skippydiesel

My Mum loved hers as well but I was the poor sod who did the servicing. Like you, donated a fair bit of skin/blood. The timing through the bell housing/flywheel with a mirror & torch was a pitta. The front mounted distributors needed waterproofing - tried all sorts of fixes - the best was synthetic skin (left over from shingles treatment) sprayed around HT leads and cap to base joint. To this day I don't much like front mounted transverse engines - an offence to my wannabe engineer soal.

Nice! I would prefer the hard top of the past, a manual gearbox and a true highway capable engine (easy 110 kph cruise)

Wow! Thanks for that. Is there really no practical difference between each chord, other than the size & polarity of the small plug? I always thought that the cigaret lighter (fatter) plug had some electronic gizmos inside.

I have always understood that what kills/injures people in a crash, is most often rapid deceleration - your organs (especially the brain) are traumatised by the sudden stop. If this be true, you can be in aircraft built like a tank (not literally Nev) and you will still not survive a high speed crash. Lowe the stall speed, confers the best chance for a low speed landin/crash, the greater the chances are the crew will survive, even walk away. Stall speed is not directly associated with aircraft weight however where the overall/take off weight is restricted by legislation, the lighter the aircraft, the most likely it is to have a low stall (other factors will be wing design & flap type). Clever design/materials make for a safer aircraft - weight is very much a dual edged sword.

Hi RF - time has a habit of producing solutions (ie I just need to be patient). ICOM advise that that the CP 23L will do the job. Still costly, at around $50 delivered, for a a length of twin core and a plug at each end. One supplier was kind enough to suggest a considerably cheaper option, GME LEO12, about $25 deliver, that she has supplied to others, with at least no return/complaints.

Great topic! Not sure how it could be quantified/explored but I always wondered just how many pilots/aircraft with a ballistic parachutes : could have been flown to a survivable conclusion without the chute. take additional risks because they have one - a well documented effect of enhanced safety features in the automotive world.

I install/fit my own Trigg ADSB & then had it initialised (commissioned) by a qualified/certified technician. Dont have the knowledge to understand your predicament (mix/match) however I had no difficulty having my system passed. Good luck - hope you get the help you need from an electronics person on this Forum

My background is mostly European, with a little "Strain" thrown in for good measure, so I likely see the World through a diffrent lense to you. I also try to read and understand what is being communicated on these pages - you might try to do the same. "SU' carbs" - were common, in the time of early Minis, so fuel consumption, when compared with other similarly equipped vehicles, was good and not so shabby when compared to many current cars with FI & computer management. "HAS ONE rear wheel." who is being pedantic now?? - I never inferede that the Messerschmitt had two, just that some of its peers had two rear wheels, close together (eg one of the Izetta models which I had a ride in/didn't drive). " .....not really a CAR" - You jest???? Post WW2 had a plethora of micro cars, to meet the financially constrained (European) pockets of the time, etc some with 4 wheels, some two at the back one at the front etc. Australia at the time may not have had quite the same economic climate and has certainly never had the road quality to make such cars welcome or appropriate. "The MINI certainly WASN'T a flop in Australia whether it appealed to you or not. " - Are you suggesting that I said/inferred it was a "FLOP". if so you are incorrect. The Mini was an unexpected success, around the Western Word - I never liked it but then I am often at odds with popular culture - such is life. "........VERY FIRM ideas about what PEOPLE SHOULD LIKE" - Opinionated (firm?) yes and a strident defender of difference, so no to the "what PEOPLE SHOULD LIKE" I suspect much like yourself. "....OK to do it differently without having to explain why?? to the "n"th degree. -" Why on earth not? - Debate is the lifeblood of a Forum like this - you are the master of the unexplained, tangential, dogma, not me - always happy to expand on any statement/position I may take and capitulate gracefully to a better reasoned argument. "Exchanging ideas broadens the mind." - I agree wholeheartedly but this statement is, at least a little, at odds with "OK to do it differently without having to explain why?? to the "n"th degree." "There are no exam questions here that I know of." - True "no exam" but we must all be very careful to be factually correct or Nev will pounce, (which is fine by me). "My main purpose here is safety of flight"- Laudable Nev. My calling is much less so "....Just Want To Have Fun"😈

Hmm! I like to see reasoning/justification for the fantasy. In short why? WT9 - cruises about the same as the Faeta (that it resembles) & Virus SW but has a significantly higher stall. FK9 - Some of the more recent Jabs might be a better bet (similar stall/higher cruise and likely cheaper) and look (if you close one eye) sort of similar

I have never owned one either but being a dutiful son serviced them and had the doubtful privilege of driving them occasionally. As for economy, if memory serves, they could achieve better than 45 mpg (about 19 k/L or almost 5L/100k) not great but not too shabby either. Fun, if the gearbox was used with vigour, for a short time but any open road journey of more than an hour required saint like stoicism. I agree with the poor turning circle (many U turns converted to a 3 pointer). Early CV joints failed/wore as you looked at them. Dont want anything from you Nev & have no desire to offend however telling me a three wheeler, (from my youth) drives through its one (sometimes two very close together) rear wheels, is a tad unnecessary, when I am responding to an earlier comment (not mine) about relative comfort.

As an RAA pilot who has CTA training (convert from GA-RAA), I find I rarely (if ever) need/choose to enter CTA. I am concerned however, about the spread of CTA, on the East Coast of Australia and its potential restrict pilot options, in some locations, for safe transit. I see CTA privileges as a desirable endorsement for those who may feel the need. I suspect that those wishing to go down this track, will be a relativly small percentage of the RAA membership and largely concentrated on the East Coast and S Victoria. One one further point RAA went down the weight increase rabbit hole, for what real gain? In my opinion pursuing CTA privileges would have addressed a significant safety concern for those pilots so impacted. What can be more important to flyers - the doubtful merits of a weight increase, compared with enhanced safety???

You have talent for stating the obvious Nev My Mother had a succession of Minis and their bigger relatives the Morris 11/1300 - hated them all, with a passion. The early Minnie's had the most uncomfortable sling seats, dog begging driving position, slide windows that were not weather tight & the central located instruments were fare from ergonomic. In my opinion their only attributes that they were economical to run, only required a small parking space and some (??) considered them cute (UGH!).

I know of one airfield where the prefered (for locals) landing runway is nearly always the uphill and the take off, down - visitors need to exercise considerable caution. Another field where the active, in light/nil wind, seems to be at the whim of one of the clubs (the other being considerably more considerate), despite a convention dictating otherwise.

Okay let's not get all hot & bothered 😎 - just responding to some earlier comment about oil choices possibly contributing to accelerated wear.

Good points KG however I do not support your contention that "Rotax engines may be reliable but are too complex. The Jab is simple and easy to maintain" . An engine that is "easy to maintained" is one that rarely needs significant work, beyond routine servicing and that routine only occurs at wide intervals (time between service). I support the inevitable move to electric motivation but lament the passing of the ICE that has powered every personal transport vehicle I have travelled in.

Messerschmitt? Have always fancied one. I have even thought about getting a Can-Am & fitting a glass body (similar to above) on it I believe there was a sports model, that was fairly quick (for its time) and I think they are probably more comfortable (for 2) than the early Mini's

Circuits? Not for me - in the training area, approach to/departure from circuit, waypoints & lanes of entry, is where I like to have the extra "eyes". Radio is radio what matters is you have a device that gives two way comms.

Hard to go past the latest Jab airframes - hope they find a way to make a nice marriage with Rotax

Gents - let fantasies rule and let's not get too serious.

We can all dream and invest (?) in Lotto

Yeah! well! what can I say --- 6ft 2in -- supplemental O2 territory, from my lowly 5 ft 7 1/2" perspective🤣. The 1/2 was important back in my (competitive) youth, skeletal shrinkage has long since eroded it away☹️ The thing about speed is its potential effect on fuel consumption/efficiency. With the same engine at or about the same power setting, a faster aircraft/more efficient airfares, will use less fuel per sector/distance travelled. Of course if you just want to stooge round your local, consumption/hour is likely to be the measure that you will apply.

I have been fortunate then. Every aircraft I have flown, I have enjoyed, some more than others, to be sure... to be sure😎

FYI: Rotax Owner Forum has a lot of very well informed information on lubricant choice. "AeroShell Sport +4" being the current oil of choice (there are others). Rotax now offer a full synthetic oil "XPS" that may suit some pilots.

"..... it is such an individual thing !" Yes thats what makes for dynamic, impashioned debat FUNNNNN!!!! All true - much of what you have added comes under Empty Weight, as under RAA most of these aircraft will have the same (close to) 600 kg Max TO weigh (may change in the near future). In Australia fuel capacity is important - not so you must carry a comfort bottle (can if you wish) but more so that refueling is less of a constraint. I find ventilation to be mainly a ground consideration - often accommodated by partially open door/canopy. In the air I have never experienced a "stuffy" cockpit and strangely not a cold one, despite not having cabin heat. I suspect cabine heat is more of a northern hemisphere consideration, anyhow it's relativly easy to (retro) fit if needs be (can be air/coolant/even oil). What might be your close to ideal aircraft(s)???

Come come - agreement doesn't further the debat. Agree: Purchase cost is a biggy! Flown the Foxbat (not impressed) not the Vixen or the CT - think they are all promotion and not so much performance😈 For my purpose/taste, difficult to go past the ATEC Faeta and the Pipistrel Virus SW - very similar performance, composite. Rotax 9's (SW doesn't offer 914/ Fatea no tail wheel) different configuration. SW has reputation of being very expensive - don't know this for a fact.