Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in

Bruce

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Excellent

About Bruce

  • Rank
    Tecnam Australia

More Information

  • Country
    Australia
  1. I would have to check the part numbers although I am pretty sure that these Avdel rivers are in our extensive Tecnam parts stock and have supplied to LAME’s in the past. We air freight these in so they may be a little more expensive than bulk rivets by sea container. Regards Bruce
  2. Hi Alf I found the Supercheap sun visors very effective. There is a longer car side window version that is perfect for the Sierra. Throw away the original black suckers and buy the same size clear suckers from Clark Rubber. They rarely fall off then. And for any low wing bubble canopy, have a look at the ‘Snap vents’ sold by Aircraft Spruce. Price is low and vents very effective on ground. If LSA get approval from the manufacturer before installation! Regards Bruce
  3. I can see that there is some confusion on this subject Back in 2000 factory built Ultralights required a Type Certificate (TC). The original Australian manufacturers were required to go through an expensive certification process. There was no system in place to allow the importation of foreign factory built Ultralights. The only possibility was for CASA to formally visit the factory of the manufacturer and approve the aircraft for Australia. CASA issued a NPRM calling for submissions allowing foreign factory built ultralights. This new rule came to pass in 2002 with the proviso that a foreign TC must exist for the foreign factory built Ultralight. At that time Australian ultralights could only operate to a MTOW of 544kg. Most of the Ultralights with a TC in Europe had a MTOW to fit in with the different European weight restrictions, usually around 450 kg. The AUF at the time issued Type Acceptance based on the documentation and TC submitted. The CASA audit identified aircraft that were not adhering to the original TC’s. It is correct that some Ultralights were built to a higher MTOW and in a number of countries including Australia and NZ, this was 544 kg. All importers were required to submit documentation from the manufacturer supporting a higher MTOW. A number of importers were unable to produce this documentation and the MTOW of these aircraft was restricted to that off the original TC. Ultralight certification should not be confused with LSA. The FAA introduced a simpler form of aircraft certification in September 2004, in which: 'The manufacturer is responsible to certify the aircraft and the continuing airworthiness. This means that the manufacturer certifies that each aircraft complies with the LSA standards by signing a statement of compliance. The statement of compliance must indicate that the aircraft was manufactured by a qualified manufacturer, complies with the design and performance, quality assurance, production testing (not required for a kit aircraft) and continued operational safety monitoring standards’. LSA allowed a manufacturer to nominate a MTOW of up to 600 kg with the manufacturer assuming full responsibility for the ongoing airworthiness of the LSA.(Whereas CASA has a responsibility for factory built Ultralight aircraft because of the Type Certification of those Ultralights. In 2006 CASA enacted an Australian version of LSA with a 600 kg MTOW. Not long after that RA Aus allowed a maximum MTOW for Ultralights of 600 kg. There was some confusion in the technical guidance from RA Aus at that time and some owners and importers of identical Ultralight airframes began operating at a MTOW of 600 kg. This was identified in the CASA audit of RA Aus and TC’s or documentation from another countries National Airworthiness Authority approving operation at a higher MTOW was required of the importer or owner. Most LSA are now designed with greater strength to allow for the higher MTOW. Ultralights approved to operate at 600 kg MTOW were required to alter the ASI, lowering the indicated VNE and VNO speeds. On the subject of manufacturer empty weights, to meet a MTOW of say 450 kg or less, most manufacturers had a minimal aircraft is available which is essentially a stripped out shell. no heater, no upholstery, no trim, limited fuel capacity, smaller wheels, two stroke engines, minimal electrics, the most basic seats, simple hand brake, etc. that is how the mythical figure of 270 kg could be achieved whereas the same airframe destined for Australia included every possible option including a personal bidet! With regard to future RA Aus increases of MTOW, these will not apply to LSA aircraft unless CASA changes the regulations governing LSA. The weight increase will allow homebuilts and GA certified aircraft,with TC’s that fall within the new MTOW, to be registered as Ultralights with RA Aus.
  4. Thanks Alf It’s all slowly coming together with a step up in advertising shortly and a push on LSA and GA for 2018. regards Bruce
  5. For TECNAM owners who may have missed the TECNAM factory press release I have attached a link below: TECNAM STRENGTHENS ITS PRESENCE IN AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND WITH CORPORATE SUBSIDIARY The new company, TECNAM PTY LTD, based in SE Queensland, will take over the role as Master dealer for Australia and New Zealand. A large spares stock for LSA and GA TECNAM models will be established in SE Queensland under my control with overnight Express mail to Australian main centres and DHL overnight to our authorised service centre in Tauranga, New Zealand. A comprehensive CRM system will allow LAME’s and L2’s to establish a ticket on-line with the airworthiness and engineering department at the factory for resolving maintenance or repair issues. The website, tecnam.com.au will be updated to reflect the changes. This move by a major light aircraft manufacturer indicates the confidence TECNAM has in the future of GA and Light Sport Aviation in Australia and New Zealand. Regards Bruce [email protected]
  6. And after you have done all that you have to get past AQIS on arrival. If the aircraft is new from a known manufacturer with a track record, the aircraft in container will smoothly pass through the clearing process. If, however the aircraft is second hand, the container will have to be completely unstuffed in a quarantine approved facility, inspected for, mud, grass, seeds and insects. The container is then stuffed again, not necessarily to your high standards and loaded on a truck for delivery. I always try to be there and supervise the unload, reload and fasten down for the final delivery. Take note also of what is happening with Classic car imports where brakes and engines are being pulled apart on arrival to remove brake linings and gaskets containing asbestos!
  7. My condolences to John’s family and friends. I will miss John’s seasoned advice on this forum. Bruce
  8. Bruce

    P92 Eaglet question

    Toe brakes have been standard standard in all TECNAM LSA for some years now (except the P92 Classic).
  9. "The fact that they have cracked like that in the first place indicates that you have a vibration resonance on the part and so you need to damp it" Agree with Head in the Clouds, there is a vibration issue and this must be solved first. Balance the prop and the carbs! When was the prop last balanced with strobe or vibration analysis equipment?
  10. Australia Aerobatic Club ‘CASA Guidelines' 3.13 MANOEUVRING SPEED 3.13.1 Manoeuvring speed (VA) is the speed above which full deflection of the elevator control will exceed aircraft structural limitations. Below VA the aircraft will stall before structural limits can be exceeded. VA will be specified in the aircraft's flight manual and placarded on the instrument panel. Full control deflection of any flight control should be avoided above this speed. 3.13.2 It is important to note that VA is established at the aircraft's maximum all-up weight or maximum aerobatic weight, and that at lighter weights it is possible to exceed G limitations at speeds less than the specified VA. 3.13.3 It could be argued that exceeding G limitations at a lighter weight may not necessarily overstress the wing structure because the lift forces imposed at the lighter weight for the same G are proportionately less, and therefore the wing structure should be strong enough to withstand the load. However, other airframe components such as engine mountings, attachments and other equipment still experience the full G loading and these structural components could fail even though the wing does not. 3.13.4 Thus, to stay within a safe operating envelope, the pilot should manoeuvre near VA with caution, monitor the accelerometer rather than rely solely on airspeed limitations, respect rolling G and flick roll limits, and be cautious in the use of abrupt control inputs. Never exceed the G or VNE limits of the aircraft Do not pull significant G above VA in turbulent conditions (a gust could overstress the aircraft)
  11. Regarding the negative comments from seb7701 and bilby54 following bluesky's attempt to seek advice from forum members, the following are the facts Trouble shooting was carried out on the engine by a Rotax qualified L2. Bert Flood supplied two new fuel pumps. At this point the owner felt that the power issue had not been resolved and contacted TECNAM Australia. Copies of the printouts recovered with the dongle were forwarded to the TECNAM factory. Response back from the Rotax factory was that they were aware of the problem through Bert Flood and that they were working with Bert Flood to resolve it. It is important to note that TECNAM warranty covers the airframe constructed by TECNAM along with standard instruments. It does not cover the engine (Rotax or Lycoming) and third party avionics which are all subject to their own specific manufacturer warranties. This does not mean that we do not provide support and owners throughout the outback have first hand experience of our support. Arrangements were made for the owner to bring the aircraft to Southport (YSPT) for inspection by a well qualified LAME organisation. Their engineers went over the engine from front to back and spent hours on the phone with Bert Flood. A number of test flights were conducted by myself and the engineers using different prop settings and also fitting an original Tonini prop. With a Tonini prop we were able to demonstrate cruise at 106 knots and a fuel burn of 16 litres per hour. For each flight we split the Dynon Skyview screen showing half with flight instruments and half with engine instruments. A GoPro camera mounted immediately in front of the RHS screen recorded the flights. A dongle was used to download data from the Rotax ECU. With the Sensenich prop back on at #3 setting and flying 'on the step' we achieved 106 kts indicated and 16 litres per hour at 5200 rpm (all duly recorded by the GoPro). We concluded that the engine was now performing as per specification. bluesky is right to be concerned as to why the power loss happened and this forum is an excellent source of feedback from 912iS owners such as orfboy and others well qualified to comment. As Nev comments, the engine is incredibly complex. Bruce TECNAM Australia
  12. The prop is made by Bolly. Having used Bolly props on a number of TECNAM aircraft I cannot speak more highly of their smoothness, performance and durability. Small stone damage is non existant and erosion of the leading edge in rain experienced with wooden props is history. I strongly recommend a professional prop balance when changing any prop. This new prop will be a win,win for JABIRU owners.
  13. I don't think that the CDI's failed in flight. Especially not both at the same time. I am aware of a couple of CDI issues but they related to aircraft not starting, NOT to engines stopping in flight. Problem of not starting may relate to voltage feed from the aircraft system to the CDIs pre-start being less than optimum. Not an issue in flight due to full electrical output at power settings. Have heard that the new soft start ignition may be better due to a better supply from the battery as part of the Rotax loom. Regardless, the CDIs that would not start an older engine started and ran well on a late model 912ULS with the soft start loom. There has been speculation re high temps within the engine bay affecting the CDI's but there are TECNAMS in western QLD that spent all of January flying in daily temps over 40 Degrees C with absolutely no problems with CDIs. Ross Millard may have some thoughts on this?
  14. Agree with David, I think you are confusing it with the Murphy Rebel. The Maverick was built much lighter
×
×
  • Create New...