FlyBoy1960

The parent company of Rotax, and the manufacturer of our aircraft engines has just decided to discontinue manufacture of Evinrude outboards. Evinrude outboards have been around for more than 100 years and are a huge part of the BRP group who also owns Rotax. The customer base for outboard engines must be thousands of times more than our aircraft engines. Does that mean with all of their latest cost-cutting that BRP will see the need to trim Rotax as well ? And in particular aircraft engines. I sincerely hope not.

Thats an old list with a lot missing ?

100 hp rotax

I will ask him tomorrow and see if he knows. I "thought" i heard it went to the USA some time back. Cheers

" There used to be the option to subscribe to Sportpilot separately but as it is now included with subscription that is probably not an option any more " I am sure i read you ONLY get the FIRST COPY free

That was fantastic ! I love videos like this.

The schock that were fitted had a progressive spring, more coils at the bottom and less at the top and it had a tappered rubber stopper at the top as well, from memory, say 15mm thick. I will be at the airport next Saturday and will ask if anyone is interested

They are motorcycle shocks made by Amstrong in India. I helped fit a set only a few weeks ago at our airfield. That's the trouble when you wander around aimlessly on a Saturday morning at the airfield, you get put to work! I remember having a good look at the box that they came in when I was putting it in the bin for the owner, it had the name Armstrong and made in India written on the box. They are way, way more stiffer than any mountain bike shock absorber. I pushed my 100 kg body on top of them and they wouldn't even budge, I guess the aircraft is around 300 kg and when they are mounted they didn't compress at all with the weight of the aircraft, they only compressed with the pilot seated in the aircraft and then only a few millimetres I'm guessing. They must be for a pretty heavy motorbike because they are heavy, I'm guessing a couple of kilograms each. They were replacing a set of fournales (I think that is the spelling) they were a nitrogen filled shock absorber but instead of having a spring on the outsidethey just worked with oil and gas. The chrome on the main shaft which I am guessing is about 30 mil diameter had started to peel off after about 15 years and it allowed the gas to escape because it damaged the seals. They looked like a very short motorcycle fork if that helps but the owner replaced them with conventional shocks because he said the other ones were no longer made. The gas shock absorbers would be lucky to weigh 500 g each so they were very light in comparison to what was put back on. To replace the shock absorbers on both sides only took around 25 minutes total time, the engine didn't even cooldown and the owner headed back to Boonah.

Yes, it is in the section explaining that the carburettors do not require any adjustment up to 8000 feet. Then the extract from the heavy maintenance manual explains how it works along with its limitations. Just down load the manual from Rotax-owner.com and do a search on the word then do a search on the word " venturi " or something like that and it will come up straight away

From the heavy maintenance manual. The vacuum in the venturi acts on the top of the diaphragm and the carburetor piston (slide) via 2 holes in the carburetor piston and attempts to lift the piston against its own weight and spring. The reference pressure prevailing between airfilter/airbox and carburetor (e.g. ambient air pressure) is applied to the underside of the diaphragm via the duct. The space in the cover above the piston guide is vented through a bore to prevent hammering of the slide. Mixture is controlled by the combination of spring pressure holding the slide down, venturi vacuum trying to raise the slide by sucking on top of the diaphragm, and atmospheric pressure on the underside of the rubber diaphragm. Simples.

Turn the screen down to about 75% brightness, leave it plugged in and charging, no problems. It's the screen on 100% that causes the heat. (son works in apple store but no, can't get any discounts)

Hi King, just come to Heck Field, great place, lots of support and you will be welcomed. www.gcsfc.org.au

The TBO is 15 years or 2,000 hours whichever comes first, and it has been for about 10 years or more.

It shows me however that parachutes are probably costing more lives than saving lives ! All of thse canopy failures are a concern. The way that glider just exploded is also a worry !

The nut is not missing because there is not one there This hosing normally has a rubber core Muffler is VERY small compared to normal

If its this one its a mess https://www.planesales.com.au/details/Listing/Amphibian-and-Floatplanes/5643/2014-Osprey-Osprey-2-Aircraft

Thats the stuff. I couldnt remember its name but i remember it now but there was NO way i could spell it !

remember if you solder remove all the flux and residue with Isopropal alchohol for a nice long life !

When i was going to TAFE there were people in a 4 year TAFE course as type setters. You could imagine those in their 4th year when the papers went digital ! What a waste of time and money to have an industry change that quickly. In fact as a kid one of my friends families went broke when the world stop using carbon paper to get multiple copies. You would simply press print on a dotmatrix printer and you could get as many copies as you want. History will teach us that the only thing in our future is change.

It would be easy to test, mount your accelerometer probe horizontally on the plate in the same axis as your strobe sensor. Then run the engine and it would tell you how much buffeting you are getting in the horizontal plane instead of the vertical plane

Also, you need to put heat shrink on the end of your fire sleeves because at the moment if you get a leak fuel will wick up the inside of your fire sleeve and make it next to useless. 99% of the aircraft I have seen have some sort of heat shrink on the end of the fire sleeve or they have safety when at around three or four times to create a good seal. Some people use both, safety wire and then heat shrink over the top to cover the ends. If you need to ever take the tube off then you only need to at worst cut away the heat shrink

I would be extremely worried about buffeting in your bracket. As soon as you rev the engine against the flat surface of your plate you are going to create all sorts of vibrations and harmonics based on the fact that it is just a flat plate with a huge vacuum behind once you start the airflow. Also I can't tell if the bracket is only held in place with two bolts or you are using four bolts ? I would be whacking some big pieces of angle up the back of your plate to try and reduce the harmonics, also maybe make the plate thinner at the top (less wide is what I mean) because the optical sensor does not need to be mounted as strongly as the vibration sensor

There is a lot of "stuff" behind there ? Bars, parachute, rocket, bridles. A cover would be nice to tidy it all up with a big logo printed on it.

Firstly I would reach out make contact with companies like GRS or BRS, both have systems suitable for most aircraft and have installation packages ready to go. Putting in the parachute is one thing but attaching it to the airframe correctly is another completely different exercise that requires advanced engineering. I was only reading the other day about someone that fitted a parachute into a Loele P5151 which is a ultralight version of the famous P 51. He had a Suzuki the engine mounted and it had some sort a gearbox failure requiring him to deploy the parachute. Apparently everything went perfect but because he didn't have the parachute adequately mounted at the proper points of the airframe it simply tore out the pieces of wood that the parachute was anchored to ! He did managed to land eventually and walk away but it does tell you and makes you think about it is pointless having a parachute fitted if it is not secured to the airframe correctly. This is why you really do need professional advice and assistance. Also, I was reading that GRS engineer their systems so that the aircraft descends about 20° nosedown. This way when it hits the ground a lot of the impact is absorbed by the nose year and front of the aircraft giving way rather than the aircraft land completely flat. It was a way of lessening the impact loads to the cockpit area by about 70% if I remember correctly. It was all pretty smart engineering so I would recommend you draw on the experience of these companies for your advice. Finally, the only reliable deployment method is ballistic. The other systems like compressed air or nitrogen are just not suitable in our type of aircraft. Ballistic is the only reliable deployment method from what I could remember from the article I was reading. From memory it was in some EAA magazine about five years old out at the aeroclub

I think you mean ATSB not NTSB