cscotthendry

I may have already posted this. If so ... Too bad:tongue in cheek:

It also depends on your local regulations. I note that you are in Spain and I'm guessing that you come under European weight restrictions. So adding extra weight with a different engine may reduce your payload (fuel, baggage and passengers). Here in Australia, if the aircraft is registered as a factory built aircraft it would probably entail a lot of paperwork to change the engine type, if it was even possible.

What's more, it is widely recognized that every time a new security measure is introduced, any potential terrorists note it and immediately find ways around it. In that regard, the terrorists are winning as they make our society more and more restrictive. And of course, the pollies and security forces love it because they benefit from playing on peoples' fears.

Thanks for that link Phil. I wasn't aware of this current activity on Voyager. I have to admit that I don't keep as close tabs on it as I did in 1979 'Smee on the left Honeysuckle Creek tracking station DSS44 Canberra Australia 1979

On the later model Rotax engines the bolt pattern is different to the earlier engines. One of them is a bolt circle of 100mm dia and the other is 4" (101.6mm), but I can't remember which one is which.

Like you, I'm not totally positive about this, but I thought the minimum stall speed was stated as the no flaps and MTOW speed.

That's a very interesting observation. I never thought of it like that. I believe there is a practical limit on engines which is around the 1HP / Pound. I wonder if there's a similar practical limit to the load carrying capacity of a structure. Something interesting to consider is that if the wings are rated to +4 -2 g, then they are carrying far more than their own weight, even in a conventional structure.

The issues as I understood it was not the manufacturers, but the importers. The importers were registering the airplanes at 600Kg when the manufacturers hadn't done the engineering nor testing at those weights. LSA is what is known as a declarative standard. The manufacturer has to certify that the aircraft have been designed, manufactured and tested in accordance with the ASTM standards (or the European equivalent). The manufacturer is then responsible by law that those declarations are true. In the early days of LSA, the importers were making these declarations and when CASA looked into the manufacture of these planes, they found that the manufacturers hadn't certified them. There is a form 681 (and some other forms to go along with that) that the manufacturer has to fill out and sign, stating that their manufacturing and testing complies. If there is no form for the aircraft, then it can't be legally registered as an LSA. Yes, it doesn't seem right. Even with carbon fibre technology there is a limit to material strength and the lighter you make the plane, the less strength it has. As I mentioned, my Legend is 313Kg empty and the MTOW is 600Kg. The fuselage of my plane is quite strong but I wouldn't want it to be much lighter. Having said that, I've been advised that the manufacturer has moved to pre-preg cloth that does reduce weight without compromising strength. That may account for some of the 33Kg difference between this aircraft and my Legend, but I'd bet you'd find some very thin (read light) pieces on this plane. A couple of areas where my Legend is quite thin is the wheel spats and other cosmetic pieces. The problem with pieces being so thin is that they flex, but the paint doesn't. So we've had some paint issues. It's only cosmetics, but it is a little disappointing.

Yes, the Legend was specifically engineered for the 600Kg market and is flown in Europe at their weight limits. But that is not a given with all UL aircraft coming out of Europe. My previous airplane, the Nynja was designed for the European UL market, but wasn't engineered or tested for 600Kg and so it can't be registered as an LSA anywhere. I'm not sure what the status is for the Tecnam, but I'd be sure there are pre-LSA Tecnams out there that could not be re-registered as LSA because their original manufacture didn't account for that extra MTOW. Later models could possibly be so, but if an aircraft is registered as a UL here, and someone is hoping to re-register it as an LSA, that's a whole different thing. I emphasise this last point as when I was looking for an airplane to upgrade from the Nynja, I had a couple of people try to sell me ULs saying that they could be upgraded to LSA. I enquired about that and it isn't a straightforward paper shuffle as some sellers would have you believe.

Some are, but not all. The Euro ultralights can go to 472kg if they're fitted with a recovery chute. The recovery chute gives them an extra 22kg of weight limit with a penalty of about 15kg for the weight of the chute, so they only get 7kg extra payload capacity.

Empty weight 270Kg !!? In their dreams maybe. It would have to be made of tissue paper to get that weight realistically. My Legend is 313Kg empty and you can see how hard the manufacturer has worked to get it to that weight.

There was a business out near Archerfield (Coopers Plains I think) that had woodworking machines and you could go in there and use them for an hourly fee. I'm not sure if it's still going and sadly, I can't remember the name.

Thanks for the links to your pics. I especially liked the ones of the Jab mods. Is the lightwing back in the air now?

Bstrachan: I see you are in the US so I can't comment on the support you get there. Here In Oz, we have Bert Flood as the distributor. I can't compare what they charge for parts and service to other countries, but it does seem a bit steep, BUT having said that... They have always given me excellent service and when I order parts I've never been told that there will be a delay. They always send the parts out that day and I have them in a couple of days. So maybe we're lucky in that regard. As for Rotax's documentation, it's a bit like working for the CIA; you only get to know what you need to know. The documentation that the average engine owner has available is just enough to do what the average engine owner is allowed /qualified to do. You only get access to the teardown docs when you have done the requisite level of maintenance training. I do find some of the fractured translations from German a bit odd at times though. I have built an airplane and installed a Rotax engine and found the docs supplied were sufficient to get the job done correctly, but I had to study them. I'm also a subscriber to Rotaxowner.com and they have produced a series of videos that clarify a lot of maintenance stuff. If you're not a subscriber, I highly reccomend it. They are always asking for ideas for videos and so if there's something that you're not clear on, you can bet a lot of others would like to know that too.

onetrack: Is that stuff safe in a fibreglass tank?

Pylon (I prefer to be called Tripod, but different strokes and all that!) : Am I correct in thinking that a JR-230 is a Rotax powered Jab? I always thought that the Jab airframes were pretty good. Coupled with a Rotax engine and you'd have a really noice plane. BTW, I just tried to go to your Picasa page, but got the dreaded 404

Rotax engines are more expensive than some other engines, but this is due (IMO) to the care they take in manufacturing and partly due to the wages Germans get compared to say Chinese workers. Personally, I'd rather pay someone a hefty salary to put my engine together carefully, than to get a "cheap" engine that the workers have rushed or just slapped together. If it was just a motor scooter engine, I'd probably prefer "cheap" though.

It's in my earlier post with the diagram, but basically, it works like this: When a coil is energised it builds up a magnetic field around it. That's what pulls the solenoid contacts together. Now, when the current it stopped, the magnetic field collapses and the collapsing field generates a reverse voltage in the coil. If the coil is open circuit (as it is when the start switch is released) the collapsing magnetic field can build up quite a large voltage, large enough to generate a spark between the relatively close contact points of the start switch. This spark will carry a small amount of metal from one contact to the other. If this is repeated enough times, enough material can be built up to cause a short across the contacts. This used to happen quite regularly in cars that had contact points in the distributors and it's why those points had to be regularly changed.

Bruce: The diode is there to protect the start switch from welding rather than the heavy current contacts in the solenoid.

If you do stop at Agnes Water, I can highly reccomend going out to 1770 and having sundowner drinks at the tree bar. The restaraunt is also great for meals. 1770 Beach Hotel and The Tree Restaurant

Which is exactly why tapered thread (read "self-sealing") fittings are used for this application.

I'm glad someone brought this up. I was going to mention it, but you beat me to it. There is significant pressure and temperature in the oil system. If you look at how Rotax engineered their oil system, you can see that they have done what they can to keep the pressurised passages inside the engine. The lines to and from the oil tank are the only oil transports outside the engine and they have zero pressure differential between the inside and outside of the hoses. By remotely mounting the oil pressure sender, you are creating a high pressure pathway outside of the engine that could rupture. With that kind of pressure in that line, a rupture will empty your oil system in a matter of seconds.

It would be easy and cheap enough to test the 1/8NPT. Just buy a general brass 1/8NPT fitting from an auto parts store and see how it fits.

At the base of the thread it is 10.29mm. At the tip it is 9.60 (approx). Thread pitch too hard to measure with calipers, but shows 28GA on thread pitch gauge. From your measurements, it looks like you might have a 10mm X 1.0 sender. Anybody's guess what's in the oil pump given that you say you have AL adhering to the sender threads!

That's what I *love* about plumbing. Like Heinz baked beans ... 57 varieties, and nothing fits anything else.