skippydiesel

Viagra ? 😈

I don't have the breadth of experince, to know if there are any genuinely bad recreational aircraft, so I tend to think they are all good and all have their particular characteristics, that the pilot must come to terms with. That aside I agree with F10's sentiment - it's all about that magic feeling of flight - an uncommon privilege. I think one of F10"s criteria, for selecting the appropriate aircraft, is coved to some extent by the heading "Mission" or objective . His (& mine) is in large part, minimising cost .

An echo!

Ask Wal. I don't think you can hone or rebore the Rotax 9 cylinders. It may be possible to fit an aftermarket kit even a big bore upgrade: https://stolcreek.com/bigborekits https://www.edgeperformance.no/big-bore-faq https://zipperbigbore.com/zipper-1417-turbo/

Three bladed prop - couldn't see any wing struts - not a 172. Wow! got very close to not making it - taxiway landing not runway.

Go with Wal's advice. You may as well keep using while operating perimeters are all in the green. If not already, keep a log of oil added against hours flown - when oil added starts to approach Ly/Con normal consumption, might be time to consider your options. May be instructive to do the leak down cold & hot. Do cold, then go fly, to get engine well heat soaked and do the test again.

Obviously a mature Ford lover😈

Yeah! Thanks for that. Had heard - even seen some photos - looks great

Not the throttle spring - choke return spring - PN 938286 (no nylon/plastic inserts)

Near new engine - did a Mandatory SB on carburettors. Had a bag for L/R carby parts. Dont know how? Dont know when? One choke return spring went AWOL. New spring on way - Back in the air very soon😈

FYI BMW Bing choke return spring about $7.50 each. Not sure of the Rotax Bing choke return spring cost but $23.85 delivered (express post)

Bing 40 &35 Carburettor Choke Return Spring length 45 mm. Bing 65 (Rotax) Carburettor Choke Return Spring 40mm

Q. Anyone got a (non Rotax) source of Bing carburettor choke return springs?? Q. Will the return spring for a Bing 40 fit/do the same job, as fo a Rotax Bing 64 ??

Nice! - I had to pay for mine☹️

In the air, I use one of those scrib sticks. With this, I am less likely to swipe away the screen in turbulence 😈

A conundrum - Stick must be calibratable (marked in such a way as to not be disolved by or contaminate fue) to the specific aircraft tank(s). Must hold sufficient fuel, on its surface, for long enough so the level can be read Must not be so absorbent that the fuel "wicks" up the stick giving a false (+) reading My stick - a notched (5L increments) dowel of unknown origin (possibly Bunnings Aerospace) "wicks" like crazy. I have been contemplating soaking it in a thin solution of vinyl ester.

I met the owner & his aircraft maintainer today. Both as honest as the day is long. The maintainer is a genuine & highly respected Jab specialist (not some dodgy LAME who knows FA about this class of aircraft). The aircrafts history is very well documented and available to a genuine potential buyer for their scrutiny. The owners reason for first storing and now regretfully selling his aeroplane, is as stated - a member of his family is very ill, requiring his undivided attention now & into the future. The owner & his family are under a great deal of stress. He has had to step away from any personal involvement with the sale of his aircraft, to focus on his family.

I do not recall targeting you with this statement.

The only P&O I know, is a shipping line 😈

If making crude comparison of efficiency, can only use still air, unless aircraft being studied fly exactly same alt/track. Any other comparison will require sophisticated measuring equipment, so that variables can be adequately accommodated or removed. Thats why I like competitions, for obtaining unbiased third party data.

In effect, this Forum is, amongst other things, a place for debate. That is the exchange of "OTHER points of view". You can agree or not that is your prerogative - try and keep it civil/polite, anything less demeans you, not me. You put forward your idea. I put forward mine and so on. However its very sad when people descend into language that across as aggression. Quotes out of context. Quotes that never were said. Innuendo and the like Try going back over this recently rather sad debate and see who is in fact using emotive defensive and aggressive language. As an example - Check out the previous commentary (above) - not nice! It's strange that when I calmly/logically point out the efficiencies that speed can confer, the language of others seems to be about defence, as if they have somehow been attacked.

It seems to me that you two are about aggressive argument not factual discussion - Try sticking to fact, do not quote me or others out of context, by all means go off on an interesting tangent but above all remain polite.

Maaate! "wringing the neck out of my machine," It would seem you are inferring that a faster aircraft (on the same power/fuel consumption) must be being operated in a manner that will result in reduced engine service life. You a willfully ignoring the fact that the efficiency of a given airframe, is pretty much dictated by its accumulated drag. Reduce drag and you may go faster, for the same energy consumed or the same air speed, for less energy consumed. There is no suggestion that anyone is"wringing the neck out of (anyones) machine," - this is emotive nonsense. I cruise my Sonex at 5000-5300 rpm. Once in a blue moon I may do a beach/strip run at WOT (5450 rpm in my aircraft) All rpm are within Max continues. "Fuel consumption, I care little for. I am not worried about burning a new extra litres per hour." You probably own a Rolls Royce, bully for you! In my World fuel consumption is an important factor in selecting a suitable aircraft for my purpose. "For me, it's about enjoying my flying without counting the minutes." Skary statement! If this be the case, you should be very concerned with fuel consumption per hour, as this equates to minutes in the air, otherwise known as endurance. Me thinks your approach to flying, places you in danger of fuel exhaustion and the potentially unpleasant consequences thereof. 😈

Yes efficiency of the airframe/engine/prop combination does "float my boat" ESPECIALLY when it comes to touring (which has always been my flying objective). A fuel efficient aircraft will give me good range, more options for landing/refueling point, greater safety. One one other obvious (to me) point - the more efficient airframe, also allows me to optimise my speed/fuel consumption for any given segment of a rout ie I can go slower for less fuel/Hr, extend my duration & possibly range. I can also go faster (if fuel permits) and get in well before last light/storm/whatever (safety). I have known, since my very early flight training, that air speed is not something that thrills (open cockpits may be diffrent), unless very close to the ground, its something on a dial to be managed according to mission/weather conditions, etc You completely miss the point - it's not about & never has been about BRAGGING, it's about efficiency and options.

You made it about the perception/sensation of speed