Jump to content


First Class Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About kasper


  • Aircraft
    Homebuilt weightshift
  • Location
  • Country
  1. Well either your picking up added pulses - tiny tachs run off the tripper wire coiled around the spark lead to a plug - or you have the wrong type fitted - they used to come in two stroke or four stroke and of course one reads 1 pulse = 1 rev while the other reads 1 pulse = 2 rev. but a jab engine is four stroke so I’m guessing the pulse wire is on the wrong lead or - and I don’t know this - the jab fires every rev and throws away a spark on the exhaust stroke and therefor need to be set to two stroke mode even though it’s a four stroke. 😛
  2. Sorry to hear Bolly have lost blades and had beta range issues on the IFV prop. I recall watching the tests on the three blade prop in the UK to get it accepted for certification - 100hp limit on the prop and 2800rpm max use required the prop to be spun up to 150% rev limit ... it took dull throttle on the landrover V8 to get there and I can assure you nobody was willing to be anywhere in the propr disc as we went through the power runs to just over 4,200 rpm.
  3. Hard to tell if you will be in the fast/slippery or moderate and draggy camps with the Zephyr. I'll offer two ways to look at and compare to other airframes to decide which camp you are in: 1. hp/kn of cruise. The more HP you use the less you are slippery and the more benefit you may get from CS prop 2. difference in Kn for stall and cruise - the bigger the gap the more slippery is your airframe and again possibly benefits of CS prop 1. is a more absolute number as it disregards the flap effect and allows very simple calc and compare between airframes ... if
  4. Never found the torque rods to be a problem. My issue with the prop - and the reason I changed it out for a fixed pitch - was it really didn’t seem to do much to the performance. There was not enough difference between fine and course and it just didn’t add enough performance.
  5. Skippy, Sorry for the thread drift away from CS props - I of course am considering a Bolly fixed pitch for the my home built - its not even conceivable to consider a CS for a flex wing cruising at 80knts esp. as the cost of any CS is more than I invested in the whole airframe, instrument and second hand rotax engine! Cheers.
  6. Nice to hear about the Bolly prop - it’s one I’m considering for a home built. I assume you put the bolly on the Legend 600 your profile lists as your plane - interested to fine how receptive the manufacture was to your request to change the prop and how easy/hard it was paperwork wise with Raaus and CASA.
  7. Or ... and it had to happen ... a Chinese copy of the 912 for less. http://mobile.zsaeroengine.com/product/fdj/2020-02-13/3.html#menu rotax 912 clones from 80-145hp hirth f23 clones at 50hp
  8. Flight London to London via the coast of Africa - down the west cost and up the east cost. I got as far as permissions for all bar 5 countries back in 2012 to do it but the foreign and commonwealth office lady kept calling and advising against any of it past Spain ... even I was not feeling too good about Somalia but I couldn’t over-fly it as I only had 1400km of fuel onboard with George the fuel buddy in the rear seat. maybe when I retire I’ll choose a slightly less difficult continent to circumnavigate.
  9. Was 2500 + gst - $2,750 all up. I was not there and could not inspect. If the skins are as good as the seller said then that is a bargain. If it’s new skins and engine rebuild it’s pretty much on the money.
  10. One track covered it very completely. I did mine without broker or ff but I have some experience and love dealing with process and procedures. The only thing I’ll add is that as a second hand wheeled aircraft it WILL be unpacked inspected by AQIS and the wheels / undercarriages disinfected then repacked. All at your cost and time. My container load or airframes was done as one so I got all 15 wheels and undercarriage legs disinfected as a job lot. My airframes were all able to be declared asbestos free because I could state that the only places they could be were identified and I took th
  11. And therein lies the problem with anything that is not a factory built and type accepted/approved airframe. Raaus tech have long behaved in a way that is applying far more power than they have on designer/builders and threatening to withhold or remove registration. When really pushed they have on several occasions over many years admitted lack of power/authority and I have continued to make and modify my airframes as I see fit. And to be clear. I am not trying to be difficult for the sake of being a bastard to the tech manager - I am enjoying the pastime of building and modifying w
  12. My core challenge to where you are coming from - and I understand and accept where you’re coming from - is that if you as an association are requiring anything like a “benchmark” that only allows registration and operation if that benchmark is met you have defacto created a design standard ... and that is in direct and complete opposition to the CAOs where all homebuilt airframes are not designed to any standard. The conflict between what people may expect or accept as reasonable and what the requirements under the CAOs are is the core of the conflict.
  13. Except how does that sit with the tech manual? You must use three point harness but raaus take no responsibility for airworthiness - you must have build indirections to show acceptable build yet neither raaus nor the inspector can tell you it’s wrong. And all of this is in front of the still untested what can raaus do to a member or non member who contravene a written requirement not required by cao and not enforceable as other than an breach of a membership obligation - what actual sanction is viable against a member who fails to have adequate by raaus standards documentation for somethin
  14. Yenn, If you take the words of Tech Manual issue 4 as being legally binding then lap sash is not acceptable - see sec 3.1 para 3.1 © The whole issue of is the tech manual actually legally enforcable against a builder or owner has not been tested but is arguable in many respects - in some respects the legal enforcability of whole slabs of the tech manual are questionable. Apart from is it legally allowed to have a lap sash people need to make the assessment of their personal risk tolerance when they come face to face with any aircraft that did not roll out of a factory as a certified/t
  15. You will not find anything on removal of raaus registration in any casa documents at all. Cao 95.10 you are concerned with on your plane is the only casa doc and just says it has to be registered with rasus. - was Auf back when it happened to you but that’s not changing anything. Removal of registration is an admin issue within raaus. You’ve been offered help previously to sort out your Hummel bird rego issues and my offer stands. Paperwork is just paperwork and it’s an easy thing for some and a devil for others. If you want to get it back on the register let me know and I’ll
  • Create New...