Jump to content

planesmaker

Members
  • Posts

    579
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by planesmaker

  1. Hi Scott, yes I had exactly the same problem and went thru two aviasport gauges before I stumbled on the solution you describe. It may not be widely known as Floods had no idea. I needed to fit the smaller 2 1/4 gage due to space requirements. My first one lasted a couple hours and pegged out. The second one worked for a while and then would go off scale after 5k rpm or so. I then tried the 3" gage and it worked perfectly, but I needed the 3" hole for something else. I imported an American 2 1/4" gage and it helpfully had the instruction that if the gauge becomes erratic at high revs, to fit a resistor as you describe and it works perfectly. I can only presume the larger 3" gage has room enough to have a resistor inside? It's interesting you should make this post as when I was having my issues with 2" gauges, I saw on your plane at Watts and noticed the smaller tacho and I was wanting to ask how you were going with it. I agree that aviasport should address the issue as the gauges are not cheap.]regards, mark

    I had a similar problem in that at certain rev range (2500 -4000) the tachometer would read abnormally high. Tried 3 different tachos and also changed trigger unit. After some searching the solution was to put a diode in the circuit, I put it in the positive pulse wire. Fixed!

    Tom

     

     

  2. It's time things were done by the constitution. A President should not act alone. Good on you John and Jim and anyone else who will stand for honesty and integrity. If the President has such little regard for our constitution then do not be surprised when the rank and file develop a disdain for rules and regulations which may lead to even more safety implications. Tom

     

     

    • Agree 10
  3. 28 rego refers to aircraft built under 101.28 regs ie amateur built aircraft as opposed to experimental(19 rego) . They built under saaa with all inspections and no deviations from plans without reg 35 approval. It was how it was done before experimental category came in. I believe builders can still choose to build under 101.28 if they choose. Tom

     

     

  4. Well the black boxes checked out fine at Floods, so i need to get back there and refit the boxes to the original motor to see if it still playing up or if it was a bad connection that fitting the other boxes fixed 002_wave.gif.62d5c7a07e46b2ae47f4cd2e61a0c301.gifWill let you all know what happens.

    Bones I had an interesting discussion today with one fellow has both boxes fail together. Flying good one day next day nothing Floods have told him both ign have failed. Another fellow told me of a tecnam coming into Avalon where both ign failed in flight. Seems there could be more to these failures than 1st meets the eye. Very unlikely for both to fail at the same time unless something common is happening to both but they are both on individual circuits. Very strange indeed. Have to look into this further. Regards Tom

     

     

  5. Hi TomHave you any details of fitting a bolly prop to a p12 80ho in a Skyfox. I see Wigg mentioned being happy with the Bolly on thier gazzelle.

    Thanks Mike

    Mike, I have no information or experience with Bolly props, so sorry of not much help to you. I have a skyfox with original prop fitted. Tom

     

     

  6. Yes I d[d say a 912s fitted with a c/s prop, that is what makes up any difference in the HP figures! Props have a big variance in efficiently turning torque into thrust. Using a rotax allows a bigger selection of more efficient props.

     

    Nev, I will have to disagree about the 140hp, it really does depend on the all up wt.( and the size of the people :-) ) I have had 2 x 95kg + 1 x 135kg people (700kg auw) in my j400, off the ground in about 400m and climbing at 1000' /min and that is with the small wing and 115hp!

     

    Tom

     

     

  7. I believe the 912S will perform in a j230 better than most people think, I regularly take off using only 100hp with the 914 J400 with the family on board, performance is at least as good if not better than the Jab powered aircraft. If you can wait a few months we will have a j200 with a 912S flying and all will see that is really is a viable alternative. I have heard of one already done but unfortunately I have not spoken to him personally about the conversion I would like to though. Tom

     

     

    • Like 1
  8. A lycoming 0-233 in a jab is a bit too heavy ( we have already looked at doing it!) particularly in a J230 where your empty wt is already pushing 380kg with the Jab engine, another 30 kg plus a probably heavier prop and you have a very limited aeroplane. Keep it light and keep it simple. Want to do an engine swap?Fitted with a c/s prop it will perform every bit as well with a 912S as it does with a Jab 3300 engine and about the same wt(maybe 5-10kg difference). Just my 2 cents worth. Tom

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...