RFguy

Hi Bosi. ahhh no.......maybe re read the post before your post. A good pilot shouuldnt need an EFB tool to figure this out. This is basic calcs and a little judgement.

somewhere around there is a nice FAA chart of likelihood of icing versus temperature and humidity it is worth a look . here is a study on it http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ct82110.pdf

I will rephrase that to : WHAT IS THE MINIMUM GROUND SPEED...... If the weather system at 33 deg have a period is 72 hours. and the distance is 3200 km. then I think , assuming neutral wind, you have a 72 hour window, or an avg speed of 44 kmh. and if you fly 6 hours per day, multiply that number by 6 = 266kmh. (144kts TAS). somewhere there would be the average wind speed across the path opposing your progress call it 40kmh, so now your TAS needs to be 166 kts. Thruster88 indeed these current weather conditions are unusual. The Lancair is needed (no, I am not going to buy a Lancair) . The RV6A will just do it.... I'm not about to start doing this, but I have a friend who flys a Tecnam 2004 from Canberra to Kalgoolie and he's found that getting a long enough weather window in that plane (TAS120) is difficult as a lone pilot. Increase the flying hours to 8 per day, and utilize two pilots, required TAS is down to 124kts . Problem with that and VFR , that that with stops is probably going to run out of light half the year.

You wont gain horsepower if the carb heat is not in circuit when you dont need it. And using warm cowl air when not required is leaving horsepower (air density) on the table. So I would suggest just leave the carb heat there in case one day you need it.

What are people's opinions for the minimum TAS required to fly from east coast to west coast and not encounter 'the next weather system' and subsequent likely day on the ground, perhaps. ? (going east is fairly easy) IE take off from east coast just after bad weather passes. If you stay stationary, you probably have 3 to 5 days before the 'next one' arrives. but flying west, that changes things.

KG its a Mikuni PD42J or copy .. with mods apparently. not directly interchangable since it has a different size throat,

There is nothing much to see from the pictures, except I can make a sweeping general statement, without qualification, that it looks like the general condition was a bit rough, perhaps spent alot of its life stored outside.

suggest getting the kit and learning about your carburettor. they are quite simple. You just need a clean desk and some good light and your glasses on. It's purely an disassembly, cleaning job. TAKE NOTE on how many turns are on mixture screws when (unwinding) disassembling. You learn that the idle jet is separate from the 'running' jets. you might pull throttle to idle on descent, and engine might stop if the idle jet was blocked.. but push the throttle in, back onto needle jet, it might spring to life. etc. and then you learn there is a separate parasite carburettor hanging off the side just for starting....

that's put on a bit of drag on the TO roll....

Bruce that's with all the pier foundations, and reo, heavy base material buildup to get the slab out of the ground a bit, turnkeyed. yeah its a chunk of cash. But's its one thing I dont have alot of experience with some I might watch how its all done. STructure assembly- well that is a mechano set. ON FIRE AND HANGARE DUAL USAGE AND INSURANCE I've still got a bit of homework to do on fire an insurance. See, the intention is to combine my electronic workshop in, in a sealed off sub rooms and mezzanine. But thinking about it, I'm pretty sure that the insurance company will hesitate to ensure with hundreds of litres of fuel sitting out there in tanks. I have a few options. note- all options are 18m wide . I'll need to ask the local avaiation maint facility what the insurance position is. 1) build two sheds. 18x14 + 18x12 #1 airplanes only, #2 large workshop. with separate walls (or common if concrete) Building two is about 1.5x the cost of building 1 big one. 2) build one 18x 24, and put a fire wall down the middle and fire suppression system (2000 litres of water in tanks ready to go with roof sprinklers) .. in the event of a fire, which would burn hot and fast, I have to consider what happens to the roof supporting columns over the structure. 3) Build 18x18, - planes live in the front 12m, and operate my temporary workshop in the rear 6m And remove fuel the aircraft wwhen stored inside until I build building #2 behind. Then later build 18 x 8 behind it. removing fuel each time is a major PITA into a outside approval tank/container , but doable. I do have limited cash, and it could mean I need to do things is more stages. These are not for commercial airplane workshops, I dont need depth to have planes piled up between jobs. The game is to squeeze a Sav + a 182. (its likely the 230 will go in the near term and I'll have a Sav and a 182 / or Mooney etc) . The concrete certainly wins if there is a common wall. If there is an explosion, what let's go ? the steel gable roofing sheets ? the front hangar doors? there are quite a few lightweight fire resistant facade materials https://www.fireproofcladdingfacades.com.au/ultramgo-wall-overview.html, but I do have some research to do on understanding capabilities and requirements

UHF is useful. SKippy- most planes I know (jabirus aside) there is no way to listen to a portable inside the running aircraft.... and its highly unlikely anyone is going to hear you over the noise. Hence plumbed-in UHF radio is a good idea ...... (my new radio has UHF built in- delayed due to parts unavailability) - My Jabiru 230 though, you could use a radio without a headset. Very quiet. Compared to a rattling and dinning (but very mice to fly) RV6A, it's peaceful. I'm guessing the heavy fibreglass around the pax cell doesnt vibrate much in the acoustical spectrum. .

LOL. actually they like being thrashed. rotaxes dont like being babied. you are paying per hour.. though yes, you are training, so different needs apply...

"Yes . I made it up." tut tut ! at least you admit it. the J160 should be better overall . a more slippery plane. just the way it is being flown I suspect. J160 also have smaller donk.

"Is thermal efficiency =mechanical energy out divided by chemical energy in (ie fuel energy)?" Geoff, as u know, the thermal efficiency is the fraction of the heat converted to work. Going back to the classic otto cycle 1,2,3,4 adiabatic state chart, a higher T diff between the lower line and the higher line, provides for work able to be done . I'm not going to draw a picture. people can look at this : https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/otto-cycle

you sure about your addition in those calcs SKippy? and Tecnam is like a flying square box compared to the Zephyr. Ross, yeah sort of depends on the downwind leg a bit- you need time to look at the windsock, do bumfish, figure out the radio chaos .. etc and of course extra fuel used if you find yourself a little low mid final and end up dragging it. But I think those numbers are reasonable for a student/training

10lph average sounds a bit low for a ol tecnam. well what do we have, TO roll, climb to 1000' in favourable condix , total 90 seconds at 27 lph. = 675mL probably low cruise 65% for 120 second at 15lph = 0.5L base, final average 30% for 150 seconds maybe 8 lph =333mL total time 360 seconds, total fuel 1.508L. equates to 15.08lph well that's my guess, anyway .

as expected, slab cost turnkey, with >6" of coarse fill + buildup, 6" slab n piers, thick at edges etc etc etc etc $120/sqM finished.

so its mostly descending.....

Indeed. suck limit is -4.5psi IIRC.

I dont think we can compare rich and lean mixtures because power output is different for different mixtures - we really need to compare apples for apples- IE 100% or 75% power. theroretical thermal efficiency : 7:1 (O-200) : 54.1% 8.0 (Jabiru most -depends on head recession ) 56.4 8.5 (Beech 23 with Lyco) 57.5 rotax 912ULS 61.4% real life differences will be about half to three-fifths of that so Bob, your original statement of lower fuel costs with the rotax are probably true.

ahh Bob I have found the difference in the O200 and the rotax in the thermal efficiency numbers see above.... so it is likely the rotax really is better, even if the gain is only half that just on thermal efficiency gain of 13% due to higher compression ratio.

What is the compression ratio of that particular O-320 Thruster ? cant really compare 100% on rotax (full rich) to 65% on beech (Not full rich)

For the ideal otto cycle engine , thermal efficiency = 1-( 1 / (c^(1.4 -1) )). for 7:1 = 54.1% for 10.8:1 = 61.4% IE 1.13x better ! so in theory, maybe 22 litres>>19.37., Hmmm not far from the rotax numbers ! But in practice, real outcomes are less. engines have different cooling, oiling etc shaft input costs, temperatures the CC runs at, RPM, friction etc. https://www.primescholars.com/articles/influence-of-compression-ratio-on-the-performance-characteristics-of-a-sparkignition-engine.pdf

now, nit picking : While the O-200 can go lean of peak, the Rotax 912ULS runs at 10.8:1 compression- higher efficiency . The O200 at 7:1 compression. Yes, taking into account the higher compression ratio, MUCH higher, indeed the rotax shoudl do MUCH better than the O-200. But not all things are equal, losses, friction, heat etc all very different engines....

specific fuel consumption kg/kW/h is going to be the same, I would think.