IBob

Momentary thread drift, but concerning getting things out of aircraft in flight: Periodically skydivers are approached by families to spread the ashes of their loved ones. A mate of mine has been tapped several times, and the first thing he learned was not to take the lid off in the aircraft, or the result is that part at least of the deceased remains in the aircraft where he/she/it circulates rapidly in the blast from the door, generally coating everything and especially hanging up in any beards or hair the pilot may have. The second thing he learnt, however, was to loosen the lid before you go: on this occasion he was asked to scatter the ashes of a fellow skydiver, duly left the aircraft with the lid on at 8,000ft, then wrestled with it for over 6,000ft before giving it up as a bad job and opening his canopy. The container continued in freefall, and went into an adjacent golfcourse. Where try as they might, the entire crew at the jump club were unable to find it, so it's out there somewhere still. Fortunately, the wife of the deceased felt the deceased himself would have seen this as a most excellent joke, so she went home happy.........)

Okay, so the container is one part of the equation. Getting to the container is the other. And my comment earlier about Levi 501s was about that. It happens that, when in the seated position, the fly on some trousers goes down a lot further than it does on others. And while I haven't checked the rest of the range, I can most certainly say that Levi 501s are 'others'. So, unless one has unusually long and flexible delivery equipment.........definitely give the 501s a miss.

Very classy action, Mark.....)

Sigh. This was always going to turn into a pissing contest.................(

I'll just finish up the cocktail gherkins.............)

Never fly wearing Levi 501s...........................(

Plus one for the Lightspeeds here......)

I'm fully retired now, Mark. And I honestly don't know how I found the time to fit in any work......)

Is this the right place for Microlights Aren't Real Aircraft and Microlight Pilots get their licenses off Kornflakes packets, and shouldn't be allowed? Or is that a separate p***ing contest???.............

My vote goes to the jackal: anyone hanging around a van de graf generator waving a knife is going to need all the votes they can get...........)

C'mon, Marty..........it's quite obvious they had invented the chainsaw. They're just hangin' around there now waiting for someone to invent the chain............)

888z nobody here is trying to sell you anything. You asked for information to help you choose, people are responding by pointing you to information that may be useful. Part of that is understanding why there was a general move away from LE slats to vortex generators. And the Stolspeed owner was foremost in that and there are very good studies on his website. With the engine size and fuel consumption there is no magic : x fuel in gives you y hp/kw out. The 80hp engine will give you an aircraft that requires a longer takeoff run, climbs slower, and cruises slower. It's that simple. Regarding the Savannahs, there is some confusion with the naming, which seems to vary a bit from country to country. 1. Here in NZ I do not think we have any of the original models with the LE slats. 2. We have the next model, which is called the VG because they removed the slats and added the vortex generators From there, ICP remodelled the fuselage in 2 stages: 3. We have the model after the VG which is called the XL or VGXL. This has the remodelled front end, larger cockpit etc, but still has the flat sided rear fuselage. 4. And we have the model after that which is called the S. This has the rear fuselage remodelled and rounded. Finally, so far as i know, nobody imports the BRM aircraft here.

888z here is a link to an excellent site, where the owner has done a great deal of work on the question of slats vs vortex generators. I recommend reading up on this, if you have not already done so: https://www.stolspeed.com/slats-v-s-vgs As for fuel economy: I think I'd be right to say pretty much nobody down this way fits an 80HP engine. Part of the reason for this is that the fuel consumption is only a part of the ongoing cost of owning and running an aircraft, and the extra $$$ on fuel and consumption is well spent in terms of range and performance. The ULS is also a better proposition when it comes to resale.

I heard that this or something like it was found at the back of an RAF hangar in the '60s, and that one of the more accomplished (but more reckless) ATC cadets looped it on a dare.......(

Skippy, I would think principal factors would be technique, prop weight, and size of power wiring/distance to battery. Note also some aircraft do not have a negative battery cable, but rely on hull ground, which can be less than ideal: if the engine does not turn over briskly on the starter, something needs to be done about it. After that, I would suspect the setup/gap of the trigger coils, especially if one of them was a bit tight, which could lead to a premature spark advance on that part of the circuitry. As described elsewhere, they need to be gapped to spec. using non-ferrous feeler gauges, as ferrous gauges will stick to the magnets and feel just like a good fit even when they are not. It's a good idea also to check the setting using a go/no go combination of the required gap then the next size up.

According to my Heavy Maint Manual, the old flywheel is 4deg before TDC, the new is 3deg before TDC, and they both then shift to fully advanced at 26deg before TDC. Part of the problem with the original setup is that each ignition module has two trigger coils and each of those trigger circuits is doing it's own thing, trying to measure trigger pulse amplitude to decide when to flip from ignition fully retarded to ignition fully advanced. So unless all four of those trigger coils are gapped and performing exactly identical in output, it's possible to have part of the ignition still firing retarded and part of it advanced. I'm kinda amazed they went into production with this. What the so called soft-start does is override all that and force all 4 trigger circuits to the fully retarded state, holding them there until several seconds after the starter is released, by which time the engine is up to reasonable speed, so all 4 trigger circuits then cut promptly to fully advanced. I can only speak from my own experience, but in 250+hrs I have never had a rough or dirty start. And while the shift from retarded to advanced is quite evident when it happens, my engine does not run rough during the start. Understanding how the choke mechanism operates is also important in all this. I am also told, by a very experienced instructor who also runs his own older 912 with a Bolly prop, that the (older system) club Tecnams with their heavier props are a different challenge again when trying to ensure clean starts.

Mark, the new flywheel shifts the retarded ignition point by 1degree.....is that right? I would have thought the soft start modules would work fine, regardless of flywheel type???

All good comments, Skippy. I have no idea if they have an on condition program for the 912 in Spain, something that 888z may need to look into. My thought with the soft start is that it is well worth having, the difference in starts in huge. The fact is that the older retard system (still present in the new system, but essentially overridden) is very poor and makes for some messy starts even with battery and wiring etc all in good order. And poor starts are hard on this engine. While the soft start can certainly be retrofitted, most owners do not shell out for 2 new ignition modules to do so.

PS: some S models come with long range fuel tanks, 4 instead of 2, and that is the standard arrangement in Australia and NZ. If you are going to make longer trips this can make a real difference: the 912 runs on mogas, which is not always available and may require multiple trips to town, while away, in order to refuel.

Hi 888z and congratulations! Some things to be aware of for starters: Some early models of the 912 were vulnerable to crankcase fretting ($$$$$). Early 912s have a 1500hrs TBO, later models have a 2000hr TBO. Later 912s have a much improved ignition retard for starting. Poor starting on earlier 912 could lead to sprag clutch damage ($$$). So, I'd be looking for a 2000hr TBO engine, recent enough to have the new ignition soft start setup. Also, the 912 has a 5year rubber replacement requirement, including the fuel pump and all the engine hoses. There is some cost in this, so when is it due? Rotax have an excellent website with a user's forum where you can read up on all this. Be aware also that the Savannah has comprehensive 1000hr checks to be carried out on the airframe. Again there is some cost, so when is that due? Apart from that, I would be looking at the general condition of the aircraft, how it has been cared for. And I would be going through the maintenance records to see that it has been kept maintained and if there is any damage history. I would most strongly recommend that you get an experienced aviator and/or maintanance person to check over the aircraft and paperwork with you. As for VG vs S model: Most VGs will have the older engines: (see above) The S is definitely more roomy and that is an improvement. (It also has more baggage space if it has the extended baggage mod, though baggage is still limited to 20Kg). The VG probably has the edge on the S when it comes to STOL, though the S is still very good. The S is a bit faster in the cruise, though we're not sure why. Also, these are lightly constructed aircraft and will have a shorter working life than older GA aircraft. So, generally speaking, I would go for the S unless your main aim is to win STOL comps. Finally, 80 vs 100hp: I cannot comment on fuel consumption. But I think you will appreciate the additional performance of the 100hp engine, and especially if you will be doing STOL work and/or will be flying with a passenger (loading makes a big difference). Happy hunting and let us know how you go!

My understanding is that ICP were originally agents for a S American derivative of the Zenith 701. They then began to manufacture their own version. So, maybe what you have there is a S American model? Either that or it has been damaged and someone has made replacements. It's interesting also that the aircraft is painted but the struts are not. See attached pics for ICP strut attachment. AN bolts down the sides, A4 rivets across the top. It is also AN bolted at front and back inside the undercarriage tunnel. So the main undercarriage would have to come off to remove the attachment. Given the critical function of the assembly and the use of nonstandard bolts, I think I would be removing them to verify that they are free of cracks throughout. This would include the bolted flanges inside the tunnel. I would also be checking all wing attachments for correct bolts. The AD you refer to is for the front strut attachment at the wing main spar (not at the fuselage).

The extended nut in the first pic was maybe used to mount a camera or similar? The bolts should be secured with the correct AN locknuts, not Loctite. The current maintenance manual calls for quote: white grease, Renolit Z2 for hinges/bushings/bearings/rotating parts. It also calls for Bardahl High Speed chain spray grease for rotating parts and general additional lubrication. I would definitely be inspecting the strut attachment brackets, as suggested by Pluesssy (above). I would also be checking if the bolts are of the correct type, as suggested by Kenlsa (above). I believe they should all be AN hex head, with matching washers and locknuts, not socket head, and that includes the bolts through the struts. It would be interesting to know why the socket head bolts have been used??? It is this stuff that holds the wings on........................... No comment on the crack, trying to figure out where on the aircraft this is and what it does? Camlocks are from Aircraft Spruce, get the dimensions and search online for the correct part #. Grommets are any auto/hardware supply.

I don't know, Nev. Quite possibly the airflow over a pitot head at 14 deg is less likely to be disrupted at, say, 60kts, than at 40kts or 30kts? And I expect the head could be designed to reduce the breakdown or disruption of airflow: mine is a very crude open ended pipe, not the polished bullet heads you see on real aeroplanes...............)

Blueadventures, similar effect by the sounds of it, and I would guess of more or less relevance depending upon the aircraft and the phase of flight. In mine, for the full flaps landing that I use a lot, you have to hold the nose up and the speed down on finals if you want a reasonably short landing. And especially if lightly loaded, which I usually am. It took me a while to transition to what the aircraft will do in this configuration, to the out of balance controls, to more rudder and less or no aileron. What I read of high A of A in STOL machines was that the IAS could drop out entirely. I think having reliable ASI helped me practise that phase of flight, at height initially, then in landings.