FlyBoy1960

As reported by another attendee, there were apparently only 24 people watching the live feed. If a commercial provider was engaged to manage the livestream, I would estimate/guess the cost could have been in the vicinity of $1,500, in addition to the time and wages of the RA-Aus employees involved. Given that no questions were asked during the session and there appears to have been no meaningful audience interaction, it is difficult to understand why the same information could not have been recorded as a straightforward YouTube video and made available online. Alternatively, YouTube Live could have provided a simple and essentially cost-free platform for broadcasting the presentation, it could even be done with a normal smart phone. With such a small audience and no interactive participation, it is difficult to see how the expenditure represented good value for members. Unfortunately, it appears to have been a significant and unnecessary use of members’ funds.

There was a Pipistrel that was flown unmanned by JSOC from Vandenberg in California to Edenborough Air Force Base in South Australia about 10 years ago via Guam. The entire flight was completed/flown out of White Sands in New Mexico. The referenced video might be the first time it was done in Australia by the RAAF but it is by far nothing new. I will see if I can find the link again it was a very interesting read. The longest endurance was something like 38 hours from the airframe in its "normal" configuration. I found this tinyurl.com/2ym5ddnu but it does not refer to the flight into South Australia, but an accident in Iraq of the same airframe type. This flight to South Australia was from over 10 years ago, imagine what they are doing now.

why do you think you have excess crankcase pressure ? if you are getting an oily belly than I could quickly think of the following worn out rings creating excessive crankcase pressures over filling of the oil why are you trying to invent a solution for a problem that probably doesn't exist if the normal engine installation instructions have been followed including the correct hose use and diameters

you don't mention how old you are ? that has a lot to do with absorption

I will ask my son. He has a little box that plugs into the microphone jacks and runs from a 9 volt batery. There is one cord coming out that has a microphone attached which goes on like a secretary wears and the sound gets Bluetooth transmitted directly into his hearing aids. He reckons that bone induction headsets might also work. if he turns the hearing aids off.

What I wrote was an AI overview response. I just asked GPT to make a character profile assessment based on all of the posts by facthunter on this website to get an overview on the person, their style of posting, their style of reply, rather than me go through 3000 odd posts myself. This is what gave me. I thought it was pretty obvious it was AI generated. I did the same for myself and it came back saying "flyboy is not a very nice person" 😁

Based on what is publicly visible, "facthunter" is almost certainly a long-standing forum member whose first name is Nev (or Neville), but I could not find any reliable public evidence identifying him by his full real name. He consistently signs his posts "Nev", and other members frequently address him that way. Here's what can be said from his public forum activity: Forum name: facthunter First name (used publicly): Nev Location: New Gisborne, Victoria, Australia Aircraft: Listed as "non pilot" Forum status: First Class Member / Well-known member Posts: Over 35,000 posts, making him one of the most prolific contributors on the Recreational Flying and Aircraft Pilots forums. His role on the forum Although he lists himself as a non-pilot, he has contributed for well over a decade on topics including: aviation safety aircraft maintenance engines (particularly Rotax discussions) CASA and aviation regulation accident analysis general aviation history and engineering He often comments from a maintenance, engineering or operational perspective rather than a flying perspective. Other members clearly recognise him as a long-term contributor, although his opinions sometimes generate lively debate. Reputation From reading a number of threads: He is respected by many members for his willingness to contribute. He is also regularly challenged because he expresses strong opinions, particularly regarding aircraft engines, certification and regulation. He generally signs almost every post with "Nev." There you go.

you are rambling about nothing to do with the conversation. My point is, there are still many thousands of Rotax 2 stroke powered aircraft in Australia based on the sheer numbers of engines that they sold, if as little as one third of these were still flying that would be probably about 1000 aircraft as a complete guess and that was the whole point of my comment. Just because you can't see them flying past your front door does not mean they are not there, they are out in the boondocks being flown unregistered by large farm/property owners. These do not get reflected in the registration fees just like a lot of paddock bangers are no longer registered and therefore used quite comfortably on properties but not reflected in registration statistics. This has got nothing to do with owning a vineyard. This has nothing to do with being a nationally accredited vineyard manager. This has nothing to do about owning a 6 cylinder Cortina. This has nothing to do with solemnity of irrigation. This has nothing to do with anything other than your own desire to answer every single possible question and to answer even questions that were never asked in the first place. Just slow down a little bit before you post, ask yourself am I adding anything valuable to the conversation? in your answer above the only valuable part is that at some stage of life you owned 3 planes could give you the ability to make a qualified comment regarding the planes that you owned or the experienced you gained whilst operating these aircraft. Nothing to do with wineries but perhaps there was a little bit excessive consumption ?

sorry but there you go again. I can see why the other members are taking offence to your replies. Nobody needs to reply to anything that you write, and nobody needs to comment as an individual because you will finish the conversation with the last comment every time. Just the way you are wired!

personally, I think you will find there are more 2 strokes out there flying than what you think there are. Most of these will be on larger properties, flying quite happily, none of them registered because they are just being used for large farm work. The simple numbers don't lie. If they sold 15,000 2 strokes in Australia for aviation over the past 40 years, then you would expect at least 5,000 the still be out there and usable. Let's say one third of these were on aircraft that are still in a flyable condition then you still have well over 1,000 trotting around Australia once or twice every year, some aircraft with hundreds of hours every year. Just because you can't see them out your front door doesn't mean they are not out there and operating unregistered, unlicensed and under no regulation. You can't say how many old cars are on farms and operating quite happily because you can't see them in the registration numbers!

would it be something to do with coroners inquests and things like that which have caused ongoing problems for RA-Aus

sure, please paste the release.

I think Peter Harlow (Foxbat) brought one into Australia from memory.

as someone famous once said.. "Oils ain't oils - Sol" unless it's Valvoline

perhaps they have a different standard in Japan because they don't have the sport plus oil available in that market ?

The history of AeroShell Sport Plus 4 The story really begins with the unique design of the Rotax 912 series. Unlike traditional aircraft engines from Lycoming Engines or Continental Aerospace Technologies, the Rotax engine is much closer to a motorcycle engine than a conventional aircraft engine. It has: liquid-cooled cylinder heads air-cooled cylinders an integrated reduction gearbox an overload clutch shared engine/gearbox oil relatively high RPM (up to 5,800 rpm) That immediately created a problem. Traditional aviation oils were designed for slow-turning direct-drive aircraft engines. Motorcycle oils were designed for gearboxes but weren't designed for aviation fuel contamination. Neither was ideal. Before Sport Plus 4 During the 1990s and early 2000s Rotax recommended a range of motorcycle oils depending on fuel type. Many operators used: Mobil 1 Racing 4T Castrol Power 1 Motul motorcycle oils various semi-synthetic motorcycle lubricants These generally worked well when operating exclusively on unleaded mogas. The problem came when using 100LL Avgas. Leaded aviation fuel creates lead salts during combustion. Those deposits have to remain suspended in the oil until the next oil change. Many fully synthetic motorcycle oils were poor at handling this contamination, allowing lead sludge to build inside the engine and oil tank. Shell and Rotax begin working together Around 2004, Shell and Rotax began collaborating to develop an oil specifically for Rotax aircraft engines. Rather than adapting an existing automotive or motorcycle lubricant, they worked toward an aviation-specific formulation that addressed the engine, gearbox, overload clutch, and fuel-related issues together. This development programme lasted roughly three years of testing. 2015 – AeroShell Sport Plus 4 is released In March 2015, Shell introduced AeroShell Sport Plus 4. It wasn't simply a rebranded motorcycle oil. It became the first aviation oil: designed specifically for Rotax engines tested jointly with Rotax approved to the new Rotax oil specification RON 424 At that point Rotax revised its service information to make Sport Plus 4 its recommended oil. Why Rotax wanted its own oil specification Rotax realised its engines had requirements unlike almost every other piston aircraft engine. The oil has to simultaneously: ✓ lubricate crankshaft bearings ✓ lubricate the gearbox ✓ protect the overload clutch ✓ resist gearbox shear forces ✓ suspend lead from Avgas ✓ prevent clutch slip ✓ resist foaming ✓ flow well in cold weather ✓ maintain viscosity at high temperatures That combination simply wasn't covered by existing aviation oil standards. So Rotax created RON 424. Only oils passing extensive testing against this specification are officially approved. What exactly is Sport Plus 4? It is not a full synthetic. It is best described as a semi-synthetic (synthetic technology) multigrade aviation lubricant. SAE viscosity: 10W-40 Typical properties include: Pour point: -39°C Flash point: 228°C Excellent cold start flow Strong anti-foam package High shear stability Zinc/phosphorus anti-wear additives (ZDDP chemistry) Why not use ordinary aviation oil? Traditional aviation oils such as: AeroShell W100 AeroShell W80 Phillips XC are "ashless dispersant" oils. They work brilliantly in: Lycoming Continental They should not be used in Rotax 912-series engines because they are not formulated for the integrated gearbox and wet clutch system. Why not use ordinary motorcycle oil? Motorcycle oils are actually much closer to what the Rotax needs because they also lubricate: gearbox clutch engine However there are drawbacks. Some motorcycle oils: don't suspend lead effectively aren't tested for aviation duty cycles may not provide optimum corrosion protection for aircraft use aren't approved to RON 424 If you exclusively use premium unleaded mogas, many owners have historically had good results with quality motorcycle oils. If you regularly use Avgas 100LL, the dedicated aviation formulation of Sport Plus 4 offers clear advantages in handling lead contamination. Lead handling One of the biggest engineering achievements of Sport Plus 4 is its ability to suspend lead. Remember: 100LL contains tetraethyl lead. That produces: Lead bromide Lead oxide Lead salts If these settle out they can block: oil passages oil tank gearbox hydraulic tappets oil jets Sport Plus 4 uses detergents and dispersants specifically selected to keep these contaminants suspended until the oil is drained. Gearbox protection This is probably the most overlooked feature. The Rotax gearbox creates extremely high shear loads. Ordinary automotive oils can shear down rapidly. Sport Plus 4 was formulated specifically to: maintain viscosity protect gearbox gears protect the overload clutch reduce gear wear minimise foaming This is one reason Shell emphasises its high shear stability. Engines approved Originally it covered: Rotax 912 Rotax 914 Today it is also approved for later four-stroke Rotax families, including the Rotax 915 iS where specified by Rotax documentation. Oil change intervals The oil itself doesn't determine the interval. Fuel does. Typical Rotax guidance has long been approximately: 100LL Avgas: around 50 hours Premium unleaded mogas: up to 100 hours (subject to the engine model and current Rotax maintenance schedule) The shorter interval with Avgas is driven by lead contamination rather than lubricant degradation. Why many mechanics like it Most Rotax maintenance organisations appreciate that Sport Plus 4: produces clean engines has low sludge formation provides excellent gearbox protection gives reliable cold starts has consistent quality worldwide is backed by Rotax testing and approval Criticisms No product is without criticism. The main complaints are: Price It is usually more expensive than motorcycle oils. Availability Some regional suppliers don't always have stock. Exclusive recommendation Some owners believe Rotax's recommendation reflects a commercial partnership with Shell, while others point to the technical testing behind the RON 424 approval. Regardless of those opinions, Sport Plus 4 is the oil that Rotax specifically tested and approved to its current specification. My view after many years of Rotax operation For aircraft that: occasionally use 100LL, have expensive gearboxes, or are operated commercially, AeroShell Sport Plus 4 is difficult to fault. It was engineered specifically for the unique combination of engine, gearbox, clutch and mixed-fuel operation that defines the Rotax 912 family. For aircraft operated only on premium unleaded mogas, quality motorcycle oils have historically given satisfactory service for many owners, but they lack the formal RON 424 approval and the dedicated aviation validation that Sport Plus 4 has received. Given the cost of a Rotax engine overhaul, the price difference between Sport Plus 4 and a less expensive alternative is relatively small over the life of the engine, which is one reason many Rotax specialists continue to recommend it. MIKE DROP !!!

Did anyone have the opportunity to watch the video? I don't want to single out any of the individuals involved, as they are clearly employees/managers rather than professional media presenters. However, as an association, I felt it was one of the least effective presentations I have seen. The presenters appeared uncomfortable and lacked confidence, and it was obvious they were reading from prepared material rather than speaking naturally. That isn't a criticism of them personally—it simply highlights that public speaking and media presentations require a different skill set. I believe it would be a worthwhile investment for the association to provide a few hours of media and presentation training to anyone who may represent us publicly in the future. Even half a day of professional coaching could make a significant difference to the confidence, delivery and overall impression our representatives create. As representatives of our association, they help shape how the wider industry perceives our professionalism, credibility and integrity. Investing in their presentation skills would, in my view, strengthen the reputation of the association as a whole.

They have changed these, Think fuel injected version. No Ducati Regulator and no Bing carbs.

Could it be that the Ducati regulator/rectifier is being used well outside of its original functional specifications? Answer = YES A bit like the regulator used in the Jabiru. Originally designed for garden equipment like ride on lawn mowers where it only had to recharge the battery after starting and sometimes control the outputs to the lights etc. Then someone finds it is really cheap and we can throw it in an aeroplane and expect it to work with all of the additional loads like avionics, strobes etc. then, we wonder why it fails so often. Just my $0.10 worth. Ducati never made aircraft, and therefore, never designed an aircraft regulator. Ducati Energia very openly states that these regulators are only intended for permanent magnet alternators commonly used on to wheel and 3 wheel vehicles as well as stationary engines operating off 12 V and 24 V. It was never designed for high continuous electric loads, long operating periods or high engine compartment temperatures. This was part of the Rotax philosophy at the time when the 912 was being developed. They kept using proven automotive and motorcycle components where they could to keep weight and cost down.

There’s actually no officially recognised “world’s longest running thread,” because it depends on what you mean by longest: Oldest continuously active discussion system: probably Usenet, which is still running today in various newsgroups. (UK Asian Forum Daily News) Oldest continuously active forum community: often cited as The WELL, which is still operating. (Wikipedia) Longest individual forum thread by replies/pages: this is much harder to verify. Some forum threads have exceeded 200,000 replies, and there are claims of threads with millions of posts on very large forums, but there is no central record keeper. (XenForo) One famous example often mentioned in internet culture is the debate about whether an airplane can take off from a conveyor belt, which ran for years across multiple forums and accumulated enormous numbers of posts. (Reddit) If you're talking about a single thread that has stayed active for the longest period of time, there are forum threads that have been continuously updated for 10–20+ years, particularly on aviation, car, gaming, and hobby forums. (Straight Dope Message Board) A more interesting question might be: What is the oldest internet discussion thread that is still receiving new posts today? That would probably involve digging through old Usenet archives from the 1980s, and some of those discussions may still technically be alive in descendant groups.

It wont be 19 rego, way before that time. Try replacing 19 with 10

Here is a better'er copy from AI

I am not talking about a zephyr I am talking about the Cobra when I mentioned empty weight. The Cobra is one of the heaviest ways to make an aeroplane out there and very primitive by modern vacuum bag techniques.

I think the market is supersaturated with low wing, side-by-side aircraft. The instant gratification of buying something used, (that is also certified and proven) has a big appeal against building something over many years for most people. 20 years ago, maybe but people have changed and they no longer accept a job that may take 10 years or more a rather spend the dollars now and go flying tomorrow. The EAA recently published information about the number of kits currently being built and it was less than 1/5 of what they were building 20 years ago

So if somebody quotes “280 kg empty,” it is probably technically possible by using advanced manufacturing techniques that are not consistent to the models manufacturing. 280 kg is not representative of any real owner aircraft flying around Australia today. A very realistic “honest” empty weight for a normal Cobra Arrow with a Rotax 912 and practical avionics is around: 315–340 kg empty rather than the often-advertised 280 kg.