skippydiesel

Your a clever chap RF but not that clever - Faeta (Rotax 912ULS) will cruise at 134 knots(18-10L/hr) & stall at 27 knots (thanks to Fowler flaps & an empty weight of sub 300kg). If I remember correctly turbulent penetration speeds is 116 knots . I don't have much experience in the Fate but its sister design, the Zephyr, handled cross winds with aplomb (great rudder authority). It's a very simple aircraft (of clever design) that has very low operating costs. These days I fly a Sonex - not quite finished with all the tweaks but am hoping for a high speed cruse of 150 knots or thereabouts. Unfortunatly stalls about the same as a Jab, 40 knots clean - Not much I can do about the stall - just have to adapt. The ATEC aircraft (to which I am no longer affiliated) are very easy to fly, almost intuitive - far easier than the few Jabs I have flown. Lower stall speed is a safety factor - more likely to walk away (unfortunately I know this for a fact) and makes STOL flying a doddle. I respectfully suggest that you have accepted, without seeing what can be achieved, conventional wisdom/dogma, probably from the same era as the Piper that would seem (from your comments) to have high/complex maintenance needs and probably hourly operating costs. The Jab range is to be admired BUT are somewhat out of date - Aircraft like the ATEC Faeta could & should be being built in Australia. Its quite likely that Asia will fill the technologically advanced affordable light aircraft void in Australia - then Jab will have to up its game or unfortunately fold.

They all have: Pull/push controls - works but not a nice feel A high stall/ high landing speed - Fowler flaps would go along way to fixing this. Could probably get the stall down to 30-35 knots. The 120 hp variants should be able to cruise happily at 130++ knots - A faster wing (no strut?) and a bit of the Jenny Craig (carbon)would help a lot.

Also; Rrevise flight control system for better "feel" and consider carbon (at least in part) to get the empty weight down. A "faster" wing and a "slower " (stall) flap mechanism to address both ends of the flight envelope (it can be done)

Forgot to mention; depending on the ID of your fuel return line & therefore the ID of the push one barb/spigot, you will find that the Mikuni restrictor jet can be screwed in (after tapping) for a nice secure fit. The same can be done to the fuel sensor pressure line, if fitted.For the fuel pressure line, use a very small ID restrictor jet to reduce fuel pump pulse fluctuations. Gates (REPCO) supply fuel hose in ID 3.3 (return line) 4.8, 6.3, 8, 9.5 & larger (which I doubt you would contemplate using). There are three "grades " Return" "Carburettor" & "Fuel Injected" They all meet the Rotax specifications however I tend to favour the Fuel Injected for its slightly better heat resistance and lower vapour permeability.

Do you not enjoy expanding you knowledge, through hearing others opinions/experience/ideas ?

Pure speculation on my part : Weight is almost as much an issue in dirt bikes designed for competition riding, as in aircraft - so would expect shocks to be as light as possible, consistent with duty. Dirt bikes generally have a lot of travel/movement in the suspension - the shocks are designed to accommodate this. Cost - no idea but unlikely to be as costly as anything designated for aircraft use

Look very much like the single, trailing arm, shock on my sons KTM dirt bike. Dirt bikes are subject to huge suspension stress & have compression/rebound adjustment, so are a likely contender for this application.

Looks good Marty_d The Airoflow catalogue is truly amazing - you could probably get those hose connections in elbows if it suited your "design"

Interesting - no aft stick when taxying.

I owned a 2000 delivered Rotax 912 ULS for 10+ years - never had a staring problem. Now have a 2019 Rotax 912 ULS still no problem. Small sample to be sure but it makes me wonder why some people have a problem with starting their Rotax 9's - technique???

The reality is that you are on the cusp of one of a die off period (probably the last). Years ago a friend of mine told me that the rate of departures, seemed to accelerate over certain age groups eg Males - birth to 5 years - late teens to erly 30's and a again from about 70 onwards. If you survive one of these age groupings, you are statistically less likely to "drop of the twig" until the next round 🙃

IBob - I commend your very helpful list of "..things to be aware of.." however think the Rotax information, is a tad skewed; Some early models of the 912 were vulnerable to crankcase fretting ($$$$$). Very much depends on engine hours AND how the aircraft has been operated/maintained Early 912s have a 1500hrs TBO, later models have a 2000hr TBO. Almost meaningless, as most Australian Rotax 9's will run out of Calendar TBO long before they make engine hrs TBO. Added to this is the well documented ability of Rotax 9's to exceed engine TBO , happily chugging away for very many hours past. Later 912s have a much improved ignition retard for starting. Poor starting on earlier 912 could lead to sprag clutch damage ($$$). Sprag Clutch damage is most likely caused by poor battery replacement strategy ie persisting with weak/low cranking speed battery puts extra "strain" on the start system. Further the Soft Start system can be easily retrofitted in whole or part. So, I'd be looking for a 2000hr TBO engine, recent enough to have the new ignition soft start setup. See preceding comments Also, the 912 has a 5year rubber replacement requirement, including the fuel pump and all the engine hoses. There is some cost in this, so when is it due? While it may be a cost shock to the unaware, that a "rubber replacement " is due - this just part of the routine (like filling the fuel tank) operating cost of a Rotax 9 and with a bit of research/ingenuity the cost can be minimised, coming in a long way below the cost of just purchasing the service items from the Rotax/Aircraft dealership. When it comes to the (any) engine; A good/detailed maintenance history is a must. Service items should be of good quality ie meeting/exceeding Rotax standards Fuel used - routine use of AvGas has negative implications Compression/Leak Down tests can give valuable insight into engine condition. Oil consumption. How the prop pitch has been set ie on WOT or Static may give clues as to the likelihood of an engine suffering "crankcase fretting" Frequency of use - low hours are not always good. Cooling system performance ie is the engine routinely running cold/hot - almost as bad as each other. How the aircraft is used - training - STOLL activity - cruising - club - single/shared ownership - number of owners - routine engine operating rpm (low is as bad as overspeed). At around 1200 hrs the gearbox should be inspected and worn parts replaced Engine cleanliness/neatness - I have always believed that good engine care, starts with a clean tidy engine. Not talking sparkling, just nice and tidy. Quality aircraft approach eg Hoses/cables appropriately secured. Heat shielding where required (this can be overdone). No open holes in the firewall. No oil/fuel staining. Nothing loose. Etc. I hope my comments will be viewed as being constructive,

What p---d me off the most was the substitution, without consultation. When I spoke to them about this, there was no apology just a weak attempt to convince me it was the same product, by a diffrent manufacturer. I had committed to the (VDO) resistance sensor, hoping for greater potentially accuracy of a continuous signal. The (Veratron) magnetic read switch has, in the 200mm prob, 8 switches/stages which I assume results in a stepped signal. It could be that the pilot would notice no practical difference in reading between the two systems but I wasn't about the accept their duplicity and failure to pass on the cheaper price. My fuel tank is 230mm at its deepest point - the nearest VDO sensor of this type is 200 mm long HOWEVER the nearest Veritron is 220mm and increases the number of read switches from 8-9. The Veritrons increased length & read switch stages, makes it worthwhile considering (in the absence of the VDO).

UPDATE: I ordered, from The Gauge Shop/Namiiss Gauge & Control, a VDO part number 224011000020G – Dip Pipe Level Sender, length 200 mm. The invoice verifies my order as part number 224011000020G. They sent me, without consultation, a Veratron Dip Pipe Level Sensor, length 200 mm, part number A2C1750040001. Veratron now produces VDO’s Marine products. The VDO and Veratron products have similar external appearance: Features VDO Veratron Top Unpainted Aluminium Alloy Black Plastic Cut out 54 mm 59 mm Compensating chamber Yes Yes Electrical Connection Spade Connectors Short lead with plug System Float/Resistance Float/Magnetic Read Switches x 8 Ohms Ω Full 5 - Empty 90 Full 04 - Empty 90 Length Options 20-40 mm increments 10 mm increments Cost $133.00 $107.00 The Gauge Shop did not pass on the cheaper cost. I contacted the supplier only to be informed that the sensors were basically the same product and that the VDO was out of production ie they wilfully substituted without consultation. I returned the sensor requesting a full refund including my return postage costs. They have agreed to refund the purchase cost but not my return postage. Note: Because the Veratorn product comes in smaller incremental length, than the VDO, it may suit my application better and be more cost effective. Moral of the story; beware of purchasing from The Gauge Shope/Namiiss Gauge & Control

IBob - all pitot's are just a an open ended pipe (positioned to be in relativly undisturbed air flow)- some are in fancier packaging than others, for which you will pay handsomely. Oh! & if it flies , its a real aeroplane, subject to the same physical laws as any other

If you don't need anything fancy, like a heated unit - make your own! The photo shows pitot & static. The static should have been nice and tight to the pitot - but sometimes art/aesthetics gets the better of the project (has increased vulnerability though). They are both the same tube diameter (easy bend). The static tip is blocked and 2 small, 1mm holes are drilled through, to give 4 holes. Having the static out on/below the wing removes any concerns about picking a bad spot on the fuselage. The auto pitot "lide" is a bit fancy - it works that the main thing - I still cover the exposed pipe tips, in a purpose made bag, with draw string & "Remove Before Flight) tag. The "shaft" is just fiberglass wrapped around the two pipes. Tubing inside wing is yellow "Tygon" but you could use any long life(don't want it going hard & cracking) push on - I secured with spring hose clamps (not easy to find these days). Hose diameter is immaterial as both pitot & static are registering pressure not volume. Don't have a photo at the moment but have since added a 45 degree pipe for angle of attack/reserve lift.

Believe me when I say that, "naming places after similar-looking places in the Old World". is not the case. In my youth, I spent a little time in the Cotswolds - Gloucester (in Gloucestershire) bears no resemblancea t all, to Gloucester in NSW, same goes for Cardiff/Newcastle (although both are by the sea) etc etc and I suspect this "rule" pretty much applies for most if not all. The white man tried to turn Australia into a version of Britten - importing place names, animals and plants

What gets me is when the Septic Tanks say place names like "London, England" "Paris , France" "Rome , Italy" etc - these places do not require a geographic location. Different story if its London, Ontario, Gloster, NSW etc or other later adopters of a famous place name.

Not a debate - just saying ,how Mexicans (sorry Victorians) got their monica

"South of the Boarder, Down Mexico Way"

If you assume/accept that the Balance Master works, the questions must then be; Is it any better than doing a good static/dynamic balance? If the Balance Master is as good as a static/dynamic balance, is is a more cost effective solution, to out of balance conditions? What if any are the long term implications of a Balance Master/conventional balance? As I said earlier - Subjectively (no instrument) I could not detect any change/improvement, to my setup (careful static/dynamic balance), after fitting a Balance Master.

Odd how all these alien sightings seem to be in the good old USA ?????

Had one on my last 912ULS - Cant say either way if it did anything at all. I started with a carefully static & dynamic balanced prop - smooth as silk! Added the Blanche Master - no change. Consoled myself with the thought that if I ever did loose a little bit off one blade, the Balance Master would compensate, allowing for a smoother emergency landing (DV!)

Just mulling over the best way to do the new sensor install;- Never cut a hole in a fuel tank before - done a few water tanks in metal & plastic. After removing the tank from the aircraft, I plane to rinse it out with water/detergent (x3), with final fill to be just water (will be dried out before reinstallation). Mark prefered sensor location - deepest part of tank taking care to be clear of any in/outlets. Cut hole - the instructions call for a 59 mm hole. It seems that I can purchase a 59 mm hole saw. My limited experience of hole saws, rotating in thin metal, is that they tend to wander a bit, with a resulting untidy/out of circle hole. I am considering using a smaller diameter hole saw , then carefully enlarging, to correct diameter, with a file - what thinks the Forum? Does the Forum have any advice as to best tool (s)/technique for the job?

So! what's new or differently applied technology, in this engine? Its price is attractive but so what, other engines are similarly priced. If it was liquid cooled, with variable ignition and overhead cam, driving the prop through a innovative gearbox, with an all up weight equal/better than the industry leader - then it might just be of some passing interest.