FlyBoy1960

Your rating a lot of weight a long way out from the carburettor mount. The only thing that attaches the carburettor is the rubber boot and the makeshift spring which can and can't work once it has been stretched a few times. It was just a suggestion that as you are adding the additional weight out the back you are going to put more load on the carburettor boots and as you know these have a history of cracking, the more vibration and load out the back the more load you will be putting on the boots. Why not eliminate this area of failure and stabilise the carburettor completely. A lot of the carburettors are now using bigger air filters which in themselves are heavier. The small air filters are robbing horsepower so I was told. I will be really interested to see how it works out over time, you'll probably find Rotax copy it ! One of the things I'm just thinking about from memory one carburettor sits further back than the other carburettor so the one that sits further back is going to be subjected to more vibration and harmonics. My memory is slowly coming back as to why the aircraft had these brackets. The clamp which attaches the carburettor to the rubber boot never used to have a spacer that would prevent over tightening so over time people would continue to tighten this clamp until the clamp itself was touching and this would pop the carburettor off, usually on start up but sometimes on shutdown and sometimes midflight. Rotax decided to add the spacer to the clamp so people couldn't over tighten this clamp anymore and this was introduced after a fire and fatality on the ground which was a result of one of the carburettors coming off an aircraft in the Czech Republic and catching fire and then exploding. This is why the manufacturer went to these carburettor brackets. I still can't remember what brand of aircraft it was but this might come back to me the more I think about it

I don't know if this picture is any use to you but the only thing I would be worrying about that could upset this system you are proposing is if you start to get some vibration happening especially because you are putting a little bit of extra weight on the backend of the carburettor which could make the intake manifold more vulnerable to cracking. I don't remember what aircraft this photograph was taken from but it shows how they made a simple bracket that stopped any carburettor movement whatsoever. This may be a necessary addition to the whole system you are designing to stop any vibration or harmonics entering the installation you are completing.

Is it just me, or do the rest of you think this would be a reportable incident. Any carbon monoxide coming back into the cabin/cockpit area is unknown danger, to say I just open a couple of events and try and push it out the back is not really acceptable. I am pretty certain the regulators would be very interested in following up these statements listed in post number one

Try Incident Kolb Flyer SS PU-OOO, 25 Jul 2020

Its not just CASA that is highlighting problems with this model, its happening all over the world with other CAA's. A few that have crashed in AU have had chutes if i remember correctly so the comments about weight and balance are really not valid. Anyway, the aircraft should NOT be registered that it is that far out of balance that it can affect the flying performance and characteristics. The piper sport (sport cruiser or whatever name they go by now) has just ceased manufacture and gone into bankruptcy again, I think it is the third time this has happened. There seems to be something generically wrong with this design and all of the clones that are having these problems. The real issue here is that (in my opinion, from the outside) is not that the aircraft is or, is not dangerous to fly, the real issue here from what I see is that the manufacturer is refusing to properly validate their compliance. They claim that the aircraft has been tested thousands of times for spin characteristics but they can't produce the documentation or proof according to CASA and they tried to get the Tail-wheel aircraft through the spin approvals by using data from the nosewheel so the Tail-wheel aircraft was never tested but they stated that it did comply when in fact it was never tested. I think this is the real problem for CASA, they (the manufacturer) are just declaring things as being safe or in compliance with the regulations that they have nothing to back it up and the manufacturer is just giving them the bird. I was speaking with a guy at the airport yesterday and he was telling me about Cirrus how they couldn't meet the requirements for spin recovery so they added a parachute and managed to sneak through the certification. He said that no aircraft would ever be allowed to do this again and if the FAA had their time again they would not approve the aircraft until modifications were made so that it would recover from a spin. The problem does not just exist with LSA, the problem also exists with certified aircraft. Another thing that just came to memory that he mentioned to me was that icon got a whole heap of dispensations which allowed a heavier takeoff weight than approved in LSA. This was apparently because they needed the extra weight to make their design completely spin proof but if I remember correctly more than a few have crashed very shortly after takeoff as a result of a stall/spin. Just my two cents worth, none is expert opinion just information gained from around the traps

Is it Bert Hinkler ?

It happens all the time, usually around airshows, especially Oshkosh Yes, you should see what deals can be done or thrown in, i am sure. If you cant do it yourself there are professional purchasers around that can do all the negotiation for you. Having said that i dont think there is the sales volume and commissions in selling aircraft. Remember the manufacturer needs to be there to support you years into the future and they cant do this unless they can make a profit.

I am thinking we all have the wrong Bert ? Perhaps Bert is fictitious, a figment of said imaginations ? I will vote Bert for Prime Minister ! If we can ever work out who said Bert is ?

Who the hell is Bert ? A legend no doubt but there are a lot of Bert's in Australia ?

The problem is now, all the sport cruisers in Australia now cant be used for training i am told. They all have to become experimental

And another one gone SPORTCRUISER https://www.novinky.cz/ekonomika/clanek/vyrobce-letadel-czech-sport-aircraft-jde-do-insolvence-40329429?fbclid=IwAR0SSt_b8PtBzOhOojUmX4IdhYZLMefXo-CdMyWgyWC2rG5ZtraxgtMuMlw#utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sharebt&utm_campaign=web

Chip Irwin, the man behind it from the USA is a crook. A member of our club brought one, paid in full, was shown shipping documents and it never came, he got onto the CBP and they said the export was falsified and they are chasing him also. He has started legal action in the USA but he is about 50th in the que apparently. Do your own research to find out more, he put Sportcruiser into bankruptcy also. Take a wide birth of this man !

The parent company of Rotax, and the manufacturer of our aircraft engines has just decided to discontinue manufacture of Evinrude outboards. Evinrude outboards have been around for more than 100 years and are a huge part of the BRP group who also owns Rotax. The customer base for outboard engines must be thousands of times more than our aircraft engines. Does that mean with all of their latest cost-cutting that BRP will see the need to trim Rotax as well ? And in particular aircraft engines. I sincerely hope not.

Thats an old list with a lot missing ?

100 hp rotax

I will ask him tomorrow and see if he knows. I "thought" i heard it went to the USA some time back. Cheers

" There used to be the option to subscribe to Sportpilot separately but as it is now included with subscription that is probably not an option any more " I am sure i read you ONLY get the FIRST COPY free

That was fantastic ! I love videos like this.

The schock that were fitted had a progressive spring, more coils at the bottom and less at the top and it had a tappered rubber stopper at the top as well, from memory, say 15mm thick. I will be at the airport next Saturday and will ask if anyone is interested

They are motorcycle shocks made by Amstrong in India. I helped fit a set only a few weeks ago at our airfield. That's the trouble when you wander around aimlessly on a Saturday morning at the airfield, you get put to work! I remember having a good look at the box that they came in when I was putting it in the bin for the owner, it had the name Armstrong and made in India written on the box. They are way, way more stiffer than any mountain bike shock absorber. I pushed my 100 kg body on top of them and they wouldn't even budge, I guess the aircraft is around 300 kg and when they are mounted they didn't compress at all with the weight of the aircraft, they only compressed with the pilot seated in the aircraft and then only a few millimetres I'm guessing. They must be for a pretty heavy motorbike because they are heavy, I'm guessing a couple of kilograms each. They were replacing a set of fournales (I think that is the spelling) they were a nitrogen filled shock absorber but instead of having a spring on the outsidethey just worked with oil and gas. The chrome on the main shaft which I am guessing is about 30 mil diameter had started to peel off after about 15 years and it allowed the gas to escape because it damaged the seals. They looked like a very short motorcycle fork if that helps but the owner replaced them with conventional shocks because he said the other ones were no longer made. The gas shock absorbers would be lucky to weigh 500 g each so they were very light in comparison to what was put back on. To replace the shock absorbers on both sides only took around 25 minutes total time, the engine didn't even cooldown and the owner headed back to Boonah.

Yes, it is in the section explaining that the carburettors do not require any adjustment up to 8000 feet. Then the extract from the heavy maintenance manual explains how it works along with its limitations. Just down load the manual from Rotax-owner.com and do a search on the word then do a search on the word " venturi " or something like that and it will come up straight away

From the heavy maintenance manual. The vacuum in the venturi acts on the top of the diaphragm and the carburetor piston (slide) via 2 holes in the carburetor piston and attempts to lift the piston against its own weight and spring. The reference pressure prevailing between airfilter/airbox and carburetor (e.g. ambient air pressure) is applied to the underside of the diaphragm via the duct. The space in the cover above the piston guide is vented through a bore to prevent hammering of the slide. Mixture is controlled by the combination of spring pressure holding the slide down, venturi vacuum trying to raise the slide by sucking on top of the diaphragm, and atmospheric pressure on the underside of the rubber diaphragm. Simples.

Turn the screen down to about 75% brightness, leave it plugged in and charging, no problems. It's the screen on 100% that causes the heat. (son works in apple store but no, can't get any discounts)

Hi King, just come to Heck Field, great place, lots of support and you will be welcomed. www.gcsfc.org.au

The TBO is 15 years or 2,000 hours whichever comes first, and it has been for about 10 years or more.