skippydiesel

At some stage in your technical to & fro, would you mind advising me - do I have a transponder conspicuosity problem or not?? Note: I have a transponder/ADSB, Mode S (OUT, 1200), SK.2 (ADSB IN/OUT) & OzRunways/iPad - hopefully all operating, reporting my position & showing the position of other aircraft.😈

My apologies - I understood the thrust of your questions to be; how does a claimed 30% reduction in 2/fuel ("Smartcarb") effect the lubrication of the engine, specifically where premixed fuel is used. The engine/carburettors you mentioned I took to be illustrative ie not part of the origional question.😈

"Oil Injection vs Premix: • On premix engines, any change in fuel flow directly changes the oil ratio." How is this statement correct ?? Never been a 2/ fan however my understanding of premix is that; The oil & fuel is added/ premixed at a certain ratio eg 50:1 in my chain saws. The mixture is then put in the fuel tank. The fuel mix is then metered through the carburettor to the combustion chamber, where it is burnt. During the above process there is no opportunity to change the fuel oil mix ratio - in my example it remains at 50:1, no matter how I tune the carburettor (rich or lean) 😈

I thought this discussion was about a particular fuel metering system/carburettor ("Smartcarb") - not a specific engine. Seems you are off on a tangent , as is your habit.😈

Yours is the first mention, I recall, of this course - Not your fault but a tad late in the day as course starts tomorrow. Where & when was it advertised?😈

Its a bit of both. My understanding: All fuels have a limit to the amount of energy they can deliver ie they can not deliver more energy than their chemical composition contains. With the exception of atomic systems (which I don't have a good handle on) all of our other systems involve the interaction (burn) of the fuel with oxygen, which liberates heat and causes the gas to expand (rise in pressure) which can be harnessed to deliver rotational energy or thrust. . The amount of O2 delivered, in the form of air, to the burn, will strongly influence the amount of energy released, for a given amount of fuel - thats why we improve air flow and or density (pressure) and use axillary air pumps (turbos & superchargers) often combined with heat exchangers (intercoolers) as cold air is denser (more 02) than hot. The burn may also be enhanced by increasing exposure/surface area to the O2 eg atomisation. Then there is the ability/efficiency of the system (internal combustion, jet, ?) to turn the energy liberated, into meaningful power, usually expressed as "work". The above has been improved with better materials, lubricants, engine design and cooling systems. "Modern" engines reflect our improved ability, to combine the above factors, so that we can harvest more of the fuel energy AND use it more effectively, to deliver more power, which can then be used to reduce fuel consumed for a given output OR more work (however we want to express this). I believe there is a limit to this improvement, that we are possibly close to acheiving.😈

Hi FlyBoy1960, I would realy enjoy discussing what you have just postulated but not within this already very shattered thread. I suggest you start another thread on the matter (general discussion?) - I will respond. 😈

Hi Arron25, Aside from the core topic, its quite interesting how some people, can make a claim, with little or no supporting evidence and expect it to be accepted without challenge. When asked for the evidence, the claimant may ignore the questions, becomes defensive and aggressive. The latter often manifesting as, strident references to their own expertees, combined with personal attacks on the questioner. This is irrational - the sensible person would either admit that the claim is speculative or provide the evidence and the questioner(s) move on. Its a sort of bullying tactic, by the claimant, that does nothing posative for the Forum, the topic at hand or their credibility. ""There's nowt so strange as folk". 😈

Hi Moneybox, I can see how the U tube might work but how do you remove the effcets of manifold pulsing?😈

Here we go again - more claims to pursue (strategy of distraction), rather than addressing the reasonable questions, arising from the first claim- . "The larger balance tube does give a better idle performance...... " "Please quantify - what is "better" about the idle AND what is the operational advantage of this improvement, over the OM design?" Until you either substantiate your claims, answear some fair questions, I have to assume this is just a load of BS and I advise others to be just as sceptical😈

"I can assure you Turbo I know what I am talking about." As I observed earlier, a self claimed expert, who wont even give his definition of a Rotax 912 idle, makes it very difficult to take any subsequent claims/statements seriously😈

Still no facts😈

Of course I will do as I want, just as you do. Its not whinging to ask for facts - something glaringly lacking, from all the opportunities you have had, to respond with data. You seem unable to even give your definition of idle (in this context) - a simple question, that is at the base of your support of the Big Tube - why is that? Instead of responding to reasonably/civil put questions, you attack me - not a good strategy. Makes your position on this topic look a tad shaky and puts into question all the other statement you have made. Your responses, very similar to others questioned on the Big Tube, do nothing other than make the concept, as an effective modification, suspect.😈

So the primary benefit is at idle. What do you define idle as? I don't know about your flying - my engine spends very little time at what I would call idle - sub 2000 rpm. Cold start goes straight to about 2300rpm. Warm up is at 2500 rpm. After flight, Taxi @ 2500+ rpm. Shut down my engine as soon as I park 1400-1770 rpm, for as long as it takes (likly less than 30seconds) to do a quick ignition check.😈

Yes. Rarely results in a more effective organisation but thats not what the takeover people are about.😈

Thats interesting - An hour or so, before I took off, there were quite a few blue bubbles to the north (Warragamba , Bringelly area) but none when I was up ????? Thanks for the "heads up" I will revisit the SE2 settings - I did not deliberately avoid entering my rego😈

What did you replace the Curtis valves with?😈

These are new valves - they should not need to have the o-rings replaced but if all else fails I will certainly replace them in the hope of a fix😈

Shouldn't have but wont discount completly; Tanks were well flushed before test flights. ALL fuel is passed through a Mr Funnel In 195 hrs, no contaminants appear in pre flight fuel drainings I have tried a prolonged drain/flush no improvement. Next time tanks are empty, will remove drain valves and attempt a clean - see what happens.😈

Thats an ATEC Zephyr and the initial fire is concentrated in the engine bay - not the fuel tank area.😈

Or use up all the fuel - just topped up the tanks today, so will be a while before empty. This should not happen though - must be a crap design if so easily defected. Will try your suggestion - nothing to lose except the staines and very slightly lower fuel consumption.😈

My Sonex wing tanks have SAF-AIR push type fuel drain valves. They leak or rather they weep very slowly. The whole aircraft, including valves, have only done 185 hrs in about 2 years and the valves have been leaking for most of that time. I make a point of pulling each one down after every preflight drain – doesn’t help. The weep is so slow that this is more of an aesthetic problem – stains on my wings, than any practical issue. All helpful suggestions welcome😈

Weather forecast for heavy rain this arvo - sky looked inviting this am, so went up to try out my Bluetooth headset adapter & AvTraffic. Small problemo, no small aircraft flying in the Sydney Basin. Very unusual. I guess the weather forecast made everyone stay at home. Tooled around enjoying myself, for 1.5 hrs, in the hope of finding an enemy aircraft - no luck, so no report on system efficacy. Next time 😈

True! However there are sometimes other reasons. Its not unknown for aesthetics to be one, air flow, prop clearance (nose wheel), etc What weight is the Zonsen (?) compared with the origional Jab?? .😈

Thats great for those who value such. Without empirical evidence AND most importantly, a clear engine operational benefit, it strikes me as being a faith based investment. This concept has been vigorously debated, in the Rotax Owners Forum, over about an 8 year period. No empirical evidence has ever been presented. No improvement to normal engine management has been shown, bearing in mind that most Rotax 9s spend every little of their operational life at idle (purported to be the main area of improvement). https://www.rotax-owner.com/en/general-tech-discussion/6709-polishing-intake-manifolds Given the simplicity & potentially low cost of this concept, why has Rotax not adopted it as a standard fit or offered it, as an after purchase, performance enhancer? 😈