skippydiesel

So LB, on balance you approve of my, if needed, three step approach and can see no problems - is this correct?

With diesels, the cause of "oil dilution" is, in the first instance, not usually crankcase vapours, but a leaking injector(s) delivering raw fuel after shut down. The fuel then dribbles down past the piston rings into the crankcase. Of course the resultant crankcase vapour, after engine start, would be diesel rich and returning it to the crankcase would further compromise the "lubricity" of the crankcase oil. FYI: Owners/operators of petrol ride mowers/small motors, where the fuel tank/level is above the carburettor. Oil dilution, also known "as making oil" is a fairly common problem. (one of the many reasons why you should always check your oil level, "sniff" if in doubt, beforengine start) The cause is the float chamber valve leaking, after engine shut down - fuel floods the carburettor, finds its way into the cylinder(s) and then down into the crankcase, raising the level of oil on the dipstick. In recent times the engine manufacturers have added an additional, electrically actuated, fuel shut off (found on the exterior bottom of the float chamber) unfortunately these can also fail. I suspect that this is mainly a problem of engines that do not get used for an extended period eg winter when the grass doesn't grow. Fuel "varnish" builds up on the valve(s) reducing their sealing effectiveness. I have seen several engines where the oil (diluted with petrol) has risen well up in the cancase. If you start the engine, there is the potential for an explosion and even if this does not occur, the contaminated oil will not adequately lubricate and you are likely to see catastrophic internal damage. Always drain as much of the contaminated oil as possible & replace with fresh. Solution: Strip carby, clean/replace the valve(s) Fit an inline manual fuel shut off (good practise anyhow).

1. "To try & preserve as much of the Sonex recommended system (22001-13) I will start by replacing the lower donuts with the 14 donuts and see if that has the desired effect." As a first step, I think the above is small, therefor may not result in sufficient movement reduction, so planning for the future (if needed); 2. The lateral movement, viewed from the cockpit, is to the left. With this in mind, could step two be replacing the two - 13 mounts, on the left side only, with the stiffer -14's. What might be the negative effect of mixing two diffrent mount stiffness (Note: All 22001 mounts have the same dimensions)??? 3. It seems that the rear/aft mounts are being subjected to more movement that the front two - Should I consider replacing the aft mounts with -14's leaving the front two -13's? As in 2, what might be the negative effects?? 4. I will be purchasing 4 X - 14 mounts, so if step two/three don't have the desired effect OR are skipped (due to advice/reflection) I will just replace all -13's with -14'. Aside from checking for desired movement reduction, I would appreciate any advice on what I should monitor ??

So doesn't remove disolved contaminants - fuel contamination one of the main contaminants found in crankcase breather vapour.

How do you mean 'effective" - do they remove all disolved contaminants from the oil or just the larger carbon particles?

That's true Nev however you neglect to mention they potentially have the longest runway on earth, can remain in ground (water) effect as long as they like, to gain sufficient speed to climb, with no terrain issues except the occasional ship. In most other applications, a fixed pitch must be a compromise to have sufficient climb performance for safety, combined with an acceptable cruise speed. A CS while still compromising (mainly aerofoil shape/design) gives great TO/CO and good cruise.

PCV's are old technology (at least on my cars)

Correction - Every auto maker of today does not put the crankcase vapours back into the crankcase oil - they route them into the inlet manifold/system, to be burnt in the combustion process.

He is but in my opinion he is also correct - why on earth would you want to put contaminates back into your crankcase oil?

If the question is about an engine crankcase breather oil separator I agree with Nev - Why would you put contaminated oil back into the crankcase? The gaseous/vapour component (left after separation) is perfectly safe to be routed into the air intake, for consumption in the combustion process.

It's often the challenge of staying cool while on the ground (slow speed) that occupies home builders.

"Can’t get a much more efficient airframe than that!" http://worldrecordplane.com/ Third party verification, not often part of aircraft promoters performance claims

I am sure there are plenty of big bore/consumption supporters out there. For myself and hopefully plenty of small bore/low consumption supporters, I question the merits of such a program. I also like speed, for its potential to save fuel - up to a point, it does not require more powerful engines/high fuel consumption - just a more efficient airframe.

Thanks for that Garfly - I have only done this route once (south to north) - it was horrible! What should have been a pleasant scenic flight, was marred by strong mechanical turbulence, close proximity of high terrain and unsafe altitude limitations. Returned by a diffrent route.

Interesting; seems that no one thinks being unable to economically replace the battery on a GM is an issue.

http://worldrecordplane.com/ Enough said!

Lawyers are not required but if it makes you feel good go for it. Too many people overthink the sellin/purchase of an aircraft (car/significant asset). Log books must go with the aircraft. Spares may be sold separately, with the aircraft or be a sweetener ie thrown in to clinch the deal. Ancillary equipment - as above I agree with a sales document that has a statement regarding title - you don't want to purchase an asset you will owe money on or that actually belongs to someone else (not the seller). Pre Purchase inspections are always at the purchaser's expense (nuts if they don't do one) and should be facilitated (within reason) by the seller. Pre-Purchase flight with seller/instructor/other acceptable pilot, also should be facilitated and where appropriate (instructors time/fees) paid for by the purchaser.

Brokers/Agents, may seem like a perfect solution for the seller but in my case a nightmare for the potential purchaser - Only had the one experince, a caricature of a bit like a really bad second hand car sales person put me off sales agents for ever.

Too complicated Onetrack - Sales agreement, 1/2 to a full page no more - must contain words to the effect of "purchased as is where is". Copes signed, dated by both parties. I would advise against listing any defects - If asked, verbally advise if you wish. If you make a list & miss something, this could be reason to seek a refund/claim against you. Do not make any false claims regarding condition, performance - if untrue these could be held against you. It is up to the purchaser to do his/her research, ask informed questions or have someone (broker) do it for them. It is not your job to lay your sole bare. There are no inclusion unless you list something, it's in a sales photo etc, so headsets/handheld equipment, Biggles goggles etc will only be sold with the aircraft if you agree to do so, make them part of the sales promotion. There can be no exclusion that render the aircraft unsafe/illegal to fly unless you are selling it as such eg damaged OR as part of the bargaining process where the two parties agree to remove a trivial (no effect on safety or legality) item, to reduce the total purchase price (underwing air to air missiles) Do not let your aircraft go, hand over keys, documents, etc until full payment received. Non refundable deposits must be a fair reflection of the total value agreed to eg $ 150K aircraft, I think about $10K non refundable deposit sounds fair. Have the purchaser sign a document, agreeing to the deposit being non refundable, if the purchase does not proceed (if the seller pulls out this may not be enforceable). Deposits are an expression of intersted, not ownership, but may confer the right to purchase at a later time, so set a deadline - ie full payment by midnight on date or the aircraft goes back up for open sale? Personally I would not complicate a sale by demanding a deposit - purchase outright or not at all - first to meet your price gets the bird.

Have done two 1.5 hr flight. Checked for excessive movement - unfortunately still too much. Next step- will purchase the Barry 22001-14 mounts. To try & preserve as much of the Sonex recommended system (22001-13) I will start by replacing the lower donuts with the 14 donuts and see if that has the desired effect.

Danny_G My first instinct was to replace the existing mounts (bushes) with the, same design/dimensions, next level (durometer) stiffness - go from a Barry Controls Mounts 22001-13 to a 22001-14. My only concern with this idea , was the potential for the stiffer mounts to generate unforeseen (by me) problems (I was ready to accept some small increase in vibration- already very low) One of the respondents (Rodgerc), pointed out that the Barry mounts are narrow/diameter and a wider mount (at the top/bottom) of the same material would have the effect of reducing lateral movement, while retain the same vibration damping. Great idea -but where to source - possibly from a custom maker - potential high cost, compounded by possible need for several sets of different durometer to find best set. No, the 30 hr lifespan was Rodgerc with an AeroVee engine - hopefully different problem - my engine/mounts already have close to 60 hrs without any sign of wearing out. I would hope to get, at the very least, 5 years (Rotax rubber replacement) and 500 hrs or more from a set of mounts. The difficulty with your idea (for which I thank you) is that there must be a way of having a through fixing/bolt, that is not in direct contact with the plate it is going through. In the Barry mount this is achieved by having the bolt inside a steel tube, that is bonded to the top structure and has a thick layer of rubber around it isolating it from the bottom plate. The steel tube also acts as a spacer, the bolt/nut being torqued up tight (30ft/lb)

Danny-G You also must have some way of holding the engine down, while still allowing some movement hence the "rubber" is on both sides of the mounting system. My (crude) understanding of how it works: The upper part of the mount is responsible for vibration control. The lower part (donut) for movement control. The above combination, with a steel tube & nut/bolt through the middle & fixed to the top plate, keeps the whole caboodle in place, while allowing a certain amount of movement.

"...........complete 'blocks' of rubber ............." I am sure Nev or one of the other aircraft experts could wax lyrical on this topic, however I give it a shot; Engine mounts for aircraft must contend with far more than a similar sized (weight/power/etc) automotive engine. There are the rotational forces generated by both engine & prop that must be controlled (lateral movement) -Vibratiofrom engine/prop ,which is not just annoying to the pilot can/will destroy an airframe - Longitudinal movement due to weight shift from power on/off landings & high speed taxi. - Changes in orientation (deliberate/accidental aerobatics) All of this in very light chassis/airframe that does not have the added damping of ground contact. The aircraft engine mount must control all these, while being a light as possible, hence the popularity of various Ring mounts, giving 360 degree controle and some Angle mounts, possibly not quite as effective but a potentially lighter option, if aircraft unlikly to be used for aerobatics.

My radio has Primary & Second frequency. Primary is the coms In/Out and the Secondary is In (monitoring) only. At the press of a button I can "flip flop" ie switch the Primary to Secondary. I always have Area on, either as Primary (when on an away trip) or Secondary when in /close to CTAF . When joining the circuit, I can switch off Secondary to minimise distractions. Changing frequency happens on the Secondary, then flip flop to Primary. Like Neil, I have recognised (Area) ATC warning (usually IFR) aircraft of my location and have on a few occasions been called by ATC to warn me of conflicting aircraft. I would feel very uncomfortable, flying an aircraft with only one frequency at a time capability.

Its really 4 rubber assemblies. I believe the original design, by a Sonex home builder, has 6 rubber mounts. They may have been softer, than the 4,that Sonex (the factory) supply at the moment. I hope that Sonex will adopt one of the better designs that various Sonex/Rotax builders have come up with - some real beauties, mostly incorporating the Rotax ring mount or making their own variant- they "look the goods"!