skippydiesel

Have you tried moving around the cockpit?😈

Hi Bosi72 "Since SE2 is light and portable, try moving it around until the interference is minimised, but it may never go completely away." Done! - "...............moved it about a meter, from where I had it and the interference went away" I seemed to have stumbled on the solution while at 5500ft however my interest/question is; have others had a similar experince?????😈.

I stand to be corrected: True anyone can go for their RPL and then use an RAA registered aircraft, to enter CTA. I am not sure why, I get the impression it may be a bit of a grey area. I know its done, have myself, I wonder what would happen if there was a serious incident, involving an RAA registered aircraft in CTA????😈

Blue, "MY present aircraft is my build #19 and I follow manufacture bulletins and advice." Commendable attitude - Good for you! "I will not follow your apparent disregard for designer factory advice about care for wooden wing and covering." Unfortunatly your commendable attitude/a tad "holier than thou" has led you to make an assumption & accusation that is totally wrong - I have not nor will I debate/list my maintenance activities, in an open Forum, for an aircraft that I no longer own. Nor will I do it for my current aircraft. I keep a detailed log book of all build, maintenance & repair actions undertaken (with photos). These records go with the aircraft and are not for public debate. 😈

It's actually happening!! We live in hope but don't expect anything to happen fast - this is a Government bureaucracy.😈

Today was my first proper in flight test for my SE2. It worked very well indeed. One small point - it seemed to be causing a minor radio interference (regular tapping sound). I know it was the SR2 because it stopped as soon as I pressed its off button. I turned it back on, interference, unstuck it, moved it about a meter, from where I had it and the interference went away. The first location was very close to my headset jack & my Dyon ADHARS module- ? Dont recall any reference to radio interference/location in the install instructions. Just wondering if anyone else experienced this???

No idea why you are pursuing this with such vigour & a hint of venum - RAA 19s are the sole responsibility of the owner to maintain/or have maintained in an airworthy condition. The recommendations of the component parts supplier/factory are just that, recommendations. This not a certified or factory build aircraft, the rules for such do no apply. If you acquire an aircraft (of this type 19) that has its genesis on the other side of the World, you do so with the understanding that factory support is likly to be nominal at best. How you interpret and act/or not, on factory recommendations, is up to the owner. Your "freinds" aircraft has been flying for about 30 years (l forget the actual rego date) was involved in one major accident - your friend purchased the damaged aircraft "as is". The photos, he has sent me, suggest he has done a terrific job in rebuilding it. I believe he has had it inspected (RAA?) prior to returning it to flight. He seems to be very pleased with his acquisition and confident that it is airworthy. I understand that your "friend" had a Zephyr, prior to acquiring my one. I don't know how long he had it for however if he is on the second model, it suggests a depth of posative experience/knowledge of the mark, that could easily exceed mine. Although no longer an agent for ATEC, I continue to be an admirer of the aircraft. As such I am happy to assist owners where I can - what more do you want? 😈

No idea - as all aircraft 19's, it's up to the individual owner to keep airworthy. You could try Dexter Berkill, ATEC Aircraft Australasia ,https://www.atecplanes.com.au/faeta.htm

246 views and not a single enquiry/comment. In the immortal words of one red headed fish & chip lady "Please Explain"😈

Europa is not a wing fold - its similar to a glider. The main spare overlaps & is secured inside the fuselage/cockpit. It's not so easy to do - the few who actually go down this track, build a jig or two, so that the wings can be removed/installed by one person. You will also need a custom designed trailer - started down this track with a 1975 Viscount Supreme caravan - used it to pick up my Sonex. Performance wise, the Europa and FS Storch are pretty much at opposite ends of the envelop/handling characteristics - interesting choices.😈

Agree with the inference made by Blue. As the builder, you can put a V8 & a dometic fan blade on the front if you wish - it may not pass its safety inspection or get off the ground but those are two other matters/hurdles. People have crafted their own prop - how did they manage to be aproned????😈

Hi Blue - the new owner, who put the aircraft back in the air after I had crashed it, is in touch with me, has all the documents (logbook etc). He knows he can consult with me at any time (which he has done) regarding the aircraft & its history.

I have always preferred to use 98 RON however this is so that I am sure that, in the event of fuel mixing/adulteration, I am using no less than 95 RON. 912 80 hp have a lower compression ratio compared with the 100 hp engine - the 80 should be far more "tolerant" of lower RON fuel than the 100 hp. Octane rating is about knock/pre ignition. How you load the engine has a significant part to play in knock generation - high load, greater chance of knock. Aircraft propeller pitch setting and angle /speed of climb are the principal (not only) contributors to knock. Rotax have recently changed their engine speed/MAP recommendations - Used to be that the engine should make no less than 5200 rpm STATIC @ WOT. This very safe simple easy to understand advice has been dropped in favour of https://aquila-aviation.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/SL_912_016R2_914_014R2_Rotax_Notes_engine_handling.pdf, a rpm/WOT chart/graph that the pilot/maintainer can select from. The chart shows diffrent results for 95 & 98 RON. The take home message is that 98 RON allows for a greater margin of operation/error than 95 however 95 is still okay to use, provided you operate the engine within the advised parameters.

I run 98 RON in my Rotax 912ULS - the last ULS, on away trips, occasionally, used 95 RON and once maybe twice, AvGas. The 95 & AvGas would have been plus whatever 98 RON was still in tanks (a shandy). Can't say I ever noticed a change in performance. I use 91 RON in my many mowers, chainsaws, sundry brushcutters, etc and a Suzuki paddock basher - Never a problem. My understanding has always been - use the grade of petrol that the manufacturer recommends. Sure you can go for the highest RON, if it makes you feel good - there is no performance or service life advantage/disadvantage. Of course you will pay more for the feel good factor. To get the best (take advantage of higher energy yield) from a higher octane fuel, the engine needs to have a higher compression ratio. I don't think the advice on this matter has ever changed.

My limited understand is; 95 RON has a narrower safe (non knock) rpm/MAP band. Is still okay to use subject keeping within the recommended rpm/MAP 98 RON has a much wider rpm/MAP band so will tolerate operating over a wider rpm/MAP range without fear of destructive knock (pre ignition)

Turbo; Are you really comparing a possible up to 1% ethanol contamination of 95-98 RON, with straight methanol???????? I remind you that Rotax approve up to 10% ethanol, subject to the rest of the fuel system being compatible. I don't think Rotax would do this if there was some possibility of this fuel causing a blockage/engine failure.😈

Nice idea - might give it ago. My wood one is a pain - leave it in for a smidgeon too long and the fuel migrates up. My perspex, finger on top type, is pre is pre marked, so level must be compared with a calibration chart - pain on the aft region!😈

"Not talking about E10 as it is appropriately labelled. I am talking about the Fuel Quality Standards Act which allows up to 1% Ethanol without labelling and commonly found (according to the fuel companies own data) in 95 and 98 RON fuel in Oz." If there happened to be up to 1% of ethanol in my 98 RON would I or anybody else notice??? The way fuel is transported (mostly tankers) in Australia, it makes sense to allow for very small levels of harmless contamination. It is impractical to expect otherwise. The question is, will this sub 1% actually result in free water contamination or any other performance inhibiting characteristics??? - the answer is no! The lead in AvGas is likly to have a more damaging effect, particularly on Rotax engines. Despite this, there are many advocates of AvGas (in Rotax) without a shred of evidence to suggest any improvement in performance below 10,000ft and only a marginal one above.😈

No offence intended - You Dont know what you are talking about. I love wood - it great. Has stood the test of time (we still have Tiger Moths, DC3 & I thing DH Mosquito's, etc,etc flying around). It's a wonderful material to work with - little chance of an allergic reaction, cacogenic exposure. It incredibly strong for its weight and easy to repair if needed. It has one aviation weakness - it does not like prolonged exposure to moisture/weather - best kept in a hanger (as the sale one has been all its life). First you miss quote me - I actually advised a pre purchase inspection. Then you assumed I had no experince in the model; I owned (12 years) flew and reconditioned, a much older Zephyr (possibly one of two original imports) than this one for sale. You went on to BS about a damaged aircraft; Damage through neglect or accident, should never be quoted/held up as an example of any aircrafts maintenance requirements - shame on you!. If I recall correctly Malcolm refurbished ONE aircraft (not several) that had been stored in a leaking container or shed for many years-hardly a good example for you to quote. Further the ATEC Czech factory recognises that Australia is not in the next valley and is very helpful/accommodating to the Au enthusiastic home builder/renovator.

To me 'Good Airmanship" is not only knowing & acting on the rules, it's also about courtesy. Courtesy is; Not just about keeping your aircraft safe by communicating appropriately, it's about the other aircraft as well. Recognising the dynamic nature of flying and being flexible (about the rules) when appropriate. Understanding that not all pilots are "top guns" - the other pilot may be under a lot of stress (low time/student/etc) and need some space/encouraging words. Speaking up when you think that an unsafe situaton may be in play.

Do the copper securing wires correspond with a particular fuel level ie calobated??😈

To the best of my knowledge no "specialist check required" "specific wing / fabric checks" however I advise that a pre purchase check, by a suitably qualified person, should be conducted. "...........required to have major overhaul (MO) every 10 years at the factory or authorised workshop." Yes the factory advise (not require) this be done. This is a 19 Rego /experimental aircraft, you can do all of this yourself. The latest fabrics, glues & compatible paint systems are extraordinarily durable, lightyears ahead of the materials & systems of the past. Potential owners might like to reflect that wood is the original "composite", has an almost limitless fatigue life, does not corrode and with a little care can & does exceed the lifespan of most pilots. Wood was still in use during WW2 on many fighter/bomber/transport/training aircraft - some still flying today. All wood (Zephyr also uses plastics) aircraft like the Falco are still very desirable high performance machines.

Maate! As per usual there is a glossy/gushing, almost fact free, promo of some new aircraft. While personal stories are great (especially the long distance travel ones) this is being used as a"calorie free" filler to bulk out the magazine. The safety reminders, predominantly from RAA officials, are always worth while but can often be found elsewhere. 95/98 RON ULP (in Australia) is a proven fuel source for appropriate engines. I understand that E10 mainly used overseas is, with care, also a reliable fuel. Mr Heath article is full of confusing acronyms, inaccuracies, alarmist and has little relevance for RAA level aircraft and is for the most part just crap and his battery article, not much better.

To me there is a big difference between a permanent tie down and a traveling tie down system. The permanent is a 12 month, all seasons/conditions structure, without weight restriction. The permeant can be very secure The travel system should be compact, lightweight and easy to set up/remove. The travel unit is a compromise, that is unlikly to stand up to severe wind conditions. The cautious pilot will have avoided tying down (traveling) his aircraft in this sort of weather. I see travel systems that are reasonably compact & light weight BUT then need a good sized hammer or even cordless drill, to install - questionable advantage. I see a lot of permanent and travel systems that use cheap string to secure the aircarft (most often slack) - this is counting pennies while dollars are potentially lost.

Whatever system is used - Its asking for problems if the aircraft can move on its restraints. Doesn't matter how secure/heavy the anchor. I often see aircraft tied with loose restraints - the wind/gusts will start to jerk/move the aircraft - once this starts, damage can be done to the aircraft. The jerking may also break the straps/ropes or loosen the anchor.