storchy neil Posted February 20, 2016 Author Share Posted February 20, 2016 ok guys and girls sorry geof13 do the makers off aircraft have to follow rotax 912 installation manual when installing said power plants ?neil when you say they don't have to why ? when you say that they do have to follow manual why are we finding that it is not so ? neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Who in RAA does the auditing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Saying BAR is a bit twee, but (for pilots) it has the green sector. Ha Ha . x.1 I'm all for reducing unnecessary instrumentation.if you can without reducing critical information. IF you had all your engine and elec instruments arranged so as the needles in the normal position were aligned you could more easily pick one that had failed or was abnormal, that would work better. It IS done a lot in earlier multi engine cockpits. In later installations it may have a master warning which directs you to the fact an indication isn't normal, and you look to find which one. I could cite you instances of not noticing instruments even when doing a check. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Landing in trees or factories or houses isn't a thing I would want to contemplate. Golf courses yes. I know of a few of those that went well so perhaps they should be welcomed. Just a little off-topic for this post - but - always remember that golf courses are not the equivalent of runways - and that they're full of things called bunkers, water traps, and a multitude of other obstructions, all designed to make the hitting of little white balls into holes in the ground, as difficult and diabolical as possible.As such, smooth-looking golf courses can be a total trap, unless you can specifically sight a fairway, and line up with it. When the fan up front is stationary, the sink rate is horrendous, and the silence is fearful, it can be additionally highly stressful trying to figure out if that big patch of clear-looking green is dead-smooth, or is just a jumble of un-level hazards. Perhaps the only saving grace with a golf course is that it's rare to have power lines criss-crossing them - and therein lies the greatest source of disaster in any emergency landing gone wrong. If you can manage to miss power lines and guy wires supporting poles, you're halfway there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_course#/media/File:Golf_field.svg Cheers ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aro Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 do the makers off aircraft have to follow rotax 912 installation manual when installing said power plants ?neil when you say they don't have to why ? Fundamentally, no. Because, from the first page of the Installation Manual: "This Installation manual for ROTAX aircraft engines should only be used a a general guide for the installation of ROTAX engines into airframes. It does not represent an instruction for the installation of a ROTAX aircraft engine in a specific type of airframe or airplane." "This Installation Manual shall in no event be used without fully complying with the specific instructions and/or requirements of the manufacturer of an airframe or airplane." Most of the sections also have a note that the airframe manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that the installation will perform correctly. The airframe manufacturer is responsible for the performance of the engine in the airframe, and the airframe manufacturer installation instructions absolutely override the Rotax instructions. If you want to modify the airframe, even if it is to better conform with the Rotax installation manual, you need to follow the correct processes for a modification to the aircraft. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted February 20, 2016 Author Share Posted February 20, 2016 thanks turbs exactly Who in RAA does the auditing? who in C A S A did not audit raa for non compliance stops at the top since 2009 both off the so called experts have known off this problem I repeat do the makers off aircraft have to follow rotax 912 installation manual when installing said power plants ? when you say they don't have to why ? when you say that they do have to follow manual why are we finding that it is not so ? facthunter yes Saying BAR is a bit twee, but (for pilots) it has the green sector. Ha Ha .x.1:oh yeah:yes but it made the group take notice re Foxbat aircraft do you want the answer the answer as to why there is no electric pump in their aircraft ?neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Fundamentally, no. Because, from the first page of the Installation Manual:"This Installation manual for ROTAX aircraft engines should only be used a a general guide for the installation of ROTAX engines into airframes. It does not represent an instruction for the installation of a ROTAX aircraft engine in a specific type of airframe or airplane." "This Installation Manual shall in no event be used without fully complying with the specific instructions and/or requirements of the manufacturer of an airframe or airplane." Most of the sections also have a note that the airframe manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that the installation will perform correctly. The airframe manufacturer is responsible for the performance of the engine in the airframe, and the airframe manufacturer installation instructions absolutely override the Rotax instructions. If you want to modify the airframe, even if it is to better conform with the Rotax installation manual, you need to follow the correct processes for a modification to the aircraft. Exactly... cut and paste from install manual: The design of the fuel system is the responsibility of the aircraft manufacturer. The engine manufacture recommends the use of an electrical auxiliary fuel pump, if this is not already required by airworthiness requirements. Pretty simple when you read the manual. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Ha Ha .x.1:oh yeah:yes but it made the group take notice So, .....Honest mistake (read "going off the deep end without actually checking the facts", or your "style" as some have put it) or deliberate troll? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSCBD Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 When the fan up front is stationary, the sink rate is horrendous, and the silence is fearful, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_course#/media/File:Golf_field.svg Cheers ... Amusing - "the Silence is Fearful" - Have you ever been in an aircraft with an engine out, Lots of noise is made and if you are in a "Rag Wing" not being rude, it sounds like it is breaking up in flight and can take your mind off the engine failure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted February 21, 2016 Author Share Posted February 21, 2016 So, .....Honest mistake (read "going off the deep end without actually checking the facts", or your "style" as some have put it) or deliberate troll? say what you bloody well like as a bloody very concerned person that is looking to the future off this hobby there are to many non compliance bits off shit that are not good for me or you or any body else what do you want just go along with what you are told when it hits the fan wasn't me Fundamentally, no. Because, from the first page of the Installation Manual: "This Installation manual for ROTAX aircraft engines should only be used a a general guide for the installation of ROTAX engines into airframes. It does not represent an instruction for the installation of a ROTAX aircraft engine in a specific type of airframe or airplane." "This Installation Manual shall in no event be used without fully complying with the specific instructions and/or requirements of the manufacturer of an airframe or airplane." Most of the sections also have a note that the airframe manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that the installation will perform correctly. The airframe manufacturer is responsible for the performance of the engine in the airframe, and the airframe manufacturer installation instructions absolutely override the Rotax instructions. If you want to modify the airframe, even if it is to better conform with the Rotax installation manual, you need to follow the correct processes for a modification to the aircraft. down the bottom of the pages is written effectivity :912 series edition 2/rev. 0 73-00-00 page 8 august 01/20 12 what is the number off the manual you refer to as the manuals I refer to do not state that may be I need glasses neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 When the fan up front is stationary, the sink rate is horrendous, and the silence is fearful,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_course#/media/File:Golf_field.svg Cheers ... Amusing - "the Silence is Fearful" - Have you ever been in an aircraft with an engine out, Lots of noise is made and if you are in a "Rag Wing" not being rude, it sounds like it is breaking up in flight and can take your mind off the engine failure. What sort of 'rag wing'? My Drifter is certainly a lot quieter with the engine out, wing only gets noisy close to vne, which I don't usually find my self at with the engine stopped. I have had engine stoppages, and maybe my training was better than some (thanks Kev), but fear wasn't there, I was already flying where I could land and already chosen my landing area before the engine stopped. I was just annoyed that I had to walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 So, .....Honest mistake (read "going off the deep end without actually checking the facts", or your "style" as some have put it) or deliberate troll?say what you bloody well like as a bloody very concerned person that is looking to the future off this hobby there are to many non compliance bits off **** that are not good for me or you or any body else what do you want just go along with what you are told when it hits the fan wasn't me Fundamentally, no. Because, from the first page of the Installation Manual: "This Installation manual for ROTAX aircraft engines should only be used a a general guide for the installation of ROTAX engines into airframes. It does not represent an instruction for the installation of a ROTAX aircraft engine in a specific type of airframe or airplane." "This Installation Manual shall in no event be used without fully complying with the specific instructions and/or requirements of the manufacturer of an airframe or airplane." Most of the sections also have a note that the airframe manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that the installation will perform correctly. The airframe manufacturer is responsible for the performance of the engine in the airframe, and the airframe manufacturer installation instructions absolutely override the Rotax instructions. If you want to modify the airframe, even if it is to better conform with the Rotax installation manual, you need to follow the correct processes for a modification to the aircraft. down the bottom of the pages is written effectivity :912 series edition 2/rev. 0 73-00-00 page 8 august 01/20 12 what is the number off the manual you refer to as the manuals I refer to do not state that may be I need glasses neil Translation anyone? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRviator Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 neil it is only non-compliance (your bolding...not mine), if it is required to comply with the manual in the first place. The simple fact is, no RAAus aircraft, or VH- experimental aircraft is required to comply with the engine manufacturers installation manual. Indeed, several Rotax manuals caution you not to use the engine in an aircraft where sudden stoppage could be hazardous to your health. Should those aircraft be grounded too? I departed from the plans for my RV in several instances, and yet it passed it's registration (with RAAus too!) without so much as how-do-you-do from HQ (the forgotten signature on the W&B form notwithstanding). Should my RV be grounded? That is why your entire argument is flawed, and, IMHO, have lost any and all credibility you may have had, by your ill-informed attempts to force your opinion on others, without having the data to back you up. Of course, your apparent refusal to admit you were wrong or apologise for your abrasive style doesn't help your cause either, irrespective of it being "your style". Rude is rude, and just because you may be rude all the time does not excuse it. about time I started naming planes... Go ahead, I'd love to see the response you get. Particularly from someone who took offence at you alleging they're operating illegally.If you make a claim, have the balls to back it up with data, references and statistics, not incorrect assertions, assumptions and personal opinions. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Neil, You are being a goose. Act in a mature manner and you may get mature responses. As for the manual. go here and get the new manual. Page 8 of Section 73-00-00 The current one is Edition 2 Rev 1 http://www.rotax-owner.com/en/support-topmenu/engine-manuals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 So, .....Honest mistake (read "going off the deep end without actually checking the facts", or your "style" as some have put it) or deliberate troll?say what you bloody well like as a bloody very concerned person that is looking to the future off this hobby there are to many non compliance bits off **** that are not good for me or you or any body else what do you want just go along with what you are told when it hits the fan wasn't me Fundamentally, no. Because, from the first page of the Installation Manual: "This Installation manual for ROTAX aircraft engines should only be used a a general guide for the installation of ROTAX engines into airframes. It does not represent an instruction for the installation of a ROTAX aircraft engine in a specific type of airframe or airplane." "This Installation Manual shall in no event be used without fully complying with the specific instructions and/or requirements of the manufacturer of an airframe or airplane." Most of the sections also have a note that the airframe manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that the installation will perform correctly. The airframe manufacturer is responsible for the performance of the engine in the airframe, and the airframe manufacturer installation instructions absolutely override the Rotax instructions. If you want to modify the airframe, even if it is to better conform with the Rotax installation manual, you need to follow the correct processes for a modification to the aircraft. down the bottom of the pages is written effectivity :912 series edition 2/rev. 0 73-00-00 page 8 august 01/20 12 what is the number off the manual you refer to as the manuals I refer to do not state that may be I need glasses neil I offered you a pair in post #46 Neil, You are being a goose. Act in a mature manner and you may get mature responses.As for the manual. go here and get the new manual. Page 8 of Section 73-00-00 The current one is Edition 2 Rev 1 http://www.rotax-owner.com/en/support-topmenu/engine-manuals Pointed that out in #46 as well. It appears that when someone answers Neils concerns with facts from the manual it is unacceptable to him and he is looking for reasons that it is wrong Sorry Neil but if you want people to install the engines IAW the manual you must first accept ALL OF what the manual says, not just the bits you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzBirdy Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 What's the availability of avgas and Premium at places like Warburton, Giles and Carnegie, please? Bulk or drums? Buggered if i know Kaz, im along way from there, but id gess itd be a long fly between drinks, like it is on this side of the NT. Iv never used a drop of that opal s***t, iv heard many storys, and heard a few very sick engines that were tryn to run on it. Of course all the sperts recon theres nuthn rong with it, but those idiots aint driven across the desert either. I did try sum to light a fire once, didnt work much better than an oily rag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzBirdy Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 How does this work? Your spoton Oscar, the primary/ boost/ feed/first or wotever you want to call it pump MUST be as close to, and below the tank outlet. This ensures the hole systm is under pressure to prevent excess boiling. Many times iv refueled from a drum or jerry with fuel that is already boiling. If its uphill from the pump intake to the bottom of the fuel tank, with no restrictions of any vapor to get back into the tank, you SHOULDNT have any starvation. One thing id like an expert to clear up for me is, if iv just refueled with boiling fuel, the ambiant is still >40c and you could cook a steak on the cowl, why dose the engine still run fine? I woulda thought, even with a properly setup system, wen the fuel got past the float needle it nstantly vaporise and, if it didnt die, itd be at least run,n very lean. I know the first sign of lean mix is increased EGTs for a given load, but iv never seen it with hot fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 How Neil THINKS an engine should be installed, is completely irrelevant. He evidently does not understand the (legal, and important) distinction between 'powerplant' and 'installation'. For certificated aircraft, the performance of the aircraft is a matter for the certification authority to certify that it meets whatever certification standards are applicable: such things as fuel flow testing, cooling, climb performance etc. are all specified. They have to be tested by an approved test pilot under specified conditions Further, whatever standards apply to installation have to be met and approved, and there's a whole raft relating to fuel systems. I don't have a copy of the relevant ASTM standard(s) for manufacturer certifying (since I have no interest in LSA-certified aircraft I'm not about to swell ASTM's coffers by buying a copy of their bloody expensive requirements!) but they are, generally, based on 'common ground' with such authorities as FAA, CAA, (isn't it wonderful how the Poms STILL don't bother to put their nationality into the headings of their authorities, because, after all, the rest of the world KNOWS who is the top dog..), EASA. So you can bet that 'installation' doesn't just say: 'Do what the engine manufacturer says', but requires performance testing and compliance with relevant standards. For 'Experimental', for either nominally 'certificated-class' aircraft ( let's say, a VANS RV6 etc.) OR ELSA, for variants of LSA-certified aircraft, it really comes down to 'prove by hours flown'. If you have a fuel system based on a chain of tiny buckets delivering fuel into a hopper over the engine, it's not 'non-compliant' - but you'll have to fly off a lot of hours before you'll get signed-off to fly into CTA, I suspect. Now, the engine manufacturer's requirements for certain conditions may well affect its guarantee status, liability status in case of failure etc.. You can put a Lycoming in what you like, how you like - but unless the installation has been 'approved' by Lycoming, (over and above any Certificating Authority testing compliance requirements) you have no warranty and Lycoming won't have a bar ( little fuel system-related pun there - did you notice?) of accepting any liability - for anything. I imagine that Rotax has the odd lawyer or two on hand to defend them against claims in the case that the installation does not perform as per their requirements. The engine installation manual is highly likely to be an excellent 'best practice' guide. However, if anyone is going to 'name planes' that have been certified under LSA rules as being 'non-compliant' for installation, if it were me I'd pick my targets very, very carefully to ensure that they don't have deeper pockets than you have - because you are accusing the aircraft manufacturer of having failed to meet the applicable ASTM standards, and that could get expensive, quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzBirdy Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 BTW, sudden engine silence is invigorating for me. I seem to get aroused by the sound of autorotating rotors. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 How does this work?Your spoton Oscar, the primary/ boost/ feed/first or wotever you want to call it pump MUST be as close to, and below the tank outlet. This ensures the hole systm is under pressure to prevent excess boiling. Many times iv refueled from a drum or jerry with fuel that is already boiling. If its uphill from the pump intake to the bottom of the fuel tank, with no restrictions of any vapor to get back into the tank, you SHOULDNT have any starvation. One thing id like an expert to clear up for me is, if iv just refueled with boiling fuel, the ambiant is still >40c and you could cook a steak on the cowl, why dose the engine still run fine? I woulda thought, even with a properly setup system, wen the fuel got past the float needle it nstantly vaporise and, if it didnt die, itd be at least run,n very lean. I know the first sign of lean mix is increased EGTs for a given load, but iv never seen it with hot fuel. Wow, I'm glad I don't have to refuel in those conditions! I reckon I'd be checking myself for nylon undies that could produce static before I went near the fuel can... As for your queries: there's a whole lot of stuff relating to fuel vapourisation temps ( and pressures, incidentally) that influence the issue. There was a long letter in Sport Pilot some years ago by Dafydd Llewellyn that goes into the various permutations of RON, MON and vapour pressure - I don't have a copy but someone else here might be able to point you at it. Just quietly: that fuel that spec.d out at 98 ULP at the refinery gate, by the time it's two weeks old from distribution delays and 2,000 feet higher, is probably less than 95... If you can get the engine to start and run, then the pressure drop in the venturi of the carby will cool it rapidly - that's why you get icing even when it's say 15C ambient, in high humidity conditions. And by using the boost pump, you increase the fuel pressure and lower the vapourisation potential AHEAD of the mechanical pump, so it can still draw fuel. (as air pressure drops, vapourisation will occur at increasingly lower temps). With a purely gravity-fed system, you don't get any extra fuel pressure ahead of the mechanical pump, obviously - but the vapour bubbles stay in the fuel in the tank. HOWEVER: if you have wing tanks BUT a collector sump that's lower than the mechanical fuel pump ( e.g. for Jabs.) - then you don't have a purely gravity-fed system. As a side-note, but one possibly worth considering: the fuel delivery performance through all of the constrictions ( fuel lines, filters etc.) may well be significantly different if your engine is sucking rather than being pressure-fed. That complete idiot who flew his brand-new CAMit engined Jabiru onto a beach in N.Z. and then spectacularly stuffed up his subsequent take-off: there was a kink in his fuel delivery line. If tested using the boost pump, it quite possibly delivered adequate fuel flow because the pressure in the line would open it up: but when it's being sucked by the mechanical pump, it will close down and restrict the fuel delivery. Failing paper filters could do the same; they should be bloody well outlawed and Gascolators be mandatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 BTW, sudden engine silence is invigorating for me.I seem to get aroused by the sound of autorotating rotors. ;) Have you sought professional advice for this? Or are you just using 'aroused' in a slightly broader context than the normal 'let's get it on' context? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 What's the availability of avgas and Premium at places like Warburton, Giles and Carnegie, please? Bulk or drums? Warburton - Avgas is available in bulk. PN required. Phone 08 8954 0016. A swipe card is advisable, for both Mobil & BP. Shell usually take normal CC's. http://www.skyfuel.com.au/auswidecarnet.asp Don't hang around Warburton, it's the most depressing and disgusting township you will ever encounter. Third world slums look like the leafy Western Suburbs, when compared to Warburton. I kid you not, I have seen a lot in nearly 70 years, but I wasn't prepared for what I encountered in Laverton. The few whites there live behind 3.3M chain mesh security fences, and the Police have to be rostered off every few months, to keep their sanity. Don't take photos with locals in sight in them. This is SOP all through Aboriginal Lands. http://www.aviatecenter.com/airport_pdf.php?runwayId=934 Avgas storage at Warakurna (Giles) is 15000 litres in underground storage. You need to contact and liase with staff at Warakurna Roadhouse to access the avgas. Be aware that Warakurna operates on NT time, despite being well inside the W.A. border. Warakurna is a good place with first class facilities. Giles weather station is a couple of kms from Warakurna Roadhouse. http://www.ngaanyatjarraku.wa.gov.au/index.php/our-region/community-information/warakurna http://www.warakurnaroadhouse.com.au/ Carnegie Station avgas availability is by arrangement only, and only in drums when it is available. Call the station on 08 9981 2991 to liase and check airstrip/weather conditions. In the Outback, the weather can change rapidly and turn a dry airstrip to mud within 10 mins. http://www.carnegiestation.com.au/ Cheers .... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzBirdy Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 If you can get the engine to start and run, then the pressure drop in the venturi of the carby will cool it rapidly- Yep, i know this, but im refering to the carb bowl. Fuel is under pressure to the needle, then into ambient pressure in the bowl ( 912). If its temp had it boiling in the tank (ambient) then why wouldnt it just vaporise soons it gets past the float needle? I know thered be sum liquid fuel in the bottom of the bowl where the venturi picks up, but the relative level has to be much lower than it should. Then again, the needle will stay full open till the level comes up,............, sorry, thinkn outload ere. Riteo, even tho the fuel boils past the needle, most of it stays liquid. Where do the excess vapors go? First time iv actualy pondered this, if you hadnt gessed already. Maybe i should just shudup n fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzBirdy Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 And dont get me rong Oscar, i dont mind be,n aroused. ;) You make it sound like its a bad thing. :( 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