skippydiesel

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.

😈

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

 

Stationary Engines are designed for constant load application. They are started, run at a constant governed rpm and often have a constant power demand, such as a bore pump.

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

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

 

Aircraft engines are designed for constant load application. The application is usually a shirt climb, a long cruise and a short descent.

 

I think you are mistaken.

 

Take of an Climb are high power/load - Cruse is constant, at whatever power selection - Descent is low power.

A car, much like an aircraft will Accelerate (high load/power) - Cruise (constant) - Slow.(low)

The principal difference between an aircraft engine  V a ground vehicle,  is the frequency of power/load and duration requirements within one run cycle.

 

A secondary difference is how the power is delivered. Ground vehicles tend towards rapid engine acceleration, so have design (short stroke) fuel delivery and ignition systems configured to facilitate this requirement and gear boxes. Aircraft engines usually have  fairly  "lazy" slow accelerating engines , with a narrow optimum ignition bands (like a mower) & fuel delivery (most aircraft will be delivering close to full power at start of  Ground Role) and no gear box (Rotax a possible acception) . Rotax aircraft engines (high revving/gear box) have much more in common with ground based engines than most. 

 

Then there is  the power required to maintain level Cruise. A car, supported against gravity by wheels, will have a relativly low power demand. An aircraft, relative to the car, will have significantly higher requirement. 

 

However, a vehicle towing a trailer in Cruise will have greater similarity to an aircraft power demand in Crusie - the trailer imposing constant  increased aerodynamic, weight & rolling resistance.😈

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.

15 hours ago, BrendAn said:

I don't think calling people dogs is helping. It's extremely insulting even though I don't think that's your intention 

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😈

8 hours ago, onetrack said:

Which one of the old blokes is Skippy? 😄

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

3 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

Skips quest to have the last word makes these threads  go on for ages.😁

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

9 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

What's so strange . You said the spirit would  become a hangar queen in your rant. I was answering you Did I ask a question?

Ah! You didn't actually reference my comments.

I believe this was in the context of a rich persons play thing/demonstration of wealth  ie I can afford to own an expensive/impractical toy. Such toys are often parked in locations (hanger) for others to admire.😈

1 hour ago, Blueadventures said:

Agree, I feel like giving his numerous / consistent negative posts that detract from the spirit of this wonderful forum the attached message.

Ah the dog pack at their best . 

You don't actually read /understand what I post, you just love to join up with others of similar odor😈

1 hour ago, BrendAn said:

if you had one why wouldn't you fly it.  If you gave me one of course I would fly it, what a strange question most people want 2 seaters but more often than not the right seat is empty most of the time. Thanks for agreeing with me on this point.😈

53 minutes ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

It's ROLL out, not ROLE out.   

 

It's FLARE, not FLAIR.   💯

 

(Flyboy - The grammar Nazi)

Good on yah! Focus on the imperfection of my spelling (a admitted & well known failure)& ignore the message😈

Thought provoking

Some further reading https://www.lumafield.com/battery-report😈

17 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

 

This is all correct but not helpful. Your point ????

 

Are you suggesting that all aircraft entering class C/D airspace should have a ADS-B out transponder ? For now yes! For flight in congested airspace, no matter its designation.

Sounds like a good idea to me but I can guarantee you will have at least 5000 loud complaints due to the cost. So? Technology has given us a cost effective (ADS-B IN/OUT) improvements on safety, that can only be fully expressed if all aircraft  have the technology . This is where the relevant authority does need to mandate (see Garfly's post above.)

How do you propose to convince your fellow pilots ? (see Garfly's post).

 

Is this adequate ? Is what adequate?

A better option would be all aircraft to have ADS-B out/in transponders with audio alerts in all areas. Agreed 

Your loud complaints just went up to 20,000 fellow pilots. Your point ???

Actually probably 30,000 when they realise the Skyecho would not be accepted. SE 2 has been accepted in a number of countries, including Australia. What information do you have to the contrary?

 

What is your plan ? (see Garfly's post).

 

BernieM - I don't really understand where you are coming from in this post . 😈

41 minutes ago, T510 said:

You are the perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect Skip.

 

In a world were recreational aviation is in decline, companies like Spirit Engineering should be celebrated. Not only have they designed their own engine and airframe, they are keeping the cost down and have delivered 18 aircraft, all in a 10 year timeframe.

 

What have you done for aviation apart from sow negativity at every opportunity - you must be great fun at parties

 

My opposition is not actually to SE-1 per say, its to the over the top hysterical claims, by those on this & other Forums, who would seem to value the LOOK over all else.

As I have said but will repeat for your benefit:

This is an art work of an aircraft - even I can see how attractive looking it is.

Its performance is modest, by any standard. Nothing wrong with modest but lets not get to carried away with its "fast" appearance.

Its construction & finish (particularly if left as is) will be expensive to maintain. I own a metal aircraft.

Its design is unpractical :

• tail wheel, that may carry very little weight, making nose overs & 180's more likly
• open cockpit, not the best for inclement weather & long flights. Any sort of paper document likly unusable
• seating position, rendering all but the tallest pilot without a forward view, in the landing flair/role out (& possibly on final)
• single seat, no possibility of accommodating that rare pax

"In a world were recreational aviation is in decline,"

Unfortunatly true. I suspect the reasons have more to do with the wealth & diversity of opportunities of our young, that far exceeds what most of us grew up with, and the change in social dynamic - almost everything can be had without significant commitment

"What have you done for aviation apart from sow negativity at every opportunity."

Good question. Let me see;

• I take every opportunity to offer TIF's especially to the young - not many take the opportunity.
• I promote aviator as a career, particularly to young women - not many see this as viable future for them.
• I volunteer my services at my local airfield - mostly mowing.
• I patronise various aircraft services. 
• On this Forum, I try to come up with topics for debate, offer advice, results of my research into alternative sources for service items, keep debates going by presenting an alternative perspective.

So what do you do, besides make derogatory personal comments about a person you don't know???

"you must be great fun at parties"

"The Dunning-Kruger effect" a cognitive bias where individuals with limited knowledge or competence in a particular domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence. Due to a lack of metacognitive ability, these individuals cannot recognize their own deficiencies, leading to misplaced confidence. Conversely, experts may underestimate their own competence relative to others. 

Do you think you might owe me an apology?😈

10 hours ago, Marty_d said:

"in the cold light of day", I'd ask what proportion of time your passenger seat has a bum in it?

I love riding my motorbike and 90%+ of the time it's solo.

Looking forward to flying my plane when it's finished, and willing to bet it's similar.

I agree with you - I have fantasised about several single seat aircraft, even gone down the investigation/pricing rout but in the end , like most, have purchased a two seat.

While the second seat rarely has a "pax" it does give space for navigation stuff, inflight refreshments, etc Then there is that rare "pax" that I enjoy taking up. I think the appropriate word for a two seat would be flexibility.

You may enjoy your solo rides on the bike but I bet you have a car. Most pilot / owners have but one aircraft that must meet as many of their expectations as possible.

That I rarely have a "pax" doesn't change the sales figures for solo aircraft.

As often commented on - what you fly is an individual choice. Most choose two seats (or more)😈

Interesting - there does seem to be one or two others, who have doubts about this lovely retro art work, its performance (?) & practicality (?).

They may not be quit as vocal, as the mouth from The Oaks but then I am the one who calls out the gimmicks, faith operators , et al  and does the "pack love to howl."

Take me task, in 10 years, when the SE-1 is as common as a Jab - one in every hanger - Not going to happen!

Seems to me , that most light aircraft pilots, love the idea of a single seater, tail wheel aircraft, that just looks great. There are a few around, never big sellers - what do the people  purchase, in the cold light of day - a Jab (or similar) why because your SE-1 is a fantasy. Fantasys are wonderful, very few are willing to pay for one, even fewer will do much flying in one (hanger Queen). 😈

21 hours ago, cscotthendry said:

 

 

Additionally, low wing aircraft with bubble canopies are death traps. If you have to put an aircraft down on rough ground, there's a good likelihood it's going to end up on its back. There have been many outlandings where the occupants of these types of planes survived the crash and died in the post-crash fire because the plane was upside down and they couldn't get out.

I'm not claiming that's what happened here, but I've never liked that configuration, on safety grounds.

 

Flying is totally unforgiving of failures and mistakes. Why increase your chances of dying, just to save some $$$.

I understand your point of view but then all small aircraft pilots have made a conscious decision to take the increased risk of flying. Whats a little more/less risk between flying friends?

I agree buble canopies may trap the crashed, inverted, surviving crew, who may then succumbed to a  post crash fire.

A fire is not inevitable, if it does occur injured crew will be in a very unpleasant situaton, no matter the aircraft configuration.

It makes sense that high wing (built in role cage) aircraft are expected to be inherently safer in this regard - I wonder what the statistics say ???.

Countering the above, to some degree, is the reality that most aircraft that offer greater cruise speed, for a given power, are low to mid wing (there are a few exceptions). I am sure the aspiring aerodynamicists amongst us, can give the reason (s) for this.

Its not usually about savaging $$$, it about the "mission" objectives.😈

3 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

900 mile delivery flight used only 12 us gal(45l), surely that is something you must really like. Did you see the wings fold easily and 5 will fit in a small T hangar.  

The performance in miles/galans looks quite impressive, until converted to what I am more familiar with

782 Nm @ about 26L/hr (for the pedantic "about" means I am guessing).

By the time you arrive, after flying some 8 hrs, you will be close to a basket case (in fine weather) in that open cockpit.

Then you have to land the bugger, loosing sight of the runway, in the flair and role out - no wonder the pilot stood it on its nose. Oh! sorry, the excuse was he was a tad fast over the fence - my bad!

I do like the wing fold very much, wish I has it, but then this feature (or similar) is available on several  fully enclosed  1-2 seat aircraft that are far more fuel efficient / speedy, that are likly to be easier / less costly to maintain and land.

Of course it's not about efficiency / maintenance /flight characteristics or any of the mundane parameters that I may apply, it's about THE LOOK!

😈

As I said -Each To His Own.

We are not talking about practicalities with this aircraft - its in a similar (for the pedantic that does not mean the same) category as old men dressing up in leather and purchasing a reproduction/any motorcycle -  its a bit sad but "good-on-em!!" - not my thing😈

Each to his own.

I see them as an unfortunate throw back, featuring most, if not all, of the deficiencies of aircarft from a bygone area.

I see the aesthetic appeal, that for some, overrides all the deficiencies.

Ultimately a rich persons fantasi toy, akin to having a very expensive, totally impractical, sports car - At least the modern sports car would likely be comfortable, require comparatively minimal maintenance and have safe handling characteristics.

IF it was from the erra it emulates, there would be some value in its vintage status  but a repo????😈

ADS-B installation in (Au) VFR aircraft is a total shambles. 

Only (Au) IFR aircraft are required to have ADS-B fitted.

A VFR aircraft that does not enter controlled airspace, is not required to have  a transponder at all, even if flying in the congested Training Area airspace of one of our capital cities.

Perversely, legacy transponders (Mode C etc) are still "legal" for entry to controlled airspace - This acts as a disincentive to replace them with ADS-B.

I have come across at least two aircraft , operating in the congested Sydney Basin, that would seem to be using a legacy transponder.

The mid air collision that occurred at The Oaks was between a Cessna & a Jabiru. Cessna fitted with legacy transponder, Jab with OzRunways/SE2 . Neither aircraft "saw" the other.😈

Sticking with my story - all looks & minimal performance. Elevator designed for retro look , not up tp the job/function compromised for esthetics (typical septic tank)😈

9 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

.... brake hard or hit the fence.  

Hmm! Does this mean that the elevator lacked sufficient authority to keep the tail down, under heavy braking?😈

Gentlefolk,

All is well with my SE2,  thanks to terrific help from AvTraffic technical support.

• Turns out I had miss understood one vital set up instruction - In Set UP for the line ASB In  Capability: - I ticked UAT (as I had for 1090ES Transmit:) instead of 1090ES.
• Also helped with fine tuning the AvTraffic set up

AvTraffic technical support provide a service well above & beyond, what has become the norm these days - FIVE STARS from me.😈