skippydiesel

This is all bovine excrement - When I recently purchased an aircraft, I chose to employ an engineer and asked a number of experienced pilots, to check it out for me. Only after their good reports, did I do my own investigation and then commit to purchase. RAA had nothing to do with it and neither should they. Having some sort of assurance from RAA, no matter how minour/full of escape clauses, is just ridiculous - this is not a service/requirement that RAA should be involved with. People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions/decision - employ/ask experienced/qualified people for help, even if you think you have all the experince you need - independent assessment is always beneficial but should not be provided/required by RAA.

Oooooooh! "I is a shakin in ma boots" - you should try reading my earlier posts - This is not about using the wrong oil, it's about a progression from, back in the day, Rotax being open with the oil standards, allowing 912 owners to source an appropriate oil from the available market, through to the present day, when it would seem to be only recommending its in house (secret standard) XPS, making it impossible to research an equivalent oil from the wider market. Neither is it about cost - its about cost effectiveness & freedom of choice - clearly concepts beyond your bulging wallet to understand. I have always used AeroShell Sport +4 - true only the one producer but its availability from a number of retailers, introduces at least a little competition, keeping the price to (a guess) around double that of an equivalent motorcycle oil. Owners of early 912's (before Aeroshell Sport +4) used various motorcycle oils, without ill effect. Many continue to do so to this day - that is their choice, as it should be. It will be interesting to see at what price XPS will be available for, in Australia. My guess $30-40/L

"Big question; what is the legal situation ? No guesses please." Unless there is legislation to force owners to use only recommended service products (a very dark day for democracy/personal freedom) it will always be a guess/speculation, simply because no two scenarios will be the same. My guess 😈 There is no legal position as such. The manufacturer (Rotax) would likely use the failure to use approved service items, as a lever to dismiss warranty or similar claims. In this case it would be up to the claimant to show no relationship between the products used and the failure. Who has deep enough pockets to take on BRP? In the highly unlikly event of a loss/injury claim - the claimant would have to demonstrate that the oil used was a major contributor to the incident, that resulting in the loss/injury - very doubtful. This sort of speculation is paranoia.

I don't know the background to this debate however from the proceeding comments (particularly from Thruster 88, "One can buy or sell a VH Cessna, or Experimental, regardless of condition, without a valid maintenance release in casa land" ) I can't for the life of me understand why RAA would involve themselves in aircraft selling/purchase condition reports. To do so invites legal claims, adds to the general cost of operation, ultimately passed on to the members and provides no discernible benefit. Selling/ purchasing an asset (aircraft) is nobody's business outside the parties involved.

I always try to use the oil recommended by the manufacturer - so far all my vehicle/engines have recommended oils produced by mainstream makers like Shell/Castrol/BP, not their own brand (like Rotax & XPS). Often, over many years of ownership, the original recommended oil is discontinued. I talk to the oil companies technical advisors, to get their recommendation on a suitable alternative. On rare occasions, I have switched brands, usually due to cost of the original or recommended substitute becoming increasingly costly. In these cases, I go to some lengths to source a less costly alternative, that still meets the original specifications, again from a reputable brand. In short - I do not slavishly follow the engine manufacturer's recommendation, rather I keep an eye on cost/availability and act accordingly. Unfortunatly, Rotax seems to have gradually dropped any reference to general market oil specifications - it's now a secret in house spec "RON 424 classification" that has no equivalent/cross reference to the general oil supply market.

Thanks Nev - I point out that Rotax have, over time, dropped their earlier, much broader, oil recommendation. My early operators document oil specification, allows for a wide range of, mainly motorcycle, oils to be used. I have no doubt that the new XPS meets Rotax engine needs handsomely. I also have no doubt that the engine owner will pay handsomely for a product that is only available from Rotax. One more lack of doubt - there will be crankcase oils, available on the open market, that will also meet Rotax specifications (especially if not using leaded fuel) that will be a lot cheaper. Certified aircraft & RAA factory built/available for hire/training may be obliged to use XPS however there is a large "experimental" fleet that can use whatever oil they deem suitable. Of the latter, most owners would try for an oil meting Rotax specifications (now no longer published) - hence my: "This may be a good time to review what other (non approved) synthetic oils are suitable for Rotax 912 carburettor engines." PS - It's not so much the "redrive" ie integrated gearbox, requiring a suitable oil, as the clutch mechanism contained therein. If memory serves, the early recommendation was to avoid oils containing friction modifiers.

I have not read all of the articles - just speed browsed a couple. My advice - be very very cautious with some of the information contained therein. Much relates only to the US. Much is false economy & unsafe eg (replacing rubber hoses, basically at the point of failure). Otherwise a good read that has some useful information.

XPS oil, has been in the research pipeline for a while. Originally only approved for the 912iS engine, it is now approved for the whole range of Rotax 4/'s XPS is a full synthetic, rather than a blend (AeroShell Sport +4) and has supposedly been developed especially to suit high engine temperatures in the 912iS. XPS will only be available through Rotax dealerships, unlike AeroShell Sport +4 which was available from a wide range of suppliers (including Shell). When a company restricts supply to their own dealership network this is most often accompanied by a high price tag (lack of market competition). AeroShell Sport +4 will continue (for now) as a Rotax recommended oil, so there will be choice and I have no doubt that this well tried/ trusted oil will still be used well in to the future, at least by those of us with carbureted engines. A little before my time - Rotax allowed a range of, mainly motorcycle, oils for use in their engines. With the arrival off AeroShell Sport +4 this approval was largely withdrawn. Rotax do not specifically recomend AeroShell Sport +4 (or any oil), they do require the use of "... oil with RON 424 classification" , is a Rotax specific specification. When Googled only comes up with , you guessed it, AeroShell Sport +4 Pilots flying in high ambient temperatures, may be attracted to the benefits that full synthetic oils offer. This may be a good time to review what other (non approved) synthetic oils are suitable for Rotax 912 carburettor engines.

I trained in high wings and fly low wings. These days my focus is RAA level aircraft. While all aircraft that fly are great and have many good features, there are only a few that have a truly wide performance envelope. For me this means 30 (-) knot stall - 130 (+) knot cruise. I only know of one high wing that can achieve this, the Pipistrel Virus SW, while there are several low wings that do or at least come close. High wings are certainly more comfortable on the ground on a hot/sunny day - once in the air (altitude) it doesn't seem (to me) that there is significant difference. Visibility is in equal measure plus & minus. The high wing gives a good view down but obstructs a lot in a turn and up. The low wing has unobstructed visibility in a turn & up, while the down view is partially obstructed by the wing. These features are important especially in the circuit. The pilot must adapt to/accommodate these design features. In my opinion, accident survivability has more to do with stall speed (low impact) than issues of exiting the aircraft If I could afford it, I would go for a Pipistrel Virus SW but am more than happy with my Sonex.

I probably shouldn't say this (being one of the main offenders) however it seems a shame that we cant keep to/within the subject (Spare Parts sourcing) of this particular thread. Notwithstanding Danny-Gs very attractive parents, keeping within the topic makes this resource, for current & future users, so much easier to access/research.

So Nev - my interpretation of the above-: The "Loads" are the same (T /low /cruciform) its how they are applied that differs. In a low/cruciform (mid) horizontal stabiliser mounting position the loads on the stabiliser are transmitted to the fuselage tail cone. The tail cone being an inherently strong/stiff structure, relatively, to the vertical stabiliser/fin. The T tails must have a more robust/larger vertical tail/fin structure, compared to the above, to accommodate the leverage exerted by the horizontal stabiliser - principle of moments/leverage. Its likely the forces acting on the T tail vertical stabiliser, require more complex design construction than for a conventional lay out. Clearly there are pros/cons to the T tail concept however they must confer significant advantage in certain designs, beyond the obvious jet engine application. Seems to me that the T tail has an undeserved bad reputation, as the result of failures in certain aircraft, where the concept was poorly executed/constructed.

T tails must be more than just a fashion statement - everything from gliders to big commercial jets have them. My last aircraft had one - seemed to me, to perform flawlessly.

Please explain??

"Don't tow an aircraft anywhere if your not prepared to talk to people because they create a lot of interest. " Another good reason to have a Viscount Aircraft Carrier😜

Hi Truster 88, Observations: First photo - Handy being able to remove the wing skins for transport. Second 19-421. Seems to have only one wing. Empennage not secured Last - no wings at all. Empennage not secured Completed fuselage is possibly the easiest "bit" (aeronautical term) to secure & transport. Partially completed aircraft (lots of fragile bits) may be the hardest, depending on what the build stage is. Wings are the hardest part of a complete aircraft to pack safely/securely due to size, shape, vulnerable skin (in most instances), lack of on wing tie options. Purpose built cradles, conforming to that wing aerofoil, are possibly the best solution but not always available. Making a flat to tray "sandwich" polystyrene sheets/wing polly sheet/wing polly sheet (accommodating pitot tube) works quite well but needs to be monitored for load shift. In both systems elevator/flap are vulnerable and must be well secured .

Back to transporting a small aircraft; Packing: As mentioned polystyrene sheets/boards, Bubble Wrap and packing tape (can be had from Bunnings Aerospace but cheaper from a packaging supplier) are my friends. Try not to get the packing tape on a painted surface. Packing tape is amazing stuff - will secure almost any package (covered wings, fuselage, empennage). Polystyrene boards are used to spread the point load of a tie down strap/rope and between larger sections eg wings. Secure in place using packing tape. Tightly Bubble wrap almost everything and again secure with packing tape. Polystyrene can be returned to original purpose (insulating a structure) if you wish. Bubble wrap - haven't found an alternative use for it at this stage. Use a lot of just secure straps/ropes (if you know how) rather than a few very tight ones to minimise the risk of tightening damage - check for security /load shift frequently

The best "spare" you can carry these days, is a mobile phone.

Your welcome to rebuild it if you wish - might cost a tad more than $5k for me to part with it. I think mine is about 8m inside, so about 10m all up. Yes it's very well built and no its definitely not heavy, from imperfect memory 600 kg plus (all the heavy stuff has been removed). On my 20 hr round trip, I came across quite a few BDdoubles & the like - she never even wobbled. Very nice to tow. On freeway did a 110 kph easy , no problem at all.

Wow! $7.5K that price is a steal, if its structurally sound & registerable - Have you seen the asking price for large "toy trailers"? Double this price would be a good deal.

No insults just "shooting the breeze" and warning the inexperienced.

I agree, in general BUT a "flat bed" trailer has the following potential disadvantages which must be managed; As Nev pointed out the aircraft is subjected to buffeting (passing trucks/high winds) which may cause damage either directly or due to movement against restraints/tie downs. Inclement weather - it is close to impossible to tarp an aircraft - best to wrap & use tape to restrain the covering (before tie down). Gravel impact - as above For items strapped flat on the tray (wings) deck movement/flexing could be transferred to the aircraft structure. (bending/abrasion). Need to secure load while allowing some movement. Strapping damage - Styrofoam sheet/ bubble wrap/etc can be used to prevent damaged from point loading/abrasion Again as Nev mentioned - the trailer (or truck) is designed for much heavier loads, so suspension tends to transmit a lot of jarring (known as shaking the crap out of everything)- low tyre pressure helps a lot to smooth the ride but be careful, lowering the pressure too much will cause tyres to overheat/blow out. I reduced my tyres from 45 down to 30 psi and checked wall temperature twice over the first 30 minutes and about every 2 hrs thereafter. With a bit of planning and a lot of care the above can be mitigated even prevented.

"compatible with any type of carbon steel," What about other metals/alloys??

My observations: All the oil/liquid wax corrosion preventers : Can be applied to almost any dry surface without much in the way of preparation, painted/unpainted - SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED OVER WET SURFACES/CAVITIES as may trap moisture, Dry to a waxy finish (ie not like paint). Finish may attract dust for a sustained period. Self healing ie scratch will close over Have good to excellent penetrating qualities Can be sprayed or painted - most can be thinned (if need be) for spraying with a putty gun. Cavities are best treated with a flexible tube fitted with side jets, on the gun. Durable ie will last quit a long time (could be 10 years + for some - will depend on product & exposure). May require follow up treatment for best protection. Messy but usually minimal toxicity Can be thinned with most thinners (even turps) - follow instructions for best thinner & ratios Cost effective - a little goes a long way May be heavy for aviation use Most can not be successfully painted over Chemical bonding paint types (some undercoats): Need to religiously follow surface preparation & curing/drying instructions. Care should be taken to determine chemical compatibility with surface to be treated. Tend to be expensive Usually toxic - good quality PPE required Light weight Durable but unlikly to be self healing. Likely to last the service life of the aircraft. Top coat compatibility should be checked before purchase. Likely to be a two pack system, requiring accurate mixing ratios. May adhere to spray/mixing equipment making them unusable for other paints.

Yes - Your advisor was/is correct, however I have made good the integrity by installing additional ribs. If you look at the photo with the fuselage inside, you will see blue steel square tubing. These "ribs" plus the rear door frame, attached to the chassis, provide additional lateral rigidity. The original aluminium frame/skin provides longitudinal rigidity. In addition to enhancing vans rigidity (probably better than what the original internal fittings provided) the ribs offer options for loading - components like wing empennage can be secured above the fuselage if required. FYO - Most of the windows were broken/missing - Those that still had a functional frame, I replaced the glass with translucent polycarbonate corflute sheet. I used the removed rear end body work, to fill in/delete the front windows entirely. The van now only has one opening window and the two side doors for ventilation. The three roof vents have been deleted and "patched" with sheet aluminium. I replaced all 12V wiring & lights. Aesthetically she looks a bit rough, being converted in a hurry, but is structurally sound - could do with a lick of paint. The Aircraft Carrier is available for rent or purchase😎

The above "Aircraft Carrier" is a 1975 Viscount Supreme Caravan that I converted in a bit of a hurry to pick up the Sonex. Towed it down to Leongatha, S Gippsland, Vic. Loaded the almost completed Sonex Legacy and returned to The Oaks NSW with no damage/difficulty. It was a 20 hr round trip. Vic roads are awful. The Aircraft Carrier boasts internal tidowns, on each side, about every meter. It has also carried an RV 6. Electric brakes on all 4 wheels and fully rebuilt suspension. Its has NSW registration to near the end of the year. Tows nice & straight - doesnt wonder.