Had to happen I guess; Rufforth's inspector, Steve Cooper is between
a rock and a hard place with regard to my 'leave intact and inspect
carefully' policy on Rotax maintenance. The accident-that-shall-not-
be-named has put the mockers on the less restrictive regime we enjoy,
and let the safety nazis loose.
For years I've learnt the hard way that the safest thing to do with
any engine is pay strict attention to lubrication and internal
cleanliness, disturbing it as little as possible from the factory.
Apart of course, from tappets on four strokes, small ends on two
strokes, ignition timing, plugs and filtration.
Taking them to bits is interesting but usually prejudicial to
reliability; for a good example see that feller who parked an Alpha
in the top of a huge tree in Florida after a decoke, through a
wandering gudgeaon-pin circlip. Even Air Création agree, they run
them untouched to 750 hours then throw the lot away; the best
serviced high-hour engine can have a mag-coil fatigue failure for
instance.
So now I've little time to tinker but won't get a permit without a
neat set of log-book maintenance signatures, so to fly this summer
will have to stick to the business and give Steve a large cheque and
leave him to sort it all out.
Oh the shame......
Kev
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Kev Armstrong" <kevin@...> wrote:
>
> Had to happen I guess; Rufforth's inspector, Steve Cooper is
between
> a rock and a hard place with regard to my 'leave intact and inspect
> carefully' policy on Rotax maintenance. The accident-that-shall-not-
> be-named has put the mockers on the less restrictive regime we
enjoy,
> and let the safety nazis loose.
>
> For years I've learnt the hard way that the safest thing to do with
> any engine is pay strict attention to lubrication and internal
> cleanliness, disturbing it as little as possible from the factory.
> Apart of course, from tappets on four strokes, small ends on two
> strokes, ignition timing, plugs and filtration.
>
> Taking them to bits is interesting but usually prejudicial to
> reliability; for a good example see that feller who parked an Alpha
> in the top of a huge tree in Florida after a decoke, through a
> wandering gudgeaon-pin circlip. Even Air Création agree, they run
> them untouched to 750 hours then throw the lot away; the best
> serviced high-hour engine can have a mag-coil fatigue failure for
> instance.
>
> So now I've little time to tinker but won't get a permit without a
> neat set of log-book maintenance signatures, so to fly this summer
> will have to stick to the business and give Steve a large cheque
and
> leave him to sort it all out.
>
> Oh the shame......
>
> Kev
>
I agree wholeheartedly with the "check carefully, but don't take it
apart" philosophy. Rotax set the maintenance requirements (for 2
strokes) assuming the worst operating conditions, oil etc. Modern
synthetics burn much more cleanly, so as long as the carbon build up
isn't too great and the rings are still free (easily checked through
the ports) I can't see why there is a need to strip the thing every
50 hours.
On a point of regulation, the engines aren't certified and, AFAIK,
not supplied with a mandatory service schedule, just a recommended
one.
It's up to an individual inspector as to what he or she will sign
off, but is engine servicing actually a permit renewal requirement?
After all, you can do a decoke yourself within the rules, the system
just requires you to make the appropriate logbook entries after
you've done it. There is therefore no guarantee that any work done
by the owner is competent, all the inspector can do is go by what's
in the logbook.
I suggest that one way out of this might be to do your normal
inspection for carbon, sticking rings, crank play, etc and put that
in the logbook instead of the decoke. I cannot see why it shouldn't
be an equally valid approach; it's essentially the same as big
aircraft engine "on condition" maintenance and inspection, which is
commonplace now. I've run turboprop engines on for up to three extra
200 hour life extensions (600 hours beyond TBO) on the basis of
visual inspection only, it's quite normal.
Jeremy
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "jeremy_harris_uk"
<jeremy.s.harris@...> wrote:
>
> --- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Kev Armstrong" <kevin@> wrote:
> >
> > Had to happen I guess; Rufforth's inspector, Steve Cooper is
> between
> > a rock and a hard place with regard to my 'leave intact and
inspect
> > carefully' policy on Rotax maintenance. The accident-that-shall-
not-
>
> > be-named has put the mockers on the less restrictive regime we
> enjoy,
> > and let the safety nazis loose.
> >
> > For years I've learnt the hard way that the safest thing to do
with
> > any engine is pay strict attention to lubrication and internal
> > cleanliness, disturbing it as little as possible from the
factory.
> > Apart of course, from tappets on four strokes, small ends on two
> > strokes, ignition timing, plugs and filtration.
> >
> > Taking them to bits is interesting but usually prejudicial to
> > reliability; for a good example see that feller who parked an
Alpha
> > in the top of a huge tree in Florida after a decoke, through a
> > wandering gudgeaon-pin circlip. Even Air Création agree, they
run
> > them untouched to 750 hours then throw the lot away; the best
> > serviced high-hour engine can have a mag-coil fatigue failure
for
> > instance.
> >
> > So now I've little time to tinker but won't get a permit without
a
> > neat set of log-book maintenance signatures, so to fly this
summer
> > will have to stick to the business and give Steve a large cheque
> and
> > leave him to sort it all out.
> >
> > Oh the shame......
> >
> > Kev
> >
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with the "check carefully, but don't take
it
> apart" philosophy. Rotax set the maintenance requirements (for 2
> strokes) assuming the worst operating conditions, oil etc. Modern
> synthetics burn much more cleanly, so as long as the carbon build
up
> isn't too great and the rings are still free (easily checked
through
> the ports) I can't see why there is a need to strip the thing
every
> 50 hours.
>
> On a point of regulation, the engines aren't certified and, AFAIK,
> not supplied with a mandatory service schedule, just a recommended
> one.
>
> It's up to an individual inspector as to what he or she will sign
> off, but is engine servicing actually a permit renewal requirement?
>
> After all, you can do a decoke yourself within the rules, the
system
> just requires you to make the appropriate logbook entries after
> you've done it. There is therefore no guarantee that any work
done
> by the owner is competent, all the inspector can do is go by
what's
> in the logbook.
>
> I suggest that one way out of this might be to do your normal
> inspection for carbon, sticking rings, crank play, etc and put
that
> in the logbook instead of the decoke. I cannot see why it
shouldn't
> be an equally valid approach; it's essentially the same as big
> aircraft engine "on condition" maintenance and inspection, which
is
> commonplace now. I've run turboprop engines on for up to three
extra
> 200 hour life extensions (600 hours beyond TBO) on the basis of
> visual inspection only, it's quite normal.
>
> Jeremy
>
good morning jeremy, as usual a voice of common sense, i wish
everybody had it. kg
But the rules are common sense too. They only require a visual
inspection every 50 hours. How can you decoke something that is not
coked?
Donald
keith greatrix wrote:
> good morning jeremy, as usual a voice of common sense, i wish
> everybody had it. kg
>
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Walker" <patowalker@...>
wrote:
>
> But the rules are common sense too. They only require a visual
> inspection every 50 hours. How can you decoke something that is not
> coked?
>
> Donald
... and then you put a line in your engine logbook to say you've
checked it and their wasn't enough coke to justify further work.
Spot on.
Joan
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Joan" <joans_egroups@...> wrote:
>
> --- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Walker" <patowalker@>
> wrote:
> >
> > But the rules are common sense too. They only require a visual
> > inspection every 50 hours. How can you decoke something that is not
> > coked?
> >
> > Donald
>
> ... and then you put a line in your engine logbook to say you've
> checked it and their wasn't enough coke to justify further work.
>
> Spot on.
>
> Joan
>
That's certainly what I've always done, and my record of engine
failures at our club is generally better than anybody who religiously
does a 50hr decoke.
G²
er, how do you check the piston rings without taking the head off?
The rings always start to stick (on my '503) at the ends where the
anti-rotate pins are. This is on the "inlet" side of the piston where
the rings do not pass over the port opening. The piston rings do, of
course, pass over the exhaust port but this side of the ring doesn't
get stuck until the ring is a permanent fixture on the piston.
Andrew
> >
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with the "check carefully, but don't take it
> apart" philosophy. Rotax set the maintenance requirements (for 2
> strokes) assuming the worst operating conditions, oil etc. Modern
> synthetics burn much more cleanly, so as long as the carbon build up
> isn't too great and the rings are still free (easily checked through
> the ports) I can't see why there is a need to strip the thing every
> 50 hours.
>
> On a point of regulation, the engines aren't certified and, AFAIK,
> not supplied with a mandatory service schedule, just a recommended
> one.
>
> It's up to an individual inspector as to what he or she will sign
> off, but is engine servicing actually a permit renewal requirement?
>
> After all, you can do a decoke yourself within the rules, the system
> just requires you to make the appropriate logbook entries after
> you've done it. There is therefore no guarantee that any work done
> by the owner is competent, all the inspector can do is go by what's
> in the logbook.
>
> I suggest that one way out of this might be to do your normal
> inspection for carbon, sticking rings, crank play, etc and put that
> in the logbook instead of the decoke. I cannot see why it shouldn't
> be an equally valid approach; it's essentially the same as big
> aircraft engine "on condition" maintenance and inspection, which is
> commonplace now. I've run turboprop engines on for up to three extra
> 200 hour life extensions (600 hours beyond TBO) on the basis of
> visual inspection only, it's quite normal.
>
> Jeremy
>
You put a clean cut piece of wood through the exhaust port and press it
against the piston rings. If they "give", they are not stuck.
If the engine is run on the oil recommended by Rotax and at the right
EGT, you should get 150 hours between decokes, as long as the rings are
not too worn.
Donald
"rans6andrew" wrote:
>
> er, how do you check the piston rings without taking the head off?
>
> The rings always start to stick (on my '503) at the ends where the
> anti-rotate pins are. This is on the "inlet" side of the piston where
> the rings do not pass over the port opening. The piston rings do, of
> course, pass over the exhaust port but this side of the ring doesn't
> get stuck until the ring is a permanent fixture on the piston.
>
> Andrew
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Walker" <patowalker@...>
wrote:
>
> You put a clean cut piece of wood through the exhaust port and press it
> against the piston rings. If they "give", they are not stuck.
>
> If the engine is run on the oil recommended by Rotax and at the right
> EGT, you should get 150 hours between decokes, as long as the rings are
> not too worn.
>
> Donald
Plus I am fairly sure that Mike Sands did some experiments using some
"instant decoke" spray, and showed that after this sort of period of
time it was perfectly possible to dissolve the gunge and free up
partially stuck rings without stripping the engine.
I can't find the link to it, but have a feeling that the stuff was
either sold by Suzuki or perhaps Yamaha. I can't see any reason for
it not to work just as well on a fairly crude Rotax 2 stroke.
Jeremy
<jeremy.s.harris@...> wrote:
> Plus I am fairly sure that Mike Sands did some experiments using
some
> "instant decoke" spray, and showed that after this sort of period of
> time it was perfectly possible to dissolve the gunge and free up
> partially stuck rings without stripping the engine.
>
> I can't find the link to it, but have a feeling that the stuff was
> either sold by Suzuki or perhaps Yamaha. I can't see any reason for
> it not to work just as well on a fairly crude Rotax 2 stroke.
*Got some in the workshop, Yahama Combustion Chamber Cleaner. Trouble
is, it's not the practical aspects that my inspector is edgy about,
but the prospect of losing his ticket (and livelihood) if he is seen
to sign off an aircraft with less than the 'approved' number of
services.
Guy had it right, and the wood up the exhaust port trick is typically
pragmatic too.
I do it slightly differently, by spinning the engine at a steady
speed after every flight mags off and checking for unusual
wheezes, 'clinking' sounds or clicks, plus same good compression on
both.
Kev
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Kev Armstrong" <kevin@...> wrote:
>
< stuff clipped >
> *Got some in the workshop, Yahama Combustion Chamber Cleaner. Trouble
> is, it's not the practical aspects that my inspector is edgy about,
> but the prospect of losing his ticket (and livelihood) if he is seen
> to sign off an aircraft with less than the 'approved' number of
> services.
>
< more stuff clipped >
> Kev
Bob wonders,
How come the engine is included in the permit inspection anyway? The
powerplant isn't part of Section S, and our engines aren't certified,
so how can it be part of the permit? My engine is an old Fuji Robin,
and Fuji specifically forbid these engines to be used in aircraft, so
there isn't a current schedule of servicing for them in an aircraft
fitment, and if you follow that logic to its conclusion, we shouldn't
be using them at all. However, they are fitted to a significant number
of older aircraft, and mine normally works quite well. Others who use
them tell me they work well too. That being the case, how can an
inspector be expected to impose any limit on how often or how much of
an engine service there should be? Furthermore, if you can't impose a
service schedule on the Fuji engine in a Pegasus Classic trike, how can
an inspector then impose a service schedule on a Rotax engine in an
identical Pegasus Classic trike?
Best regards,
Bob Hood.
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Hood" <bob.hood@...> wrote:
>
>
> Bob wonders,
>
> How come the engine is included in the permit inspection anyway?
The
> powerplant isn't part of Section S, and our engines aren't
certified,
> so how can it be part of the permit? My engine is an old Fuji
Robin,
> and Fuji specifically forbid these engines to be used in aircraft,
so
> there isn't a current schedule of servicing for them in an aircraft
> fitment, and if you follow that logic to its conclusion, we
shouldn't
> be using them at all. However, they are fitted to a significant
number
> of older aircraft, and mine normally works quite well. Others who
use
> them tell me they work well too. That being the case, how can an
> inspector be expected to impose any limit on how often or how much
of
> an engine service there should be? Furthermore, if you can't impose
a
> service schedule on the Fuji engine in a Pegasus Classic trike, how
can
> an inspector then impose a service schedule on a Rotax engine in an
> identical Pegasus Classic trike?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob Hood.
>
The inspector is obliged to ensure that the aircraft logbook(s) are
correct and reflect any servicing that is deemed to be mandated by
being in the maintenance schedule for that aircraft.
If there is no mention of engine servicing in the schedule, then the
inspector can't reasonably expect the logbook(s) to show this.
AFAIK, though, most manufacturers do make some mention of engine
checks, servicing etc, even if it's just a reference to either the
engine manufacturers recommendations or the generic microlight
maintenance schedule agreed by the BMAA (TIL 020 here:
http://www.bmaa.org/fileredirect.asp?
FileID=33&FilePath=upload/techdocs/020_1.pdf).
So long as the logbook(s) are in order, then the inspector can do the
rest of the permit inspection in the normal way.
Jeremy
Just correcting Bob's point - the powerplant IS part of Section S.
The difference between microlights (and most homebuilts) and
aeroplanes with a CofA is that the engine isn't separately
certified - it's instead certified as part of the aeroplane - in the
same way as wheels, wings, harness, etc. are.
The good part of this is that it doesn't restrict designers to
existing approved engines (and engine configurations), the bad part
is that officially anybody putting an aeroplane with a known engine
fitted through Section S still (in theory) has to provide all the
information about the engine in their Section S compliance reports,
rather than just listing the existing approval of the engine.
In practice it's always been a bit of a compromise. BMAA and (I
believe) PFA have always accepted reports saying something like "the
engine is the same as you approved on aeroplane X, except for the
following small changes).
G²
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "jeremy_harris_uk"
<jeremy.s.harris@...> wrote:
>
> --- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Hood" <bob.hood@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Bob wonders,
> >
> > How come the engine is included in the permit inspection anyway?
> The
> > powerplant isn't part of Section S, and our engines aren't
> certified,
> > so how can it be part of the permit? My engine is an old Fuji
> Robin,
> > and Fuji specifically forbid these engines to be used in
aircraft,
> so
> > there isn't a current schedule of servicing for them in an
aircraft
> > fitment, and if you follow that logic to its conclusion, we
> shouldn't
> > be using them at all. However, they are fitted to a significant
> number
> > of older aircraft, and mine normally works quite well. Others
who
> use
> > them tell me they work well too. That being the case, how can an
> > inspector be expected to impose any limit on how often or how
much
> of
> > an engine service there should be? Furthermore, if you can't
impose
> a
> > service schedule on the Fuji engine in a Pegasus Classic trike,
how
> can
> > an inspector then impose a service schedule on a Rotax engine in
an
> > identical Pegasus Classic trike?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Bob Hood.
> >
>
>
> The inspector is obliged to ensure that the aircraft logbook(s)
are
> correct and reflect any servicing that is deemed to be mandated by
> being in the maintenance schedule for that aircraft.
>
> If there is no mention of engine servicing in the schedule, then
the
> inspector can't reasonably expect the logbook(s) to show this.
> AFAIK, though, most manufacturers do make some mention of engine
> checks, servicing etc, even if it's just a reference to either the
> engine manufacturers recommendations or the generic microlight
> maintenance schedule agreed by the BMAA (TIL 020 here:
> http://www.bmaa.org/fileredirect.asp?
> FileID=33&FilePath=upload/techdocs/020_1.pdf).
>
> So long as the logbook(s) are in order, then the inspector can do
the
> rest of the permit inspection in the normal way.
>
> Jeremy
>
Hello Bob,
I can remember from twelve years back when I was an inspector, that the
inspection form retained by the inspector had under powerplant the tick-box
"compression test", but it didn't say if that should be assessed by turning the
prop through TDC or screwing in a meter... I had a screw in meter.
Once I chap from a club in the next county brought a Gemini Flash to me that
he was permitting to sell and the test showed low compression with great
imbalance between the cylinders. I asked him to run it up for me to listen to
and he had to pull himself silly to start it then it struggled into a very
flacid idle that was reluctant to rev very easily though did get up to a
moderately convincing full power.
It had seemed well worth in that case giving attention to the engine in the
inspection and alerting the owner to the deficiency... which quite genuinely had
simply grown old with him, because whether the engine is certified or not it is
certainly a vital aspect in the following twelve months running.
I think your question "why is the engine part of the permit" comes down to the
inspector; he is with the aircraft owner who wants to know if his trike is going
to give a good twelve months service, so the inspector will reveal if he can any
defects.
The engine is in my view the heart of the machine and I cannot see how an
inspector could feel he was assessing a trike if he had to ignore the engine.
Mark Phillips..................
jeremy_harris_uk <jeremy.s.harris@...> wrote:
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Hood" wrote:
>
>
> Bob wonders,
>
> How come the engine is included in the permit inspection anyway?
The
> powerplant isn't part of Section S, and our engines aren't
certified,
> so how can it be part of the permit? My engine is an old Fuji
Robin,
> and Fuji specifically forbid these engines to be used in aircraft,
so
> there isn't a current schedule of servicing for them in an aircraft
> fitment, and if you follow that logic to its conclusion, we
shouldn't
> be using them at all. However, they are fitted to a significant
number
> of older aircraft, and mine normally works quite well. Others who
use
> them tell me they work well too. That being the case, how can an
> inspector be expected to impose any limit on how often or how much
of
> an engine service there should be? Furthermore, if you can't impose
a
> service schedule on the Fuji engine in a Pegasus Classic trike, how
can
> an inspector then impose a service schedule on a Rotax engine in an
> identical Pegasus Classic trike?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob Hood.
>
The inspector is obliged to ensure that the aircraft logbook(s) are
correct and reflect any servicing that is deemed to be mandated by
being in the maintenance schedule for that aircraft.
If there is no mention of engine servicing in the schedule, then the
inspector can't reasonably expect the logbook(s) to show this.
AFAIK, though, most manufacturers do make some mention of engine
checks, servicing etc, even if it's just a reference to either the
engine manufacturers recommendations or the generic microlight
maintenance schedule agreed by the BMAA (TIL 020 here:
http://www.bmaa.org/fileredirect.asp?
FileID=33&FilePath=upload/techdocs/020_1.pdf).
So long as the logbook(s) are in order, then the inspector can do the
rest of the permit inspection in the normal way.
Jeremy
Microlights is a discussion forum. Comments made are the views of the individual
member and do not reflect the views of the group as a whole or the BMAA. No
responsibility will be accepted by the BMAA for comments made on this group.
Thank you for not advertising.
Community email addresses:
Unsubscribe: microlights-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner : microlights-owner@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, Mark Phillips
<mdphillips1956@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Bob,
< stuff clipped >
> I think your question "why is the engine part of the permit"
comes down to the inspector; he is with the aircraft owner who wants
to know if his trike is going to give a good twelve months service,
so the inspector will reveal if he can any defects.
> The engine is in my view the heart of the machine and I cannot
see how an inspector could feel he was assessing a trike if he had to
ignore the engine.
> Mark Phillips..................
Bob replies,
Thanks Mark, and also Jeremy and Guy, for chipping in to explain the
reasons for including the engine performance in the permit. My
original post was in reply to the fact that someone had written about
inspectors being reluctant to sign off an aircraft if the service
schedule didn't match the engine manufacturer's recommendations. I
pointed out that I have a Fuji Robin powered XL that doesn't have any
hard and fast rules about engine servicing other than to check
compression now and again, and watch for performance degradation that
could mean the ports need cleaning. In comparison, those people with
Rotax powered XL's could find themselves in a situation where the
inspector won't pass the aircraft because there is nothing in the
logbook showing a 50 hour decoke/service. In other words it was the
inconsistency in criteria when inspecting two otherwise identical
aircraft that I found odd.
While I agree that if there are recommendations they should at least
be considered, and if a decoke is not thought necessary then that
should be entered in the logbook, nevertheless, I personallly don't
think a failure to enter "no decoke necessary" should cause the
permit inspection to fail.
A full power test for sufficient revs, and a compression test to
check bore and ring wear should show up any deficiencies in
performance with the aircraft on the ground, and I must admit I
thought the performance check would be covered by the check flight
anyway.
Mine was done recently, and the check pilot told me it took 1 minute
and 12 seconds to reach 1000ft. He had recently checked another XL
and that had reached 1000ft in less than a minute. It gave me food
for thought, as I had also noticed a bit of a drop off in climb
performance. After giving the engine a once over (carbs, plugs, etc)
I decided to take a close look at the prop. Here I noticed that some
tape I had bound round the prop tips had started to move and ruck up
a bit. I took it off and noticed that the engine not only sounded
quieter, but revved higher as well.
As for the bloke with the Flash 2 Alpha Mark mentioned, well I think
that eventually the engine will refuse to get the plane into the air,
and so be self limiting. Furthermore, as I understand it, all the
engine-out training we have while learning is to prepare us for the
inevitable gliding practice we can expect with our 2 stroke
powerplants.
As a follow on question to all this, what will be the situation post
SSDR? Will it be the same as for foot-launched, i.e. no compliance or
performance checks? How do the Doodlebug and Mosquito boys manage at
the moment with no service checks or performance checks on their
powerplants? Do they often have engine outs, and would they notice if
they did? :-))
Best regards,
Bob Hood.
Bob Hood wrote:
As for the bloke with the Flash 2 Alpha Mark mentioned, well I think
> that eventually the engine will refuse to get the plane into the
air, and so be self limiting.
*Having marginal power is bloody dangerous; it's totally different
from having a mildly sick motor on a car or bike. You cannot limp
home or even 'limp into the air', the reason I'm so positive on this
is recent lessons re-learnt.
About 11 years ago I was lucky not to be injured after flying a
125cc Hiro engined Skytrike into the upper branches of a 60' tree;
the motor was giving its best but some idiot called Armstrong had
just fitted the bigger plastic fuel-tank available on it and brimmed
it with best unleaded. An experienced hanglider pilot at Rufforth
also had one and managed fine with the 'big' tank, (I'd copied him)
but he had big tarmac runways to play with and was a better pilot,
so could manage a climb rate of inches per minute.
The Chaser is the very opposite; with a 447 twin carb it has to be
climbed at part-throttle, but the relative grunt is very handy if
you want to get up away out of turbulence and are starting to tire.
Pratting with lightweight glider RC models is the same, since buying
a pokier motor my spare - parts bill is halved, as every climbout is
successful and easy. I'm also surprised to learn that coping with
turbulence soaks up lots of power, presumably with bigger control
movements....
I reckon a chunky flex with high performance is actually safer than
some fragile entity with an overgrown chainsaw engine, and was very
pleased to see the CAA appears receptive to 115kg. Chris Draper
recalls creating viable trikes at 65kilos, so 40 more looks plenty
to play with :-))
Kev
PS that Elf by xcaviation.com is bloody georgeous though isn't it?
Hello Kev,
I can see some of your thinking re power/safety and yes to get away from
terbulence by climbing is nice if you are sure it is a surface/frictional type
thing, though I don't mind that sort of roughness and am far more perturbed by
the upper air unseen hand of God stuff and am far more likely to drop the power
when I hit crap.
I do not really see power/speed as a solution for rough air so cannot really
see why whacking along in a Chaser is so much better in rough air than floating
along in a light trike, but I guess it's only a matter of what you like.
Having 'marginal power' is not in itself I believe dangerous... are hang
gliders that take power from rising air inherently dangerous? Sudden lack of
power when it is usually there is quite another thing.
I think high powered trikes can be like high powered cars which petrol-heads
tell you can 'get you out of trouble'... the truth is that more often they get
you into trouble!
Mark P......................
Kev Armstrong <kevin@...> wrote:
Bob Hood wrote:
As for the bloke with the Flash 2 Alpha Mark mentioned, well I think
> that eventually the engine will refuse to get the plane into the
air, and so be self limiting.
*Having marginal power is bloody dangerous; it's totally different
from having a mildly sick motor on a car or bike. You cannot limp
home or even 'limp into the air', the reason I'm so positive on this
is recent lessons re-learnt.
Clipped.........
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Cars NEW - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars
online search now
---------------------------------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hello Bob,
As a rather way-out kinds guy I confess that I would like to see perhaps an
increased responsibility put on the inspector, but with fewer hard and fast
rules of paperwork and service intervals etc.
Making rules that corner and obligate inspectors might sound to be in the
interest of safety, but if the guy ends up obsessed with keeping out of jail you
will loose the man to man trade of ideas about the trike being inspected because
the inspector will have his nose stuffed in his rule book all the time.
For some aircraft owners with a strip out in the sticks, the annual inspection
is the only time a second expert eye gets cast across their wobbly bearings or
cracking bracketry; I would like that time to be devoted to the safety of the
plane not to a paper-chase.
I would like the inspection to be primarily about the aeroplane not its
paperwork... that side could stay between him, his conscience, and the law...
why does an inspector need to be a burocrat or a back-room boy?
Why not make the visit of the inspector guarantee a signature on the permit
application form, then the BMAA would start getting money in from people who at
the moment fly unpermitted because they are scared they wouldn't clear all the
fences.
The aircraft owner is going to carry on flying whether he has his permit or
not, so get him back into the system, get some cash off him for a ticket, and
let the inspector begin bit by bit to raise the condition of the guy's trike
each year.
Mark Phillips..............
Bob Hood <bob.hood@...> wrote:
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, Mark Phillips
wrote:
>
> Hello Bob,
< stuff clipped >
> I think your question "why is the engine part of the permit"
comes down to the inspector; he is with the aircraft owner who wants
to know if his trike is going to give a good twelve months service,
so the inspector will reveal if he can any defects.
> The engine is in my view the heart of the machine and I cannot
see how an inspector could feel he was assessing a trike if he had to
ignore the engine.
> Mark Phillips..................
Bob replies,
Thanks Mark, and also Jeremy and Guy, for chipping in to explain the
reasons for including the engine performance in the permit. My
original post was in reply to the fact that someone had written about
inspectors being reluctant to sign off an aircraft if the service
schedule didn't match the engine manufacturer's recommendations. I
pointed out that I have a Fuji Robin powered XL that doesn't have any
hard and fast rules about engine servicing other than to check
compression now and again, and watch for performance degradation that
could mean the ports need cleaning. In comparison, those people with
Rotax powered XL's could find themselves in a situation where the
inspector won't pass the aircraft because there is nothing in the
logbook showing a 50 hour decoke/service. In other words it was the
inconsistency in criteria when inspecting two otherwise identical
aircraft that I found odd.
While I agree that if there are recommendations they should at least
be considered, and if a decoke is not thought necessary then that
should be entered in the logbook, nevertheless, I personallly don't
think a failure to enter "no decoke necessary" should cause the
permit inspection to fail.
A full power test for sufficient revs, and a compression test to
check bore and ring wear should show up any deficiencies in
performance with the aircraft on the ground, and I must admit I
thought the performance check would be covered by the check flight
anyway.
Mine was done recently, and the check pilot told me it took 1 minute
and 12 seconds to reach 1000ft. He had recently checked another XL
and that had reached 1000ft in less than a minute. It gave me food
for thought, as I had also noticed a bit of a drop off in climb
performance. After giving the engine a once over (carbs, plugs, etc)
I decided to take a close look at the prop. Here I noticed that some
tape I had bound round the prop tips had started to move and ruck up
a bit. I took it off and noticed that the engine not only sounded
quieter, but revved higher as well.
As for the bloke with the Flash 2 Alpha Mark mentioned, well I think
that eventually the engine will refuse to get the plane into the air,
and so be self limiting. Furthermore, as I understand it, all the
engine-out training we have while learning is to prepare us for the
inevitable gliding practice we can expect with our 2 stroke
powerplants.
As a follow on question to all this, what will be the situation post
SSDR? Will it be the same as for foot-launched, i.e. no compliance or
performance checks? How do the Doodlebug and Mosquito boys manage at
the moment with no service checks or performance checks on their
powerplants? Do they often have engine outs, and would they notice if
they did? :-))
Best regards,
Bob Hood.
---------------------------------
24 FIFA World Cup tickets to be won with Yahoo! Mail. Learn more
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Mine was done recently, and the check pilot told me
> it took 1 minute
> and 12 seconds to reach 1000ft. He had recently
> checked another XL
> and that had reached 1000ft in less than a minute.
>
Thats not bad for an XL . From memory the
manufacturers figures for climb performance are about
500 f/min at MAUW.( XL 447)
I suppose 1000/min is just possible with a light pilot
and minimum fuel and if there is a bit of wind
gradient to help things
Jim Hall
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
A flexwing flew over here (Naseby) on Sat heading S.West, I guess en-route
to Popham. It was of a design I didn't recognise. The wing was a very
unusual shape appearing keeless (from the floor) By the sound it was a two
cylinder four stroke. Just wondering if anyone knows type?
Andy
Sounds like Paul Jacques' Hornet R-ZA with a BMW R-100 engine, he
lives somewhere near Doncaster and landed at Popham around sixish on
Saturday.
G²
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Marks" <mrloudly@...>
wrote:
>
> A flexwing flew over here (Naseby) on Sat heading S.West, I guess en-
route
> to Popham. It was of a design I didn't recognise. The wing was a very
> unusual shape appearing keeless (from the floor) By the sound it was
a two
> cylinder four stroke. Just wondering if anyone knows type?
>
> Andy
>
Paul's Hornet wing is a Raven/Southdown wing, which is not uncommon.
The noise is a different matter, that is unique. BMW engine stuffed
with wild cams.
My money would be on a Tanarg/iXess. That's a rare wing shape, for
the UK.
Pete
ps I am sure I saw Paul on the ground at Popham at lunchtime, so
suspect it wasn't him at all.
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Guy Gratton" <guy@...> wrote:
>
> Sounds like Paul Jacques' Hornet R-ZA with a BMW R-100 engine, he
> lives somewhere near Doncaster and landed at Popham around sixish on
> Saturday.
>
> G²
>
> --- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Marks" <mrloudly@>
> wrote:
> >
> > A flexwing flew over here (Naseby) on Sat heading S.West, I guess en-
> route
> > to Popham. It was of a design I didn't recognise. The wing was a very
> > unusual shape appearing keeless (from the floor) By the sound it was
> a two
> > cylinder four stroke. Just wondering if anyone knows type?
> >
> > Andy
> >
>
It flew over here at about 09:00 10:00 Had a lovely BMW burble. It was the
wing shape that caught my eye more than the noise. It appeared to
have a black section at the underside rear and reminded me of a Bat!
Definitely not a, becoming more common, Tanarg/iXess
Andy M
-----Original Message-----
From: microlights@yahoogroups.com [mailto:microlights@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of Pete Croney
Sent: 03 May 2006 09:32
To: microlights@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [microlights] Re: Anybody know who/what it was?
Paul's Hornet wing is a Raven/Southdown wing, which is not uncommon.
The noise is a different matter, that is unique. BMW engine stuffed
with wild cams.
My money would be on a Tanarg/iXess. That's a rare wing shape, for
the UK.
Pete
ps I am sure I saw Paul on the ground at Popham at lunchtime, so
suspect it wasn't him at all.
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Guy Gratton" <guy@...> wrote:
>
> Sounds like Paul Jacques' Hornet R-ZA with a BMW R-100 engine, he
> lives somewhere near Doncaster and landed at Popham around sixish on
> Saturday.
>
> G²
>
> --- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Marks" <mrloudly@>
> wrote:
> >
> > A flexwing flew over here (Naseby) on Sat heading S.West, I guess en-
> route
> > to Popham. It was of a design I didn't recognise. The wing was a very
> > unusual shape appearing keeless (from the floor) By the sound it was
> a two
> > cylinder four stroke. Just wondering if anyone knows type?
> >
> > Andy
> >
>
Microlights is a discussion forum. Comments made are the views of the
individual member and do not reflect the views of the group as a whole or
the BMAA. No responsibility will be accepted by the BMAA for comments made
on this group. Thank you for not advertising.
Community email addresses:
Unsubscribe: microlights-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner : microlights-owner@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Marks" <mrloudly@...> wrote:
> wing shape that caught my eye more than the noise. It appeared to
> have a black section at the underside rear and reminded me of a Bat!
Sounds like a Raven to me.....
Hi Kev,
Gunge?
Hmm... I have no memories of finding anything I would have called gunge, which
suggests to me something gluey and maybe soft; I remember carbon as hard as
granite and cannot visualise anything in a spray can that would even have looked
at it.
Mark P............
ps. I remember that me and my fellow instructor Reg Whittal found the only way
to get carbon out of the ring groove was with fine emery paper on the back edge
of a hacksaw blade.
Kev Armstrong <kevin@...> wrote:
wrote:
> Plus I am fairly sure that Mike Sands did some experiments using
some
> "instant decoke" spray, and showed that after this sort of period of
> time it was perfectly possible to dissolve the gunge and free up
> partially stuck rings without stripping the engine.
>
>
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Quoting Jim Hall, who knows a lot about engines. The rings on the
Rotax even if they are stuck will release when the engine gets hot and
expansion of the ring grooves occurs.
Another quote from Jim. If it aint broke dont fix it.
Aint that right Jim ??
Roly.
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Walker" <patowalker@...>
wrote:
>
> You put a clean cut piece of wood through the exhaust port and press it
> against the piston rings. If they "give", they are not stuck.
>
> If the engine is run on the oil recommended by Rotax and at the right
> EGT, you should get 150 hours between decokes, as long as the rings are
> not too worn.
>
> Donald
>
> "rans6andrew" wrote:
> >
> > er, how do you check the piston rings without taking the head off?
> >
> > The rings always start to stick (on my '503) at the ends where the
> > anti-rotate pins are. This is on the "inlet" side of the piston where
> > the rings do not pass over the port opening. The piston rings do, of
> > course, pass over the exhaust port but this side of the ring doesn't
> > get stuck until the ring is a permanent fixture on the piston.
> >
> > Andrew
>
Hi all,
I decoked as soon as wind and rain arrived beyond 100 hours on my training
machine... or carried on to 120 or whatever if the sun kept shining (I certainly
never suspended training to overhaul the engine).
Rings frequently were stuck out with half a mill or so of carbon under the
ring, which ring expansion would not have influenced or helped much.
If I did it again now I would be more in the leave it alone camp, and
certainly with my first training machine a Robin engine it never occured to me
to do anything to it and at a couple of years old and just over 400 hours I
flogged it to a student in 1984 and it may even be running to this day!
Mark P...................
Roland Lewis-Evans <lowflyer582@...> wrote:
Quoting Jim Hall, who knows a lot about engines. The rings on the
Rotax even if they are stuck will release when the engine gets hot and
expansion of the ring grooves occurs.
Another quote from Jim. If it aint broke dont fix it.
Aint that right Jim ??
Roly.
---------------------------------
24 FIFA World Cup tickets to be won with Yahoo! Mail. Learn more
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Roland Lewis-Evans wrote:
> Quoting Jim Hall, who knows a lot about engines. The rings on the
> Rotax even if they are stuck will release when the engine gets hot
and expansion of the ring grooves occurs.
>
> Another quote from Jim. If it aint broke dont fix it.
*Jim and I both come from the same era, when cars and bikes had
ignition that needed setting, tappets that needed adjusting and design
faults that weren't completely purged from the kit.
If you managed to get the show on the road and running smoothly there
was only a few tweaks needed to keep it that way for years;
pedantically following 'the book' could cause trouble.
Pop was 'friends' with a local widow and regular as clockwork she'd
get it serviced at the local Vauxhall dealer, then bring it round for
sorting. The problem was that the fibre heel on the points varies in
location and this alters the ignition timing; five minutes and a tweak
of the pilot screw and she was off with a pat on the bum from Dad...
I run the motor right at the top of the EGTs, use nothing but Castrol
TTS as originally recommended before Shell VSX came along (TTS showed
better corrosion prevention in that testing) and listen very carefully
to every cough and fart.
Steve Cooper will have nothing to do, but the thin end of the wedge is
in and being pushed by the likes of the AAIB. Ironically if SSDR
arrives mine will be first candidate for compliance, although some
safety-related kit might have to be removed to get under wing loading
rules.
Kev
One of the keys in pulling off a good landing a Quik is to get the
approach speed right. I suspect the same is true of many 3 axis. Not
like the older type of flexwing where the advice seemed to be pull the
bar in as much as possible on approach.
I've found it easy to get a good analysis of the landing using the GPS
(Garmin 296), garmin mapsource software and excel.
This might be very useful if you are converting onto a new aircraft.
See the example below of a landing in nil wind which felt fast, yet
when analysed the approach speed was OK about 65mph and touch down
about 55mph. Here the readings are at 2 secs intervals.
Index Height Height Descent Speed
1785 983 ft 983 65 mph
1786 959 ft 959 -24 65 mph
1787 926 ft 926 -33 66 mph
1788 904 ft 904 -22 68 mph
1789 880 ft 880 -24 67 mph
1790 860 ft 860 -20 67 mph
1791 849 ft 849 -11 65 mph
1792 832 ft 832 -17 64 mph
1793 813 ft 813 -19 65 mph
1794 789 ft 789 -24 66 mph
1795 767 ft 767 -22 66 mph
1796 738 ft 738 -29 67 mph
1797 702 ft 702 -36 68 mph
1798 675 ft 675 -27 68 mph
1799 656 ft 656 -19 63 mph
1800 652 ft 652 -4 55 mph
1801 653 ft 653 1 51 mph
1802 655 ft 655 2 42 mph
1803 656 ft 656 1 35 mph
1804 658 ft 658 2 26 mph
1805 658 ft 658 0 13 mph
1806 658 ft 658 0 7.1 mph
1807 658 ft 658 0 4.4 mph
To do this (on a 296):
1 Set the track value to 2 sec. Or you might prefer 1 sec.
2 Download the track to Mapsource
3 Double click on the log track. Click on the button that says "centre
map on selected item.
4 Scroll down to you get to the bit showing the final approach. Hold
down the shift key and use the down arrow key to highlight the last
500ft or so.
5 Right click and select copy.
6 Open excel and right click and paste.
7 Tidy it up by deleting redundant columns.
8 You can also calculate the descent rate as in the example above,
this clearly identifies the touch down. Use the LEFT function to turn
the xxx ft into a pure number and the next column to work out the
difference.
Might sound complicated but takes no time once you are used to it.
Something to do on a rainy day?
Angus
IAS is not identical to groundspeed, particularly when descending!
GPS is great for this sort of stuff, but it's no replacement for the
ASI for getting flying speeds right.
G²
--- In microlights@yahoogroups.com, "angus_crozier"
<angus.crozier@...> wrote:
>
> One of the keys in pulling off a good landing a Quik is to get the
> approach speed right. I suspect the same is true of many 3 axis. Not
> like the older type of flexwing where the advice seemed to be pull
the
> bar in as much as possible on approach.
>
> I've found it easy to get a good analysis of the landing using the
GPS
> (Garmin 296), garmin mapsource software and excel.
>
> This might be very useful if you are converting onto a new aircraft.
>
> See the example below of a landing in nil wind which felt fast, yet
> when analysed the approach speed was OK about 65mph and touch down
> about 55mph. Here the readings are at 2 secs intervals.
>
> Index Height Height Descent Speed
> 1785 983 ft 983 65 mph
> 1786 959 ft 959 -24 65 mph
> 1787 926 ft 926 -33 66 mph
> 1788 904 ft 904 -22 68 mph
> 1789 880 ft 880 -24 67 mph
> 1790 860 ft 860 -20 67 mph
> 1791 849 ft 849 -11 65 mph
> 1792 832 ft 832 -17 64 mph
> 1793 813 ft 813 -19 65 mph
> 1794 789 ft 789 -24 66 mph
> 1795 767 ft 767 -22 66 mph
> 1796 738 ft 738 -29 67 mph
> 1797 702 ft 702 -36 68 mph
> 1798 675 ft 675 -27 68 mph
> 1799 656 ft 656 -19 63 mph
> 1800 652 ft 652 -4 55 mph
> 1801 653 ft 653 1 51 mph
> 1802 655 ft 655 2 42 mph
> 1803 656 ft 656 1 35 mph
> 1804 658 ft 658 2 26 mph
> 1805 658 ft 658 0 13 mph
> 1806 658 ft 658 0 7.1 mph
> 1807 658 ft 658 0 4.4 mph
>
> To do this (on a 296):
> 1 Set the track value to 2 sec. Or you might prefer 1 sec.
> 2 Download the track to Mapsource
> 3 Double click on the log track. Click on the button that
says "centre
> map on selected item.
> 4 Scroll down to you get to the bit showing the final approach. Hold
> down the shift key and use the down arrow key to highlight the last
> 500ft or so.
> 5 Right click and select copy.
> 6 Open excel and right click and paste.
> 7 Tidy it up by deleting redundant columns.
> 8 You can also calculate the descent rate as in the example above,
> this clearly identifies the touch down. Use the LEFT function to
turn
> the xxx ft into a pure number and the next column to work out the
> difference.
>
> Might sound complicated but takes no time once you are used to it.
>
> Something to do on a rainy day?
>
> Angus
>
Offline 
Send Email
