Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This AD also mandates the overhaul periods for engines engaged in charter operations reflecting CASA policy related to the aircraft engaged in fare-paying passenger operations.

ie. No mention of manufacturer's TTIS  for aircraft engaged in private ops. that I can make out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing there helpful in respect of 2 stroke motors as I see it.. Generally ignoring inspections maintenance inhibiting and servicing at the required/specified times renders the plane not airworthy .Extensions were not readily given. Permits to fly may be but only for ferry purposes. Certainly NON REVENUE. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Methusala said:

This AD also mandates the overhaul periods for engines engaged in charter operations reflecting CASA policy related to the aircraft engaged in fare-paying passenger operations.

ie. No mention of manufacturer's TTIS  for aircraft engaged in private ops. that I can make out.


 

what about this section, which appears to relate to all types

 

Quote

2.    b.    At intervals in accordance with the engine manufacturer’s published time between overhaul (TBO) periods for the engine.

Doesn’t that apply?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Wirraway said:


 

what about this section, which appears to relate to all types

 

Doesn’t that apply?

It is a little hard to follow but 2b refers to requirement 2 For aircraft in charter operations. I work at a maintenance organisation and some aircraft in air work category are running on condition.

 

I would also say the the 582 is a piston engine and based on my experience a very good one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it is it's OK but it's a ball and roller bearing two stroke. I have no idea of what the zero time or proper overhaul would be ( Idoubt you could prescribe one that would fill the bill and I've been working on 2 strokes for too long to think about. The threads holding the case to the plate the engine sits on are often Bu##ered. A new short engine would be the best way to do it.  The 582 is still supported. 300 hours is probably a "safe" figure. Re ring it carefully and run 200 more hours if it's non revenue and you are not taking off over a row of high trees and houses.. It's got to be reliable in some circumstances. There's no doubt 2 strokes have a worse record than 4 strokes  on average.but a lot is up to the operator. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

Airbrorne manual refers owners to the Rotax documents so it would be 300 hours and 5 years for the 582: 

 

72.00.10 Maintenance and Overhaul Other than any specific procedures specified elsewhere in this manual, detailed procedures for the maintenance and overhaul of the Rotax 582 UL engine fitted to the XT 582 aircraft can be found in the following documents:

- Rotax Operator Manual for Rotax Engine Type 582 Series

- Rotax Documentation CD Documentation for Rotax engines available at www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com

The supplied manuals and documentation are supplemented by Rotax Service letters and Service Bulletins as appropriate. The Rotax website should be periodically reviewed for these updates.

Overhaul of Rotax engines should be performed by a qualified Rotax service centre. For Special Light Sport Aircraft maintenance, this task must be referred to a Mechanic with powerplant rating and task specific training on Rotax 582 engine.

 

I thought it had previously been said in this forum that RAAus also confirm 300 hours or 5 years as per Rotax manuals. Although I have seen an on-condition form for a 582 in the RAAus technical manual but it appears to be a exact copy of the 912 one 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread drift has taken this far away from its origins. Recreational flying was intended to allow operators to assess their risk and act accordingly. My posts have attempted to argue that your decisions are dependent on the operational circumstances. Eg. Nev argues that taking off with high obstructions in your flightpath mandate a more conservative rule than the alternative. Are you going to risk tiger country? Is your aircraft likely to survive outlanding in a paddock? We are all involved in a pastime that contains some element of risk. It's up to you as pic to make a decision. Don't think that the govt is acting with your best interests in mind. Overhaul costs will vary according to what you wish to replace and your assessment of engineering probability. Do you want to do the work yourself - I know that it can be done successfully with care and underpinning skills..

Edited by Methusala
Link to post
Share on other sites

So has RAAus applied for an exemption or variance from AD/ENG/4 ? Why would they do that. All three of my aircraft have exceeded their calendar TBO, (lycoming have a 12 year recommendation) All are legal to fly in private operation.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

AD/ENG/4 Amdt 11 spells it out very clearly, private and aerial work(flying school, agricultural etc) aircraft in Australia do not need to comply with the manufacturers recommended TBO, TTIS or years. Presumably RAAus aircraft would be covered by this legislation.  

Except that RAAus has specifically excluded operating an engine "on condition" in LSA and flight training. 

 

 

Tech Manual 12.6.2

“On-condition” is not available for LSA unless the manufacturer states otherwise.

 

and

12.5.2

5.2 Moving an aircraft from “Privately Operated” to “For Hire and/or Flying Training”: Any Factory Built 95.32 or 95.55 Aircraft which has been operating privately with an “on condition” engine, must have that engine overhauled or replaced prior to that aircraft being used for hire and/or flying training. The replacement engine must be either: (a) A factory new engine (b) A factory (or factory accredited over-hauler) overhauled engine and has a completed RACR (Recreational Aircraft Condition Report) inspection done by an RAAus L2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Methusala said:

Do you want to do the work yourself - I know that it can be done successfully with care and underpinning skills..

You may well be competent, but for the crank overhaul Rotax have specified that it must be done by a Rotax approved facility, so doing it yourself does not comply with the maintenance schedule.

Of course this is irrelevant if you aren't LSA or Training.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly, crankshaft overhaul is a particularly specialised and skillful task. Checking it for wear within tolerance not quite so complex. I bought a new crankshaft when considering replacement due to failure. Even so, replacement of old with new part is not a watchmakers skill. We are still debating private operations vs for hire/reward. I think there is a world of difference. Who really wants to be an instructor with so many students trying to kill you?

Ps: Not many LSA's with R-582's to my knowledge, I could be wrong!

Edited by Methusala
add
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M61A1 said:

Except that RAAus has specifically excluded operating an engine "on condition" in LSA and flight training. 

 

 

Tech Manual 12.6.2

“On-condition” is not available for LSA unless the manufacturer states otherwise.

 

My Aerochute is Factory Built as was my Quicksilver and slb's Airborne, all LSA. Aerochute Industries has already stated maintanance as per Rotax schedule. No manufacturer is going to increase their risk changing this requirement. My flights average 0.5 - 1.0 hrs clocking up 20hrs per year if lucky. Just have to facter in $30 an hour for TBO.

Edited by Cosmick
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Cosmick said:

My Aerochute is Factory Built as was my Quicksilver and slb's Airborne, all LSA

Some XT-582 are primary category not LSA. The Airborne manual reference I mentioned covers both

 

XT 582 Light Sport and Primary Category

Aircraft 
MAINTENANCE MANUAL
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hirth,s Heavy fuel, made me of Nuclear! 

Is jet fuel cheaper than gasoline? .

spacesailor

Edited by spacesailor
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it's cheaper and more available at the more used localities. Not necessarily those most used by U/L's though.  Diesel has excise on it here except at mining sites and you need to be aware of it clogging  at low temps because of wax. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOW temperature.

Just read about Canadian Hummel Birds, nice day, temp 50 f ( 15 c ).

I would need a Heater in cockpit, not airvents. LoL

My last flight training day it was a 40 c  at the Oaks.

spacesailor

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that Hirth. Direct injection, but it has electronic ignition. It doesn't state the compression ratio, but I assume it must be above that of a petrol engine, otherwise they would have problems igniting the fuel in a cool cylinder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With direct injection, fuel grade and compression ratio don't pose the same problems. The ignition is by spark but I  guess it wouldn't have to be. . Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

Though unrelated to the 512 (2-strokes are obviously a different kettle of fish) this thread has some interesting discussion about operating engines 'on condition'.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yenn said:

Interesting that Hirth. Direct injection, but it has electronic ignition. It doesn't state the compression ratio, but I assume it must be above that of a petrol engine, otherwise they would have problems igniting the fuel in a cool cylinder.

This type of jet-a direct injected 2-stroke has normal compression because of the low octane of jet-a.

Lycoming make a little one.

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The air-assisted fuel injection is an Orbital Engine Company patented design, a spin-off from Ralph Sarich's original Orbital Engine development and research. OEC have licenced quite a few manufacturers for this fuel injection system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nev, I don't really know a lot about the OEC air-assisted injection, because OEC are very coy on releasing any details, and they've developed several varieties of air-assisted injection, and their R&D is constantly ongoing.

I do know OEC is right into UAV engine contracts with Uncle Sam, and they are exceptionally shy about revealing any details of that type of contract.

They have licenced 4 marine engine manufacturers to use their injection system, and I also know that Peugeot is using their technology on a new scooter.

But as far as finding out the technical details, OEC are telling us very little. I think the most information I've found, is in the following ASX interview.

Unfortunately, the article below is from 2012, and development has no doubt moved on a fair bit, from that time.

 

https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20120612/pdf/426s0srfg745ty.pdf

Edited by onetrack
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks . I think it's been used on racing outboards  for a few years. I just don't know what's actually derived from the Sarich end. Plenty of efficient (petrol) 4 strokes using it. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...