gandalph

No

Turbop, I'm not pushing any line or numbers. I think you have me confused with someone else. I simply suggested, with those admittedly inflammatory and derogative smileys, that we were drifting away from the topic of this thread. I think you were pretty emphatic somewhere back there about what the topic was. You post #296 makes me think that I might have have upset you in some way. If I have .... what can I say?

Me? Funny. So who's the guy impersonating Turbs and wanting to get back to the topic?

Thanks for that. They would be very large fleets of aircraft or were you part of the supply chain for aero engines?? Not trying to be difficult here, just trying to clarify you answer and assess the relevance of your experience so I can use that knowledge to evaluate your posts. You are a prolific poster here and I haven't been able to work out whether you were just sitting at home and talking through your hat or whether you actually had relevant knowledge.

Well, sort of ... but you have dodged answering that question twice now, so perhaps you could clear that up and THEN we can get back on topic. Waddya reckon?

Exactly! Sadly, lack of knowledge doesn't seem to prevent people giving advice . Yet when people who have some knowledge and experience of the subject they're decried for outrageous and ridiculous promotion. And before you get your hackles up, that comment re lack of knowledge isn't necessarily directed at you. As you say, back to topic.

Well Turbop, the peanut gallery can be occupied my many people, depending on your view. In the kettle's opinion the pot is black.

"outrageous promotion" " Ridiculous promotion" Strong words there Turbop. Are you to rejecting as outrageous and ridiculous promotion assessments made by by people who have either been to CAMit and observed changes and improvements made and/or spoken to Ian Bent and discussed improvements and changes. It may well be that the views of people who are impressed by the CAE engine and modifications don't fit with your view or assessment, but they are surely entitled to express their view without such emotive condemnation of their views as you provided above. What is your "past experience" of CAMit's engineering? Your final sentence certainly seems to be damning CAMit with faint praise. To expect that there will not be failures of CAE engines seems unrealistic. Do you have the same expectation of other brands? Really?!

Quite right Keith, much has happened since the thread was started but with all that happened and all the water that has flowed, has anything changed in the cost/benefit analysis? Perhaps more importantly, as we are speculating about spending a fair chuck of the Association's reserve, has anyone done a cost/benefit analysis?

No, your post just fired some synapses and it occurred to me that I hadn't heard much about your project for a while. I would've thought with CASA trying to turn Oz's rec flying into a monoculture as far as engine manufacturers go, it would be a great opportunity for a grand announcement. Then we would truly be able to say: "Bex makes it Better!" (showing my age again)

Fit it with 2 Bings and install it in your Sportstar, Jabiru, whatever, and give us a progress report..... My biggest concern with with the Viking conversion is the history of the bloke behind it (and I don't mean Mr Honda)

Canberra Keith. Canberra. I thought this horse was well and truly dead. Why keep on maltreating it so?

Thanks Turbo, Yes I did see and read your spreadsheet and I did go to the RAA site and tabulate all the incidents 'REPORTED' there. The point I was trying to make, which you perhaps overlooked, was that the REPORTED incidents for all types may be less that the actual numbers. It would be reasonable to suspect that under-reporting occurs across all brands and that MAY make the numbers provided to CASA incorrect, or to use an old truckers term - dodgy. Does that change the broad picture? I don't know. Do you have factual inside information that could assist?

So if the maj is correct that Rotax has the greatest representation in RAA craft ( though I note that he still hasn't backed up that assertion with fact) it might be argued that there are far more "incidents" with Rotax than reported in the figures provided to CASA by RAA

That's cause they all fly Jabs & they're bit cross with you... Just joking. It's been a while since I flew into Cbr. Most of the tower guys were always pretty good but there was one....... Well, there's always one in a group. But that was in my Cessna days and I always felt that he thought we were taking up his time when he could've been talking to important people in REAL planes. I know I got some VERY long "continue downwind" instructions from him. Could almost have qualified for my cross country on some of them.

I was in Canberra this afternoon and and as I walked past the CASA offices in Woden I thought I could hear the sound of furious back-pedalling, but then again it might have just been the storm front passing through.....

ignite blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance..... p.s . I think that's him at post # 47

This has gone a bit off topic (unusual!) but I would suggest that anyone, and that seems to be almost everyone, who uses a pseudonym here is appearing or identifying here as someone they are not. Does it really matter? As an example, my real name is NOT Gandalph. Shock/horror! I'm not pretending to be someone I'm not, I'm just being cautious and choosing not to broadcast my identity over the web. I really don't give a rats who Dazza, Deb, or Skeptic etc, etc, might be. In this forum and in this context that is "who or what" they are. Who cares? As a cautionary tale though I would remind people that there are some pretty heavy penalties for discriminating against a person because of their gender (real or as identified). Putting someone down or denigrating their posts because of his/her identified gender could be a risky game. just sayin......

This would be a perfect canditate for a "REALLY???" button

Leave it pretty much as it is though I think there should be a "disagree" button which may be better utilised that a "dislike" I you want to be really brave you could add a "REALLY???" button and perhaps "emotive rubbish" and "unsubstantiated assertion" buttons as well? (I know... I'm pushing my luck with those 2 - but they would get a lot of use.....)

" Torque is a very indirect indication of tension and there are many factors such as friction, lubrication, surface texture, rust, material type, ...thread conditions, debris etc that affect the outcome. The only way to determine the correct torque, especially for critical joints, is through experimentation under actual joint and assembly conditions using a calibrated torque wrench and a Skidmorer-Wilhelm type load indicating device to equate actual torque to desired tension. Most of the torque/tension tables which haved been developed over the years have been calculated using the formula T= K x d x P where t = torque K = Coefficient of friction factor d = Nominal thread diameter (inches) P = Tension (clamp load or pre load) induced in fastener (lbs) The value of "K" can range from 0.30 for a rusted assembly to 0.10 or less for a clean well lubricated assembly using a proven proprietary lubricant. It should be noted that the accuracy of the 'K' factor is subject to many application variables eg. The industry accepted 'K' factor for plain fasteners is 0.20, however this figure reduces to 0.10 should the fastener be well lubricated and as a result an entirely different torque figure would result. ..... The most important point to remember when using a torque wrench is to make sure the instrument has been stored properly and has been calibrated by a recognized roque analyzer. In an experienced operators hand, tension control can be better than +/- 25% accuracy is possible using a good quality hand operated torque wrench. When used in conjunction with a Skidmorer-Wilhelm type device, an accuracy of +/- 5% is possible." (abstracted from "The Fastener Black Book 1st edition p.78) N.B the bold italics were added by me for emphasis. My reading of the above would suggest that an experienced operator using a quality, well maintained & calibrated torque wrench could, when torquing a bolt to an indicated 26ft/lbs could achieve anywhere from 19.5ft/lbs to 34.6ft/lbs. It follows that torquing to an indicated 36ft/lbs could result in an actual torque value between 27 and 48ft/lbs. The book referenced above gives the following tightening torque figures for 3/8 unc grade 8 bolts: dry: 44ft/lbs; lightly lubricated: 35ft/lbs; Well lubricated: 22ft/lbs Without wanting to sound like the Jabiru service department, there could well be en element of operator " error" involved in the way we assemble components.

Yep! Hope the link works!

Well that was quick work eh Merv? The Mods have their eyes peeled today it seems.