rodgerc

My brand new from the factory 912ULS leaked (poured) fuel out of both carbies the first time it was connected to fuel. The carbies were duly removed, stripped and ultrasonically cleaned by an attending L2. The cleaning process yielded about a teaspoon of rehydrated “gum” in the bottom of the cleaner’s bowl. I was informed by the L2 that it was not uncommon in brand new, out-of-the-box engines test run in Austria then shipped.

Austenitic grades (304/316) of stainless steel are generally considered non-magnetic....But your engine mount will likely provide more trouble than a few tiny washers.

I’ve just acquired 5 of these US army aluminium tent stakes, 12m of 8mm polyester rope and an 8oz SCA ball-pein hammer in a draw string bag. Total weight = 1.63 kg

Another STOL aircraft in the works out of Czech Republic mentioned in the latest RA-Aus news

Thanks for the update. I’m comforted by the information, although that’s no consolation to you.

Can’t assist with advice on the Zhongshan, but as an owner of a Rotax I’m very curious to learn from your experience and the response you’ve received from Bombadier and Tecnam.

Might also be worth mentioning at this point that low wing aircraft utilise/benefit from a different model Facet pump (higher head) than that used in high wing designs.

When I installed my 912ULS fuel return line the BPR-Rotax Installation Manual’s specified “pilot jet 35” oriface was 0.35mm / 0.014”

In 1998, Bruce’s Jab was almost certainly built under the old Amateur Built Aircraft Acceptance (ABAA) rules that were administered jointly by SAAA and CASA. It was very restrictive in terms of the allowable deviation from the “accepted design”…(ABAA was phased out between 1998 and 2000)…The ABAA process was jointly administered by CASA and the SAAA and culminated with the issue of a type acceptance document. If you want more info look here: https://www.casa.gov.au/certification-amateur-built-abaa-aircraft A Special Certificate of Airworthiness for experimental aircraft (Experimental Certificate) is an entirely different beast with much greater freedom to innovate. It is not “owned” by the SAAA. If you want more info look here: https://www.casa.gov.au/experimental-certificates It’s quite misleading to consider them as one and the same.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that SAAA is not the sole pathway in Australia to an experimental (Special) CASA CoA. Whilst it is a very good idea for first-time builders to follow the SAAA pathway, there are a considerable number of experimental aircraft registered every year in Australia via independent Authorised Persons.

I’ve flown a few hundred hours behind a VW conversions….Here’s my experience/opinions: 1. They’re inexpensive, 2. They require a cylinder head overhaul every 120h or so, 3. The electrics (ignition and alternator) can be problematic if not effectively cooled, (Read as: require blast tubes) 4. Whilst many VW users complain about cooling, with a great deal of baffle work and judicious removal of cylinder head casting flash, they can run cool, 5. The AeroVee 2.1 prop hub is heat shrunk and keyed onto a forged crankshaft. This has overcome early VW crankshaft problems, but if I were to ever own another, it would have the Revmaster style front bearing, 6. Almost all heads (EMPI et alia) develop shallow cracks between the valves, 7. Nikasil barrels are to be avoided at all costs. (Long story), 8. They need to have a minor mod to an oil gallery to ensure adequate lubrication of the front bearing, (It’s simple to effect), 9. They require a good deal of tinkering. Expect to remove the engine cowls after every day’s flying. If you only remove cowls at annual intervals, don’t consider a VW. 10. The HP claims by the various suppliers are wildly optimistic. Mine ended up at 2297cc and only then did it come close to the 80HP claimed…60-70HP is more realistic for a 2180cc variant, 11. They’re simple engines, easy, fun and inexpensive to overhaul, 12. The “standard” AeroVee 2.1 crankcase is magnesium with reinforcement. Optional aluminium cases are impractically heavy. 13. No oil filter is fitted (or required) so 25h oil changes and valve adjustments are a good idea. (Always replace the cork rocker cover gasket or you’ll have issues with rockers contacting the covers), 14. Despite claims to the contrary, a well built VW won’t leak oil. Now for some person opinions… 15. Every auto conversion engine is an orphan, irrespective of who the supplier is…The owner must consider themselves to be the manufacturer, 16. Auto-engines are not designed to run at high power settings indefinitely as required by aero-engines. (My car lopes down the highway doing 100kph at <1500 RPM.) The laws of thermodynamics cannot be avoided thus hot-rodding MUST impact reliability. 17. The Type 1 crankcase was originally designed to provide ~30HP, not 80+. Turbocharging a VW to attempt to extract 100HP is an exercise in hope over common sense. My personal view is that it doesn’t make any sense for me to spend a single cent more on an aero-engine, UNTIL the instant the cheaper option gives a hint of trouble. These days I don’t fly behind VW’s, but I won’t denigrate anyone who chooses to….It’s simply the level of informed risk that the owner/pilot is prepared to accept. If my circumstances changed and I was looking for a VW derivative, I’d lean toward a Limbach.

These work a treat….I use the 10L version but younger and fitter folk could save time with the 20L

I’m hanging on to my Rotax, but I’ve got an Atmos clock that I’d part with if anyone’s interested.

My Warrior and Sling numbers are pretty rough but not out by anything like an order of magnitude. Based on Rotax’s published data and using a RON 95 ULP specific gravity of 0.72, 285g/kWh converts to ~0.297L/h/HP i.e. 20L/h approximates 67HP..... similarly 18L/h ~61HP, 16L/h ~54HP and 13L/h ~44HP. IFF Rotax’s data is reliable and your 130kt @ 16L/h expectations are realised, you’ll have built a very slippery airframe.

If it is the Ray Allen type, you can adjust the clevis fitting on the push rod. Download the installation instructions and don’t forget to get a dual check before you fly.

The venerable Warrior II 160HP has a wing loading around 13.7lbs/sqft and weight to power of 14.5lbs/HP. On a good day she’ll climb at about 600-700fpm, cruise at ~115kts and stall around 44kts. A 600kg MTOW Sling 2 has a somewhat lower wing loading at around 10.4lbs/sqft and a better weight to power of 13.2lbs/HP when fitted with a bog standard 912ULS. It climbs at 700fpm, cruises about the same or better than the Warrior and stalls at about 40kts. (The 700kg Group G RA-Aus registered Sling 2 will bring the wing loading closer the the Warrior at 12.1lbs/sqft when that becomes a reality) Both aircraft are low-wing and tricycle undercarriage but significantly, the Warrior will set you back $95/hr in Avgas versus $40/hr for RON95 ULP in the Sling….and if you’re capable of building a Sling 2 kit you’ll save an extra thousand or two each year by performing your own annuals. The Sling 2 seems a pretty good fit for a Warrior 2 nostalgic.

It makes as much sense (but is potential more dangerous) as delivering law and medicine lectures to students in Latin.

Yes…but of more annoyance is the drumming from my ANR headset from sound leaks caused by glass’ arms.

I’d like to imagine there is a moral in this (Storey Bridge) photograph….. Imagine if before “the decisive moment” Nino had been a little miffed that he had missed out on scoring a prime position along with the Hi-Vis jacketed crew on top of the bridge….Appeals to my sense of justice.

Poor Skyranger 😕

All good JG….It works for me….I’m in your hangar block at YKCY but currently at Loch Lomond, so very appropriate selection I’d say.

This RANS aircraft was offered to Piper some years ago when they were looking for a product for the 1320lb MTOW LSA market. Piper opted to go with the CZAW SportCruiser, but not for long.

Southco

With apologies to Ella Fitzgerald…. You like Werner and I like Verner, You like tomato and I like tomahto, Werner, Verner, potato, potahto, Let’s call the whole thing off.