pluessy

With P92, trim for about 55kts on final and use the throttle to control the descent. The when you come close to the threshold, very gently pull back to reduce the sink rate and just let her settle down. I usually pull a little bit more back just before the wheels get on the ground and pull the power at the same time. The keep pulling back to keep the nose wheel just off the ground till that settles as well. Trimming for the correct speed takes one variable out. 304 landings and only one bent gear leg🙂 (2 up, spot landing comp👎)

If you make your own tester eg the cheapy or a modifed version, then the OEM specs are meaningless! As already pointed out, the leak-down test is overrated. Do a dynamic compression test and track that. Quicker, simpler and more accurate representation of the internal condition.

IF you want to make one that meets the FAA spec (AC43.13 1B), then you need to make the orifice to spec and insert it. Filling the hole with epoxy and drilling 1mm will give you something close, but not as per spec (the OP requested 1mm orifice, so I take that as "FAA spec"). Because the FAA did give that spec, it is the standard in the aviation engine industry. The 2 major engine manufacturers (and Rotax) refer to that:

This is the compression tester, not leak-down

same as the one I have. Remove the regulator, drill out the hole, make a suitable orifice (0.040" dia x 1/4" long) and insert to meet the FAA spec. The existing 1.5mm hole will give you good results, though🙂

Just checked my automotive leak down tester (similar to the Toledo/ToolPro), it has a 1.5mm drilling in the body. To make it relevant to the aviation test, I would need to drill that out and put in a 1mm bush/jet. Also read this: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2023/july/pilot/savvy-maintenance-unbelievable-compression

Use a common automotive compression tester (dynamic). Leak-down tests might have been the "standard" in the industry for 100 years but the dynamic compression test is more accurate (less low end results) and should be used as the primary test. Leak-down is useful to determine the location of the leak, but then you don't need the tester set-up, just the spark plug adaptor (old spark plug), solder a hose barb fitting on, add a short section of hose and an air line fitting (male). Then plug it in to your air supply through a pressure regulator. The Toledo (and ToolPro) brands doesn't specify the orifice size. They are more than likely around the 1mm mark. If you need it, I can see if I can measure mine. They are available from Supercheap & Repco, most likely also from Bursons etc. 392419.pdf

I find the regulations/recommendations very confusing. In the VFR-world below 10,000', there should be ONE Frequecy in use, CTAF. Yet we are supposed to use area above 5,000', which means you are missing out on the traffic info below 5,000'. Area is also full of the jet-jockeys and ATC who talk at the speed of sound and none of their transmissions have anything to do with the VFR traffic below 10,000'. If CASA/Air Services would be serious about safety, there would be only one frequency in every airspace, eg CTAF from surface to 5,000' and an area frequency from 5,000' to 10,000' where ATC can be contacted, then anything above 10,000' on the normal area frequency. That would remove the irrelevant chit-chat and pilots would actually listen to the area frequency below 10,000'. There have been quite a number of occurences due to planes being on the different frequencies in the VFR space, a few with fatal consequences.

Unfortunatley, you are trying to put a bandaid on a very poor design. This will stay a very poor design not matter how many bandaids you are trying. The root cause of the issue is the very close mounting of the rubber isolators. Stiffening the current mounts will have other effects as other people have pointed out, many will not show up until much later (loosening rivets from high-frequency vibrations etc). The only way out of this is a new mount/adaptor that moves the rubber mounts further out.

What compounds the problem on your Sonex is that the angles move the rubber mounts closer together. Even small movements in the mounts will result in large movements of the whole engine. On my Tecnam, the angles are turned out and the mounts located further apart. The engine still shakes on start-up and shut-down but not touching any fixed parts due to the reduced movements.

would be helpful to know in what context/industry/equipment. There are many variations across a large range of industries and equipment to describe these events.

not sure where you looked, both the Ultracruiser and H5 plans are available. Need to send them an email for international customers.

and one more (Caboolture, around 2008):

I bought the plans from Calvin Parker back in 1987 and studied them for a long time. I also looked at a completed Teenie Two many years later (Caboolture). In the end, I concluded that the Teenie Two was easy enough to build but not an easy to fly plane due to the high wing loading (most T-2s end up much heavier than plans say). I have since started a Spacek SD-1 Minisport, similar size & peformance on 2/3 of the power and much lighter. Check out the T-2 forum on groups.io, only forum left I believe: https://groups.io/g/teenietwo/messages I think there are better metal options with the Hummelbird or Minicoupe.

That's what I did, after I uninstalled the whole caboodle as it used up all the memory and locked up. They just assume that you have the latest 128Gb iPad instead of giving you the option of downloading only what you need, in the "Download" screen instead of the backdoor.

I have just re-installed OZrunways after 3 years and I'm not impressed. It has become so complicated that it is now a destraction while flying. I can't download just the maps I need (Qld) and it is clogging up my iPad memory. Flight plans are the little squiggly line bottom right (in map mode). Then give it a name and find your departure & destination (ICAO code). They seem to save automatically. With the new version, it becomes a fight with your finger to enter the waypoints correctly. I'll be looking at alternate options once this subscription expires. I have contacted OZrunways and told them that it is too complicated for RAAus weekend flyers and to give us a simpler version (best one is from about 3-4 years ago), but got brushed off.

you forget the difference between DIRECT drive (aircraft) and the postie bike. Check the postie bike power at 3,000rpm!!! Rev the aircraft engine up to 6,000rpm and you will get over 250hp, but not for long. Same for fuel burn: aircooled engines have to use fuel for internal cooling due to the large bores. The weeny little bike piston ccan be cooled by the barrel. You are comparing apples with macademia nuts🙃

Fuel burn on the 80hp is around 14lph at 75% (91 octane), the 100hp uses around 18-19lph, but minimum 95 octane (premium). Here in OZ that makes a big difference in fuel price (UL95 is ~$.15 and UL98 ~$0.20 more than UL91). Many European countries have much smaller differences and some don't even produce UL91 any more.

I would recommend to remove the strut brackets, strip the paint and crack test them. This looks like cracking has started at the gussets: For the chute cover, make a new plywood sheet, seal it with thinned epoxy and add some foam to the underside with 1 layer of G40 glass. The cover needs to be able to be blown off easily when activating the chute.

Using a sharp pointed pitot or a very thin-wall tube will reduce the effects of AoA and sideslipping on the ASI. Most commercial pitot probes have a very pointy end (conical) to reduce the flow disturbance at angles.

Warning! Warning! If your engine turns the same way as the 912 (CW looking from behind, then the advise so far is correct. If your engine is turning CCW, then the offset needs to be to the left.

some 1st hand experience from today! My mower had some water in the fuel and stopped. I drained the fuel tank and the float bowl, flushed the line and added some metho and clean fuel. The engine wouldn't start unless I covered the carb intake with my hand, then it would run for a few seconds. I had to repeat that for a couple of minutes before the engine would run normally. Bottom line: water in a carb means dead-stick landing, no matter what!

you will find that the surface tension of water will stop it from going through the main jet without significant differential pressure (more than the venturi can provide). Water in a carby is usually a dead-stop until removed by draining/cleaning.

I have one of these jump-starters, have used it a few times now on V-twin mowers. Would start a Jab or Rotax engine as well. https://www.jaycar.com.au/450a-li-po-jump-starter-and-powerbank/p/MB3757 The unit is just under 0.5kg.

I would check other manufacturers data that make wooden props. Main criteria is bolt size and some times hub thickness. Wood type could also have some influence: From Culver props (left) and Catto (right):