Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Look up the Verner radial. If this sort of thing fails we have a problem because to looks quality. Where's the "D" motor?. Promised great things.   For a single seat, 45 HP should be enough if the plane is efficient. A Gazelle on a hot day struggles with 80HP on max weight. Nev.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

SorryJacko, many of us are to old and tired to put up much fight any more. Understand that we have been trying to carry the torch since the 60's when we marched through the streets of Sydney in the Mo

You could buy a used single seat thruster, 1/4 of the cost, its Australian, tail dragger, easy to repair with all straight tubes, sails made locally by Wingtech. 

Apart from the electric one, interesting yes, but the traditionally powered Aerolite 103 seems a very nice ultralite to me. I really like the yoke control wheel and the proportions of the aircraft loo

Posted Images

Dmotor want to deal with OEM only or sell a full install kit to you or fit the engine themselves.  I guess they know  the best way to get a bad repnis to have random installs that cause problems and get bad word of mouth. 
 

verner were lovely.  But they discontinued all radials under 85hp so they are not single seat options.

 

other radials exist of course like the Australian one in development.   And that says it all really. In development is  99 out of 100 times shorthand for never sees the light of day. 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to make a VERY idiot proof engine as idiots are really good at mucking up idiot proof engines. They use great ingenuity to do this.

   Make it SIMPLE and it will only go together one obvious way. Flat twins shake too much. Both pistons STOP twice per turn and that really plays up with the flywheel effect. Usually the prop is the only flywheel it has. Nev

Edited by facthunter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You have to make a VERY idiot proof engine as idiots are really good at mucking up idiot proof engines. They use great ingenuity to do this.

   Make it SIMPLE and it will only go together one obvious way. Flat twins shake too much. Both pistons STOP twice per turn and that really plays up with the flywheel effect. Usually the prop is the only flywheel it has. Nev

Which is why flat twins of the two stroke cycle work better with belt redrive than a gearbox.

I have a good 38yo flat twin giving 28hp that runs nicely and gets new belts every 100 hrs.

My 50hp belt drive flat twin is only 10 hrs in use but equally runs nicely and I'll keep an eye on it over the next 50+ hrs to see how it plays out. 

The 22hp Direct drive twins I have are ex drone and are short life engines spinning only 38" props but the three I've flown have been as expected.

 

I don't think flat twin 2strokes are a problem

Edited by kasper
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kasper said:

Jack - Any Hummel build from any set of drawings or plans or parts kits are perfectly acceptable to raaus and just need to be registered under 95.55 not 95.10.  They will get 19- reg and it’s a straight forward process. 
 

spacey has a 23yo grudge against how he was treated in his Hummel when he was going under 95.10. I have offered for no charge to help spacey get his airframe registered under 95.55 if he wants.  
 

this offer stands to him as it has for the past 4 years.  

Sorry, I forgot about this posted subject some time ago.

Well, Spacey…..why not grab that offer and just do it, OR sell the plane to someone else and put the money to something less grief stricken? 

IF there is an RAA acceptable path, just use it…..

Remember this……

 

 

D970A7FE-DB1C-45B1-B5EC-8819E73A7C72.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pointing out Hummel has a ' part 103 ' aircraft.

Fly,s nicely. 

As for  my ' bird ' it,s a dream, maybe it wan,t fly but it,s great, sitting in my ' tincan & soaring like an eagle.

And kasper , l hope to "  one day meet up with you, after l.m released from this covid Jail term.

spacesailor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Belts are an "easier" drive where torsional pulses are present. Flat twin 2 strokes would have to  fire together. The only one I know of was a Victa and they are awful. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Belts are an "easier" drive where torsional pulses are present. Flat twin 2 strokes would have to  fire together. The only one I know of was a Victa and they are awful. Nev

Kfm 107

Hirth f23 

Wae 342

I have all of these with and without belt redrive and all are lovely to run at power. The WAE are direct drive only and are rough and rock at idle but all with redrive are fine even at idle. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Horizontally opposed is unusual in a 2 stroke I know of NONE ever in a motorcycle. They either fire together Share a crankcase or are offset a lot more. If they are offset the couple creates vibration . It's just not good design.  Most 2 strokes use the crankcase as a pump for the mixture so you have problem if it's shared. The Jabiru as a twin had hopeless vibration  due to the cylinders being displaced so much from each other. because it had a bearing between each throw. Nev

  • Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

MII thought a twin twostroke firing at the same time, would have better crankcase compression, as both pistons will move into the crankcase together.

A " Commer " two strok diesel truck ", it sounded different. Three cylinders with six pistons.

Great fuel economy.

spacesailor

Edited by spacesailor
Grammer
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tillmanr said:

Are you speaking of the Commer knocker?

Didn't the commer knocker design come from a ww2 junkers aircraft engine.  

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The American  company, " Archates Power ", was developing that engine.( diesel two-stroke ).

" more power for less pollution"  l remember it said 

10 litre three cylinder produces ' 1600 ft pounds of torque  ar 950 rpm" or 400 hp @ 1700 rpm.

CALSTART Companies webinar.

Lost most of it to my age thing.

spacesailor

 

Edited by spacesailor
Spelling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Commer knocker is naturally balanced with 2 piston moving opposite directions and sharing 1 combustion chamber but there is always a downside and with the commer it the complex system of converting linear motion to rotary motion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Commer TS3 was Australia's linehaul truck engine for a brief period and worked well, but:

It had the perpetual oil change requirement of the diesel two strokes of the day - leaked like a seive.

You could hear them grinding along the highway at 80 km/hr from five miles away.

The emissions were on a par with a steam train.

CommerTS3.JPG

CommerTS3.wav

  • Like 2
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Apart from the electric one, interesting yes, but the traditionally powered Aerolite 103 seems a very nice ultralite to me. I really like the yoke control wheel and the proportions of the aircraft look good. Do I understand correctly that you could import and build a kit here in Aus, it seems the electric motor one could be problematic?
As far as Methusala’s comments are concerned, I do think politics should be avoided on the forum…but. As he seems to have assumed we all think like he does, let me just say to describe the Gillard Rudd bloodbath and total fiasco government as a “functioning government” is like claiming my Skyfox has a cruise speed of 180 Kts. As to the planet is about to collapse, I guess proved beyond doubt, by the “fact” the Northern Polar ice cap “totally disappeared by 2008”, as promised by Al “Bore” and “Flatulence” who claimed about two years ago, our dams and rivers will never be full again nor will soil moisture content ever recover. Two name but just two examples of “fact” (many more out there), very good reasons no doubt to destroy manufacturing industry in Australia along with the economy and solve all our insomnia problems as we will all be asleep by 1900, when it gets dark. Be that as it may, I would love to buy a 103, I think it would be a blast to fly on a lovely cool summer afternoon!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Caution 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A personal friend of mine in the U.S. has ordered one with a Hirth 23 engine, there is a 12 month wait.  I checked with RAAus and they on the approved kit list here and can be done under 19 rego,  not sure on the electric model.

I got all the pricing on one and naturally more expensive than the 2 stroke powered ones. Can choose Hirth, Polini or MZ engines, naturally no more Rotax.

They generally fly in the U.S. under the FAR Part 103 regime, no rego, no licence needed.  Sure wish we had that category in Australia.   A low budget entry point for Foundation Aviation.  Australia is too dumb for something like that 🙂 

  • Agree 1
  • Caution 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jackc said:

A personal friend of mine in the U.S. has ordered one with a Hirth 23 engine, there is a 12 month wait.  I checked with RAAus and they on the approved kit list here and can be done under 19 rego,  not sure on the electric model.

I got all the pricing on one and naturally more expensive than the 2 stroke powered ones. Can choose Hirth, Polini or MZ engines, naturally no more Rotax.

They generally fly in the U.S. under the FAR Part 103 regime, no rego, no licence needed.  Sure wish we had that category in Australia.   A low budget entry point for Foundation Aviation.  Australia is too dumb for something like that 🙂 

Whilst I really have a beef with the costs and direction of raaus I lived through the wild days of no-licence ultralights in OZ and the outcomes that resulted.  Training is a need. Full stop. 
 

the areas that I am concerned with are the control of ops.  The choices are the likes of CASA or an industry group.  
 

we have muddled along with AUF and RAAus for over 30 years as the training and control body and whilst they have been problematic - esp in terms of advocating for and change and enforcing control on behalf of CASA - it’s a tension but the training and certificate requirements in OZ have been largely effective

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ‘wild days” ended over years ago.  U.S. FAR Part 103 has been going nearly 40 years.  IF the were too many fatalities the FAA would have shut it down years ago.  There are great training regimes in place over most of the U.S. for aspiring Part 103 flyers.  Also consider that over the years the quality of kits and motors has improved vastly. The sector is expanding so fast in the U.S. there is a many month backlog for kit orders. And, with the looming aluminium shortage  it may become longer 😞 

If RAAus are not interested, maybe its time for another peak body to be formed to administer the sector? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IF we havn,t got a 103 type  !,

HOW IS, that ' nano ' kite flying ?, No rego & HE said, " no licence ", 

No registration means Raa can,t ' find ' him,

YES, first hand account.

spacesailor

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

IF we havn,t got a 103 type  !,

HOW IS, that ' nano ' kite flying ?, No rego & HE said, " no licence ", 

No registration means Raa can,t ' find ' him,

YES, first hand account.

spacesailor

Powered hangliders are under 70kg and not registered a aircraft etc but use is subject to SAFA - the new hgfa - see CAO95.8

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...