Blackhawk

Hi Stanzahero, I had diesel on my mind while typing that, they call it a "Grey Moment" these days don't they. Thanks

Sorry Mick, I misunderstood you. With your experience in RC aircraft you would know that any engine in miniture will have many more problems than an engine that is built 5 or 6 times larger; in a larger engine you get bigger and better bearings, better machining finishes and an allround more robust engine. I came across this quote and I think it sums it up beautifully; New Technology goes through three stages: First it is ridiculed by those ignorant of its potential Next, it is subverted by those threatened by its potential Finally, it is considered self-evident. by-unknown

Hi Mick, Why are you comparing this engine to RC engines. From what I've been told this engine was designed from the ground up to be used in any number of uses, Hybrid cars, motorcycles, jet skis and recreational aircraft. As you say, a couple of the design features in this engine had been tried in RC engines but with limited success, but as far as I can assertain the designer of this engine has overcome those problems and I would take more notice of an engine designer/builder with 32 years experience than someone who only sells RC engines. When you say; "This info came from an employee of said company." do you mean the company that is building these Rotary Piston Engines or the Australian RC engine distributor.

Hi Yenn, There has been a lot of advances in diesel technology in recent years that contradicts the standard configuration of a compression diesel engine. There are companies who are converting petrol engines to diesel using the spark ignition process but they use very high pressure injectors (160,000 PSI) and the engines usually run between 12 and 17:1 compression ratio. They also have the added advantage of eliminating diesel knock and pre-ignition which is a habit in traditional diesel engines. Here is an Australian company who uses this technology; :: Green Diesel :: There has been a lot of development in diesel technology since Nicolaus Otto designed the diesel in 1861.

: WOW! to this engine Andy, I asked your question about the engine cutting out by itself and the photo shows the kill swictch . The other photo shows the air-cooling vents and in the circled area you can see the cooling fins on the rotating cylinder.

I found out why the engine run's are so short in the video's; that engine is the Proof of Concept engine and is not fitted with an oil system and it runs on a teaspoon of oil each time it's fired up. They said they are currently working on a full test version which is 250cc and it will be fitted with a dry sump oil system, starter motor and an alternator and they will be rigerously testing it to document all the performance figures. Also the engines they are considering for Recreational Aviation were; 250cc 20/30HP 140mm dia x 305mm long 8.2kg weight (W/O starter & alternat.) 500cc 40/50HP 178mm dia x 343mm " 10.0kg " ( " ) 750cc 70/80HP 210mm dia x 381mm " 15.9kg " ( " ) 1000cc 100/110HP 247mm dia x 432mm " 20.9kg " ( " ) MAET said these were estimates at this stage, but the figures would be very close. The 750cc and 1000cc will also be available in Turbocharged and all these engines will be Spark Ignition Diesels. Any more info you would be better off talking to them direct.

It looks like someone has finally gone outside square. www.maengtech.com This engine could be the ultimate for aircraft in the years to come; it can be scaled to any size, is very fuel efficient and has extremely low emissions AND SMALLER THAN A TURBINE. The engine in their video is a 150cc Proof of Concept engine and puts out 10HP and weighs 6.3kg Check out the videos; it may be a year or two before they're available, but I cant wait; and the aircraft possiblities are unlimited.

Sue, Who was your better half talking to, I think he is very misinformed. I know for a fact the current owner is the developer and it is still being delt with at the council and I was speaking to the owner earlier tonight, and he has owned the property for the last 5 years.

David, I think you are right but, an ICE engine also covers a rotary which is not a piston engine. I'm sure the term "Internal Combustion Engine" was never intented to be used for Turbines. Graeme

Sorry David, Standard installation of engines in the port & starboard wing Graeme

Yes HEON that is correct, but you can only have one ICE (internal combustion engine) and one prop. The only way to change these regulations is by constant lobbying of our representatives. Graeme

It would be good if that was the case but ufortunately it's not. It is one (1) only piston engine allowed and one (1) only propeller; you can't even have a single engine driving counter rotating propellers. Until CASA allows twin engine installations up to the equivalent total HP of the maximum allowed for the category, then a lot of engine-out accidents and fatilities will continue to happen which could have been avoided. That's my opinion anyway. Graeme

We had planned to build a twin 2 cylinder 100HP engine for production that would give you redundant safety; the engine was a complete V4 but either side could be shut down in an emergency without compromising the safety of the passangers or aircraft. Essently, our engine is 2 seperate twin cylinder 50HP engines built as a complete V4. RAA and CASA are pouting safety in Recreational Aviation all the time, but when there is a good idea for engine safety they bury there heads in the sand and don't want to know anything about it. (the too hard basket syndrome again) I think they should allow engine configurations that are in the same thrust line whether it be a push/pull, counter rotating props with twin engines, or as our intention was, in the attachments. "SAFETY IS FOREMOST" I would not like to see P&S wing engine installations in RAA, I feel that would be too dangerous. Graeme

Hi Turboplanner, The friend of mine who has this planned airpark has had all the planning and consultation done by a private Town Planner and everything complies with the State and Local Planning Schemes. The property is on the border between the Rural land and Rural Residential land and is well outside the local Future Residential Planning area by about 5km. Attached is a photo of the land when it was purchased by my friend with an existing grass airstrip and old disused cane fields which is where the planned airpark is being built. The development takes up about 60 acres of a 220 acre property and does not require any removal of trees to achieve the finished estate. The Councilors he has had consultation with are receptive to the planned Airpark Estate, it is only one or two in the Planning Department that keeps raising the bar each time a hurdle has been cleared and it looks like they are waiting for him to walk away so they don't have to deal with it. There has been $millions of developments that have walked away from the Fraser Coast that would have been up and running, creating jobs and income to the area if the labour government in Qld hadn't amalgamated the local councils. Out of 4 amalgamated councils, the bulk of expansions and development seems to be done in Hervey Bay. Even Ray Charles could see whats going on.

Hi to all, It looks like the Bureaucratic Desk Jockeys in the Fraser Coast Regional Council have put the skids on another aviation development near Maryborough. The development is an Acreage Airpark Estate of 18 blocks, with a 900m grassed airstrip, with solar powered street lighting, also all the dwellings and hangers would have self contained solar power generation. According to them (FCRC), “the proposal would need to demonstrate overriding need in the public interest” How can we get a petition going to show the Fraser Coast Regional Council and other Local Councils around Australia that we need these types of developments to replace the council owned airfields that they keep closing down for the land to be redeveloped into housing estates. I’ve attached an artist’s impression of the proposed airpark estate near Maryborough in Queensland. Hope you can all have a say and let all Councils know we do have a voice that needs to be heard.

Does anyone know of any badly damaged Jabiru's collecting dust in a shed somewhere. If you do let me know. Graeme

That would sure be the ideal engine for the PC-9, but I'm positive your only allowed a piston engine. The big draw back with a Turbine is the fuel bill, at 14gal an hour you would want shares in a fuel company or a money tree in the backyard. I'll stick to 12 litres an hour and a V4. Graeme

Sorry, Howard I didn't read the question properly. No Turboprop. Not leagal

Hi Howard, Yes, it would. Full size is 2.44m, so 75% would make it 1.83m (72") Graeme

Are there any members who have thought of, or would like to build a Tandem Pilatus PC-9 in either UL or LSA category. I was thinking of 75% scale of the real deal. Any ideas.

Hi Neale, Where is your friend located.

It's a pity that the financial demise of the world over the past 9 months has made investors wary, and will do, for some time yet. There are so many very good opportunities in the Recreational Aviation industry here in Australia and in New Zealand at the moment where investors could make really good returns. I suppose the US will take a strangle hold on this market when things improve and we will end up paying through the nose for our leisure interests. Just having a down moment.

Do any of the Jabiru owners who have upgraded from the short wings to the long wings still have their short wings they would like to offload. Don't we have a For Sale/Wanted section any more, if we do it must be secret because I can't find it. Graeme

Don't get carried away with delusions of Jets as in JETS. If you would all please put your glasses on and read the top thread; it say's in plain english and black and white, JET "TYPE" AIRCRAFT I have not mentioned Jet Engines at all.

YES! It can be done.