BrendAn

4 hours ago, turboplanner said:

They all have carbies not only on top of the engine but sitting in the V.

But they are V8 cars of course, so we need to translate to 912.

If you want to put a carby on top of a 912 you just need a flame-proof drain tube exiting below the engine and outside the cowl.

What's a lot more important is to ensure air intake filters are not flammable. A good backfire into the air filters loved by the aftermarket are good for a 2 metre high flame.

Please stick to the topic.912 carbs are on top . That's how they are made . Forget about cars and what you can and can't do. I know other people that have expressed concern about top mounted carbs on an aircraft too. It's not my opinion.

Have a look at traditional aero engines. The carby is always underneath, same with jabiru.

4 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Sorry BrendAn - I would need the original builders permission to reveal his name on a public Forum.

Good call. I didn't think of that.

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Have a look at a V8 some time.

I should have said 912 fires which is the engine we are talking about, not V8 cars .

1 hour ago, BrendAn said:

A friend of mine has been flying a 912 powered sonex he built for a few years now . I think that is the second Rotax one he has built.

I have mentioned this plane before, 

He made his own EFI and retained the carbys. They are dry but if the EFI fails he pulls a cable and sends fuel to the carbs . He does not like carbys on top of an engine. I have not read of fires from flooded carbs though I guess it is possible.

7 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

My Sonex started its life in Gippsland - seems to be a hotbed of Sonex/Rotax.

Who built it. 

5 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Very nice Blue,

 

I would point out that:

 

Sonex have only very recently "recognised" Rotax 9 engines for installation in their aircraft, so I wonder how good their data is?

To the best of my knowledge Sonex do not have or ever had, a Rotax powered airframe, with which to arrive at the above figures.

Sonex are so slow to adopt Rotax, that they are only now coming up with a suitable engine mount for future kits

 

My Sonex Legacy/Rotax 912ULS will easily achieve (Max load):

• 1500 fpm in Climb Out,  80-100 knots, - I am still working on best climb speed.
• 130 + Knot True (150 mph) at 3000 ft, 5200 rpm, @ 15L/hr
• 147 knots indicated 150 + knots (173 mph) at 5450 rpm, 5500 ft, still working on the fuel but believe its 18-19L/hr

If you are wondering about the accuracy of the above air speeds,- the pitot/gauge system has been independently tested and a range of errors noted:

 

Indicated/Corrected Air Speeds in Knots

40/48.5, 60/66, 100/103, 120/123

140/142, 150/152, 165/166

 

PS - Do you think the tendency of US small aircraft manufacturers, to express their aircraft performance, in mph might be because it always looks better than in Knots???😈

A friend of mine has been flying a 912 powered sonex he built for a few years now . I think that is the second Rotax one he has built.

49 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

That was my intention.  Untill I was told I could never gain a RAA certificate. 

I still want to gain that certificate,  but age is against it .

Question : if you lose your " driving licence " because of age.

Are you automatically stripped of your " flying certificate " .

spacesailor

 

In raaus you are and I would imagine the new class 5 in GA as well

14 hours ago, spacesailor said:

These Hummel-Birds do look a lot better , as mr Hummel designed it. 

spacesailor

Rob,  see photo's previous .

 

 

 

 

I am confused by your posts. I thought you said you could not fly your plane  and now your converting to taildragger after a few years as a nose wheel.  Have you flown it.

Just curious because I really like the look of hummelbirds . I think they would be a terrific aircraft.

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

 

I do not dismiss other opinions - where I have something to contribute, I do. Scathing - for sure! where such a response is warranted.

 

Much depends on the logical progression of the writers case - if it doesn't sound right, it possibly isn't. If there are large gaps/omissions, the writer is either poorly informed or so biased he/she is unwilling to acknowledge information that does not support their assertions, alongside those that do ie not a balanced argument.

 

It is a shame that our debates, so often seem to, degenerate into personal attach.

You asked what I was talking about the other day. This was it. You never used to be such a cranky old fart. That's my job 😁

1 hour ago, justinjsinclair said:

Hey Turbo, 

I guess the answer is that the new world of opinions not based on fact or backed up by fact on forums is nearly over. If any member wants to give their opinion, that is perfectly acceptable but it needs to be patently pointed out that it is a “ opinion” and not necessarily based on proven data. If members of this forum want to bag Jabiru based on poor data then they should be made accountable. If members of this forum want to hide behind a pseudonym and  not stand up when questioned and be brought to account and provide data based on reliability they need to be accountable. 
There are many pilots and flying school owners out there that are doing it tough because some goose who has less than 3000 hours of instruction and has never owned or maintained  a 24 reg or better aeroplane sprouts utter rubbish based on what they have read on the internet. 
I have just had a beer with a very good mate of mine, GA CFI, RAA instructor and A330/B737 management pilot. He has just paid $2000 aud for a hose kit for his 912. That’s probably ok in Rotax circles but a Jabiru hose kit including fire sleeve is $200.00. I love rotax’s. ( well maybe not given their history 39-45) but am thoroughly sick of internet warriors who can’t run LoP, can’t do a 1:60, can’t fly in CTA, can’t land in max crosswind , leave the cockpit a shit fight after use, can’t make a radio call and can’t use a whizz wheel.

i guess it’s like this new age if STOL, what is the point if we fly into powerlines, 😫💁 because we are soy latte drinking city kids who can’t ride a horse, can’t strain a strainer post, can’t set a fox trap and certainly can’t do a good 3’ slope at full flap approach with half power at MLW with rear CoG into the western sun at dusk short of fuel.

 

 Without prejudice 
Justin

 

 

 

Don't forget your just another internet warrior like the rest of us.

Until proven otherwise 

2 hours ago, justinjsinclair said:

Hey KG, what an awesome post. 
In fact the Jab is nearly 50% cheaper 2200 vs low hp 912 if you add up all the costs in a mature way. SD doesn’t want to put the effort into obtaining the facts but that’s his or her choice.  
Don’t get me wrong, the Rotax is a wonderful bit of kit but now that we are up to $350 hr for a RAA aeroplane dual because the 100’/annual can be $5-7000.00 at LAME rates, I kind of feel a fleet of J160’s is still a great choice for a flying school, particularly if you have a L2 that can maintain the Jabs exactly as per the Jabiru Work pack.

Given that Jabiru is so much cheaper inguess in that case we can probably accept a bit of bracket creep as Jabiru costs increase 😢. 
SD banging on about the top is also a odd thing given that nearly all air cooled engines need work at some stage once they go under that 75 hours per year, having said that the Gen 4 has nikasil bores and the head issues are gone I am betting that the Top overhaul requirement will move as well.

as I said I don’t have a vested interest in Jab other than owning one and maintaining a couple, if anyone wants to pm or call me for further info fee free.

Justin “who identifies as him” 😅

J160 problem for flying schools is weight.

Just now, skippydiesel said:

I have no idea what you are referring to - please elaborate.

You have been having a go at a few people lately. Never noticed it before.  

20 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Sorry about the spelling fopa.

 

What has your question "ever owned an aeroplane" got to do with the cost of owning one?

 

So how come you didn't address any of my observations?

You are an angry kangaroo lately.

When you insult someone at least own it.

Just now, BrendAn said:

Partners. ?

1 minute ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

I thought it was Bill Moyes who designed the Dragonfly?

Partners. ?

Bobby bailey. Designer of the dragonfly hang glider tug killed in one of his own aircraft.

A bolt was left out of one of the struts and it folded up the wings in flight. It still amazes me how so many highly experienced people get into trouble flying.

7 hours ago, facthunter said:

What Chemical are they supposed to be spreading?  Cloud seeding was done with silver iodide. Suitable clouds at a much lower level. Provides condensation nucleii for the formation of raindrops.  Nev

worked good in dubai

in victoria we believe any bullshit we are told. ask dan andrews 😁

33 minutes ago, Freizeitpilot said:

I haven’t seen the stats for Australia, but RAAus aircraft with installed parachutes are still pretty rare….but slowly increasing. Of course there is a significant cost and weight penalty but 

from reading various threads on this forum you would think that BRS was the work of the devil.

 

Hence, I’m pretty sure this incident was the first deployment in Australia, at least for an 600kg LSA. 

not rare at all.  they were available way back in auf days. lots of xairs have them. we might be on different pages. i am talking about rag and tube ultralights, the true recreational aircraft.

On 18/04/2024 at 7:02 PM, Freizeitpilot said:

Would that be the first (and successful) deployment of a ballistic parachute from a recreational aircraft in Australia ?

lots of raa aircraft with brs parachutes, surely someone must have used one over the years.

On 06/04/2024 at 11:47 AM, Freizeitpilot said:

If you were to purchase a new aircraft from overseas and ADS-B was fitted as an extra cost option, I don’t believe this cost attracts a rebate.

if you can afford to import a new aircraft you don't really need the rebate.

i have had 2 xairs counting the one i have now and both nosewheel ass are opposite to that one. never seen one turned like that before.

4 minutes ago, jackc said:

On principle, I would have stood my ground because RAA requirements were complied with on the day. So they changed their mind?

I think RAA gets a thrill out of making things hard?  Or has the Bristell fiasco spooked them?  Not sure that is done and dusted either, from what I hear. 🤢

i would not accept 450 kg which they did to 2 xairs before mine. i thought 490 was a good compromise.  what is the bristell fiasco about.

29 minutes ago, jackc said:

So, the kit maker must have sanctioned the 544 rating at some time?  They would have been aware of what was going on in Australia ? 
Could an engineer certify the 544 MTOW?  Now have there been any structural problems with this model of aircraft?  And crashes with an adverse investigation outcome, due to airframe failure? 

no, they did not. kits were owner built and the raa requirement was the builder had to stipulate the mtow not the kit manufacturer. now they are changing it to manufacturers specs. mine should be 450 but because micheal coates put 490 on his website they let me have it.    there are no records of an xair structural failure. 

10 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Then again .

My Hummel-Bird doesn't fit " 95-10-1103 '' category either. 

It's wings are too small   . Even through it was a " registered " aircraft .

( under AUF ) .

V H experimental,  or back to RAAus as a new registration , ' 95-19-whatever ' .

I would swap for a ' 103 ' aircraft . To get away from " them who like to be gods ".

spacesailor

 

i don't understand all your rego drama. how come every other hummelbird in the world gets registered but not yours. surely its not the only one in australia.