skippydiesel

2 minutes ago, RFguy said:

but a CP23 is just a cig light plug and a 2.1 or 2.5mm DC jack -- so a plug from jaycar for $2 you can do the job ???

 

 

 

Wow! Thanks for that.

Is there really no practical difference between each chord, other than the size & polarity of the small plug?

I always thought that the cigaret lighter (fatter) plug had some electronic gizmos inside.

I have always understood that what kills/injures people in a crash, is most often rapid deceleration - your organs (especially the brain) are traumatised by the sudden stop.  If this be true, you can be in aircraft built like a tank (not literally Nev) and you will still not survive a high speed crash. 

Lowe the stall speed, confers the best chance for a low speed landin/crash, the greater the chances are the crew will survive, even walk away. Stall speed is not directly associated with aircraft weight however where the overall/take off weight is restricted by legislation, the lighter the aircraft, the most likely it is to have a low stall (other factors will be wing design & flap type).

Clever design/materials make for a safer aircraft - weight is very much a dual edged sword.

Hi RF - time has a habit of producing solutions (ie I just need to be patient).

ICOM advise that that the CP 23L will do the job.

Still costly, at around $50 delivered,  for a a length of twin core  and a plug at each end.

One supplier was kind enough to suggest a considerably cheaper option, GME LEO12,   about $25  deliver, that she has supplied to others, with at least no return/complaints.

Great topic!

Not sure how it could be quantified/explored but I always wondered just how many pilots/aircraft with a ballistic parachutes :

• could have been flown to a survivable conclusion without the chute.
• take additional risks because they have one - a well documented effect of enhanced safety features in the automotive world.

I  install/fit my own Trigg ADSB & then had it initialised (commissioned) by a qualified/certified technician.

Dont have the knowledge to understand your predicament (mix/match) however I had no difficulty having my system passed.

Good luck - hope you get the help you need from an electronics person on this Forum 

12 minutes ago, facthunter said:

The 830cc was" sort of" economical but SU' carbs are not  Particularly noted for it.  The Messerschmitt  "scooter"  (thats the German name translated,) MEANS does 3.2 L/ kms and HAS ONE rear wheel. The point is they are not really a CAR. More a curiosity on the roads of Australia, where people did long(er) distances. Being "covered in "would be helpful in german winters.. The MINI certainly WASN'T a flop in Australia  whether it appealed  to you or not.  You have sometimes VERY FIRM ideas about what PEOPLE SHOULD LIKE. I've always taken a  more pragmatic view where it's OK to do it differently without having to explain why?? to the "n"th degree.  Exchanging ideas broadens the mind. There are no exam questions here that I know of. My main purpose here is safety of flight. Nev

My background is mostly European, with a little "Strain" thrown in for good measure, so I likely see the World through a diffrent lense to you. I also try to read and understand what is being communicated on these pages - you might try to do the same.

"SU' carbs" - were common, in the time of early Minis, so fuel consumption, when compared with other similarly equipped vehicles, was good and not so shabby when compared to many current cars with FI & computer management.

"HAS ONE rear wheel." who is being pedantic now?? - I never inferede that the Messerschmitt had two, just that some of its peers had two rear wheels, close together (eg one of the Izetta models which I had a ride in/didn't drive).

" .....not really a CAR" - You jest???? Post WW2 had a plethora of micro cars, to meet the  financially constrained (European) pockets of the time, etc some with 4 wheels, some two at the back one at the front etc. Australia at the time may not have had quite the same economic climate and has certainly never had the road quality to make such cars welcome or appropriate.

"The MINI certainly WASN'T a flop in Australia  whether it appealed  to you or not. " - Are you suggesting that I said/inferred it was a "FLOP". if so you are incorrect. The Mini was an unexpected success, around the Western Word - I never liked it but then I am often at odds with popular culture - such is life.

"........VERY FIRM ideas about what PEOPLE SHOULD LIKE"  -  Opinionated (firm?) yes and a strident defender of difference, so no to the  "what PEOPLE SHOULD LIKE" I suspect much like yourself.

"....OK to do it differently without having to explain why?? to the "n"th degree. -" Why on earth not? - Debate is the lifeblood of a Forum like this - you are the master of the unexplained, tangential, dogma,  not me - always happy to expand on any statement/position I may take and capitulate gracefully to a better reasoned argument.

"Exchanging ideas broadens the mind."  - I agree wholeheartedly but this statement is, at least a little, at odds with "OK to do it differently without having to explain why?? to the "n"th degree."

"There are no exam questions here that I know of." - True  "no exam" but we must all be very careful to be factually correct or Nev will pounce, (which is fine by me).

"My main purpose here is safety of flight"- Laudable Nev. My calling is much less so "....Just Want To Have Fun"😈

9 minutes ago, Freizeitpilot said:

Hmmm, maybe a WT9 for a low wing and the latest version of the FK9 for a high wing.

 

As you say, let fantasies rule !

Hmm!  I like to see reasoning/justification for the fantasy. In short why?

WT9 - cruises about the same as the Faeta (that it resembles) & Virus SW but has a significantly higher stall.

FK9 - Some of the more recent Jabs might be a better bet (similar stall/higher cruise and likely cheaper) and look (if you close one eye) sort of similar

6 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I never owned one but used one for Parts delivery and saw plenty on the track and serviced plenty they are NOT particularly economical nor do they Have a great turning circle Due to the front CV joints. I wonder what point there is in conversing with you. I can never workout what you are looking for so it's unlikely I will Please you.. I do put in effort But why I do is a continuing question.. My apologies. .  Nev

I have never owned one either but being a dutiful son serviced them and had the doubtful privilege of driving them occasionally.

As for economy, if memory serves, they could achieve better than 45 mpg (about 19 k/L or almost 5L/100k) not great but not too shabby either. Fun, if the gearbox was used with vigour, for a short time but any open road journey of more than an hour required saint like stoicism. 

I agree with the poor turning circle (many U turns converted to a 3 pointer). 

Early CV joints failed/wore as you looked at them.

Dont want anything from you Nev & have no desire to offend however telling me a three wheeler, (from my youth) drives through its one (sometimes two very close together) rear wheels, is a tad unnecessary, when I am responding to an earlier comment (not mine) about relative comfort. 

As an RAA pilot who has CTA training (convert from GA-RAA), I find I rarely (if ever) need/choose to enter CTA.

I am concerned however, about the spread of CTA, on the East Coast of Australia and its potential restrict pilot options, in some locations, for safe transit. I see CTA privileges as a desirable endorsement for those who may feel the need.

I suspect that those wishing to go down this track, will be a relativly small percentage of the RAA membership and largely concentrated on the East Coast and S Victoria.

One one further point   RAA went down the weight increase rabbit hole, for what real gain?  In my opinion pursuing CTA privileges would have addressed a significant safety concern for those pilots so impacted. What can be more important to flyers - the doubtful merits of a weight increase, compared with enhanced safety???

22 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Messerschmitt is only a 3 wheeler.  Only ONE drive wheel at rear and very small dia  wheels. The Mini is NOT narrow. Cornered fairly well on the track if you were into FRONT,WD. The Austin A 30 would be a lot narrower.  Nev

You have talent for stating the obvious Nev

My Mother had a succession of Minis and their bigger relatives the Morris 11/1300 - hated them all, with a passion. The early Minnie's had the most uncomfortable sling seats, dog begging driving position, slide windows that were not weather tight & the central located instruments were fare from ergonomic. In my opinion their only attributes that they were economical to run, only required a small parking space and some (??) considered them cute (UGH!).

36 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Are they that  important on circuits. ( hopefully no downwind landings. ( unannounced )).

 

spacesailor

I know of one airfield where the prefered (for locals) landing runway is nearly always the uphill and the take off, down - visitors need to exercise considerable caution.

Another field where the active, in light/nil wind,  seems to be at the whim of one of the clubs (the other being considerably more considerate), despite a convention dictating otherwise.

1 hour ago, Area-51 said:

The subject presented has nothing to do with choice of oil; it's a mechanical and materials related design matter resulting in reduced component longevity. It would not at all be surprising if multiple engines exhibit these aspects of lifter wear if inspected at the end of TT.

Okay let's not get all hot & bothered 😎 - just responding to some earlier comment about oil choices possibly contributing to accelerated wear.

Good points KG however I do not support your contention that "Rotax engines may be reliable but are too complex. The Jab is simple and easy to maintain" .  An engine that is "easy to maintained" is one that rarely needs significant work, beyond routine servicing and that routine only occurs at wide intervals (time between service).

I support the inevitable move to electric motivation but lament the passing of the ICE that has powered every personal transport vehicle I have travelled in. 

6 hours ago, spacesailor said:

" own personal space ",

That is bad , your personal space ' ends ' when you get behind the wheel .

Road & fuel / pollution ! Get a " Messerschmitt " two seater car .

They were a comfortable ride .

 

 

I can imagine a row of them stopped at the traffic lights ready to roar away on green .

spacesailor

 

 

Messerschmitt? Have always fancied one. I have even thought about getting a Can-Am & fitting a glass body (similar to above) on it

I believe there was a sports model, that was fairly quick (for its time) and I think they are probably more comfortable (for 2) than the early Mini's

5 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Are they that  important on circuits. ( hopefully no downwind landings. ( unannounced )).

No electricity in my HUMMEL-BIRD.  So hand held radio only. 

spacesailor

Circuits? Not for me -  in the training area, approach to/departure from circuit, waypoints & lanes of entry, is where I like to have the extra "eyes".

Radio is radio  what matters is you have a device that gives two way comms.

1 hour ago, Blueadventures said:

I like the carby engines and keep the maintenance and adjustments to them in order; don't particularly like the later say Rotax 9 series is or turbo engines.  They need more equipment to test and service plus two yearly servicing refreshers and i'd expect will have more troublesome tuning / maintenance needs as they get more hours on.  I also like good product support and many aircraft flying over many years.  Composite are usually costly if heavy landed and the airframe is cracked or delaminated (sometimes this is not apparent at the time and develops worse over time in service) and require specialised workshop environments for any work.  Jabiru are great in this respect or the resins used.

Hard to go past the latest Jab airframes - hope they find a way to make a nice marriage with Rotax

Gents - let  fantasies rule and let's not get too serious.

1 minute ago, facthunter said:

Some people didn't have a lot of choice what plane they got to fly.  Nev

We can all dream and invest (?)  in Lotto

14 minutes ago, IanR said:

I enjoy the Foxbat. Not particularly fast but otherwise a nice aircraft. And its comfortable for my 6'2". I must get back in one - have not flown one for almost a year.

Yeah! well! what can I say --- 6ft 2in -- supplemental O2 territory, from my lowly  5 ft 7 1/2" perspective🤣. The 1/2 was important back in my (competitive) youth, skeletal shrinkage has long since eroded it away☹️

The thing about speed is its potential effect on fuel consumption/efficiency. With the same engine at or about the same power setting, a faster aircraft/more efficient airfares, will use less fuel per sector/distance travelled.

Of course if you just want to stooge round your local, consumption/hour is likely to be the measure that you will apply.

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

ALL BEER is good but Grafton's tops. Some aircraft are dogs. The designers shouldn't have been let off their Leads. Nev

I have been fortunate then. 

Every aircraft I have flown, I have enjoyed, some more than others, to be sure... to be sure😎

FYI: Rotax Owner Forum has a lot of very well informed information on lubricant choice. "AeroShell Sport +4" being the current oil of choice (there are others).  Rotax now offer a full synthetic oil "XPS"  that may suit some pilots.

6 minutes ago, Freizeitpilot said:

Interesting topic - it is such an individual thing !

 

I would add, possibly as part of the comfort aspect, places within easy reach in the cockpit to store stuff. Such as charts,log book, POH, water bottle, jacket, lunch - let’s call it cabin ‘utility’, and maybe even cabin heating & ventilation……..and then tied to the mission would be outward visibility, useable load, endurance and secure baggage storage.

 

My mission is primarily lengthy cross country touring with a pax and commonly at MTOW.

"..... it is such an individual thing !" Yes thats what makes for dynamic, impashioned debat FUNNNNN!!!!

All true - much of what you have added comes under Empty Weight, as under RAA most of these aircraft will have the same (close to) 600 kg Max TO weigh (may change in the near future).

In Australia fuel capacity is important - not so you must carry a comfort bottle (can if you wish) but more so that refueling is less of a constraint.

I find ventilation to be mainly a ground consideration - often accommodated by partially open door/canopy. In the air I have never experienced a "stuffy" cockpit and strangely not a cold one, despite not having cabin heat. I suspect cabine heat is more of a northern hemisphere consideration, anyhow it's relativly easy to (retro) fit if needs be (can be air/coolant/even oil).

What might be your close to ideal aircraft(s)???

Come come - agreement doesn't further the debat.

Agree: Purchase cost is a biggy!

Flown the Foxbat (not impressed) not the Vixen or the CT - think they are all promotion and not so much performance😈

For my purpose/taste, difficult to go past the ATEC Faeta and the Pipistrel Virus SW - very similar performance, composite. Rotax 9's (SW doesn't offer 914/ Fatea no tail wheel) different configuration. SW has reputation of being very expensive - don't know this for a fact.

What defines a good private pilots aircraft?

I acknowledge most aircraft are good - some are just better/suit the individual pilot, than others.

I think a pilots likes/dislikes will be influenced by the following:

Comfort: is an important factor. In small aircraft (RAA size) movable seats/pedals are not often available, cockpit width limited, making the size (height/width) of the pilot a strong influencing factor.  Part of comfort will be ergonomic layout of instruments & controls - are they all within easy reach, intuitive, do not require swapping the "stick" hand, diving across the cockpit/under the panel, etc . For some ease of entry/exit will be important. As a vertically challenged person, I often need the assistance of booster,  in some aircraft, this may then have negative impact on accessing some of the controls (discomfort!).

Construction: will impact on internal/external noise and often draftiness. In my limited experince composite construction tends towards the quieter/draft free experince, with rag/tube  being at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Performance:  Closely related to Mission (below) I define as a combination of - take off role, climb, stall, cruise speed (econ & high), fuel burn/hr, landing role. 

Mission:  I suspect few give much thought to this aspect - tending towards aircraft familiarity rather than ability. My personal preference is for economic cross country (high cruise speed/low fuel/hr burn)I also want a low stall for safety / short field performance - this combination limits my choices to around 2-3 aircraft.

Economy:  This is a combination of the above performance plus maintenance cost - My preference; as low as is possible, consistent with the above wants/criteria. This brings me back to composite aircraft, which tend to have the lowest airframe maintenance/cost requirements. Engine maintenance cost is much the same/consistent across make/model.

Perception: For many the configuration of their training aircraft (high/low wing, conventional tail/T tail, engine type, etc) will strongly influence their future choice of & opinions on aircraft. Usually this is with little factual foundation.

Looks: We all love a good looking aeroplane and often the look of the aircraft will reflect its mission/pilots wants

DISCUSS!!!!!😈

All aircraft are good - some are just better than others.