Jump to content

skippydiesel

Members
  • Content Count

    2,633
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

About skippydiesel

  • Rank
    Well-known member

Information

  • Aircraft
    ATEC Zephyr
  • Location
    The Oaks
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Turbo me old mate - Bit hard to follow -Lot of non engineering words to confuse matters - However I get your gist. The "expansion" stroke usually referred to as the power/combustion stroke, does not reduce pressure in the chamber - if it did you wouldn't get much in the way of power being delivered. Intercoolers, sometimes called after coolers, pretty much only apply to exhaust turbo (possibly super) charged engines. Forced air (turbo/super charged) engines do not "give a smaller volume" of intake air - they cool the air, allowing for a higher density/oxyg
  2. Why not, "gut" an old caravan, cut the back wall off, build a tailgate/ramp and install - you have an almost instant covered trailer ?? True! there may be a little more required but its an idea.
  3. Hate to be a "wet blanket" however in this case I feel communication technology has, not only moved on, it has actually delivered a big step up in safety and efficiency, that should transcend acquisition price. The ability to listen in on one channel and communicate on another, gives the pilot the ability to hear/monitor the big picture, while communicating with the "target" Pre select frequencies, then flip/flop when desired and if desirable store them for future quick access's. I fly from the Sydney Basin, in an airspace being used by three training airfields - At
  4. I say! Joly Good Show - What!
  5. Danny mate - being able to listen out on a second channel (with flip/flop) is one of the best safety and communication efficiency investments I have ever made.
  6. Yah! I am with those thinking composite. In my mind (or whats left of it) compost constructed is the use of different materials to create the whole ie metal, wood, fabric and of course plastics. Again in my mind using the best material for the job/application and not being wedded to one/two is what we should be aiming for - so why not a geodetic metal cockpit safety frame with plastic skin ? Why not a flexiable laminated wooden spar covered in water proof epoxy ? Whats wrong with using fabric - fantastic stuff used in the appropriate places. I have never believe sa
  7. I prefer optimism - The Oaks will survive somehow - I may be wrong but I think its the last privately owned active airstrip, open to the flying public, in the Sydney Basin. Rumour has it, that being a 2nd WW training strip, it is under some sort of heritage listing. True no lasting protection against cashed up developers but this and the propensity to flooding, at its north end, may make them think twice.
  8. Yes I did a search but was not satisfied with the result - Your comments/thoughts will be of immense interest on "best bank for the buck" This is a for Rotax 912 ULS (100hp) application. I have been using an SSB, Part Number RB16CL-B, for about 7 years - very happy! https://superstart.com.au/ (still goes to 14.2V on the trickle charger) CCA: 385, Amp Hour: 19, Weight 6.6 Kg Way more power than the Rotax recommended battery specifications and in a lighter package to boot - couldn't be happier. BUT Have been looking in
  9. Sounds similar to my Zephyr 6-8 mm, in the main . I used Holden Gemini coolant 1" hoses with one coolant system rated plastic elbow joiner. All hoses & joiner from Gates - no problems
  10. All engine related rubber should be replaced at the 5 year interval. This includes all fuel lines/hoses to/ from tanks. Cant comment on the illustrated hose - The claimed pressure rating is way more than adequate but that has little to do with is suitability as a Rotax aircraft engine hose. I use Gates products for coolant and fuel. I prefer the Fuel Injection (FI) hose to the regular carburetor grade. Both are acceptable. The FI has a higher heat/fire rating and a lower permiability but does cost more (only a few dollars extra to do my whole system). I also prefer the
  11. As I said erlier its not just landing wear/damage, its every other component that moves and is subject to wear from use. Every time a student gets into the aircraft he/she, opens & closes the canopy/door, compresses & moves the seat, clips on the belts, switches on the master to energies the radio to obtain ATIS/clearance, does the controls correct and so on - this could be 8 times a day and it hasn't even started yet. Then you start to think about multiple/day start up, taxi, run ups, the circuit cycles, engine heating/cooling, landings, side loads, brakes, on & on
  12. Too many years ago, I obtained my Constant Speed/Retractable Undercarriage endorsements in a Cessna 172. From aged/defective memory, it also had a 180 hp engine, significantly more powerful than the 6 & 4 cylinder variants I had flown previously . It seemed a big step up at the time, was about 10 + knots faster than its best fixed pitch/undercarriage sibling, had autopilot and other than an intermittently defective radio, was very nice (whatever that means) to fly. It cost a bit more to hire but then it was a real aircraft and worth every cent.
  13. Yep! Ye old sight /level tube is about as KISS as you can get. They can work very well in high wing aircraft (as long as the tube remains clear and there is a background that will highlight the fuel. Low wings and or tank in fuselage systems dont seem to be compatible - the sight tube is sometimes in the foot well - dark & hard to see. Possibly worse, behind the pilot, necessitating a high degree of flexibility to obtain a view - usually accompanied by the aircraft making a steep dive/climb turn - tad unnerving.
×
×
  • Create New...