ianboag

I put a 912ULS into a 160. Worked fine, although the arithmetic was bananas. I can provide all the (Oz) paperwork to anyone who is interested. I dealt with the W/B thing by moving the battery from the firewall to behind the luggage space. That was not on the paperwork. Numbers all worked good .... not sure if you would be allowed to do that in Oz. It is ZK-BGY ZK-CPA is a J200 with a 912ULS and an Idrovario CS prop BGY started life as actually a 24-regd aircraft so changing the engine required lots of paperwork, but it all got done. I bought it from the Adelaide Soaring Club with a 1000-hour engine that was running fine and had had a valve grind. Was actually pretty stuffed. I purchased a copy of the Oz paperwork and used it as the basis for my conversion in (the less rule-bound) NZ microlight world. Had silly stuff like "engine revs must be limited to 5000" in it. It's the plane in my picture. FWIW "The modification was done in 2010 on a similar aircraft in Australia owned by Paul Crowfoot. After an initial test flying period of 50-odd hours, the aircraft has accumulated about 650 trouble-free hours in a flight training environment.It is a factory-built J160C (serial #80). ZK-BGY is a factory-built J160C serial #127. (This was in 2013) The modification is documented in a CASA Engineering Order raised by Southdown Engineering Ltd. Southdown was operated by Dafydd Llewellyn (a CAR35 design engineer now retired). It was the equivalent of a NZ Part 146 design organisation. The detailed work was done by Bob Llewellyn working for Southdown through his organization Bob Llewellyn Designs Ltd (BLD). The material in this document is from BLD. The modification is specified in a CASA Engineering Order (EO), which is roughly equivalent to a NZ CAA 337. It is signed off For LSAs (like the J160) CASA delegates the signoff authority for EOs to CAR35 engineers." Go figure .....

Water jet is typically not expensive and does a REAL nice job. I was amazed at how it does small holes with tight tolerances. My first experience was a fair size chunk of 16mm (or so) ally (thick) that was to be a false firewall for a Rotax 912 going into a Jab. That gives some idea of the size. It was a relatively complex shape with a big hole in the middle and mounting holes all over the place. Cost $300 including the metal ..... I had been all worried about CNC machining and needing to bump up the mortgage ..... :-) The guy casually mentioned that if I had wanted more than one he would have just clamped up a couple more slabs and blown them all at once.

And water jet works well

Find a sheet metal place that does water jet cutting.

I had a Trio autopilot in my J200. The basic version just worked the stick to jeep the wings level. It would do aileron-only turns OK. It would maintain a track with a crosswind by dipping the upwind wing a little bit every so often. It was easy to override. It had a "rate 1 180 degree turn" function for when you flew accidentally into cloud. Quite fun ...Altitude hold was an extra and also worked the stick the same way.

Air NZ has just laid off 400-odd pilots ....

Perhaps we could have a poll of how many people on this site have seen this as part of their training? I didn't know it existed and if there is an NZ equivalent I have never heard of it .....

Speaking as the author of PEMET ... Trouble with trying to translate NOTAMs is there is no standard. People just sort of make up abbreviations and format stuff however they feel like. TAF/METAR OTOH follow (sort of) an ICAO (sort of) standard. I know it is sort of because my NZ translator needed a lot of hacking to work for Oz. Canadian ones were a bit different too. ARFORs weren't too bad, although the formats were quite different. Madness, but real aviators understand all of it of course ....

Just make sure they are skinny ones that you can wear way down your nose .... or go to Zenni Optical and buy a set of prescription glasses with zero on the top and whatever you need at the bottom. If you are doing that you might as well have an eye test and get "real" ones from Zenni. Bifocal or progressive - take your pick. Expect to pay about USD50 for bifocals or USD 100 for progressives. Then get some of their $US5 clipon polarised sunnies. Cut the bottom off with some snippers so you can look at the panel .... works

Autogauge Oil Pressure Sender Unit - Yellow Label that's the NZ equivalent of EBay ... it's the unit I run on my 912ULS. If you go to EBay Aus and look for oil pressure senders you will find ... as I recall it is a 10 bar unit which I mention to my MGL unit. It is written on the body ..... Universal Engine Oil Pressure Sensor Gauge Sender Switch Sending Unit 1/8 NPT | eBay Looks to be the same thing for $7.50 with free shipping from China. At that price one doesn't care if they are AUD, NZD or USD ..... I suspected that the wild oil pressure fluctuations I saw in another aircraft were an artifact of the Dynon EFIS, so plumbed in on of these ,,,, pressure was rock steady. Nylon hose with fittings was another $20 TRISCO OIL PRESSURE GAUGE 52MM

You can buy Chinese VDO compatible senders for ridiculously small amounts like $25 or so. We have several in use on our field ....

Now I am confused. Was that $20 each from Bert Flood? As I recall we bought a kit like that for about NZD125 from ConAir in the UK which was under half what the Rotax people wanted for the real thing. If you go to the ConAir site now you find that they have passed their hose stuff to Skydrive who only sell 17mm hose by the metre. I was not able to find 17mm hose anyplace else .... I know of people who tried 18mm (leaked) and 16 mm (could not get it on) and something/16". For whatever reason, the boys in Austria went for 17mm ...

Then there is .... AWB 02-1 Issue 1 - On-condition maintenance | Civil Aviation Safety Authority written 2001, updated 2016 whatever this extract means ...... Manufacturers Recommended TBO Aircraft and component manufacturers can make "Hard Time" recommendations (i.e. removal of items from service at a specified period for overhaul or replacement indifferent of the items current performance condition), usually referred to as Time Between Overhaul (TBO), which specify how long they consider their product should remain in service. These recommendations are based on average utilisation and conditions and usually recommend that the item be fully stripped and returned to the original specifications. TBO's do not normally involve a condition check being done during the items life. The ability to escalate these hard time limitations however, comes from effective condition monitoring - the real basis for "on-condition" maintenance. CASA Recommendations C of R holders should utilise the philosophy of "on-condition" maintenance to detect the onset of failures of such items, particularly when time in-service of these items are in the vicinity of the manufacturer's recommended TBO. Provided that a component continues to meet the documented standard, at the appropriate frequencies, it is considered satisfactory to remain in service. TBOs that are not included in the manufacturers Airworthiness Limitations or in Airworthiness Directives issued by CASA should still be considered, unless substantiation has been collated to show the outcome of "on-condition" inspections are still appropriate for the safe operation of the aircraft or equipment. Where alleviation is permitted beyond the manufacturer's TBO, an example of which would be AD/ENG/4, C of R holders and LAME's must ensure at the completion of the aircraft periodic inspection the "on-condition" maintenance inspection requirements are included on part 1 of the aircrafts maintenance release as "maintenance required".

What happens to aircraft in this situation in Oz? RAA private use ultralights. Do you stop flying and throw the engine away or what?

skydrive uk will sell you 17mm hose at GBP15/metre. Still quite competitive I think. To work the clips you want the hose pliers at Angled Flat Band Hose Clamp Pliers Rotax 912 582 Aircraft Auto Engine Coolant | eBay. Makes it all a breeze rather than mucking about with ordinary pliers and vice grips. Nothing like the right tool for the job.

I think we have both been playing golf .... or croquet ... or some other bang-your-own-ball activity. Not much meeting of minds. The Rotax used paperwork from an EO ... done by a Llewellyn even.

It's probably time we put this dispute between two ignorant chaps to bed ... :-) Given that this is not my plane and not yours we have to accept that free advice is worth what the Sting man is paying for it. I very much doubt that the Rotax slipper clutch is there to take up regular torsional wobbling by having the plates move relative to each other. I always assumed that the purpose is to prevent a prop strike from trashing the rest of the drive train. I had a prop strike once and watched the blades sort of stutter as the ends touched the runway. Engine kept going - it was all a bit novel. The gearbox box was professionally stripped, the crank was checked and there were no problems. My Cessna story was second hand ... sorry. But .... In a clamped joint done properly, the clamped surfaces do not move relative to each other AT ALL. They are "dowelled" by the zillions of surface imperfections in the two mating faces. So the bolts that provide the clamp force are not in shear - never - not even "hardly ever". So no cant - no bend - no bearing surface - no wear - ..... I'm done. My late father once observed that some conversations are like two people playing tennis where the ball gets hit and returned, and some are like golf where two players just bash away at their own ball. :-)

None of the lugs on my 912ULS/Warp flange/prop are an interference fit. I agree about the TVs, but not about the shear-driven nature of the joint. The dogs are not in shear, no matter how short they are. If the joint moves - at all - it will eventually break from fatigue because the pins(bolts) get bent back and forth. The reason the joint does not move is that friction clamps it. Dogs that are anything other than an interference fit do not do any driving, so it doesn't matter (within reason) how short they are, as long as they locate the prop correctly. There's a Wikipedia page that explains bolted (clamp) joints. If the faces of the joint can move - be it by ever such a tiddly amount - the bolts will break. A 12 mm spacer that reduces the dog engagement from 15mm to 4mm is not a safety issue. If you torque the bolts up to whatever the Bolly people say, the joint will not move. FWIW I understand that Cessnas have just one dog and a locating spigot in the centre of the prop flange. The spigot locates the prop centrally and the dog puts the prop in the right crank angle position. It's a clamp joint ... work all done by friction. I realise there is paperwork that makes 24 aircraft sacred in Oz. That might slow one down. No insurance - non-airworthy aircraft - 20 years in jail is all serious stuff. The physical realities are that the Bolly would be a good 3kg lighter than the CS unit is is standing in for. As explained above, 3mm of penetration is plenty to locate it on the flange/spacer so the clamp from suitably torqued up bolts can hold it. The CG would move back some because the prop is lighter. What is hard about this? We have a guy on field who flies a Sting that came with a ground-adjustable and it works fine. Here in NZ for a microlight, one would write up the mod, do a revised W&B then submit it to the technical officer of a Part 149 organisation (we have three of them). When that is signed off (generally not an issue and does not cost anything significant) it goes to CAA who charge $250 and approve it. Scary stuff I suppose. No Engineering Order. No design engineer involved. With such a sloppy attitude, one might expect modified microlights to be falling out of the NZ sky all over the place. Bound to start happening real soon .... I just haven't heard of a single case yet where a microlight crashed/failed because of a poorly done mod. I am not a LAME or an aeronautical engineer, so we can cheerfully agree to differ on this. Cheers IB

I went through this when I put a 912 into my J160. The engine end lugs that have an internal thread are a press fit - the ones without an internal thread are not. As you correctly state the prop end lugs are not a press fit. All as supplied by national Rotax agent. Go figure .... This is a fairly standard clamp joint. If the faces of a clamp joint move the tiniest bit then the dowels - bolts - whatever eventually snap from bending fatigue

Fair comment. Surely though if the dowels are doing the heavy lifting they would need to be an interference fit. If not, then they could move with the dire consequences you correctly describe.

Warp Drive sell what they call "extensions" and BTW I thought the dowels were basically just locators - and the torque is transmitted by friction. Shades of the old Jab flywheel bolt controversies ....

That was me. W & B was sorted by moving the battery to the back of the luggage area.

We have these in Kiwiland and there are no obvious issues that raise any fuss. Microlight stuff is administered by RAANZ and SAC. CAA sort of stay out of most of it ....

The Toucan just bolts straight on, but may require a bit of cowl surgery

I totally agree with "eyes outside". The device is about 30 mm high and sits on the glare shield right in the line of view. All I want is a reasonably reliable indicator of when I am 1-2 m high so I can manage it totally manually from there. Up to that point it would just rate an occasional glance as my eye checks the ASI