GDL

Hi Crashley. In Canada, any of the high octane MoGas fuels have at least 10% ethanol in them. This is definitely not recommended because of what it does to the seals and soft components in the carb. We do not have much choice except what is called boat gas (which has less additives and no ethanol). Out boat gas is mid-grade (89 octane although I do not know if our octane is the same as yours). This is the best we can hope for. My engine is the 80 hp and I have not had any problems. I have not heard any problems with the 100 hp but I am less familiar with those engines.

It is interesting the various information floating around - some official, some not - about what Rotax engines need for fuel. The Canadian distributor is not far from where I fly so I talk to them at times. They do not have a problem with 100LL but do not recommend a steady diet of it. FactFinder, thank you for that info. I did not know about much of the flame aspects of 100LL & its impact on Rotax engines. Makes one think about what goes into my fuel tank.

Ignition, I hear (no pun intended) what you are saying. In this case, my dog was very comfortable. Much more so than my ex.

Hi FactFinder. I haven't heard that about the 100LL. I would have thought the engine would run hotter because of the higher octane value of the 100LL. Do you have any links to that info? I would be interested in seeing the comments. My partner in my plane used 100LL in a cross Canada trip (~70 hours and 10,000 km)with no known ill effects. But I do prefer MoGas for better plug life. And the techs at Rotax agree with you that the 100hp 912S needs premium MoGas.

Hi Hildy. What did I do about the dog? My Rans S6 has a small baggage area behind the seats. He lay in there, held in by the top cover. Very comfortable. and he made no noise - whimpers or barking or anything. He would just go to sleep. I thought about muffs (love the muttmuff FlyTornado), but he didn't like anything on his body. One of those naked type dogs. Interesting about passengers going quiet and therefore all is not well. I did not realize that. I have found as some of you mention that keeping them busy looking around tends to keep them from being sick. I always briefed my passengers. Worked most of the time, and only 2 sick in 5-6 years. Now, there was the person I was instructing as an instructor ...

Hi JabiruFlyer. My ex did not like to fly at all. I think her screaming gave it away the most (ands the bruise marks on me). I fact our dog was the most comfortable of all flyers. Look up, look out, go back to sleep. Tell me more about this 10 minute quiet period. I have not heard that.

I always use at least 89 Octane MoGas (boat gas specifically because it has no ethanol and few additives in Canada) in my 912UL. I know at least 91 Octane is recommended for the 912ULS, the higher the octane the better. I know very little about the 914. I am also experimenting with the new AeroShell semi-synthetic oil that is designed for both MoGas and 100LL. Said to be able to absorb much of the lead from the 100LL. MoGas can be a pain to find when traveling from airport to airport. I have never had a problem with MoGas volatility at altitude, which I think others have. I have been to 4000 meters. My oil and plug changes are done at recommended 100 hours (or less) with MoGas. Need to be done (according to Rotax distributor) at 50 hours with 100LL. My experience with MoGas is that it leaves not many deposits. But it may also depend on what has gone into the fuel and how long it has sat, and other factors I don't understand.

Hi JabiruFlyer. Passengers come in so many different variants. When I was running my flight school (in Canada), I took out a young kid (~17). He was bored with the whole flight, even when handling the controls, until I pulled a 60+ degree steep turn and then into a power stall. All he said was 'cool'. Another person threw up on me when the plane hit a tiny ripple. And some of them fool me by not having any problems and others do the opposite. A good point about we the pilots not really noticing anything out of the ordinary. But then it is not ordinary for them.

EightyKnots, you are right about the US needing to be part of the change to metric. Having lived beside to the 'sleeping giant' all my life, they have had a huge influence on such things as aviation. Canada has changed much of the rest of its old imperial world but it has been a difficult effort, since the US seems destined (desires?) to be the last man standing in the imperial world. The country as a whole is inherently conservative in many ways. Glass cockpits? I am not sure that would solve the problem but you could be right there as well. I know I was in Poland and Portugal and almost all use metric when flying. We need rationality. But are we ration as a world?

Where to go on a forced landing is knowing where you are and what the plane can do, with or without turns. I was flying in Portugal and the school emphasized through many practices that you need to know your best option before the forced landing. If the best option is behind, then take it (allowing for the turn and temporary loss of direct view). Height is always taken into consideration. In Canada, we did it somewhat differently. We drew a half circle at a specific angle (45 degrees in the Rans) from side to side (the angle adjusted for wind strength and direction), and essentially ignore anything that could not be seen peripherally. But both use steps: know your spot, get the plane flying, then try and find problem.

EightyKnots & FirstClass those are good point. I didn't want to hear them (especially putting on weight) but good points. FirstClass, I see some of that in GA pilots moving to ultralights. The person with oxygen, autopilot, fancy dash, leather covered seats, and so on. I like my plane (reasonably) light to keep the performance. I think some of the arguments about increasing weight probably come down to wanting all the GA privileges without any negatives. I rather like the existing rules (although a standard world-wide LSA would be good) because it encourages light and simple and fun.

Frank, you point out succinctly a critical problem in aviation. As the rest of the world has moved to metric (something I agree with completely), the US and aviation has not. So when I did some ultralight flying in Portugal, I saw the same mishmash as you did in the Mooney. It would be nice to set a single standard, although the US and conservative pilots will have much to say.

And to add to what Ultralights had to say, one of the things I am finding with a lot of kits is the desire to take the 'kitchen sink' with us. In Canada, our advanced ultralight limit is 544 kilos as well, and most planes fit in nicely with enough to take a friend or perhaps a little more. But I know of several aircraft in the local area who have autopilots, oxygen (we are allowed above 10,000), complete IFR package (although we can't fly in those conditions), and numerous bits and pieces that add up. Do we need all this? My Rans S6S (admittedly a 1993 model) weighs roughly 285 kilos. Some of the new models weigh 40-50 kilos more.

As a Canadian I was embarrassed by the event. In defence of the pilots, Canada at that time was converting from Imperial to Metric and much of the confusion came from that. Great flying though once it happened (much like the Air Transit glide to the Azores - another Canadian embarrassment).

Hi Ryan. I am a Canadian ultralight pilot but I recently (last month) took a British Microlight licence in Portugal. I flew the X-Air with a 912 engine there (I flew about 20 plus hours). It is slow but it handled winds up to about 20 knots easily. I own a Rans S6 and the X Air handles quite differently on landing but I was comfortable by the time I finished. No problems.

Hi Bill. In Canada, with our ultralights, once a person owns one they are responsible for its maintenance. Transport Canada, when it set out the regulations for ultralights, specified this. Doesn't matter if an AME worked on it. Doesn't matter if it is falling to pieces. If the wing falls off 2 minutes after being bought, that is the owner's problem. I like that because it puts the onus on the owner to make sure all is well. We have 2 types of ultralights: AULA (advanced) and BULA (basic). IN Basic you can do anything you wish to the plane. In advanced, you need to be in compliance with the manufacturer on major components. We have no annuals, no TBOs, and so on. The idea was to keep the costs down.

Hi William. Actually I am not sure that angels don't hold us up. Like all good students I always believed my ground instructor. I believe it is never too late to look for angels. I flew as a check pilot with an 80 year old in his Cubby 2 (nice flying 503 powered plane). I trained a 78 year old (no age limits in Canada - just health). Kids can start at any age but can't solo until 14.

Hi Heon. I meant to ask yesterday what you thought of your Super Petrel. I have a friend who owns one in Europe who has now put a 120 hp Yamaha engine in his. Should be flying very soon. The SeaStar dealer for North America (successor to Petrel) has his business about 150 km from where I live. Visited him several years ago. Very nice flying boat.

Hi Maj. I concur completely with the reliability of the 912. The country I fly in is rugged and demanding and with few places to put down safely (depending where I am). My Rans with the 582 did have an engine failure in that area in hot and high conditions and I wouldn't repeat that error again. The 912 didn't even breathe hard. I know of 912 that have almost 4000 (that is beyond the core lifespan according to Rotax) and come out looking almost new. I don't agree with that but shows the reliability. I have never had a failure on my engine. I try and tell the conventional guys around here about the reliability but they are not interested.

Hi Heon. The 2-stroke cost vs 4-stroke is a big point where I fly. Having had similar Rans S6 (at the same time) - one with 582, one with 912, I can agree completely with you on the costs of operation between both. My 912 buys (by my records) just less than 3 imp gals/hr. The 582 burned around 5. Rebuild on 912 is now 2000 hrs, 582 is raised to 500 I hear. Add in cost of plugs and how often, oil in fuel for 582, and costs start to even out. Although the 912 is a huge expense to start with. Now $20,000can for the 80 hp (gulp!). The 582 is about $8000. I think better to buy an airplane with it in it. Get a better deal.

Hi Dazza. I remember the Tracy you are talking about. I am not sure if he is still around but he was very popular in the 90s and early 2000s in the US. According to what I have read there are 2 main problems with the RX-7 rotary engines (the 13B). It burns a lot of fuel (nearly double a 912) and the exhaust runs extremely hot, so placement of components is critical. In the last few years, some people have experimented with the RX-8 engine but I know very little about their success. In North America the 2 most popular car engines are the Suzuki 3 & 4 cylinders and the Subarus. I may build a plane around a Suzuki G13 (the 4 cylinder - the G10 is the 3 cylinder). I have been in one and they have reputation for good reliability, are very smooth (far more than a 912), and burn about 2 imp gals/hr. A fellow I know in Quebec (Airtrikes) sells them for about $7000 rebuilt and ready to go into your aircraft.

Hi Student. My sentiments exactly as to new 912 vs old rebuilt old Continental. Servicing is the key. I had a friend (a mechanic) take the Rotax course (Canadian dealer is 150 km away) and then rebuild my engine. When he pulled it apart, he was amazed at how new it was (1000 hrs at that point) and how strong and tight it was. But the Continental guys don't like gearboxes, water cooling, electronic ignition, high rpm. I tell then, why don't they drive a Ford Model T car. Basically the same engine as theirs. They say that is different. You are right. Servicing is the key. And the engine should be treated as an aircraft engine. It is, and our lives depend on it. But I have supreme faith in my 912. As much as any engine out there.

Hi Student. 12 months would be a (pleasant, welcome) dream for BC. As I have gotten older, I get less thrill flying in -10 temps (uncommon here near the water but happens), pouring rain (Oct/Nov + March/April are bad), high winds (see prev mentioned months) and so on. But I have flown in all of them (reluctantly, sometimes unfortunately) and they made me a better pilot. Grass trips I love, but they are few and far between. Most are gravel once one is away from the hard surfaces. Geoff

Hi William. Preaching to the unreachable is a waste of time I have found (i.e. with some it is better to tell them that a plane flies because it is held up by long strings attached to angels guiding us). As a question, what is your magnetic variation in general in Australia?

Hi Factfinder. I like to stamp my return address on my forehead. Just like the ambulances - backwards so people know where I have to go.