skippydiesel

Quick read through and all I saw was comments about this engine competing with Rotax 912's - seems all have forgotten that Jab engines were very much cheaper than Rotax. Despite the jabs unfortunates reputation, lots of pilots, here & overseas, were/are happy to take the lower cost engine.

True Nev, however I have never seen such a pathetic attempt at safety wiring - must be a jole.

Trying to understand the problem - It's all about duration (time in the air, with a reserve of course). My point is, with the exception of the ultra slow, most Jabs/Rotax powered aircraft, should have sufficient range to get to a fuel source IF you flight plan to do so (this may not be the shortest/direct route)

Ye Gads! - It must be terrifying to be you. How do you get outside your front door, let alone drive/walk on the public thorougfare? My (not yours) reality is that we live in a litigious society (courtesy of the Yanks, whom we so slavishly follow). Seems ever few people, take responsibility for their actions, so look to blame someone else for every misstep, that they or others may make. Urbane scutlbut would have us belive, that we are all in danger of being sued for every sneeze, trip, decision that effects us or others. True or false, I choose to lead my life as a responsible adult, the decision I make are mine and for the most part are with due consideration to the law/regulation, moderated by a big dollop of common sense - I sleep well and my conscience is clear. Contacting the manufacturers of your aircraft, to request a letter of authorisation, for a proposed modification/change (could be change of battery make or a replacement tyre, propeller, etc) is both normal, accepted and if granted, sufficient approval to carry out the mods - this has nothing to do with how its registered, or how it may be used.

Or a 12V pump, that can be powered from the aircraft battery.

You are correct - they are more difficult to pour. Mine have an extra handle to help control the "floppiness" but even so not as easy as a rigid. No diffrent to carry when full of fuel. My 2 x 20L roll up into a space, very roughly, similar to a 10L rigid. They came with securing straps, I guess, for when they are transported full, something I have never done. When deciding between collapsable & rigid, it's not just weight that should be considered but also volume ie space occupied. If you have plenty of space I would recomend rigid but if your aircraft is like mine where space is very limited ,collapsable may be the only way to go. One other point: Leave space for the containers to expand, with altitude/heat or (less desirable) leave the cap slightly open to allow for expanding gas/air to escape.

I will weigh my two collapsible jerry cans/bladders (& my plastic rigid Jerrys) & get back to you however I will be very surprised that there is much difference either way.

Where do you get this stuff from? Modifications to, factory built, aircraft can not be legally performed, without the approval of the factory/manufacturer. Ergo they can be performed with the factory's (letter of) approval. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "engine failures", "common occurrence" or any other unrelated matter. You assumption that in this case "ferry tanks" can only be applied to GA is unfounded. GA is, in Australia, a registration description, not a class of aircraft. There are many GA registered aircraft that can also be registered RAA (& visa versa). Speculation: Aircraft that have flown around the World, UK/Australia , flown long distances over water (ferry flights) will have been fitted with duration/range extending ferry tanks - the pilots have not ended up in jail.

That is nonsense - a letter of approval, to install a modification, from the factory, is a legitimate pathway - I have been there.

Another thought - Contact the factory & request the approval to install a ferry tank. Nothing radical about ferry tanks, they are an established method of extending the flight duration in all sorts of aircraft. The approval may or may not be given and at this speculative stage (no aircraft) I don't know what factory aircraft you may end up with, however some production aircraft manufacturers' are more flexible than others when it comes to modifying their design.

Why go for a factory build. Even if thats what you eventually purchase - go E registration for EXPERIMENTAL and do the mods (sensibly)

Be sure to know the answer BEFORE asking the question. It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission"

Anyone know if there is a person at Parkes, who may be willing to do a dynamic propeller balance for me, this weekend?????

Fit a an auxiliary tank. with in flight transfer pump. You will still need two 20L fuel bladder (two keeps you within your personal W&B🙂) & a good quality filter funnel but now your aircraft has longer legs/duration, to get you to that airfield where there is ULP on tap/courtesy car to go to the nearest appropriate servo/helpful people to drive you there & back.

What does this mean "circuits flown to the North and East of the field." ? It simply means right hand circuits on 30, and left hand circuits on 12.

I have deep pockets (I wish) but very short arms - no desire to contaminate my little Rotax with costly liquor and the inevitable coating of her arteries.😜

Your no fun!!😈

"...........what fuel 912s use or don't use..." Well there you go, that explains why you don't quite follow my concern about RAA's lack of foresight/ planning for the Parkes event. "...........Latrobe" - that's somewhere in Mexico - right? Explains everything 😈 "...fuel companys would be reluctant to send mogas out to an airfield. leaves them liable if contaminants cause an engine failure." Mate - it was your (possibly unintended) suggestion of heightened risk in using ULP "Grumpy" - Yep! got to that age - no intention to offend/ hope none taken🙃

To what purpose? If they supply - Great! If the don't! no change! - either way it does not change RAA failure to support a large contingent of their members/aircraft. It's up to you.

My apologise - I tend toward verbosity, so tried for brevity/clarity of argument. What you say is true, although your interpretation of 30% AvGas, would not be mine. I would, only if I had to, space my AvGas usage throughout the service period. Dont have a strong argument for this, just the way I would go. How about if trying to minimise lead build up better to use AVGas in a less concentrated way, than you described. As I have said - when all else fails, I have used AvGas but would very much prefer not to, for all the aforementioned reasons.

Turbs - What initiatives exhibitors provide on the day(s) is for them. When I enquired, about ULP supply, with the organisers, RAA, they had not even thought about it . After further discussion, sort of agreed to the cartage of fuel on the courtesy bus (Parkes town/Airfield)

Maaaaate!: Fact - Rotax 9's are designed to run on unleaded petrol (ULP) minimum 95 RON. Fact- Rotax 9's can run on leaded (AvGas) but in doing so it is recommended that the service (oil changes) intervals be halved and that the gearbox be removed for inspection/cleaning, at,I think, 600 hrs which is also half the interval for an engine run predominantly on ULP.-significant additional cost in fuel & service Fact - Rotax 9s do not perform any better using AvGas, than ULP - possible exception for high altitude performance (not usually an issue in Australia) Fact- In using AvGas you are unnecessarily adding a lead pollutant to the environment - why do it if you don't have to? Fact- This topic, Rotax 9's / use of ULP/Avgas, has been absolutely done to death. All the hysteria (including the legal liability mumbo jumbo) about lower quality control standards for ULP compared with AvGas has been debunked - assuming basic precautions are taken ie: Purchase ULP from a high turnover retailer (preferably a well known/established brand) Filtering fuel in to your aircraft tanks ie a use a filter funnel (best if it has a water separating function as well) Do your pre flight fuel sampling, to check for contaminants - keep sampling until no contamination in sample Inspect/service your aircrafts in line fuel filters/water traps at regular interval Store ULP in sealed containers 75% + full - good for at least 6 months Add fresh fuel to fuel tanks, before flight (not after) If flying infrequently (my guess less than once a month) drain all fuel from the aircraft between flights Speculation: I think there is a strong case for businesses, using ULP, for "off road" use ie powerig aircraft, to claim rebate on road tax portion of the ULP fuel cost - further reducing running costs. As for aircraft fueling services - the reality is that in most instances/airfields the demand would be miniscule, compared with AvGas/JetA ie it would not be a paying proposition. They run a business, not a charity, it must pay its way. I contacted the Parkes fueling service as a courtesy/completeness of investigating the supply of ULP at the coming event, not because I really expected them to supply/ provide this service. I am still of the opinion that RAA (the event organiser) have failed to support their members in this matter.

"leaves them liable if contaminants cause an engine failure. " What!!!! This is hysterical/ill informed BS that serves no one well. I have been using ULP in my Rotax 912 ULS for about 15 years - have yet to have a problem. I use a filter funnel for all fuel in to my tanks and have a gascolator/filter before the engine.. Previse aircraft, used in line, transparent case, disposable filters - rarely had any contamination on filter gauze. Rotax recommended a minimum of 95 RON, I use 98 RON, just in case it has been adulterated with lesser grade - never had a problem. In my short time associated with RAA, I have yet to hear of an incident due to contaminated ULP .