storchy neil Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 So are aircraft still being flown that DO not comply with the engine installation manual NOT being followed ? Are you the owner off said aircraft ? neil 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 As if anyone is going to own up haha. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Me! and it came out of the factory that way and I am not changing it 'coz it WORKS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted January 10, 2016 Author Share Posted January 10, 2016 As if anyone is going to own up haha. I am not laughing cause people are dying Me! and it came out of the factory that way and I am not changing it 'coz it WORKS so did I own factory built power plant not to installation manual if your aircraft meaning all aircraft is fitted with rotax 912 power plant it will have return line from carby to main fuel tank with a non return valve neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted January 11, 2016 Author Share Posted January 11, 2016 As if anyone is going to own up haha. I am not laughing cause people are dying Me! and it came out of the factory that way and I am not changing it 'coz it WORKS so did I own factory built power plant not to rotax installation manual if your aircraft meaning all aircraft is fitted with rotax 912 power plant it will have return line from carby to main fuel tank with a non return valve so all aircraft that are flying comply with rotax installation manual it will get you your little porkies I am 90% sure that several accidents that involved rotax motors did not comply with casa own rules or rotax installation manual are you willing to take the chance ?neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 So are aircraft still being flown that DO not comply with the engine installation manual NOT being followed ?Are you the owner off said aircraft ? neil I don't know what you are talking about. Please elaborate. OME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 I don't know what you are talking about. Please elaborate.OME Examples: 1. Fuel system - return line to tanks - often without non-return valve eg fuel tank 1m below carbs - return line had no one-way valve 2. oil system - external oil tank not set on the midline of the engine but above/below to fit within cowls/airframes 3. induction systems - no use of the Rotax induction manifold and in place use of single/separate K&N filters 4. induction system - use of separate K&N filters usually involves removal of the drip trays below each carb as well 5. induction system - use of electric/coolant carb heaters rather than alternate air through Rotax induction manifold Heaps of other non-standard non-compliant with Rotax installation manual even for factory built ... and once they are factory built you actually can't 'modify' them back to Rotax manual standard without going through factory or MARAP ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Me! and it came out of the factory that way and I am not changing it 'coz it WORKS I agree. My aircraft came from the factory (24) with no carb return. Runs fine, as do many others. It would be ILLEGAL for me to fit one without the aircraft mfg permission. This was clearly explained to me during a rotax maintenance course. The aircraft mfg rules/regs/procedures take precedent over the engine mfg. No doubt other acft mfg's do things differently as is their prerogative. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
microman Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Examples:1. Fuel system - return line to tanks - often without non-return valve eg fuel tank 1m below carbs - return line had no one-way valve 2. oil system - external oil tank not set on the midline of the engine but above/below to fit within cowls/airframes 3. induction systems - no use of the Rotax induction manifold and in place use of single/separate K&N filters 4. induction system - use of separate K&N filters usually involves removal of the drip trays below each carb as well 5. induction system - use of electric/coolant carb heaters rather than alternate air through Rotax induction manifold Heaps of other non-standard non-compliant with Rotax installation manual even for factory built ... and once they are factory built you actually can't 'modify' them back to Rotax manual standard without going through factory or MARAP ... Interesting - I have to plead guilty to every matter noted above - perhaps because I did the installation myself of the Rotax 912S in my Alpi. Are any of them critical do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted January 11, 2016 Author Share Posted January 11, 2016 thank you kasper thank you I love you shows just how well some don't read rotax manuals or the great protector off our industry regulator mad casa who cant read their own regulations so the aircraft that do not follow rotax installation will be grounded This was clearly explained to me during a rotax maintenance course.so you don't have to take notice casa regs casa regulations clearly state that the manufactures instalation manual will be followed My aircraft came from the factory (24) with no carb return. Runs fine, as do many others xxx first replace off new carby kit 50 hrs second carby kit 80 hrs no return line yet manual shows return line who did the rotax maintenance cannot read his or her manual witch has clearly stated since 1997 that all rotax 912 power plants will have return line to tank No doubt other acft mfg's do things differently as is their prerogative no way can you change a installation manual written by a mfg show this paper work that gives you the aurthoirty and print on here even mad casa cannot do it microman one word yes as I said I am 90 % sure that some did not follow the rules and died we all paid for it neil 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 This was clearly explained to me during a rotax maintenance course. downunder would you care to explain who told you or gave that advice ? As partly explained by kasper rotax do a lot of work to give you a fairly reliable power plant so some xxxxxxxx can tell you that you don't have to abide by the manual would save rotax heaps if they did not have to write manuals carby's are meant to inject a certain amount off fuel at specific ratio to air should the pressure off fuel be to great this has a dentramental effect on the motor in effect you will lose power example pull out the choke what happens fuel pumps are set to around 3.5 to 4.00 bars at 4000 to 4200 rpm buy increasing the rpm you will increase the flow from a manual pump to carby bowl Increased preasure will have to go some where so with out return line to tank it flows out the overflow tubes on to a hot exhaust to evaporate the explosive nature off evaporated fuel ( leave that for a latter lesson ) static elec is part of oh leave it Now not only does it flow out overflow tubes on to hot exhaust the fuel is forced into the engine there for making 90% off pilots assume the motor has a malfunction Now don't try to say that the needle and seat should stop the flow from the pump as at 7 bars now way in hell how do I know that is what the pressure reached in my plane new carby kit now both off our powers off safety have Do not put the return line just before the gasculator as one person was told to do by a so called expert as hot fuel does not work to well when it vaporisers that is also the reason that the return line will go to tank got the message yet neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2tonne Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Hi Neil, thanks for the informative post. It might just be me, but the lack of punctuation in your post makes it a bit difficult to follow. A few commas and full stops might help my comprehension. Cheers, Tony 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 and just how many accidents, and lives lost are a direct result of not complying with the items you mentioned above (and FYI, my savannah complies) then again, factual data means nothing to CASA and its decision making process. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 who would want factual data fact 1 people are getting killed fact 2 the rouge element off our industry is killing people fact 3 I am bloody well concerned and doing something about it fact 4 sit on your arse and do nothing will cost fact 5 prove that that my statement is wrong when it has been demonstrated that aircraft do not comply fact 6 I personally know off air craft used that did not comply and used in flying school cover ups have to stop end it now oh there is a mistake in post 11 neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 stating something is a fact must be able to be backed up with references. are there any TSB reports concluding the cause of the accident, (or coroners reports in the case of a death) stating those things listed were the direct cause? i dont remember seeing a check valve in the cherokee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 912 rotax in a mooney or Cherokee please Pauline explain neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Interesting - I have to plead guilty to every matter noted above - perhaps because I did the installation myself of the Rotax 912S in my Alpi. Are any of them critical do you think? Critical? Hmmmm. The one that I am usually more concerned with is the lack of a return line from carb to tank - I'm not so fussed with the non-return valve just the lack of the return line itself. Why? The bing carbs on the 912 cannot deal with the amount of fuel and pressure that can build up in them with the later model 912 fuel pumps. Early 912 engines did not face this problem of high fuel pressure and they did not have a return line - along comes a new 912 engine from rotax as a replacement for a time expired early one and bang, you install it, no return line, excess fuel pressure and mixtures all over the place ... and/or fuel flowing over the engine which is even more concerning - even if it doesn't burst into flames its damnably expensive stuff to be throwing away. As for the other ones I listed I would only be worried if the oil tank was too far below the engine line - above the engine line does not cause actual problems but too low and you may get a pump on its way out not picking up oil ... and that helps take out your whole engine. Pretty much everything else is not in my opinion when I came across them critical. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 CASA rep has known about the none compliance off rotax 912 motors for a number of years raaas the same amount off time of none compliance for rotax 912 motor installation in this time the number off accidents is great now when I asked about this non compliance told to fix plane forget about that you don't need it have you ever looked into this problem I asked no need to they turned the wrong tap off or didn't switch on lift pump prove to me and flying members beyond doubt that this is in no way a cause off a couple off accidents when the judges are not told and i feel that this systemic problem off none compliance as is being as wide spread as it is it is off course not only one type off aircraft what is the valid reason none compliance to not do as the installation manual reads is it litigation time any body got a spare half mill ops neil pss kasper the none return valve is vital in a high wing aircraft as it will have syphon effect neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now