Jump to content

BrendAn

First Class Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,161

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

 Content Type 

Posts posted by BrendAn

    Kawasaki entering into aviation engine market

    in Engines and Props

    Posted

    5 hours ago, facthunter said:

    You should be a bit more careful how you express YOUR opinions of Peoples contributions HERE BrendAn. Despise Rotax ?  Pretty Libelous and not really called for PERSONAL attack. Not the sort of thing one should have to put up with on a  Forum. where FACT should count.  This is also a very public forum and I certainly don't like what you have just said .  Knock it off Eh? Nev

    You are too serious 😁.

    take a chill pill.

     

    • Caution 1

    Kawasaki entering into aviation engine market

    in Engines and Props

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

    By the time they get this to market it will be just about all over for internal combustion engines even for aviation. All the Japanese auto makers are struggling right now losing huge ground in their biggest market, China.

    If you watch the video at the start they talk about this and how Kawasaki aviation was the fore runner to Kawasaki motorcycles.

     

    • Informative 1

    Kawasaki entering into aviation engine market

    in Engines and Props

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, facthunter said:

    V belts are not going to work in this sort of stuff.  You ignore the Main Point of my post. The first sentence was simple enough. Yes or No.  it was also general. Nev

    No. I am not confusing Mitsubishi and Kawasaki.  Did I say they would use belts.  Maybe Kawasaki should get in touch , you could advise them on what they should do 😁

    • Haha 2

    Kawasaki entering into aviation engine market

    in Engines and Props

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, facthunter said:

    Are you confusing Mitsubishi with Kawasaki?  Reduction gearboxes are NOT simple. With a largish Prop you have  a GEARED Flywheel. Like coupled crankshafts  Generally a BAD idea. LONG crankshafts? Bad for torsional Vibration. Likely to have a few "Never use" RPM settings.  Nev

    Look up Kawasaki. They have produced a lot of fw military aircraft from WW2 onwards and don't forget Kawasaki helicopters.

    The standard engine on a lot of ultralights years ago was the Kawasaki 440 with belt drive reduction.

     

     

     

    Kawasaki entering into aviation engine market

    in Engines and Props

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, onetrack said:

    I'm pretty familiar with big Jap motorbikes and I know 8,500RPM isn't high-revving for them. I also have my ears assailed daily by Jap motorbike riders wrapping on the throttle. I can well imagine the outrage of the non-flying set when they hear aircraft with Kawasakis doing 8,500RPM at WOT on takeoff and climb. There's enough complaints now with the current providers of engines.

     

    I have yet to see an exhaust system that can keep a high-revving Jap motorbike engine quiet. BRAAP motorbikes didn't develop their brand name just on wordplay.

    Have you flown in a Rotax powered plane . As red said they are quieter than conventional aero engines.

    Wing lift Struts supplier - Streamlined alloy tube

    in Aircraft Building and Design Discussion

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, T510 said:

    In preparing to reassemble my Supa Pup I was doing a thorough inspection of the wing struts and found a crack in one and a decent wear mark in another.

     

    Not having much luck finding a supplier for some replacements, anyone have any leads?

     

    Dimensions are 20mm x 47mm for the rear strut and 22mm x 50mm for the front one, both 2mm wall thickness.

     

    Cheers

    what about rollo the aeropup man in queensland. don't know if aeropup will be the same but he might have access to a supplier.

    • Agree 1
    • Informative 1

    New 24 rule on the way

    in Aircraft General Discussion

    Posted

    On 24/05/2025 at 3:46 AM, turboplanner said:

    Did all Members here get the memo?

    Was it sent to the owner of this site for Publication?
    Was this major change sent to the media, so they could publicise it?

     they also dropped the 2 stroke endorsement without sending any info out. i guess they will bring it up with people if it affects their application .

    why don't you log into the raaus portal and see what you can find. all raaus members have access to it.

    New 24 rule on the way

    in Aircraft General Discussion

    Posted

    On 22/05/2025 at 3:07 AM, turboplanner said:

    It was nothing to do with nutters; it was about the possibility of leaked information.

    There would be a serious issue when a people's organisation released unapproved plans or made a practice of ignoring industry publication outlets.

     

    this change was emailed out 2 days before i said anything. i assume if its important enough they would email all members or list in the news section of the portal.

    New 24 rule on the way

    in Aircraft General Discussion

    Posted

    On 19/05/2025 at 2:41 PM, facthunter said:

    WHO are you talking to. ???  I don't resemble that remark,  My stuff is good Gen based on personal experience. . Nev

     

    On 19/05/2025 at 2:41 PM, facthunter said:

    WHO are you talking to. ???  I don't resemble that remark,  My stuff is good Gen based on personal experience. . Nev

    it was aimed at turbo. calling me a nutter, he knows nothing about what i posted.

    my info came from the head man himself, db.  if i posted something random i heard i would have called it a rumour.

    • Like 2

    New 24 rule on the way

    in Aircraft General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by BrendAn

    1 hour ago, facthunter said:

    It's NOT YOUR thread Brendon to decide what can and cannot be posted. You seem to possess some delusion of ownership and control.  My aim mainly is SAFETY. Nev

    do what you want . better off not posting anything.  sick of getting attacked by forced induction

    who contributes jack shit except for made up legal rubbish. 

    • Caution 1

    New 24 rule on the way

    in Aircraft General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by BrendAn

    39 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

    He's doing that on another runaway nutty thread because its safety advice. He wouldn't have to do it if RAA issued a document and the advice was in the document; but as far as I can sse this is another tell-tale thread that didn't wait for any official announcement. 

    what are you going on about you wonderful human, sick to death of being run down by you. whats the nutty thread .

    • Caution 1

    New 24 rule on the way

    in Aircraft General Discussion

    Posted

    45 minutes ago, facthunter said:

    Engine seals cannot be assured for such extended times, and are critical on a 912 .The Rotax parts are too expensive.  On common aero engines wear rates are higher at higher hours often making the eventual overhaul more expensive. High hours engines are more sludgey making them more likely to fail on longer trips.. Higher hours engines have always been more failure prone. When a motor is removed and overhauled it still produces close to the rated power. It HAS to be able to do that . Aero engines operate at about 75% power most of the time and need full power to get into the air every time. No escaping that..  Military rated engines have much lower TBO's than the same engines used commercially. How the engine is operated has a big effect on it's life and reliability. Engines used only occasionally become pretty suspect . Stored engines should be inhibited and never just run now and again. Unless thoroughly warmed up (Usually about 45 mins air time) the motor will get  excessive moisture in the oil. NEVER ever just run it briefly and leave it for weeks. The worst thing you can do. Nev

    You bring this up a lot. Can you stop please. Or put it on someone else's thread.

    • Agree 2
    • Sad 1

    New 24 rule on the way

    in Aircraft General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by BrendAn

    54 minutes ago, facthunter said:

     I'm questioning the rationale behind the Increasing application of the "On Condition" concept and it's overall possible effect on safety. TBOs these days are Just Made up whereas once they had to attain and continue to meet conditions encountered in the field. Inspections are the KEY to structural and Power plant safety.." On Condition" is superficial and must essentially be a lesser standard. Certainly not suitable to a professional  Commercial show.  More a "Permit to fly" thing.  Nev

    I understand where you are coming from but what they are implementing is a good thing for raaus members who have that category.  Like the gazelle that just got approved. He was up for a new engine because wal won't rebuild pre 2006 crankcases. Or he had to do an annual marap. His engine was rebuilt 300 hrs ago by a lame but without a Rotax certificate .

    The storch I was talking about has a very well documented history and it has only done 500 hrs .  Runs like new.

    There was a 912 uls advertised the other day with 2000 hrs and it was a 2022 year. A private person could fit that engine and be trouble free for the next 20 years.

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...