Sunday morning to complete the event. Leeton Aviators Club made the whole event appear effortless - my thanks to them for an entertain in & relaxing weekend. 😈

For what its worth; I have done most of my BFR's in a Jab. Their landing characteristic's are (to me) a challenge My early transitional training from PPL to RAA Cert emphasised a glide approach. This seems to have been ditched in favour of a powered Final. If memory serves, carry power according to your GA training, ie use it, on Final, to adjust attitude. Have your "trickle" of power as long as you wish, even to Flair & Touch Down I have always perceive Jab landings to be fast. 😈

This time slightly mote up elevator, right at the end of the landing role. Could it be that the pilot is trying not to" plough" with the skid type tail wheel? 😈

As always Thruster, you deliver interesting facts on which to ponder. I have never questioned Rotax hose sizing specification's - So far so good, in that to the best of my knowledge, the two 912 ULS that I have owned/maintained, have not suffer oil delivery / supply issues despite using 12 m (1/2") ID oil hose. I don't doubt your theoretical analysis, but at the end of the day - what work, works. Aside from satisfying curiosity (always good) how does this relate to my proposed experiment? 😈

Rotax & Lycoming, both IC engines, have some every diffrent features; I am sure the breather "notch" /hole would assist in an icing situation however it's primary purpose is to reduce the chance of the breather acting as a venturi ie negative pressure I am hazy on Lycoming detail; (assuming a dry sump arrangement) I think it likly that they use an oil pump to take oil from the crankcase to the remote oil tank. The breather is connected directly to the crankcase removing excess pressure, combustion gas, oil mist & volatile fractions. If I am correct there is likly no significant problem with the crankcase breather experiencing negative pressure via a venturi in the exhaust. Rotax use piston compression, to transfer crankcase oil to the remote tank (no pump). There is no direct connection between the crankcases & the breather. The breather removes pressure, etc from the oil tank. If you create negative pressure in the breather you may draw more oil from the system than intended. Rotax specifically caution against this. 😈

Its a great idea - now been "in the works" for may be 10+ years ???? I am not a civil engineer however it strikes me that before a foundation is laid, a lot of drainage and flood mitigation work will need to be completed $$$$$$$$$. Before the above is commenced an extensive/comprehensive environmental plan will need to be approved.$$$$ ???? Then then is the communities perception of larger & much more aircraft activity - noise & concerns about crashes.????? There already is community concerns, with the existing very small number of movements - almost exclusively Rotax/Jab (quiet aircraft) activity. Lastly - my very limited understanding is,- the current management intend to control all aspects of the development - this may be okay for hangers but what of dwellings? 😈

It hard to see however it appears that the pilot is not applying up elevator/stick back on landing😈

It seem to me that the more pressure, applied to a liquid, exiting a fixed hole, the higher the flow rate will be. The Rotax system of oil return (crankcase to tank) is using the crankcase pressure as the "pump" to achieve this. Speculation; I imagine the oil, combined with crankcase gas "spurts" (technical term) into the tank ie is not a nice continuous flow. This action will cause some oil to be suspend (droplets) as a mist, adding to the oil mist from the crankcase. The intention is for the oil to separate /drop out from the gas, within the tank. To a large extent this is happening. In my installation too much of the suspended oil (for my liking) is continuing past the tank and into the breather - from there deposited on the belly (& increasing oil consumption). If I can reduce the pressure, by improving the crankcase exit flow, less mist may be generated and more of the suspended oil may drop out in the tank. If I can do the experiment at minimal cost and it works, all good ! If it doesn't not too much has been lost. 😈

Seems to me that this would exacerbate any tendency to excessive oil consumption via the venturi effect on he oil breather.😈

Not a hole - It has a T piece with a tube going to an area of high pressure within the cowling - same/similar concept to the hole.😈

Ha Ha. FlyBoy, A wee bit of credit, for not being a total idiot, would be appreciated. Didn't say I have excessive crankcase pressure As a 15 + year operator/maintainer of Rotax 912 ULS, I know what the oil level should be (FYI: I have tried running the engine at less than 1/2 oil - get less oil out the breather but still more than I would like) This is an almost new engine (240hrs). It's blown oil out the breather since new. Oil consumption within Rotax specified limits. Engine runs like a dream. My previous 912ULS (sold at 950hrs) did not require topping up between 50 hr changes, nor did it anoint the belly of the aircraft with oil mist. A thread on the Rotax Owner Forum gave me the idea ie reduce crankcase pressure may reduce (??) oil being ejected out the breather. The Rotax Owner Forum thread was about relapsing, the crankcase oil return to tank, Banjo fitting, as a possible restriction in the oil flow = higher crankcase pressures. The replacement fitting, a low restriction bend rather than the 90 degree of the Banjo, may be less restrictive, which may reduce the crankcase pressure, which in tern may reduce oil exiting the breather. It would seem 912 operators, with perfectly good engines, have mixed experince of oil exiting the breather. Some do most don't. The experts are unable to explain why. Speculate small differences in piston ring sealing. This is an experiment to see what happens. Hence I do not want to spend big $$ on something I may just return to standard (refit Banjo). What do you think? 😈

Rotax 956655 ADAPTER M18X1.5/ M16X1.5. is $245 AU + delivery Crazy price for a reducing nipple (in plumbers language). Rotax 956655 appears to have the same specifications/dimensions as this $5 (including delivery) one from Amazon I have ordered this one & will check it for fit before proceeding further. If it is compatible with my existing elbow (PN 956580) I am financially way ahead . I will be using a copper washer (as per Rotax) & if space permits a locking nut for security. My plan B - I have found some AN ( - 8 & -10) fittings, (M16 adapter, swivel elbow & 1/2" barb ) that I think will do the job . All up about $50-55 AU Plan C - Go back to original Banjo fitting and live with an oily belly. So far no one has commented on my plan to reduce crankcase pressure; If it works, do you foresee any issues with lower pressure? Do you thing there is any chance that lower pressure may reduce oil being ejected out of the breather? 😈

Que? 😈

Sooooo sexy too😈

Long range crystal ball (BOM) suggesting fairly good chance of rain over the weekend. As the week progresses, things may improve.😈

Hi BlueA, Good man, prepared for an emergency stop at 4500 ft😈

Que? 😈

This could be it; Adapter M18x1.5 Female / M16 x 1.5

Wanted crankcase sump adapter nipple; Got this idea from Rotax Owners Forum https://www.rotax-owner.com/en/912-914-technical-questions/11526-do-i-need-a-larger-oil-return-line For 912 owners, that may have high crankcase pressures - Replace crankcase oil exit Banjo, with less flow resistance, higher flow elbow. I have a spare elbow with swivel fitting PN 956580 Elbow (see below) need to find a connecting nipple from it to crankcase. I believe the crankcase exit hole to be M16 x 1.5mm (?). I don't know the elbow nut thread (M18 x 1.5mm?) or the angle specifications of the conical end. I have a oil cooler fitting PN 956577 (sample shown) that fits the elbow but not the crankcase. I imagine the correct adapter will look similar. Do you have a suitable adapter nipple ? Are you able to advise on adapter specification description? 😈

Its already "changed the game". Departing Sydney Basin, VFR, without CTA clearance, to the west, is now a much riskier business. Unless you fly well south, crossing the Great Divide, west from The Oaks, has become so much riskier with CTA heights dropping from 7500' to 4500'. This delivers an initial clearance of only 2220', over some very hostile terrain - no chance of the Sonex gliding to open ground. Want to go north? First go south young man. You the have the choice of going inland or to the coast, before turning north Inland , the safer rout, would have you track towards Bathurst etc Coastal, Victor 1, at 500 ft - a water ditching, your only option. Interesting times. 😈