Sport Pilot

[Kyle Communications]

The way I read the SB it pretty much says do it or if there is a issue we can say you didnt follow our recommendations. Now for Certified aircraft its a must otherwise Rotax can always give you the bird if you try to make a clain or ATSB said you didnt follow the "recommended" proceedures.

We have 95 at our airfield but the club has decided to change our fuel to 98 based on this bulletin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

I have always preferred to use 98 RON however this is so that I am sure that, in the event of fuel mixing/adulteration, I am using no less than 95 RON.

 

912 80 hp have a lower compression ratio compared with the 100 hp engine - the 80 should be far more "tolerant" of lower RON fuel than the 100 hp.

 

Octane  rating is about knock/pre ignition. How you load the engine has a significant part to play in knock generation - high load, greater chance of knock. Aircraft propeller pitch setting and angle /speed of climb are the principal (not only) contributors to knock.

 

Rotax have recently changed their engine speed/MAP recommendations - Used to be that the engine should make no less than 5200 rpm STATIC @ WOT. This very safe simple easy to understand advice has been dropped in favour of https://aquila-aviation.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/SL_912_016R2_914_014R2_Rotax_Notes_engine_handling.pdf, a rpm/WOT chart/graph that the pilot/maintainer can select from.

 

The chart shows diffrent results for 95 & 98 RON.

 

The take home message is that 98 RON allows for a greater margin of operation/error than 95 however 95 is still okay to use, provided you operate the engine within the advised parameters.

 

 

 

Edited December 12 by skippydiesel

[BrendAn]

On 10/12/2024 at 2:32 PM, Deano747 said:

Disagree.

Interesting reading about the new breed of aviators coming through, and the possibilities surrounding electric propulsion.

Good reminder on heat.

Good reminder on recency.

Good read from contributors and their adventures - one an around the World flight and the other from a relatively new pilot and the airmanship involved in landing on an unknown airstrip.

Oh, and all service station fuel can contain up to 1% ethanol without it being declared. If you are looking at how to waste an afternoon, delve into the Fuel Quality Standards Act.

 i agree with skip.90% crap. and what does flying around the world have to do with raaus.

Edited December 13 by BrendAn

[Area-51]

Bottle of Smirnoff into the tank will ensure fuel meets required certification standards, water ingress is contained, deadly emissions are reduced, and jobs are created... "underpants save lives"...

[Deano747]

On 13/12/2024 at 9:33 PM, BrendAn said:

 i agree with skip.90% crap. and what does flying around the world have to do with raaus.

Sorry - did you not note that the Southern Sun is an LSA, probably the most common type of airplane that RAAus members are involved with nowadays - and yes, I know that it used to be all about the AUF - times change.

[facthunter]

"Flying Around the World" should have convinced people IT is NOT FLAT.

 SAFE and affordable flying?  A fanciful dream for most..  Australian ULTRALIGHT Federation has a nice ring to it.. Sport Pilot? Hmmm.  I think it nosedived when it Became The "NEW GA". That was neva gunna Run.  Nev

[BrendAn]

18 hours ago, Deano747 said:

Sorry - did you not note that the Southern Sun is an LSA, probably the most common type of airplane that RAAus members are involved with nowadays - and yes, I know that it used to be all about the AUF - times change.

Not having a go at you. Southern sun is vh ,nothing to do with raas.

Are you suggesting raas pilots can fly around the world in their RPC.

Actually people that can afford flash European aircraft should be seperate to us that want to fly simple and affordable aircraft.

Xair which are great fun to  fly are still available new as are several other ultralights it only seems to be Australia that is against ultralights. Plenty flying in other countries.

[spacesailor]

None in England ? . 

Only. GA licence .

spacesailor

[BrendAn]

 

 

27 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

None in England ? . 

Only. GA licence .

spacesailor

none there you reckon.   there are more thrusters and xairs flying there than here.

they also have easier medicals and fast track licensing for ultralight/microlight.

Edited December 15 by BrendAn

[spacesailor]

The  English Hummelbird ( in or near Wales ) needed a GA licence ? . 

Hence . only. GA licence . Never heard if he has flown it

spacesailor

[Red]

26 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

The  English Hummelbird ( in or near Wales ) needed a GA licence ? . 

Hence . only. GA licence . Never heard if he has flown it

spacesailor

I'll PM you

[BrendAn]

4 minutes ago, Red said:

I'll PM you

Why can't U explain it here. Would be good to hear from the horses mouth so to speak.

[spacesailor]

It's just a third party thing .

Nothing to tell .

Yet

spacesailor

[Red]

6 hours ago, BrendAn said:

Why can't U explain it here. Would be good to hear from the horses mouth so to speak.

Respecting Owners Privacy

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, Red said:

Respecting Owners Privacy

Sorry. I thought you were talking about a microlight licence in the UK.

[Red]

No worries, it was about the Hummelbird

[RocketShip]

I totally agree. I emailed them twice about how bad the magazine is. I even mentioned about cheaper membership to not have the magazine supplied. Never heard from them.

Sometimes I buy the Australian flying magazine. It is in a format like the old RAA magazine used to be. The one now, is all shiny glossy crap. 

[Deano747]

Rock and a hard place - I agree that the magazine could be done with less 'gloss' as it would be very expensive to produce.

Last one I was associated with was >$400,000 for 20,000 copies after advertising. I suspect that the advertising revenue for Sport Pilot is significant.

It was decided to remove all the gloss and get back to basics - advertisers left and the price out of our pocket to produce went up .............

Eventually the decision was made to go to online only (with those wanting a printed copy to pay for their copy), and the readership stats went down and advertisers left at an accelerating rate.

 

As I have mentioned, the editor of any magazine is always chasing content - send in an article. 

It would only need one short article every few years from each member.

Edited Sunday at 11:02 PM by Deano747

[turboplanner]

6 minutes ago, Deano747 said:

Rock and a hard place - I agree that the magazine could be done with less 'gloss' as it would be very expensive to produce.

Last one I was associated with was >$400,000 for 20,000 copies after advertising. I suspect that the advertising revenue for Sport Pilot is significant.

It was decided to remove all the gloss and get back to basics - advertisers left and the price out of our pocket to produce went up .............

Eventually the decision was made to go to online only (with those wanting a printed copy to pay for their copy), and the readership stats went down and advertisers left at an accelerating rate.

 

As I have mentioned, the editor of any magazine is always chasing content - send in an article. 

It would only need one short article every few years from each member.

Good summary. The success of a magazine is proportionate to its advertising income. RAA members have opted for charging members an additional subscription as well.

[skippydiesel]

Leaving aside the RAA staff contributions, which tend to " motherhood statements" but do have nuggets of useful stuff as well.

 

I also acknowledge that every member/subscriber will have diffrentexpectaions ftom SP - cant satisft everyone all of the time ei it's a tough call being the editor of a magazine.

 

I expect an article on;

• An aircraft, to have all of its physical/handling/performance data and cost from basic (inc kit if available) to top-o-the line.
• Something like fuel, to be both factually correct and unbiased. 

Further, since Mr Heath became Editor, the magazine seems to have become strongly biased towards the new Class G aircraft - (could this be because he flies an RV???) to the disadvantage of all the other class of RAA aircraft. 

[kgwilson]

Well I finally have my latest Sportpilot & in general agree with Skippy. Apart from some basic stuff from RAA the rest is pretty boring. There is an emphasis on young pilots of which there are very few and their training or aviation journey and there are no technical articles for those of us who have built aircraft or enjoy this stuff. The round the world article is about a flight 9 years ago and the next article about a flight that hasn't happened yet after 16,000 hours of build time.

 

The fuel article is just poor. 95 & 98 RON fuels do not contain Ethanol but the regulations allow up to 1% to account for cross contamination at refueling stations & that makes no appreciable difference. I have used 95 & 98 RON automotive fuel (it isn't called Mogas) in my Jabiru 3300 since new with not a single problem in over 400 hours. A number of other operators at our airfield finally switched after using Avgas for years enduring plug fouling and other issues with deposits. I filter my fuel through a Mr Funnel & have never detected water & with Vinyl Ester tanks no condensation either.

 

The down side is the smell which does penetrate Vinyl Ester walls so when I open the cockpit I smell petrol. This is because the light components (toluene, benzine, n-hexane etc) which evaporate off first) It goes away quickly with air circulation but the fuel does not last as long as Avgas. That doesn't matter as a small amount of fresh fuel on top of what is in the tank will normalise it. I developed Shingles in early August & didn't fly for 3 months. I put 5 litres of fresh fuel on top of 35 litres of old & it started & ran perfectly after a single crank.

 

As for articles I agree this would be helpful. I have responded to articles through letters to the editor & the last about ADSB & Skyecho 2 when it was claimed ATC cannot see you. That was false but the response was it wasn't what the editor was told so no checking or retraction.

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, Deano747 said:

Rock and a hard place - I agree that the magazine could be done with less 'gloss' as it would be very expensive to produce.

Last one I was associated with was >$400,000 for 20,000 copies after advertising. I suspect that the advertising revenue for Sport Pilot is significant.

It was decided to remove all the gloss and get back to basics - advertisers left and the price out of our pocket to produce went up .............

Eventually the decision was made to go to online only (with those wanting a printed copy to pay for their copy), and the readership stats went down and advertisers left at an accelerating rate.

 

As I have mentioned, the editor of any magazine is always chasing content - send in an article. 

It would only need one short article every few years from each member.

Online is the way to go.

We are all on there anyway.

 

[spacesailor]

Not my teenage Ggrandies .

They seem to have handed the mobiles back to their parents. 

spacesailor

[kgwilson]

I forgot to mention the other article on the future of aircraft batteries by the same author. He hasn't done much research at all. He seems to think the only viable technology is LiFeP04 and comparing phone and portable devices is just plain ridiculous. I own an electric vehicle which has a NMC (Nickel, manganese, cobalt) lithium battery. This has considerably better energy density than LiFeP04. The battery is warranted for 10 years and in China & Thailand the battery is provided with a lifetime warranty transferable to subsequent owners. The fire risk is miniscule being at least 20 to 80 times (2000% to 8000%) less likely than an internal combustion engine and in the last 10 years, only 570 fires out of more than 40 million EVs on the road worldwide have endured a thermal runaway, almost all due to a major crash. Compare this to aircraft crashes using volatile fuels. This is due to very high manufacturing standards and battery management software which over rides human stupidity.

 

CATL, the worlds largest battery manufacturer is already producing an aviation lithium battery that has an energy density of 500Wh per kilogram compared to the best NMC batteries at around 200 Wh/kg and between 90 & 160 Wh/kg for LiFeP04 batteries.

[skippydiesel]

Kgwilson,

 

"I forgot to mention the other article on the future of aircraft batteries by the same author. He hasn't done much research at all. He seems to think the only viable technology is LiFeP04 and comparing phone and portable devices is just plain ridiculous."

 

Research?? I think you are being very generous in saying "...hasn't done much".

 

Seems to me that he has written these two articles from a very low level information base - nil. Best be fair, he has some terminology but no context and understanding.😈