skippydiesel

"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.

Yawn!

ATEC Faeta - adjustable seating/leg room and one of the widest speed envelopes (27-134 knots) of all 912ULS powered aircraft

I agree with all sentiment regarding NOT using ethanol blended fuels BUT your reasoning is a tad suspect. Rotax approves the use of up to 10% ethanol/petrol (E10 )to a minimum of 95 RON. The reason Rotax puts the onus on the aircraft manufacturer, to approve or not the use of E10, is that other components of the fuel system (tank, plumbing, pumps, etc) supplied by the manufacturer may not be ethanol resistant/proof. E10 is in itself an acceptable fuel BUT has less energy per unit, than straight petrol of the same RON ie your engine, burning E10, will not deliver quite as much power (likely impact on range more than noticeable power reduction). Ethanol is hygroscopic but this is unlikely to have any significant impact on aircraft used frequently. The water content will remain in suspension and be processed by the engine in much the same way as an engine being flow in very high humidity/rain. Aircraft that are not used frequently, often have more water in the fuel sample (pre flight draining) even without the use of E10, simply due to atmospheric water vapour condensing on the insides of the tank (if partially empty). In this situation E10 may produce more free water however if drained before flight should not pose a significant hazard.

Thank you one & all for your assistance . Have decided to go with the tried & true, a VDO Dip Pipe Sender. These have been around for very many years. Used in a wide range of vehicles/boats & probably aircraft. Not sensitive to fuel type or small amounts of water. Have a fair degree of anti sloshing courtesy of the mechanism (a float moving up/down two wires) being enclosed in semi sealed (two small holes) tube. As the photo attached shows - they come in a range of lengths to suit diffrent tank depth. Unfortunatly I will have to cut a hole in the top of my tank. The tank will be removed from the aircraft, to facilitate ant fuel vapour ignition measures, followed by much rinsing out to remove water (anti ignition) and swarf from the cutting/drilling activity.

Automotive Dot 3, 4 & 5.1, are all suitable AND The master cylinder does not require a reservoir - in fact fitting a reservoir would require the acquisition/fitting of a non return valve, assuming this is a piratical modification. The choice of brake fluid is governed by the type of seals used in the system - not by the systems application. In some instances it may be possible (practical?) to change the seals so as to suit a different (cheaper/more widely available) fluid. I would speculate, that silicone brake fluid may be the the least likely to attack, most if not all, brake seals but its costly.

Try this supplier for a wide range of brake components http://www.kasparaero.cz/foto/download/en/29.pdf Australian supplier of brake seals etc : https://www.ibsbrakeparts.com.au/

"Just out of interest a new original handbrake is about $800" I have a brand new, unused, control stick mounted, brake master and possibly two preloved ones. I would be willing to part with what I have - if interested contact me through the person to person service.

Who mention "parking barkes"? The question is about components ofa brake syetem.

My problem with the Belite (& I suspect for many others) is that it works well on the ground (very accurate) but has no tolerance for changes in tank internal pressure, which may (does in my case) differ to ambient ie the sensor measures fuel pressure/weight above it relative to ambient (external to tank) - tank breather will create a posative (usual)/negative tank internal pressure, rarely a static/ambient internal pressure - this causes the sensor to give an erroneous reading. The only way around this is to have the sensor linked to tank internal pressure. I found a promising sensor https://www.safiery.com/tank-level. Unfortunatly I found that the sensor tube connection, to internals, was not ignition proofed. The system may work, one day, in an aircraft, but will require further development.

Despite the hysterical news reporting, it looks like the cockpit has remained largely intact - the pilots injuries are likely to be survivable - a relativly good outcome. Note the orientation of the aircraft, relative to the dirt road behind it - pilot probably trying to land on road and has, unfortunately, overshot

Ah! That's the same as the Belite system (I have and am trying to replace) that no one seems to have any luck getting to work consistently. As far as I am concerned its a con - Thanks but but thanks.☺️

KUS would seem to have a tubed variant, of their Australian offerings. Its called the MSD/HSD aimed at off road applications - trying to find out more about it

Thanks Lyle - Could not find any reference to a fuel tank level sensor in Radient Instruments

I am not so concerned with my wing tanks - they have been relegated to reserve supply, feeding my large (whopping 40L) the centre header tank. I intend flying off the header, so this is the one that I want a fairly reliable level sensor in. Its quite a bit deeper than the wing tanks being 230mm deep at on end and 188mm at the other. It would have been great having internal baffles - to not fit, was the decision of the first builder. I am becoming intersted in the VDO "Dip Pipe Senders". This is a well proven design (used in older Mercedes) using a float on a column, moving up/down two resistor wires, all contained within an aluminium tube, with small in/out holes. The tube "smooths out" the sloshing effect. I have repaired a couple of thes e in MB cars that were 40 years old. https://www.merlinmotorsport.co.uk/files/transfer/technical/doc/vdodiptubespec.pdf The VDO is a bit more expensive than the KUS senders - the KUS have a good reputation (used in marine , as well as automotive applications) but I don't like the look of the exposed float https://kus-usa.com/products/liquid-level-sender/

Bit more Gates radiator hose information: There is a molded 90 degree bend, in diffrent "Arm" length options PN 03-0010 ID 25.4mm, Arm 1 125mm, Arm 2 125mm ($10-12) PN 03-0011 ID 25.4mm, Arm 1 300mm, Arm 2 300mm ($15-37) Multi Fit Coolant Hose with two bends, a 135 & 90 degree PN01-007 ID 25mm Length 550 ($?) Then there is 25 mm connectors Straight PN28606 ($20) Elbow PN28626 ($19) Tee PN28638 ($51) Unfortunatly the above connector must be purchased in a minimum of 2/bag Purchase a cheap hose cutter to make nice 90 degree clean cuts ttps://www.supercheapauto.com.au/p/toolpro-toolpro-hose-cutter---235mm/222413.html $15 Most Rotax drivers will be able to make up what they need with a bit of careful cutting & if needs be, joining

No offence intended guys (just venting my frustration)- I appreciate this is an open Forum and submitters are free/will go off on tangent (occasionally guilty), That have little/no relevance to the question posed (eg"fuel tank baffles"???) Self affirming statements about their adherence to basic training techniques (fuel consumed against time and known quantity????) It would be nice, helpful even, if those with the knowledge actually addressed question, before having all the tangential fun.

More power from a given swept volume/capacity does not necessarily mean less durability/reliability. If you take an existing engine & "hot" it up you will likely reduce its service life & reliability. The engine was not designed to deliver the higher level of output and is likely to have a reduced service life. If you design an engine from scratch, to accomodate a given rpm/power output, there is no reason why it can not be as durable/ reliable as any other engine

Hi Guys, I have the Belite pressure system(as in weight of fuel above) is what I have and have found it to be completely impractical - works well in stationary aircraft/tank but unable to cope with in tank pressure changes and fuel slop.

Thanks Mark. In my aircraft a fuel level tube is a real possibility - not sure where I would locate it on my very small & crowded panel and have no idea what sort of clear hose would allow me to see 95-98 RON (with contrasting backing)& last a good few years before going opaque. My last aircraft (10 years+ and 900+ hrs) had an extraordinarily accurate & reliable gauge but a very diffrent tank & fuel system to what I have now. I have a fuel flow, remaining gauge but have not yet calibrated it - I have no doubt it will become my main (after time elapsed/fuel flow) fuel management devise.