skippydiesel

"cant compare to automotive the qty is different." - Your sure? You've compared specifications? Cut up a Rotax & then several possible automotive candidates (filter size, engine capacity, etc) and compared media area, valve types, etc? The reality is, the Rotax oil filter is very likely the same as an automotive filter, which probably suits a number of engines. The problem is getting the Rotax specifications to compare with automotive offerings. Rotax 9's use a lot of automotive components.

You go your way Nev - for my part I like a good deal. If I can purchase more (in this case) filters, for an attractive price/unit I usually will. There is a limit of course - if I am only doing 50 hrs /year each filter will be in service for 12 months - this may be too slow a turn over rate to make a bulk purchase attractive. In that case I might call around my fellow Rotax 9 owners/ get on this Forum, and see if I can interest others in a share of a bulk purchase, at a favorable cost. $36.50/filter is about $15-20 more than I would expect to pay for an automotive spin on oil filter that most likely is the same as a Rotax OM (just comparing, not advocating non original) - if by chance I get get the same filter at a more favorable cost, why not? If this means collaborating with my friends why not again? Marketing/sales is a bit like predators hunting - they will always look for the stray/individual to pick of, thus make the extra $$$. Forums , like this one, have the potential to save the aircraft owner many $$. I am surprised that this potential is not more often used.

I do not accept either your hypothesis or that of the quote you have supplied. Warranties are, for the most part, marketing gimmicks - more often than not will be contested by the supplier/manufacturer ie they are not a good gauge as to the shelf or operational lifespan of the product. Most filters do not use "paper" - its a highly stable fibrous (could be derived from wood) filter media. The photo is not of the same filter media from new to ?? days/months/years later Your quote is a bit like the "best by date" found on many conserved grocery products - specifically designed to maintain the purchase rate

I guess almost all manufactured " things" will eventually decay. Fore the most part, anything to do with engines will have a unused shelf life of at least 10 years, often very much more (subject to being stored in reasonable environment). After all, when in use they are subject to a very harsh operating environment.

This sounds like a scam. Assuming that you had irrefutable evidence, that the filter "passed" material it was designed to hold, I doubt very much that such a position would be sustainable in law. Most filters improve filtration while in use ie filter out smaller particles. This continues up to the point of blockage. Filters are usually replaced, not because they are not working but because they are at or about to be, the point of, reducing flow.

Things like filters don't deteriorate on the shelf - never purchase one filter at a time, the shipping/postage will kill you - try for a box/buk rate

I would have thought a full face helmet would have been essential.

Hi Geoff, "............ it also runs a bit too cool, I could have used a smaller radiator, smaller air scoop and carried less water. " "Bit cool" is on the right side of engine temperature management . With over cooling, you can relativly easily restrict cowling air flow in/out or both or blank off a bit of the radiator to get the temperature where you want it. Too hot, the problem is much more complex & costly & time consuming. "...........carried less water." What does this mean? - is it a motorglider?

Not quite "stock" but not far from it. Given this is a plans bult (not kit) aircraft and like most of its genera, has buildermodificatons to personalise the aircraft , I would consider SGS to be a Sonerai II. While SRS is part of the same stable, she is very much more developed aircraft. Pity that Sonex doesn't seem intersted in incorporating any of Robin's ideas - I, for one, would love to have such an aircraft. "SGS was in no way built as a racer although I was fanatical about achieving highest standards in construction, finish and aesthetic qualities. Solid countersunk AN rivets were used for high efficiency and to build a quality base for further development. Many aerodynamic compromises were however accepted to improve the overall functionality, including a taller, wider and longer canopy and extra cockpit occupant space. Also, increased wing angle of incidence and reduced instrument panel height for better in-flight visibility, and larger massed-balanced, modern shaped tail surfaces and taller turtle deck for improved control authority and positive stability in all 3 axes. These compromises were offset by a complete re-engineering of the aircraft from the firewall forward including sleek, new, low-drag engine cowlings. Minimising weight was a critical consideration, however there were compromises here too wherever increased functionality or safety benefits outweighed any weight disadvantages. These compromises included rollover protection, contoured leather seats, auxiliary wet wing tanks, fuel delivery and transfer pumps, redundant fuel bypass circuits, full-span flaperons, differential ailerons, upgraded spar carry-through structures, upholstery and sound deadening, baggage provision, thicker canopy for improved bird strike protection, a Rotax slipper gearbox clutch, full corrosion protection throughout and a crash activated ELT. Despite all these improvements (and many other minor ones) finished empty weight was kept at a respectable 277 Kg (611 lbs) wet."

Are you sure? - I understood that SGS's airframe was essentially stock. Meticulous build and a lot of work on the cowling. I agree SRS is a much modified/improved Sonerai

If they cant keep it within the engine bay of a car, what jhope for an aircraft🙃

It must be a DUCK 😄

We all have our own philosophy/priorities - for me function comes first every time. Form is the poor relation. For an aircraft with the potential of a Sonerai (http://worldrecordplane.com/) "the traditional look" is way down the list.

Yeh/But! If this be the reason (likely) it seem a cheap/nasty way of achieving balance. Why not move the engine forward? Would require an engine frame/bed redesign/modification and the same for the cowling but may have improved internal space/volume availability.

Wow! that's some lump of non contributing mass - Would have thought they would have done something other than that,to achieve balance - moved the engine forward. Not a good look for Bristelle

Have thought of that but just seems to be in the "too hard basket" (for now). Easier possible solution - have raised the front of the engine 1mm. Yet to fly, so assessing change (if any), to elevator position , about 2 months away

Well Nev - you & me. I have worked in agriculture all my adult life and there is one thing that most "farmers" are good at & that's giving it a go. Needs must in the bush and along with those in similar circumstances, at one stage or another, I have tackled almost every job, trade & profession (not the oldest😄). Very hard & expensive to get tradies & professionals out, when you live & work many hours from the nearest population centre. Mind you I wouldn't have it any other way - have loved the challenges.

Yes I generally look for the most cost effective solution. I usually start by getting the OM price, I then see if I can achieve the same result at a lower price . This is not always the cheapest but will usually be the most cost effective eg I recently has a leak in my Rangers fuel injector return line - quote from Ford $500 + fitting and no car for a day. Bit of research later, got all the parts I needed for $50 (still expensive for 10 "O" rings / minimum purchase. ). Only one injector return line leaking, took the opportunity to fit new O rings to all five. Job took about 30 minutes and still have 5 O rings on the shelf, if system ever leaks again. OEM is great for the non mechanical, the insecure , the rich and the lazy BUT when suppliers add anything from 30-500% (or more) to an item, it seems a little self defeating not to make the effort to see if there is a more cost effective solution. The beauty of good component suppliers, is you can usually find their specifications on line - find a product that meets/exceeds the OM specifications and you have little to fear by using the aftermarket product. As for the "... cheapest Mechanic..." No high skill/knowledge rarely comes with the cheapest service provider BUT I still do my research (check reputation etc) before committing. It doesn't always work out - recently waited 3 weeks for a "Gunna" Transponder Technician to do a job for me - bit the bullet and went with the $ X 2 cost crowd and got the job done next day such is life!

All good Nev. My understanding of this conversation is, that we are considering adjustments within W&B - so again if you have the aircraft within W&B and still feel your controls (elevator) could be brought in a neutral position (with reference to the horizontal stab) how would you seek to acheive this?

Agreed however they way you are making your point suggests, to me, that W&B is somehow isolated from other control/ aerodynamic factors. One thing I have learnt in my short flying experience, is that pretty much everything is interrelated ie make a small adjustment in one area (may do just what you want) may also have impacts in other areas.

Thank Onetrack; very good points . One thing though -" .... is that using the coolant either manufactured by the engine manufacturer, or the brand recommended by them is vital" While I would always prefer to go with the engine manufactures recommendation, this is not always possible or perhaps cost effective. Provided you do the research ie compare manufactures specifications, with your optional suppliers product, you should be okay. All to often the manufacture and or agent,has a ridiculous mark up on their recommended product, when they are the sole supplier eg Continental oil hose supplied exclusively to Rotax.

That's what the latest Euro standards are and what Rotax (a Euro manufacture) have based their recommendations on. You should not be using water with any impurities.

If you are having problems finding Castrol SF concentrate, check out some of the other brands eg Nulon, Valvoline, Shell, Penrite. NOTE: Coolant used should be a low silicate & nitrite free formula Most coolants specified for modern European sourced engines, will meet the Rotax standards but be sure to check.

Sooo Hypothetically; we have an aircraft that flies but to do so requires unacceptable (??) elevator input (up/down). How to fi? Control surfaces are "tweaked" - some improvement but not enough. What to do? stick a bag of lead somewhere? Or might elevator issues not be helped by a small adjustment in engine/prop thrust line? What would you do?

Wow! I would not expect any factory built/supplied aircraft with standard fitments (engine etc) to require ballast - doesn't sound good to me.