Area-51

The Dynon pocket panel is great value for the lower end of the market user wanting a backup HSI; it gives you basic air and attitude data. The graphics are reasonable enough and easy to read in flight. The AV30 is way ahead of the dynon regarding capability. With the new AV-HSI accessory module added it can now provide coupled approaches and compete directly with the G5; there are a few things each can and cannot do. Overall the AV30-E is amazing value for price and offers an array of instrument expansion options.

There "is" one standard; "Nautical Mile" "feet" "seconds" "minutes" "hours" "degrees" "north" "south" "east" "west" "kilograms" "litres" and "psi"... everything else is fake 😃👍

As far as I am aware SIL2 is the minimum required for ATC; as long as a unique ICAO HEX code has been issued and loaded into ADSB TX or EC device the ship data will display for ATC. Could be totally wrong on this though..

Some pilots may have questions regarding the necessity of TAF or TTF... These individuals should understand the opportunity toward peril they create for themselves. The information presented is there to allow the PIC to make an informed go/nogo decision or possibility of an expected en-route diversion situation. Taking off without consulting a TAF of the closest nearby airfield with one is the beginning of any event occurring. Just because the sky is blue all over from the ground does not mean its all happy days up there...

5000 regards visibility not minimum distance from cloud. These aspects are provided for by NAIPS in a TAF

This thread is truely amazing... The story is just shockingly tragic. It could of still ended much much worse with the aircraft impacting a facility packed full of other souls. Tragic all the same. Point 1 - PIC demonstrated appalling situational awareness End of Story Point 2 - PIC demonstrated appalling understanding of personal minimums End of Story Point 3 - PIC demonstrated appalling ability to admit being overwhelmed and request available assistance End of Story Point 4 - Its a great video, can't think of anything else to add except see Point 1 above

Stud shank dia' = 0.280" for the early 9XX with through stud config. Calculating stretch on studs will be arbitrary at best without knowing the exact alloy formula employed. You may be able to extrapolate this data from other european manufacturer sources from around the same late 90's early 00's period to get a less arbitrary figure. Material yield is often the reason soft alloy components are tensioned when cold and harder when hot. Stuff needs to expend without reaching yield and retain clamping pressure when cold again; Nev made some mention of this above being the loss of clamping force cause; i.e the stud stretches to the point the nut losses tension and rolls off its thread. The M8 cap screw though i am not convinced; it is only about 2.5" long and will be a different alloy to the stretch studs. The studs and mains cap screws appear to be fitted at the factory with Loctite DriLoc 200; the head nuts have no thread locker applied.

Sorry just realised you were talking about Royce; thought you meant Remove & Replace... Yes that sounds feasible; some engines also use Wills Rings (gas filled crush rings) instead of gaskets and are located into a purpose groove.

Sorry I could not stop laughing; they sound like cats being swung around under a full moon 😂😂😂

There are no gaskets, care is required not to damage mating surfaces between head and cylinder. There is also a minimum gap specification measured between head and cylinder components post tensioning. Have not observed any copper ring and fail to see the advantage; just one more point of failure gained.

Many modern studs are now designed to be torqued up to yield; hence tightening method of initial Nm tension then series of further 90deg turns to the yield; at which point further tensioning will not provide any further clamping force, just stretch the bolt/stud further. i.e the bolt is designed to hold a specific tension at the yield. Personally i do not think the solution of the 9XX cylinder design is optimum, however it does work sufficiently and is fit for its service application. Regarding bolt/stud elongation there will be a permissible tolerance provided within the Rotax overhauling manual, however the public only has access to the heavy maintenance data which does not cover cylinder stud tolerance data. Most all modern high stress engines with removable barrels will have single use retaining studs where the block barrel and head are retained by a set of through fixings. As an example the early Lotus Elise engines employ approx 400mm through bolt a maximum permissible stretch and also a single use throw away specification. (we had to replace every single cylinder head gasket on every engine due to a factory stuff up on the bolt yield specification; it was too low) Thinking a stronger bolt will provide more tension can then end with component distortion due the component material itself yielding. So its a finely tuned dance of material reduction and fit for service outcome. All Cost/Weight driven

Sorry correction on above; the check on the 127hr 914 provided 010" stretch on all cylinder studs. A bulk strip on a timed out 912UL provided 010" stretch on most cylinder studs, a few had 020", and one 040" stretch.

A set of new cylinder studs for early 914 has just been measured against a set with 127hr service time; almost all removed studs showed 010" stretch; one stud showed 040" stretch. So it is possible to elongate the stud further beyond its designed yield by over or further tightening. As the factory state; the cylinder studs on the early 9XX are single use only items.

Thanks, just wanting to know for maintenance planning... Aware of the block chain micro chip feature; great idea...

Can somebody clarify; the pictures show a "crankcase bolt" missing, and a "cylinder head nut" missing. The two items are mutually exclusive to one another. Loose head nuts have been noticed on the 914 during annuals

What does a blade replacement cost on these units?

Agree... my aircraft first went into the sky in 1998... when i purchased it it was up for the 5 year change next annual; so i did it; and i did all the other hoses on the airframe too! One braided hose was so poor that after removing it and bending it it cracked open. It was not a major hose. It only carried fluid from the fuel tank to the fuel pump on the engine; nothing major, but i changed it...

😂😂😂😂 LSA 3 year mandatory Rotax battery change with genuine Rotax battery required to remain certified!! 😀 👍👍👍👍👍👍💪

Reasons for 5 year rubber replacement timing on Rotax and 12 year component replacement timing on GA craft; things deteriorate with age.

My own AC came with 0.50mm orifice in return line and maintains 3.5psi on the engine pump and 5.0psi on auxiliary with each flowing at 60 and 105 L/hr. The return feeds back into the reserve tank so what ever is left in main always directs back to reserve before overflowing to main; so fuel has plenty opportunity to return to liquid state. Anyhow thread has now drifted some what. Throw the formulas out the window. Get a bucket, disconnect return line, start engine and measure 1 minute of fuel quantity and multiply by 60. Reconnect return line, and check for leaks and hose clamp security before further flight op's.

Math don't lie... 🤷🏼‍♂️ 45L of fuel to zero fuel in 20min, its only going out through the little hole.

There is just no "why" to this; so it will never get off the drafting table. Anybody with a RA PC can go get themselves a GA RPL SEA rating tomorrow and CTA endorsement in a few days of studying and a flight review exam. Add a NAV endorsement and task is done.

regarding the return line orifice. Rotax have there recommendations clearly stated in SB's. The Pipistrel uses the factory recommended size. It takes approximately 20min to pump the 50L right tank dry at a 12L/hr cruise burn. So that works out to around 135L/hr flow through the little hole at 5psi; about 2L/min circulated back to the left wing tank.

All your answers will be found within the relevant MOS documents regarding operating in controlled air spaces.

Comes back to the type equipment installed; certified or not certified; there will be no concessions offered to Ra aircraft wanting to enter Charlie, parallel minimum GA requirements will need to align.