
RotaxEngines-Archive.digest.vol-ar
August 02, 2010 - August 31, 2010
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Prop balancer |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Dick,
Here is the website to get a wheel / prop balancer. Roughly $115.
I would call him. You need to ask for a model DU42 with the 14" shaft.
714-842-9210
Marc Parnes will most likely answer the phone
http://www.marcparnes.com/Universal_Motorcycle_Wheel_Balancer.htm
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307202#307202
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
The Rotax Flying Safety club is mainly an information site posted by Rotax people.
It is free
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307203#307203
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott DeMeyer <scottsr1100rt(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gearbox/prop |
Dick, I had exactly the same thing happen a couple of months ago on my 912.
I spent weeks going through every nook and cranny to find the vibration so
urce. Finally, I gave up and took it to the Rotax repair station in Arlingt
on. The owner told me the vibration was probably the gearbox and like you,
I was "absolutely sure" it was not. The gearbox was overhauled and re-shimm
ed and the vibration went away! I had about 350 hours on the gearbox.
Scott
--- On Mon, 8/2/10, Catz631(at)aol.com wrote:
From: Catz631(at)aol.com <Catz631(at)aol.com>
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Gearbox/prop
Date: Monday, August 2, 2010, 5:39 AM
=0A =0AThis is just an update on the Paradise P-1 we have been working on.
To review, the aircraft had developed a vibration at cruise rpms that could
be felt thruout the aircraft in flight and on the ground. After much testi
ng (carbs,prop pitch,tracking,etc) it was decided to pull the gearbox and s
end it to Lockwood for overhaul. The aircraft has less than 300 hrs since n
ew, the torque friction test was OK albeit on the lower side compared to an
other Paradise of equal vintage (3years old) I personally couldn't see how
it could be the box but the owner wanted to do it so. Lockwood inspected th
e box, said it-looked fine,reshimmed it-and sent it back with-new bel
ville washers. We reinstalled it and he flew it yesterday. Vibration is gon
e! Well, almost.There is just a hair.-He has ordered and will be installi
ng a new Kiev prop vs the square tip Warp on the aircraft. The Kiev is ligh
ter and has been much smoother on the few Paradise aircraft we have here.
Cruise speed has also increased.=0A-I have also removed the taper tip,ni
ckle edge Warp on my Kitfox and have installed the Kiev. It has-made a dr
amatic difference for my aircraft! The Kiev is very quiet and-as smooth a
s a turbine and more importantly, I am no longer plagued with the kickback
problem-I was having on shutdown. I haven't realized an increase in cruis
e speed ,however as in the Paradise=0A-Please don't get me wrong, that Wa
rp is tough as nails and I do like it-but the Kiev has solved my problems
.=0A-The Lockwood tech was not suprised that the gearbox reshim /correct
propellor combo solved the problem as they have dealt with that many times
before even with low time engines.=0A-I just relate this story because so
metimes things are not what they seem. I was absolutely sure the gearbox wa
s not a problem. Maybe the "heavier" Warp was creating more wear, weaker be
llview springs, who knows?=0A---------------
-------------------------
------------ Dick Maddux=0A--------
-------------------------
------------------- 912UL=0A---
-------------------------
-------------------------
Milton,Fl =0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hugh McKay" <hgmckay(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gearbox friction torque, when and how and it's |
mandatory!
Roger, You might clarify this a bit by mentioning that this is done only on
those gear boxes that have a "slipper clutch". Many 80 hp 912 UL engine do
not have slipper clutches.
Hugh McKay
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 3:38 PM
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Gearbox friction torque, when and how and it's
mandatory!
>
> Hi all, I hope this helps.
>
> I thought I would talk about the gearbox friction torque and when it needs
> to be done and how.
> It is a mandatory check every 100 hrs or the Annual and it only takes a
> few minutes, but it is very important. It has a place on the Rotax
> inspection check list to record your test info and should be logged in
> your logbook for the inspection. (The owners that come to me, don't bother
> to look in the book, it's there.B))
>
> You will need a set of metric allen wrenches and a fish scale. Something
> that reads between 0-50 lbs. Don't use something that read really high as
> it won't be accurate down at the bottom numbers where we want to measure.
> I use a digital fish scale. You will need a piece of string too.
>
> As far as the how to perform this check, well let's take a look.
> While you have the prop spinner off for the inspection is a good time to
> do this. First remove the M8x20 plug screw for the locking pin . It is
> located about 3.5" above the magnetic oil plug. It is gold colored and has
> an upward angle on the head. It is a number 5 or 6 allen screw. Remove it.
> Get the black 1 3/4" crankshaft locking pin out of the Rotax orange tool
> kit. We will need to rotate the prop which can be done with one plug out
> of each cylinder or they can be left in. You will need a flash light to
> find the crankshaft locking pin grove. You are going to shine the light
> down the hole where you just took out the screw where the locking pin will
> be inserted. Slowly rotate the prop counterclockwise while looking in the
> hole. You may only see blackness, keep rotating until you see a shiny
> smooth oily surface. Continue to rotate slowly and you will see what looks
> like a notch or a "V". If you continue it will be shiny smooth again. Stop
> and go back to that "V" or notch. Mo!
> ve the prop back and forth slightly to get it centered. Now take the
> locking pin and screw this in. It should stop with 3/4" still sticking
> out. Hold the prop and slightly wiggle it while you snug up the locking
> pin into the center of the notch. Now your crankshaft should be locked.
> Absolutely do not screw the locking pin in further if it just keeps going.
> That means you missed. Take it out and look for the smooth oily surface
> and notch again. This is very easy so don't worry.
> Now with the crankshaft locked the prop can still move approximately 30
> degrees. Push the prop back all the way counterclockwise until it stops.
> Take a tape measure and measure out from the center of the prop hub
> outward along the blade between 24-30 inches. It doesn't matter what
> number you pick. If you pick 26", 28" or 30" it doesn't matter. Put a
> little pencil or a mark at your measurement.
> You need your string now around the prop at your mark. Now take your scale
> and hook it on the string. In a nice straight and even pressure pull, pull
> the scale and prop. Watch how much the scale reads. I usually do this 2-3
> times to make sure my reading is accurate. So let's say your reading was
> 17 lbs. To find the torque measurement we take that number 17 lbs. and
> multiply it times the number of inches you measured out from the prop
> center. Let's say you used 28" and had a 17 lb pull. 28 X 17 = 476 in/lbs
> That is a good number and is the number to record on the Rotax inspection
> sheet. We look for a bottom number of 300 and the high end of 530 in/lbs.
> In this case the higher the better. If you are at 490 in/lb verses 340
> in/lb you are much better off. No it isn't worth the effort to pull the
> gearbox to go from 450 to 510 and getting the friction right on is not an
> exact science. It is accomplished by pulling the gearbox and using shims
> to add more pre-load to the bellville washers that act as our spring
> tension.
> Your done, take out the locking pin and don't loose it. replace the plug
> screw at
> 133 in/lbs torque.
>
> If you are a member of the R.O.A.N. website you can look at this video
> that demonstrates this very well.
>
> Hi all,
>
> I thought I would talk about the gearbox friction torque and when it needs
> to be done and how.
> It is a mandatory check every 100 hrs or the Annual and it only takes a
> few minutes, but it is very important. It has a place on the Rotax
> inspection check list to record your test info and should be logged in
> your logbook for the inspection. (The owners that come to me, don't bother
> to look in the book, it's there.B))
>
> You will need a set of metric allen wrenches and a fish scale. Something
> that reads between 0-50 lbs. Don't use something that read really high as
> it won't be accurate down at the bottom numbers where we want to measure.
> I use a digital fish scale. You will need a piece of string too.
>
> As far as the how to perform this check, well let's take a look.
> While you have the prop spinner off for the inspection is a good time to
> do this. First remove the M8x20 plug screw for the locking pin . It is
> located about 3.5" above the magnetic oil plug. It is gold colored and has
> an upward angle on the head. I believe it is a number 6 allen screw.
> Remove it. Get the black 1 3/4" crankshaft locking pin out of the Rotax
> orange tool kit. We will need to rotate the prop which can be done with
> one plug out of each cylinder or they can be left in. You will need a
> flash light to find the crankshaft locking pin grove. You are going to
> shine the light down the hole where you just took out the screw where the
> locking pin will be inserted. Slowly rotate the prop counterclockwise
> while looking in the hole. You may only see blackness, keep rotating until
> you see a shiny smooth oily surface. Continue to rotate slowly and you
> will see what looks like a notch or a "V". If you continue it will be
> shiny smooth again. Stop and go back to that "V" or notc!
> h. Move the prop back and forth slightly to get it centered. Now take the
> locking pin and screw this in. It should stop with 3/4" still sticking
> out. Hold the prop and slightly wiggle it while you snug up the locking
> pin into the center of the notch. Now your crankshaft should be locked.
> Absolutely do not screw the locking pin in further if it just keeps going.
> That means you missed. Take it out and look for the smooth oily surface
> and notch again. This is very easy so don't worry.
> Now with the crankshaft locked the prop can still move approximately 30
> degrees. Push the prop back all the way counterclockwise until it stops.
> Take a tape measure and measure out from the center of the prop hub
> outward along the blade between 24-30 inches. It doesn't matter what
> number you pick. If you pick 26", 28" or 30" it doesn't matter. Put a
> little pencil or a mark at your measurement.
> You need your string now around the prop at your mark. Now take your scale
> and hook it on the string. In a nice straight and even pressure pull, pull
> the scale and prop. Watch how much the scale reads. I usually do this 2-3
> times to make sure my reading is accurate. So let's say your reading was
> 17 lbs. To find the torque measurement we take that number 17 lbs. and
> multiply it times the number of inches you measured out from the prop
> center. Let's say you used 28" and had a 17 lb pull. 28 X 17 = 476 in/lbs
> That is a good number and is the number to record on the Rotax inspection
> sheet. We look for a bottom number of 300 and the high end of 530 in/lbs.
> In this case the higher the better. If you are at 490 in/lb verses 340
> in/lb you are much better off. No it isn't worth the effort to pull the
> gearbox to go from 450 to 510 and getting the friction right on is not an
> exact science. It is accomplished by pulling the gearbox and using shims
> to add more pre-load to the bellville washers that act as our spring
> tension.
> Your done, take out the locking pin and don't loose it. replace the plug
> screw at 133 in/lbs torque.
>
> If you are a member of the R.O.A.N. website you can look at this video
> that demonstrates this very well.
>
> http://rotax-owner.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60:friction-torque&catid=8:training&Itemid=174
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307071#307071
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gearbox friction torque, when and how and it's |
mandatory!
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Hugh,
Your right, I just assumed people would know, I should have been a little more
specific.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307228#307228
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Header wrap 3+ years later |
Barry,
When I removed the wrap there wasn't any corrosion under it. The stuff
turns into a "relic" and won't hold water or moisture. You have to be careful
with it or it will fall apart.
Dick Maddux
Milton,Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gearbox/prop |
Rick,
Thanks for the prop balance info and Roger I will check out that balancer.
I didn't balance my previous Warp but didn't think it was that bad at all
until I installed the Kiev. My "old" Warp is a taper tip with nickel leading
edges and had been on the plane for over 12 years. A recent gearbox
overhaul, in an attempt to solve my "run-on "problems, revealed a gearbox in good
condition with little to no wear. However, I was going to the Kiev anyway
because of its reputed smoothness, quietness, lightness, performance and overall
beauty. 4 out of 5 is not bad. I am very happy with it and no more
runon(backwards) at shutdown!
I will get the balancer for my own use and also other LSA aircraft.
Dick Maddux
912UL
Milton,Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gearbox/propGearbox/prop |
Scott, Thanks for your input. It is good to valadate a problem that someone
else has had . Usually ,I am the only one with a particular problem (IE : a
loose oil filter which I now safety wire on my aircraft and engine runon in
reverse direction on occasion...now solved)
Dick Maddux
912UL
Milton,Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gearbox/prop |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Dick,
I pull the entire prop and hub off. I put all the bolts back on and balance everything
from the gearbox prop flange forward. I always find them out of balance.
If you never try a static balance on a prop 95% of the people won't know it
is really out of balance unless it shakes the whole plane. Most people think
that tiny little vibration is normal and some you can't feel. Props are like our
carb balance at 100 hrs. They are always out of balance until proven otherwise.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307362#307362
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Header wrap 3+ years later |
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
Dick:
I know this is a difficult question to answer...
Did you notice any temperature drop in the engine compartment after
installing the wrap?
And...
What was your reason(s) for installing it?
Barry
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:17 AM, wrote:
> Barry,
> When I removed the wrap there wasn't any corrosion under it. The stuff
> turns into a "relic" and won't hold water or moisture. You have to be
> careful with it or it will fall apart.
> Dick Maddux
> Milton,Fl
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Header wrap 3+ years later |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Barry,
The wrap Mfg claims a 70% reduction in radiated and convective heat. I don't know
if it is really that much, but if you land your plane would you put your hand
on your exhaust pipes? Not without loosing some skin. I can land and put my
hand on my pipes and keep my skin. With all the planes I have done the header
wrap on I have not seen any downsides or any issues.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307406#307406
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sauli Aalto" <sauli.aalto(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Header wrap 3+ years later |
Interesting topic!
Sorry to interfere but do you have any pics from your installation?
I think the exhaust are really hot and too close to everything under the
cowling
ransbuilder
sauli
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 2:40 AM
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Header wrap 3+ years later
>
> Hi Barry,
>
> The wrap Mfg claims a 70% reduction in radiated and convective heat. I
> don't know if it is really that much, but if you land your plane would you
> put your hand on your exhaust pipes? Not without loosing some skin. I can
> land and put my hand on my pipes and keep my skin. With all the planes I
> have done the header wrap on I have not seen any downsides or any issues.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307406#307406
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Header wrap 3+ years later |
Barry,
I installed the exhaust wrap cause Roger said to and I like the stuff
Roger puts out. He is right on the "gnats ass" pretty much 100 percent of the
time.
I hope you got a chuckle out of that statement, but it is really true.
(don't get the big head now Roger)
Actually I saw it on a Rans S6 at my Rotax course a short time ago. It was
the instructors plane and I asked him if it was a worth while endeavor. He
said absolutely as it did lower the engine bay temps and protects the rubber
components. Also,I have gone thru 2 Northstar fuel flow sending units which
I had in my engine bay (close to the muffler) I believe their failure was
due to heat.
I also had all the hoses,fuel lines ,etc that were in close proximity to
the exhaust pipes wrapped with protedtive material and just figured "why not
wrap the exhaust pipes" so I did. The rubber engine mounts are close to the
pipes also and the rubber surface had been scorched from the heat prior so
the wrapping will help that area.
I haven't noticed any difference in my EGT,CHT,etc. I have no way to
measure the under cowl temp so don't what it would be.
I am glad I did it if for no other reason that if I accidently touch the
pipes while working on a hot engine,I don't burn myself (ask me how I know)
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Header wrap 3+ years later |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Ross,
What brand of wrap and where do you pick some up?
If you have an SLSA you will need to send in an LOA (Letter of Approval) to the
aircraft Mfg. I did and it was no big deal. It actually became a fleet approval.
Thermo-Tech is very common. You can pick header wrap up at places like Checker
auto, Auto Zone or Pep Boys. You need to get the 2" wide wrap and it is sold in
a 50' length. For the standard Rotax exhaust tube that is about 15" long you
need to cut a 68" piece. Dampen it. Don't soak it. It takes very little water
to moisten this stuff. You will need a hose clamp at the top and one for the
bottom. Start at the top or exhaust port and wrap 2 spiral turns then put the
first clamp on. Then spiral wrap all the way down. Only over wrap each edge by
about 3/8"- 1/2" and no more. If you over wrap too much it hold in too much
heat. When you get to the springs just go under them and wrap around the exhaust
knuckle. This will help with any exhaust blow-by. Do not over wrap the springs.
The springs need the cooler air. Once this is done apply the other clamp.
That's it, just do the other three like that.
If you have an EGT probe, do not wrap around this. The material in the cloth warp
interferes with the readings. It will make your EGT's swing 100F. Wrap up to
about 1/4" before the probe and add a clamp then start 1/4" past the EGT probe,
add a clamp and then on down. When your done let the engine run for 10 minutes
or so.
p.s.
When you start the engine for the first time it will smoke a little and smell like
it's burning. That will go away after about 10 minutes and the wrap will burn
and seat in place. It might give a faint burnt smell the first time out after
you shut the engine down. That's normal and don't worry. Once this has been
run a few times the wrap will be fragile so don't try and take it off and think
you can reuse it. If you scrape it hard with a tool it could abrade.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307459#307459
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gearbox/prop |
| From: | "ricklach" <rick(at)ravenaviation.us> |
Roger, or any one else for that matter, how and what do you use to add weight to
balance the prop? I would think you can't remove weight but if you do how do
you do that? I've balanced a lot of things but adding or removing weight on a
Worp Drive prop looks like a very delicate thing. [Shocked]
Rick
--------
701Driver
N35 26.700, W118 16.743
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307465#307465
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gearbox/prop |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Rick,
There are a couple of ways to add weight.
1. Just add paint or lacquer to the prop. Now of course this depends on the prop
as to what you spray on it.
2. I will quite often just add a washer on the back of one of the mounting bolts.
This is the easiest and you can simply move the washer from bolt to bolt until
you have a good balance and it isn't a permanent thing. Most of the time it
takes a 1"-1.5" fender washer to make enough weight this close to center of
mass, but still a simple effective solution.
3. depending on the spinner set up I might even use the lead wheel stick on weights.
4. If you have a back plate to a spinner you can drill a small hole and add a small
screw and a few washers to the back plate.
Doing a static balance is not hard and everyone should do it. You might not think
your prop needs balancing or can feel it, but you plane does. Since I have
been doing some wheel testing over the last few months I also believe all tires/wheels
should be balanced, too. The balancer I posted previously works well
for both. There are more expensive balancers, but I thought for the money this
was an excellent choice to keep cost down and affordable.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307474#307474
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gearbox/prop |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Rick, I use paint. My WD 66" three blade with straight blades needed two
grams on one blade and one gram on another and it was right on. I determined
the amount of imbalance by applying 1" squares of Gorilla tape until I got a
balance that didn't change no matter how I oriented the prop on the
balancer. Then I removed the stack of tape squares and weighed them on a
precision digital scale. When I painted the prop I counted the number of
coats I put on each blade (I painted the prop with the blades assembled in
the hub). I made a WAG that two light coats equaled one gram so after I had
all blades equaled out and fully coated I added the number of fog coats that
my WAG said would do the trick. Turned out that was a good WAG. After two
days of drying I checked the balance. I should say at this point that I was
repainting to go from WD flat black to cherry red. Anyway, my plan was to
fine tune by painting the blade tips white after the base coat of paint was
well cured (a couple of months). Back on the balancer (a precision knife
blade type that my A & P neighbor was nice enough to loan me) I nailed it
within .2 grams, a bit less than half the spec. I figured that was good
enough. I haven't gone back to repaint the tips, I'll do it when I check
prop balance at next annual.
Rick Girard
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:14 AM, ricklach wrote:
> >
>
> Roger, or any one else for that matter, how and what do you use to add
> weight to balance the prop? I would think you can't remove weight but if you
> do how do you do that? I've balanced a lot of things but adding or removing
> weight on a Worp Drive prop looks like a very delicate thing. [Shocked]
>
> Rick
>
> --------
> 701Driver
> N35 26.700, W118 16.743
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307465#307465
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Damien" <dgraham7(at)TWCNY.RR.COM> |
Hello. I have a Zodiac 601 HDS. I had GSC 68 inch, 3 blade prop. Today
I switched to a 68 inch Sensenich prop.
It was a bit bumpy up there this afternoon, but at 5000 RPM, it seems
that I have picked up 15 mph with the
Sensenich prop. I will try to report more solid numbers later. The blade
is pitched to 3; (the pitch numbers go from 1 to 5)
When I did a static run-up, it was 4700/4800 rpm. When I got up to
altitude and leveled it out, the most RPM I could get was 5100.
The fellow who built my plane has a rubber stop about an inch long
between the panel and the throttle. I am trying to think this through.
My plan is to cut the rubber stop until I am able to reach either 5500
or 5800. This would give me more RPM at takeoff and allow me
to cruise faster if I want to.
Sound like a plan ??
Regards,
Damien
N48TK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave" <daberti(at)sbcglobal.net> |
If the rubber stop is a throttle stop to prevent over travel damage
cutting
the stop will do nothing. If you got higher rpm with the old prop the
new
one is pitched to heavy.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Damien
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 6:25 PM
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Sensenich Prop
Hello. I have a Zodiac 601 HDS. I had GSC 68 inch, 3 blade prop. Today
I
switched to a 68 inch Sensenich prop.
It was a bit bumpy up there this afternoon, but at 5000 RPM, it seems
that I
have picked up 15 mph with the
Sensenich prop. I will try to report more solid numbers later. The blade
is
pitched to 3; (the pitch numbers go from 1 to 5)
When I did a static run-up, it was 4700/4800 rpm. When I got up to
altitude
and leveled it out, the most RPM I could get was 5100.
The fellow who built my plane has a rubber stop about an inch long
between
the panel and the throttle. I am trying to think this through.
My plan is to cut the rubber stop until I am able to reach either 5500
or
5800. This would give me more RPM at takeoff and allow me
to cruise faster if I want to.
Sound like a plan ??
Regards,
Damien
N48TK
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sensenich Prop |
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
Damien:
You bet it sounds like a plan. YOU are thinking correctly. The fellow who
put the 'stop' in was NOT.
The carb/throttle linkage on the engine is what is suppose to limit the RPM
not some stop that picked to do
who know what standard and why. Just think what would happen if you were at
a high altitude airport or had one of those
high density days. You could wind up in the trees at the end of the runway.
If the engine has a problem of over revving ... Check the carb. Or at
least, INCREASE the pitch on the prop.
That will give you more speed. Don't decrease your safety margin.
Barry
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Damien wrote:
> Hello. I have a Zodiac 601 HDS. I had GSC 68 inch, 3 blade prop. Today I
> switched to a 68 inch Sensenich prop.
> It was a bit bumpy up there this afternoon, but at 5000 RPM, it seems that
> I have picked up 15 mph with the
> Sensenich prop. I will try to report more solid numbers later. The blade is
> pitched to 3; (the pitch numbers go from 1 to 5)
> When I did a static run-up, it was 4700/4800 rpm. When I got up to altitude
> and leveled it out, the most RPM I could get was 5100.
> The fellow who built my plane has a rubber stop about an inch long between
> the panel and the throttle. I am trying to think this through.
> My plan is to cut the rubber stop until I am able to reach either 5500 or
> 5800. This would give me more RPM at takeoff and allow me
> to cruise faster if I want to.
> Sound like a plan ??
> Regards,
> Damien
> N48TK
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Header wrap 3+ years later |
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
Roger & Gaggle:
How would you handle mufflers? Would you wrap them?
Barry
PS
Very kewl - WET - diver/instructor - retired.
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Roger Lee wrote:
>
> Hi Barry,
>
> The wrap Mfg claims a 70% reduction in radiated and convective heat. I
> don't know if it is really that much, but if you land your plane would you
> put your hand on your exhaust pipes? Not without loosing some skin. I can
> land and put my hand on my pipes and keep my skin. With all the planes I
> have done the header wrap on I have not seen any downsides or any issues.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307406#307406
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sensenich Prop |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Damien, before you go whacking away at the rubber stop, pull the cowl, take
off the air filters or filter box, and do a visual check to make sure the
throttle plates are fully open when the throttle lever is against the stop.
If they aren't, find a good mechanic and get the throttle cables adjusted
properly. Have him do a mechanical and pneumatic synchronization of the
carbs while he's at it. If the carbs are out of synch you could be losing
RPM even if the engine seems to be running fine.
Rick Girard
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:06 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
> Damien:
>
> You bet it sounds like a plan. YOU are thinking correctly. The fellow who
> put the 'stop' in was NOT.
> The carb/throttle linkage on the engine is what is suppose to limit the RPM
> not some stop that picked to do
> who know what standard and why. Just think what would happen if you were
> at a high altitude airport or had one of those
> high density days. You could wind up in the trees at the end of the
> runway.
> If the engine has a problem of over revving ... Check the carb. Or at
> least, INCREASE the pitch on the prop.
> That will give you more speed. Don't decrease your safety margin.
>
> Barry
>
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Damien wrote:
>
>> Hello. I have a Zodiac 601 HDS. I had GSC 68 inch, 3 blade prop. Today
>> I switched to a 68 inch Sensenich prop.
>> It was a bit bumpy up there this afternoon, but at 5000 RPM, it seems that
>> I have picked up 15 mph with the
>> Sensenich prop. I will try to report more solid numbers later. The blade
>> is pitched to 3; (the pitch numbers go from 1 to 5)
>> When I did a static run-up, it was 4700/4800 rpm. When I got up to
>> altitude and leveled it out, the most RPM I could get was 5100.
>> The fellow who built my plane has a rubber stop about an inch long between
>> the panel and the throttle. I am trying to think this through.
>> My plan is to cut the rubber stop until I am able to reach either 5500 or
>> 5800. This would give me more RPM at takeoff and allow me
>> to cruise faster if I want to.
>> Sound like a plan ??
>> Regards,
>> Damien
>> N48TK
>>
>> *
>>
>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
>> ttp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sensenich Prop |
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
Good point Rick:
Damien, as Rick said and I should have been clearer... Check the throttle
plate, and make sure they go from stop to stop. The only reason I can think
of to add the rubber is for repairs down the road. If the end of the cable
becomes nicked or damaged over time, by removing the rubber you would gain
that 1" back for making an end connection.
Barry
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Damien, before you go whacking away at the rubber stop, pull the cowl, take
> off the air filters or filter box, and do a visual check to make sure the
> throttle plates are fully open when the throttle lever is against the stop.
> If they aren't, find a good mechanic and get the throttle cables adjusted
> properly. Have him do a mechanical and pneumatic synchronization of the
> carbs while he's at it. If the carbs are out of synch you could be losing
> RPM even if the engine seems to be running fine.
>
> Rick Girard
>
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:06 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>
>> Damien:
>>
>> You bet it sounds like a plan. YOU are thinking correctly. The fellow
>> who put the 'stop' in was NOT.
>> The carb/throttle linkage on the engine is what is suppose to limit the
>> RPM not some stop that picked to do
>> who know what standard and why. Just think what would happen if you were
>> at a high altitude airport or had one of those
>> high density days. You could wind up in the trees at the end of the
>> runway.
>> If the engine has a problem of over revving ... Check the carb. Or at
>> least, INCREASE the pitch on the prop.
>> That will give you more speed. Don't decrease your safety margin.
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Damien wrote:
>>
>>> Hello. I have a Zodiac 601 HDS. I had GSC 68 inch, 3 blade prop.
>>> Today I switched to a 68 inch Sensenich prop.
>>> It was a bit bumpy up there this afternoon, but at 5000 RPM, it seems
>>> that I have picked up 15 mph with the
>>> Sensenich prop. I will try to report more solid numbers later. The blade
>>> is pitched to 3; (the pitch numbers go from 1 to 5)
>>> When I did a static run-up, it was 4700/4800 rpm. When I got up to
>>> altitude and leveled it out, the most RPM I could get was 5100.
>>> The fellow who built my plane has a rubber stop about an inch
>>> long between the panel and the throttle. I am trying to think this through.
>>> My plan is to cut the rubber stop until I am able to reach either 5500 or
>>> 5800. This would give me more RPM at takeoff and allow me
>>> to cruise faster if I want to.
>>> Sound like a plan ??
>>> Regards,
>>> Damien
>>> N48TK
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
>>> ttp://forums.matronics.com
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>> *
>>
>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dashwood" <dashwoodlock(at)hotmail.com> |
I have been searching the posts for " reasons for early gearbox failures" i have
some small nicks in my prop(warp ) and know it has never been balanced. i do
not feel any vibrations but am not sure what a smooth run wood feel like either.
what is the detailed procedure for balancing. what is the balance tool i am
hearing about. i have a three blade prop so the balancer would most likely be
a pinpoint on the bench???? i have never had the prop off so . how would one
find the exact center to start from.
--------
Ross Aalexander: CH701 driver 912ul 398tt
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307609#307609
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sensenich Prop |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Damien,
Adjust the cables at the throttle arm on the carb so the carbs can open all the
way. I would leave your rubber stop alone. Your throttle when pulled back should
just hit the stop in the cockpit at the same time the carb throttle arm on
the carb hits its stop screw. When the throttle in the cockpit is WOT so should
the throttle arm on the carb. If they open all the way then leave them alone
and flatten the pitch of the prop to get 5500-5600 WOT flat and level. This
rpm will give you the best balance between climb, cruise and fuel economy. No
use having more rpm than that unless you have a very special circumstance that
you need extra climb, but then you loose some cruise and fuel. You can only run
over 5500 rpm for 5 min. and you don't cruise up in those rpm's anyway so leave
the WOT rpm at 5500. If you are only getting 5100 WOT now then take out another
2.25 degrees on the prop.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307610#307610
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: prop balancing |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:41 am Post subject: Re: Prop balancer Reply
with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post
Hi Dick,
Here is the website to get a wheel / prop balancer. Roughly $115.
I would call him. You need to ask for a model DU42 with the 14" shaft.
714-842-9210
Marc Parnes will most likely answer the phone
http://www.marcparnes.com/Universal_Motorcycle_Wheel_Balancer.htm
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307611#307611
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gearbox/prop |
| From: | "ricklach" <rick(at)ravenaviation.us> |
Thank You both, Roger and Rick Girard for your very informative response's. I'll
make myself a balancer tomorrow and balance the prop the day after. Today I'm
going flying to establish a base line for the prop balancing effort.
Rick
--------
701Driver
N35 26.700, W118 16.743
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307642#307642
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: prop balancing |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Okay, I cheated, I'm a machinist as well as an LSARM so I turned some hubs
to fit the prop center and used a long dowel pin to center the prop. My
friend's balance uses two pieces of 3/4" band saw blade as the balancing
runners with level adusters on three points. It cost his dad about $5 to
make with some junk box parts and a little plywood. Easy to adjust until it
was dead flat on the runners and I turned the prop to put the balance
between blades 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and then 3 and 1, adding tape squares to
the blades until there was no movement of the vertical blade no matter how I
placed the prop on the runners.
Simple to do, took less than an hour to find what I had to do to get in
balance, hard to explain and unfortunately I didn't take any pictures.
Rick
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:46 AM, dashwood wrote:
> dashwoodlock(at)hotmail.com>
>
> I have been searching the posts for " reasons for early gearbox failures" i
> have some small nicks in my prop(warp ) and know it has never been balanced.
> i do not feel any vibrations but am not sure what a smooth run wood feel
> like either. what is the detailed procedure for balancing. what is the
> balance tool i am hearing about. i have a three blade prop so the balancer
> would most likely be a pinpoint on the bench???? i have never had the prop
> off so . how would one find the exact center to start from.
>
> --------
> Ross Aalexander: CH701 driver 912ul 398tt
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307609#307609
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sensenich Prop |
Damian,
Rotax wants a minimum of 5200 static/takeoff @ wide open throttle(WOT) per
their service bulletin. Older cases (such as mine) have been cracked by not
following this.
Dick Maddux
912Ul
Milton,Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Damien" <dgraham7(at)TWCNY.RR.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Sensenich Prop |
Dick:
Thanks very much for this info. I was at the airfield this morning
repitching the prop and I ended up
with a static of between 5100 and 5200. I will adjust it again to make
sure I get at least 5200 static.
Regards,
Damien
----- Original Message -----
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
To: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Sensenich Prop
Damian,
Rotax wants a minimum of 5200 static/takeoff @ wide open
throttle(WOT) per their service bulletin. Older cases (such as mine)
have been cracked by not following this.
Dick Maddux
912Ul
Milton,Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Myers" <gmyers(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: prop balancing |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Lee
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 7:57 AM
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Re: prop balancing
Balancers may be purchased for less than $25. California Power Systems or
CPS sells one for $16.95 which has a string attached to a bubble tube. The
string runs from one side of the prop hub's hole, up thru a shank the size
of the prop hub hole (and inserted into that hole), and to a washer to hold
or hang it from something. The string balancer is hung high enough so the
bubble tube on the bottom of the prop hub is observable. The bubble will
have to be changed in each direction for vertical and horizontal balance. As
of Oct. '03, Aircraft Spruce & Specialty or AS&S sells the same balancer for
$21.50.
For many years I have used a home made version out of a 1" oil plug (NAPA
4.50) with a hole drilled in the center of the bolt and a string epoxyed in.
It is the most sensitive static balance possible as it gives a simultaneous
vertical and horizontal balance. Hanging from the ceiling in a room with no
drafts lets you paint & balance at the same time.
George E. Myers Jr.
San Marcos, TX 78666
582 blue head w/ 3 blade warp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Myers" <gmyers(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: prop balancing |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Lee
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 7:57 AM
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Re: prop balancing
In case you're interested this is the one I use.
http://www.aerocorsair.com/id86.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: prop balancing |
BTW: you can build your own dynamic balancer for relatively little money.
The biggest expense (if you don't have one) is a digital storage
oscilloscope. This is how Gary Ray balanced the prop on his Corvair-powered
Zenith 601XL:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Papawobo/DynamicBalancing#
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Key West Regulator on 503 Rotax |
| From: | "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs(at)elltel.net> |
This is on a 503 rotax.
My Tympanium voltage regulator went bad so I replaced it with a Key West regulator.
I had the 12VDC output wire from the old tympanium regulator connected to
the starter side of the master contactor so This is where I connected the Key
West 12V DC output wire. My Hobbs meter is also connected to the same terminal
on the starter side of the master contactor.
I noticed my Hobbs kept running when the master is off. I disconnected all the
wires on the Key west and checked for voltage. There is 4.3 volts DC between
the key west ground terminal and 12V DC output terminal. Is it normal to have
some residual voltage in the Key west?
I guess I need to move the output wire from the key west regulator to the battery
+ terminal so that 4.3 volts doesn't touch the hobbs wire?? Am I on the right
track?
--------
Tom Jones
Classic IV
503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
Ellensburg, WA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307711#307711
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key West Regulator on 503 Rotax |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Tom, I have the Key West on my 582, no such current or problem. Does your
master contactor have a built in diode across the switch terminals? If it
does I'd suggest it has probably failed. Have you checked the output side of
the Key West to make sure there is no AC leakage coming out of the DC side?
Do you have a 22,000 uf capacitor on the positive line coming out of the
regulator? If none of these suggestions help you might want to consider
taking the problem to the Aeroelectric Connection here on Matronics.
Rick Girard
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Tom Jones wrote:
>
> This is on a 503 rotax.
> My Tympanium voltage regulator went bad so I replaced it with a Key West
> regulator. I had the 12VDC output wire from the old tympanium regulator
> connected to the starter side of the master contactor so This is where I
> connected the Key West 12V DC output wire. My Hobbs meter is also connected
> to the same terminal on the starter side of the master contactor.
>
> I noticed my Hobbs kept running when the master is off. I disconnected all
> the wires on the Key west and checked for voltage. There is 4.3 volts DC
> between the key west ground terminal and 12V DC output terminal. Is it
> normal to have some residual voltage in the Key west?
>
> I guess I need to move the output wire from the key west regulator to the
> battery + terminal so that 4.3 volts doesn't touch the hobbs wire?? Am I on
> the right track?
>
> --------
> Tom Jones
> Classic IV
> 503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
> Ellensburg, WA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307711#307711
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Header wrap 3+ years later |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
No need usually to wrap a muffler so I would leave it alone.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307718#307718
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key West Regulator on 503 Rotax |
| From: | "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs(at)elltel.net> |
Rick, thanks for the suggestions. Yes, there is a diode on the master contactor.
It could be bad but I can't figure out how that would make the voltage regulator
put out 4.3 volts when it is disconnected from everything?
I have checked the voltage with the engine running. The two AC wires from the
engine produce 35V DC at 3000 RPM and 70V DC at 6000 RPM. The output terminal
on the Key west produces 14V DC at all RPMs. This is all normal.
There is no mention of a 22,000 uf capacitor anywhere in the Key West instructions
or schematic.
The only thing I did different than the instructions is to connect the voltage
regulator out put wire to the starter side of the master contactor instead of
directly to the battery positive terminal. I did this so the voltage regulator
would be off line when the master switch is off. The problem is this location
connects my hobbs to the output of the voltage regulator which runs the hobbs
when the master is switched off as well as when it is on.
I think I will connect the voltage regulator output wire directly to the battery
positive terminal like the Key West schematic shows and see what happens?
I'm just wondering if it is normal to have a few volts (4.3 V DC) from the voltage
regulator output terminal with it is completely disconnected from everything
except my multimeter.
--------
Tom Jones
Classic IV
503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
Ellensburg, WA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307724#307724
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key West Regulator on 503 Rotax |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
No, somehow you're battery has got to be back feeding through the contactor,
I think.
As regards the capacitor on the hot lead of the regulator. See 18.5 in the
Installation Manual. Rotax, and others, use it as a load when the system
runs without a battery. The battery performs the function of a load when it
is installed. Rotax doesn't show the other use of the cap which is a filter
to clean up the electrical output. What the Key West does is rectify the AC
output by chopping off one side of the AC sine wave. The DC output then
becomes a fast rising pulse varying between 0 and 14 volts positive, the
diode bridge as I say having cut off the the 0 to 14 volt negative side of
the AC. This rectified signal is kind of trashy and it is this trash that
the capacitor leaks to ground. It will improve your DC voltage if you run
radios or any sensitive electronics. Rat Shack used to sell an alternator
noise kit that included a big cap and an inductor coil. When the alternator
output was run through the two of them the cap killed the rising and falling
alternator whine and coil killed the clicking noise put out by the old
mechanical regulators. This was back in the days when car stereos were first
being installed in cars and their power supplies weren't as sophisticated as
they are today.
I think you're on the right track to switch your hobbs some other way.
Rick Girard
PS If you do decide to install a filter cap you want an electrolytic type
and make sure you get the polarity correct. If you wire it backward it'll
blow up. They also store a charge for a long time, weeks at least be sure to
ground it out if you have to disconnect it.
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Tom Jones wrote:
>
> Rick, thanks for the suggestions. Yes, there is a diode on the master
> contactor. It could be bad but I can't figure out how that would make the
> voltage regulator put out 4.3 volts when it is disconnected from everything?
>
> I have checked the voltage with the engine running. The two AC wires from
> the engine produce 35V DC at 3000 RPM and 70V DC at 6000 RPM. The output
> terminal on the Key west produces 14V DC at all RPMs. This is all normal.
>
> There is no mention of a 22,000 uf capacitor anywhere in the Key West
> instructions or schematic.
>
> The only thing I did different than the instructions is to connect the
> voltage regulator out put wire to the starter side of the master contactor
> instead of directly to the battery positive terminal. I did this so the
> voltage regulator would be off line when the master switch is off. The
> problem is this location connects my hobbs to the output of the voltage
> regulator which runs the hobbs when the master is switched off as well as
> when it is on.
>
> I think I will connect the voltage regulator output wire directly to the
> battery positive terminal like the Key West schematic shows and see what
> happens?
>
> I'm just wondering if it is normal to have a few volts (4.3 V DC) from the
> voltage regulator output terminal with it is completely disconnected from
> everything except my multimeter.
>
> --------
> Tom Jones
> Classic IV
> 503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
> Ellensburg, WA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307724#307724
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MacDonald Doug <dougsnash(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sensenich Prop |
Keep in mind that this is a Zenith product we're talking about and Chris Heintz
is a master of simplistic designs. The end result often looks a little wierd
but functions very well.
I'm not a 601 builder but since it was designed around the same time, I'd bet it
has the same throttle arrangement as my 701 is supposed to have. The throttle
actuators that are on the instrument panel do not attach directly to the carbs.
They run through the firewall to a cross tube that joins the left and right
throttle controls together. Then at some point on this cross shaft is another
set of arms that connect to the cables that actually run to the carbs. The
arrangment sounds clunk and looks pretty wierd but works pretty well.
If the 601 we are talking about has the stock Zenith throttle actuator, it is a
steel tube or rod with a "T" handle on the end of it. The purpose of the rubber
bumper is to keep the "T" bar away from the panel so it can be grabbed easily.
Essentially, trimming a little off of the rubber would not likely hurt the function
of the plane but as has been said, you might be better off pulling the cowl
and going through the full throttle linkage setup to verify that you are getting
full throttle opening.
Best of luck.
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch Builder
NW Ontario, Canada
912 UL
>
> Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Sensenich Prop
> From: Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com>
>
> Damien, before you go whacking away at the rubber stop,
> pull the cowl, take
> off the air filters or filter box, and do a visual check to
> make sure the
> throttle plates are fully open when the throttle lever is
> against the stop.
> If they aren't, find a good mechanic and get the throttle
> cables adjusted
> properly. Have him do a mechanical and pneumatic
> synchronization of the
> carbs while he's at it. If the carbs are out of synch you
> could be losing
> RPM even if the engine seems to be running fine.
>
> Rick Girard
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: prop balancing |
Roger
I ordered the balancer from Mark and should have it Monday. Thanks for the
info !
Dick Maddux
912UL
Milton,Fl
PS : am installing a Kiev on another paradise today wish I had the balancer
BUT, they are usually spot on. (or close)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: prop balancing |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Dick,
I think it should work out fairly well for you. It does a good job on wheels and
props. The hardest thing to do for any balancer is to get very high quality
bearings if your balancer uses them. Some people just take a rod and put it on
the edge of two pieces of metal setting on end with sharpened edges like a knife
to make it more sensitive. This balancer that you bought has served me well
for 3 years and the price was right to have something that was easy, cost effective
and reliable.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307765#307765
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hugh McKay" <hgmckay(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: prop balancing |
Roger,
In all this discussion about balancing props, including the hub and bolts,
and the supposed Rotax prop out-of-balance tolerance of 0.5 gram no one has
mentioned the spinner. The spinner rotates with the prop. How do you balance
a spinner to within 0.5 grams? Spinners can be out easily that much. You
certainly can't on the Universal Motorcycle Wheel Balancer you recommended.
Hugh McKay
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:22 AM
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Re: prop balancing
>
> Hi Dick,
>
> I think it should work out fairly well for you. It does a good job on
> wheels and props. The hardest thing to do for any balancer is to get very
> high quality bearings if your balancer uses them. Some people just take a
> rod and put it on the edge of two pieces of metal setting on end with
> sharpened edges like a knife to make it more sensitive. This balancer that
> you bought has served me well for 3 years and the price was right to have
> something that was easy, cost effective and reliable.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307765#307765
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key West Regulator on 503 Rotax |
| From: | "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs(at)elltel.net> |
Rick, here's an update on my Key West. This AM I hooked it back up to the starter
side of the master contactor (same terminal that the hobbs is connected to)
and turned the master on for about a minute then off.
The hobbs continued to run and my multimeter showed 4.3 volts on the out put terminal
of the key West regulator.
After 60 seconds the hobbs stopped running and the Key west output was down to
2.5 volts and dropping slowly.
My theory now is that the Key West regulator does hold a slight residual voltage.
I don't know why, maybe it is needed in applications without a battery where
the alternator needs that voltage to be excited to start working.
--------
Tom Jones
Classic IV
503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
Ellensburg, WA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307775#307775
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | K BURNS <kjburns(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: prop balancing |
Dynamic prop balancer-see below $1500 seems steep, form a group to buy one, and
book it out, cheaper than wrecking an Prop /Hub/Crank combination
http://www.rpxtech.com/rpxweb/Dynavibe.asp
Kevin
----- Original Message ----
From: Hugh McKay <hgmckay(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Friday, 6 August, 2010 14:41:29
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: prop balancing
Roger,
In all this discussion about balancing props, including the hub and bolts, and
the supposed Rotax prop out-of-balance tolerance of 0.5 gram no one has
mentioned the spinner. The spinner rotates with the prop. How do you balance a
spinner to within 0.5 grams? Spinners can be out easily that much. You certainly
can't on the Universal Motorcycle Wheel Balancer you recommended.
Hugh McKay
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:22 AM
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Re: prop balancing
>
> Hi Dick,
>
> I think it should work out fairly well for you. It does a good job on wheels
>and props. The hardest thing to do for any balancer is to get very high quality
>bearings if your balancer uses them. Some people just take a rod and put it on
>the edge of two pieces of metal setting on end with sharpened edges like a knife
>to make it more sensitive. This balancer that you bought has served me well for
>3 years and the price was right to have something that was easy, cost effective
>and reliable.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307765#307765
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: prop balancing |
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
Gaggle:
At work I do a lot of vibration and shock testing. The company is
considering a dynamic balancer with computer.
Now that there have been a few that have done the static balancing - Has any
one done a comparison is results between the static and dynamic?
What kinds of improvements have you noted?
Barry
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Roger Lee wrote:
>
> Hi Dick,
>
> I think it should work out fairly well for you. It does a good job on
> wheels and props. The hardest thing to do for any balancer is to get very
> high quality bearings if your balancer uses them. Some people just take a
> rod and put it on the edge of two pieces of metal setting on end with
> sharpened edges like a knife to make it more sensitive. This balancer that
> you bought has served me well for 3 years and the price was right to have
> something that was easy, cost effective and reliable.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307765#307765
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MacDonald Doug <dougsnash(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine running rough at 3400 RPM and above |
I think I have my rough running engine issues sorted out. I spent several hours
at Oshkosh harassing the tech gurrus from CPS, Lockwood, LEAF and Missippi.
They all had some interesting things to say but had no smoking gun for me. Basically,
soak the carbs for a couple of hours in a carb cleaner or a laquer thinner
type solution and try them again.
The tech from lockwood suggested that perhaps I was actually running rich rather
than lean. He said that at higher RPMs the enrichener circuit actually leans
out the mixture after its initial shot of fuel. This got me thinking.
After re-assembling my carbs and re-installing them on the plane, I decided that
I didn't like how close my enrichener cables were to my carb heat cable. I
adjusted the geometry so that there was more clearance. This adjustment made
it so that the enrichener would not close completely. With a little further playing
around the enricheners are now functioning correctly. However, now that
I've looked at it, I'm pretty sure that they were not closing correctly before
either. AHA, a smoking gun.
Last night I performed a complete re-balance for the carbs and ran the engine up.
I have a minor roughness at idle that was not there before but was able to
run up to 5200 RPM static (on the tach) and the engine ran perfectly smoothly.
Today I am going to double check the idle mixtures and that should fix up the rough
idle.
Thanks to all of you that gave me suggestions. This has been a bit of a learning
experience. I knew it would be something simple but it was just a matter of
finding the cause.
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch Builder
NW Ontario, Canada
912 UL
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 91X ignition shields |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
The older schematics I have for my 914 shows to ground the ignition shutoff wire
shields at both ends, the engine side and panel side.
I think I may remember seeing Rotax rethought this?
Question is should I ground shields at both ends?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307813#307813
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 91X ignition shields |
| From: | "C_Pickett" <C_Pickett(at)mac.com> |
A way to remember.
A conductor is connected on both ends and causes a flow.
A shield is a drain open on one end
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307819#307819
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: prop balancing |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
I have a dynamic balancer and yes it can make a big difference, but not all props
are out as much as another. Some get a little correction while others get more.
there are others things at play sometimes after the static and after it's
back on the engine. Usual cost is any where from $250-$350 for a dynamic balance.
A dynamic balancer's cost is around $4k and up.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307821#307821
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key West Regulator on 503 Rotax |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Tom, I would absolutely bet that putting in the filter cap would stop this
non sense. I've never bothered to check the output of the Key West beyond
verifying that it put out DC power at 14 V +/- .2 volts when I finished
rewiring the plane.
You have an interesting problem. I bet Bob Nukolls at the Aeroelectric
Connection could help you understand and identify what is going on far
better than me.
B & C Specialty Products has the cap I used (about $15 IIRC)
http://www.bandc.biz/index.aspx
Rick Girard
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Tom Jones wrote:
>
> Rick, here's an update on my Key West. This AM I hooked it back up to the
> starter side of the master contactor (same terminal that the hobbs is
> connected to) and turned the master on for about a minute then off.
>
> The hobbs continued to run and my multimeter showed 4.3 volts on the out
> put terminal of the key West regulator.
>
> After 60 seconds the hobbs stopped running and the Key west output was down
> to 2.5 volts and dropping slowly.
>
> My theory now is that the Key West regulator does hold a slight residual
> voltage. I don't know why, maybe it is needed in applications without a
> battery where the alternator needs that voltage to be excited to start
> working.
>
> --------
> Tom Jones
> Classic IV
> 503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
> Ellensburg, WA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307775#307775
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 91X ignition shields |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi C_Pickett
I understand the concept of grounding at one end only for RF on radio / avionics
install.
Rotax however was very specific in older documentation to shield grounds at both
ends.
I think they may have revised this procedure though??
I don't know reason they chose to ground shield at both ends on older documentation,
but they did.
Anyway do you know for a fact that they now recommend only grounding to the engine
case and leaving ignition switch end shield ungrounded?
Ron P.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307831#307831
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 91X ignition shields |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Ron, For the 914, see the Installation Manual, page 116 refer to Figure 75
that clearly shows the ignition switch wire shielding is grounded at both
ends. Also the following, same page, "CAUTION:.....shielding braid (low
resistance) on both ends grounded to prevent EMI (e.g.specification MIL
27500/18). And, "the metal base of each ignition switch must be grounded to
the aircraft frame to prevent EMI."
For the 912, see Installation Manual, page 114 refer to Figure 73, also
clearly shows that the ignition wire shielding is grounded at both ends. The
wording in the CAUTION is exactly the same.
Both these are taken from the latest edition of the respective Installation
Manuals.
Rick Girard
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:03 PM, rparigoris wrote:
> rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
> Hi C_Pickett
>
> I understand the concept of grounding at one end only for RF on radio /
> avionics install.
>
> Rotax however was very specific in older documentation to shield grounds at
> both ends.
>
> I think they may have revised this procedure though??
>
> I don't know reason they chose to ground shield at both ends on older
> documentation, but they did.
>
> Anyway do you know for a fact that they now recommend only grounding to the
> engine case and leaving ignition switch end shield ungrounded?
>
> Ron P.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307831#307831
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key West Regulator on 503 Rotax |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Tom, As I was looking up the answer to Ron Pagoris' question about the 91X
ignition grounding I found the following in both the 912 and 914
Installation manuals concerning the use of a capacitor in the rectifier
circuit
"A capacitor of at least 22,000 uf / 25 V must is necessary to protect the
correct function of regulator and to flatten voltage. The regulator is not
designed to store any electrical charge. If for any reason the battery or
bus system is disconnected from the regulator while the engine is running
(i.e. the master switch is shut off) the capacitor will safely absorb and
dissipate the electrical charge produced by the generator. Otherwise the
regulator would be damaged."
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Tom, I would absolutely bet that putting in the filter cap would stop this
> non sense. I've never bothered to check the output of the Key West beyond
> verifying that it put out DC power at 14 V +/- .2 volts when I finished
> rewiring the plane.
> You have an interesting problem. I bet Bob Nukolls at the Aeroelectric
> Connection could help you understand and identify what is going on far
> better than me.
> B & C Specialty Products has the cap I used (about $15 IIRC)
> http://www.bandc.biz/index.aspx
>
> Rick Girard
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Tom Jones wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> Rick, here's an update on my Key West. This AM I hooked it back up to the
>> starter side of the master contactor (same terminal that the hobbs is
>> connected to) and turned the master on for about a minute then off.
>>
>> The hobbs continued to run and my multimeter showed 4.3 volts on the out
>> put terminal of the key West regulator.
>>
>> After 60 seconds the hobbs stopped running and the Key west output was
>> down to 2.5 volts and dropping slowly.
>>
>> My theory now is that the Key West regulator does hold a slight residual
>> voltage. I don't know why, maybe it is needed in applications without a
>> battery where the alternator needs that voltage to be excited to start
>> working.
>>
>> --------
>> Tom Jones
>> Classic IV
>> 503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
>> Ellensburg, WA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307775#307775
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key West Regulator on 503 Rotax |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Crud, Tom, I hit the send button to soon. Sorry.
Now obviously the rectifier regulators we're talking about here are not the
same as the Key West which requires no dummy load, i.e. can be used without
a battery, but the use of a capacitor is pretty well explained in the 91X IM
and I wanted to share it with you.
As I said, I run a capacitor of this size on my Key West regulated 582 for
the reasons stated, "to flatten voltage" (I guess this is Austro German
manual speak for cleaning up the regulator output. :-} ). Adding a second
layer of protection to protect the Key West is just the icing on the cake.
Rick
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Tom, As I was looking up the answer to Ron Pagoris' question about the 91X
> ignition grounding I found the following in both the 912 and 914
> Installation manuals concerning the use of a capacitor in the rectifier
> circuit
>
> "A capacitor of at least 22,000 uf / 25 V must is necessary to protect the
> correct function of regulator and to flatten voltage. The regulator is not
> designed to store any electrical charge. If for any reason the battery or
> bus system is disconnected from the regulator while the engine is running
> (i.e. the master switch is shut off) the capacitor will safely absorb and
> dissipate the electrical charge produced by the generator. Otherwise the
> regulator would be damaged."
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>
>> Tom, I would absolutely bet that putting in the filter cap would stop this
>> non sense. I've never bothered to check the output of the Key West beyond
>> verifying that it put out DC power at 14 V +/- .2 volts when I finished
>> rewiring the plane.
>> You have an interesting problem. I bet Bob Nukolls at the Aeroelectric
>> Connection could help you understand and identify what is going on far
>> better than me.
>> B & C Specialty Products has the cap I used (about $15 IIRC)
>> http://www.bandc.biz/index.aspx
>>
>> Rick Girard
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Tom Jones wrote:
>>
>>> nahsikhs(at)elltel.net>
>>>
>>> Rick, here's an update on my Key West. This AM I hooked it back up to
>>> the starter side of the master contactor (same terminal that the hobbs is
>>> connected to) and turned the master on for about a minute then off.
>>>
>>> The hobbs continued to run and my multimeter showed 4.3 volts on the out
>>> put terminal of the key West regulator.
>>>
>>> After 60 seconds the hobbs stopped running and the Key west output was
>>> down to 2.5 volts and dropping slowly.
>>>
>>> My theory now is that the Key West regulator does hold a slight residual
>>> voltage. I don't know why, maybe it is needed in applications without a
>>> battery where the alternator needs that voltage to be excited to start
>>> working.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Tom Jones
>>> Classic IV
>>> 503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
>>> Ellensburg, WA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307775#307775
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Thomson <peterlthomson(at)gmail.com> |
I use one of these on my 912ULS
http://www.balancemasters.com/
I think dynamic balancers are now down around $1500 from a couple of suppliers.
Peter
CH701SP no slats
912ULS
TrioEZPilot
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Header wrap 3+ years later |
| From: | "h&jeuropa" <butcher43(at)att.net> |
On our 914 the oil hose from the sump to the tank is close to the muffler for several
inches. At least one Europa had that hose melt and rupture. We are using
teflon lined SS hose enclosed in Thermo Shield with no problems in 200 hours.
Has anyone got any experience using wrap on the muffler to help the life of this
hose? We're a little concerned about the effects of wrapping just one surface
of the muffler - would there be stress on the skin of the muffler where the
wrap ends?
Have similar concerns about wrapping the pipes. Since they need to be unwrapped
around the EGT connections and where they group and go into the turbo, does
that cause stress?
Jim & Heather
Europa N241BW
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307840#307840
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine running rough at 3400 RPM and above |
Thanks for the info Doug.
We still have a "vibration " at cruise rpm that I am trying to chase down
on this Paradise we have been working on It went away after a gearbox
reshim/respring but now is back. We are just finishing up a different prop
installation to see if that helps with the issue (owner wanted to do this,not my
idea)
I have checked all the cables,swivlenuts ,etc in the carbs but will no
another recheck. Sync is spot on.
I now have the prop balancer so will check that out on the Warp we are
removing. (as well as the internals)
Dick Maddux
Milton,Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 91X ignition shields |
| From: | "C_Pickett" <C_Pickett(at)mac.com> |
If it is connected on both ends it is a conductor, why they would want that I do
not know
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307843#307843
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: rough running at 3400 RPM and above |
| From: | "Tommy Walker" <twalker(at)cableone.net> |
Doug,
Glad to hear you got the rotax running smooth now.
When do you think you will get in the air?
I am starting a Kitfox SS7 next week, so have left the Zenith world. Going with
a continental on this one, but would swap it for a Rotax.
Take care,
Tommy Walker in Alabama
--------
Tommy Walker
N8701 - Anniston, AL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307848#307848
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Header wrap 3+ years later |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi All,
All hoses of oil and fuel should have the fire sleeve on it. The ends should be
dip coated with "End Dip" and have a band clamp as per ASTM standards. The fire
sleeve not only protects it from fire, but does a pretty fair job of insulating
it from radiant heat off things like the muffler. Where you have a coolant
line close to something hot or where it might rub take a piece of fire sleeve
and cut it down the middle lengthwise and wrap it at the problem location and
use either a couple of wire ties or safety wire to hold it in place.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307850#307850
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
I must be in another world. I googled Rotax, got "The sky is the limit" and
that sent me to another URL but what happened to the Parts manuals? Am I no
longer worthy of service or must I join and pay for them now?
Any advice particularly welcome........
Cheers, Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
=C2- Fergus- It worked last week when I sent you the link.=C2- The ROAN
site is a pay subscription site.=C2- I just tried the factory support si
te, and got "Page cannot be found".=C2- Maybe Roger can clear it up.=C2
-
=C2-
=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2
-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-
=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2
-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2- Bill Sullivan
=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2
-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-
=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2
-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2- Windsor Locks, Ct
.
=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2
-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-
=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2
-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2- Kolb FS 447
=C2-
--- On Sat, 8/7/10, Fergus Kyle wrote:
From: Fergus Kyle <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Out-dated?
Date: Saturday, August 7, 2010, 2:49 PM
I must be in another world. I googled Rotax, got =9CThe sky is the li
mit=9D and that sent me to another URL but what happened to the Parts
manuals? Am I no longer worthy of service or must I join and pay for them
now?
Any advice particularly welcome........
Cheers, Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
>
Rotax-owner.com has all the manuals
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine running rough at 3400 RPM and above |
| From: | rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us |
Hi Dick
"We still have a "vibration " at cruise rpm
that I am trying to chase down"
I remember hearing from a 912
guy who worked on Katanas that if you don't get the large washer on the
crankshaftthat holds gearbox on centeredit can cause
viabration.
Probably worth considering to have dynamic balance, make
absolute sure prop blades are tracking and are at same pitch before.
Ron P.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
- Fergus- The Rotax factory site still works, it's the other one that wen
t down.- All manuals are available at: www.rotaxflyingclub.com
-
- Still free.- Explore the site.
-
-------------------------
---------- Bill Sullivan
-------------------------
---------- Windsor Locks, Ct.
-------------------------
---------- Kolb FS 447
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Malcolm Ferguson" <malannx(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine running rough at 3400 RPM and above |
If anyone pulls gearbox off, a must do is to check the torque on the
crankshaft gear. Requires a deep 41mm socket or 1and 5/8". Rotax
mechanic showed me a crankshaft that had the splines trashed by a loose
gear. Will produce vibrations you can't cure otherwise. Even gave me a
new belville washer in anticipation I would find mine loose - I did. He
had seen enough of them loose that a torque check was mandatory if the
gearbox was off. If below torque the nut must come off and a careful
check of the striations on the bellville washer will show if there had
been any movement. If any shine on the striations a new washer is a
must(and loctite). When swinging on the end of the torque wrench, I
remember thinking about the "agony" the little crankshaft locking pin
was going through.
Malcolm Ferguson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine running rough at 3400 RPM and above |
Ron,
Thanks for your reply. It seems we may have captured this problem.
Yesterday (in 106 degree heat) we removed the Warp propellor and installed
the lighter Kiev and after much "tweaking " of the pitch were able to get a
nice 'turbine smooth" engine.
I hope this will last and that the Owner of the Paradise P-1 will be
happy. We (the AI and I) have sure worked hard to try and find out the reason
forthe vibration.(pitch,tracking checked out fine on the Warp)
The tech at Lockwoodstatet to me that they had had a similar problem on
another aircraft in the past. They almost tore an engine down trying to chase
it but as a last effort replaced the prop and that was it!
I intend on using my new balancer(thanks to Roger) to check out the Warp.
The mystery is how it occurred. The plane was on a cross country from
Montana to Pensacola, Fl and was running fine until over Mississippi and then the
vibration started.
We will probably pull the blades and look at the hub, blade ends. do a dye
penetrent check for cracks,etc
I am not totally convinced the prop is the problem but time will tell.
The only other time I have run into this type of a problem was on an
Aerotrec (former Euro Fox) based in the mountains of NC. The owner of the
aircraft had a rough runner at cruise and we did everything to smooth it but
nothing worked. The plane only had 40 hrs since new and everything was spot on
!
(carb sync, cable movement,swivel nuts,ignition,etc) I told the owner that
the only thing left was the prop but neither one of us could believe that was
the problem. It was new out of the factory properly pitched,etc.
I had to return from my vacation in NC and could no longer help him. He
called the factory and they came down, replaced the prop and problem solved.
Seems this was one of 3 that were defective. So, it does happen.
Dick Maddux
912UL
Milton,Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key West Regulator on 503 Rotax |
| From: | "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs(at)elltel.net> |
> As I said, I run a capacitor of this size on my Key West regulated 582 for the
reasons stated, "to flatten voltage" (I guess this is Austro German manual speak
for cleaning up the regulator output. :-} ). Adding a second layer of protection
to protect the Key West is just the icing on the cake.
Rick, I know what you mean about the Rotax manual translation. Sometimes it is
not readily apparent what it is saying.
My key west seems to be operating well to charge the battery. My kit fox is pretty
bare bones. The only electrical accessory is the starter. My radio is a
hand held not hardwired to the planes electrical system.
I did notice more that normal static from received transmissions last flight but
attributed it to the sender having a bad radio. I will install the capacitor
if that continues. Thanks for the suggestion.
--------
Tom Jones
Classic IV
503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
Ellensburg, WA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307908#307908
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | You don't know what's inside? Well have a look. |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Guys,
I just happen to get a hold of a Rotax fuel pump and a Rotax oil pressure sender
and I just couldn't resist the urge to explore. So out comes the saw and presto
the guts are exposed.
If you look close on the oil pressure sender you can see a plunger just under the
center of the main arm and when pressure pushes on it it in turn moves the
arm, which is held down by a spring until the pressure pushes and that moves the
rheostat lever which changes the resistance which is then calibrated for your
oil pressure gauge. Damn this is hard to follow.
The next pictures are of a Rotax fuel pump. Once the housing is removed you can
see an inner plate that has a screen mounted to it and that screen went up into
the outer chamber of the pump. The diaphragm separates the two outer chambers
where they meet the pump aluminum mount. (It is where the gold metal meets
the aluminum.) The fuel is sucked into the inner chamber by the motion of the
diaphragm and as the diaphragm pushes back up the one way valve that the screen
sits on closes and the fuel is then forced out the
output side of the pump. There is another picture of just the diaphragm still in
the aluminum pump housing. The inlet to the pump is the larger of the two nozzels
mounted on the pump. The fuel out nozzle is the smaller of the two nozzles.
If none of this makes any since, it didn't to me either and I typed it.:unsure:
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307910#307910
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cut_rotax_fuel_filter_743.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cut_rotax_oil_sender_175.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key West Regulator on 503 Rotax |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Tom, Happy to help. You can repay me if you wish by taking a flight over the
ridges in to the Yakima River Valley.
I lived on the west side of the Cascades for 28 years. Yeah, I was one of
those dreaded 206ers. :-} When I got my private ticket my flying club
required a mountain checkout ride with an instructor to be able to take a
club airplane through Snoqualmie pass over to Ellensberg. That checkout was
the only time I ever made it. I always wanted to make that flight up over
the Umptanum (sp?) ridges and passes. I thought a return trip through White
Pass back out to Centralia would be a lot of fun, too. Now that I've moved
back to Kansas I probably won't ever get to do it. Oh, well.
Hope you have fun with the Kitfox, it's almost as cool as a Kolb Mk III. :-}
Rick
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Tom Jones wrote:
>
>
> > As I said, I run a capacitor of this size on my Key West regulated 582
> for the reasons stated, "to flatten voltage" (I guess this is Austro German
> manual speak for cleaning up the regulator output. :-} ). Adding a second
> layer of protection to protect the Key West is just the icing on the cake.
>
>
> Rick, I know what you mean about the Rotax manual translation. Sometimes
> it is not readily apparent what it is saying.
>
> My key west seems to be operating well to charge the battery. My kit fox
> is pretty bare bones. The only electrical accessory is the starter. My
> radio is a hand held not hardwired to the planes electrical system.
>
> I did notice more that normal static from received transmissions last
> flight but attributed it to the sender having a bad radio. I will install
> the capacitor if that continues. Thanks for the suggestion.
>
> --------
> Tom Jones
> Classic IV
> 503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
> Ellensburg, WA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307908#307908
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us |
Hi Ferg
FWIW i uploaded all 914 manuals here:
http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=81230
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | 91X ignition shields |
The industry standard is to ground the shield at the source end only.
Grounding at both ends makes the coax an inductor.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rparigoris
Sent: August 6, 2010 9:08 PM
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: 91X ignition shields
The older schematics I have for my 914 shows to ground the ignition shutoff
wire shields at both ends, the engine side and panel side.
I think I may remember seeing Rotax rethought this?
Question is should I ground shields at both ends?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307813#307813
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
Try googleing ROAN or Ultralightnews. Both places have manuals online free.
Noel
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fergus
Kyle
Sent: August 7, 2010 12:19 PM
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Out-dated?
I must be in another world. I googled Rotax, got "The sky is the limit" and
that sent me to another URL but what happened to the Parts manuals? Am I no
longer worthy of service or must I join and pay for them now?
Any advice particularly welcome........
Cheers, Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine running rough at 3400 RPM and above |
| From: | rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us |
Hi Dick
Here is a nice rundown of some causes of viabration:
http://www.rotaxservice.com/rotax_tips/rotax_vibration.htm
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine running rough at 3400 RPM and above |
Thanks for the info Ron !
Roger, Thanks for the "show and tell" That was great !
Dick Maddux
Milton,Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Header wrap 3+ years later |
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
Roger & Gaggle:
TEFLON hoses do not require a fire sleeve for fire protection. But as you
mention Roger, a sleeve does help in reducing heat both radiated and
received. BUT! One area where a bit of heat shielding goes unnoticed are
the metal connections. The metal gets hotter than the hose.
Barry
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Roger Lee wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> All hoses of oil and fuel should have the fire sleeve on it. The ends
> should be dip coated with "End Dip" and have a band clamp as per ASTM
> standards. The fire sleeve not only protects it from fire, but does a pretty
> fair job of insulating it from radiant heat off things like the muffler.
> Where you have a coolant line close to something hot or where it might rub
> take a piece of fire sleeve and cut it down the middle lengthwise and wrap
> it at the problem location and use either a couple of wire ties or safety
> wire to hold it in place.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307850#307850
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hugh McKay" <hgmckay(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Engine roughness |
I need some help and advice. I was mechanically adjusting my carbs
yesterday, and in the process I thought I would check the position of
the Idle Mixture screw on the bottom of the carbs. I ran the screws in
fully closed, and then backed them out the 1.5 turns as recommended by
Rotax. The engine now runs rough at idle, and in the operating range up
to 3000 rpm. You can feel it. I did not increase the speed beyond 3000
rpm for fear of harm to the engine. Unfortunately I did not count the
number of turns it took to close the Idle Mixture Screws, so I don't
know if they were set at 1.5 turns (counterclockwise) initially. I have
not pneumatically checked the balance. What are some of the conditions
that can cause this type rough engine operation?
Hugh McKay
Allegro 2000
Rotax 912 UL
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Hugh,
Those mixture screws should be set before a pneumatic balance. Since you now have
those set you absolutely need to do a pneumatic balance. Leave the screws at
1.5 turns out. The roughness is because they are helping with the mixture at
the low rpms. As you go above 3500 rpm to 4000+rpm that circuit now longer is
in play. After the pneumatic balance I would bet your engine will be smooth.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308271#308271
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 912 17mm Water Hose Again |
| From: | "ricklach" <rick(at)ravenaviation.us> |
I know we have had this conversation before, but Im hopping for some new information.
I need to replace the eight 17MM water hoses that go from the water pump
to the heads on the bottom of the engine and then from the heads on the top
to the water tank on the 912 engine. I know that some people have used inch hose
but Im not comfortable with it because its a little big. Has anyone found
a source for real 17mm hose for this application? :?
--------
701Driver
N35 26.700, W118 16.743
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308297#308297
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912 17mm Water Hose Again |
| From: | Ellery Batchelder Jr <elleryweld(at)aol.com> |
Rick
I have gone to CarQuest and Purchased Molded hose for this same problem yo
u might have to go out back and go through there hoses department to find
what your looking for and maybe buy some longer hoses and cut them off
to get them to where you want them go
Ellery Batchelder Jr.
-----Original Message-----
From: ricklach <rick(at)ravenaviation.us>
Sent: Tue, Aug 10, 2010 7:23 pm
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: 912 17mm Water Hose Again
>
I know we have had this conversation before, but I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2
m hopping for some new
nformation. I need to replace the eight 17MM water hoses that go from the
water
ump to the heads on the bottom of the engine and then from the heads on th
e top
o the water tank on the 912 engine. I know that some people have used =C3
=82=C2=BE inch
ose but I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m not comfortable with it because it=C3
=A2=82=AC=84=A2s a little big. Has anyone
ound a source for real 17mm hose for this application? :?
--------
01Driver
35 26.700, W118 16.743
ead this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308297#308297
========================
===========
-= - The RotaxEngines-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912 17mm Water Hose Again |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Call California Power Systems (CPS) and ask for Jeremy McGregor. Tell him I sent
you. He should get you taken care of. 510-357-8192
He does not work Fridays and comes in at 1000 hrs. Monday thru Thursday.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308305#308305
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912 17mm Water Hose Again |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
I use silicone hose from either Sport Hoses
http://www.sporthoses.com/parts/
or Pegasus Racing.
http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/advcat.asp?CategoryID=COOLING
Either has every shape and reducer you could want, Pegasus has more
components in addition to the hose. Both give fine service.
Rick Girard
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:23 PM, ricklach wrote:
s
> >
>
> I know we have had this conversation before, but I=92m hopping for some n
ew
> information. I need to replace the eight 17MM water hoses that go from th
e
> water pump to the heads on the bottom of the engine and then from the hea
ds
> on the top to the water tank on the 912 engine. I know that some people h
ave
> used =BE inch hose but I=92m not comfortable with it because it=92s a lit
tle big.
> Has anyone found a source for real 17mm hose for this application? :?
>
> --------
> 701Driver
> N35 26.700, W118 16.743
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308297#308297
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912 17mm Water Hose Again |
Rick
I recently replaced my hoses and had the same dilemma as you. I finally
bite the bullet and bought my 17mm hoses from Lockwood (1 length) the molded
piece I matched at NAPA. It was expensive but like you, I wanted to use the
right parts as much as I could.
I couldn't find 17 mm hose anywhere in the US but Rotax dealers.
Dick Maddux
Milton,Fl
912UL
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Carb and gearbox rebuilds |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi All,
If any one wants to have their carbs rebuilt I will do them for $50 plus parts
and If you need your gearbox rebuilt or shimmed I can do those, too. Carbs are
a one day turn around. Give me a call or an email if I can be of assistance.
If you have a 1990-1999 year Rotax 912 engine or a high time engine (800 plus
hrs.) then I would recommend the carbs being done.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308491#308491
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hugh McKay" <hgmckay(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness |
Roger,etal
Well, in the course of balancing my carbs a friend of mine ask me to check
to make sure nothing was coming in contact with the pick-ups for the
ignition circuits. All were fine except one. On my Allegro one of the
cooling pipes drops down vertically near the back of the engine. This
aluminum pipe was barely touching the pick-up for what I believe to be
ignition circuit B. On page 121 in the Lockwood Aviation Supply Catalogue
the pick-up I am referring to is the one shown as number 3. I assume the
wiring diagram as shown is as if you are looking at the back of the engine.
I corrected the position of the aluminum pipe so it cleared the pick-up an
finished balancing the carbs. I noticed one of the small wires on the
pick-up looked like it had the insulation worn off in one spot. I took a
small amount of silicone and covered the spot. After finishing everything I
decided to test fly the plane. During the normal starting procedure
everything went fine and I taxied to the hold point. At the hold point I was
going through the normal checks, one of which is an ignition check (i.e. I
ran the engine up to 4000 rpm and killed one switch. The rpm drop was
normal. When I killed the other switch the engine immediately shut off. I
quickly opened the switch and the engine caught an ran fine. This alarmed me
so I backed the engine down, revved it back up to 4000 rpm and the same thin
happened. I began to taxi back to the hanger, but decided to try the circuit
again. This time everything was normal. I did this three or four times and
everything was normal so I decided to fly.
I flew around the "patch" for about 30 minutes with no problem, so came back
an landed. I decided to fly one more pattern, but I though I would check the
ignition circuits again. This time when I "killed" the first circuit all was
fine. But when I "killed" the second one it failed again and shut the engine
down. This time I took it to the hanger. Help!!!!!!
Hugh McKay
Allegro 2000 ELSA
Rotax 912 UL
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 4:54 PM
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughness
>
> Hi Hugh,
>
> Those mixture screws should be set before a pneumatic balance. Since you
> now have those set you absolutely need to do a pneumatic balance. Leave
> the screws at 1.5 turns out. The roughness is because they are helping
> with the mixture at the low rpms. As you go above 3500 rpm to 4000+rpm
> that circuit now longer is in play. After the pneumatic balance I would
> bet your engine will be smooth.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308271#308271
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rotax 912ULS gearbox tear down |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi All,
Here are some pictures from a Rotax 912 gearbox. This is being torn down and examined
from a prop strike on an RV-12.
You will see a gearbox clutch in one of the pictures and they are installed in
the 912ULS 100 hp, but not the 912UL 80 hp. Everything has to come out including
the oil seal and bearing. A dye penetrant test now needs to be done down by
the bearing opening. The shaft was checked for run out tolerances on the flange
and crankcase shaft. These happen to be okay on this plane, this time. that
isn't always the case. If you are going to have a prop strike do it at idle or
engine off. High speed strikes don't do the prop shaft any favors.
I thought some of you may enjoy looking at the inside of a gearbox.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308616#308616
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/binder3_154.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Hugh,
A mag not firing is far more likely to be a wiring or switch fault than a faulty
mag, also cheaper to remedy. I would start looking at the magneto switches first.
If the connections are clean and secure, these generally fail before other
components since they are mechanical and are switched off an on at least twice
every flight. Randomly occurring faults are a hit-and-miss proposition when
looking for them so if the switch seems okay, check out every inch of the wiring
to/from that switch.
Keep us posted on what you find.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
Jabiru 2200A #1574
Tennessee Prop 64x32
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
- Gloria Steinem
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308626#308626
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912ULS gearbox tear down |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Roger,
Where did all that rust come from? I don't live in a desert like you do. We have
real humidity in this part of the world but never seen any rust in any of the
912 gearboxes I've inspected.
My guess is that engine is a fairly old one that was sitting unused for quite a
long time before it was installed in the RV-12. Use 'em or lose 'em. Do you know
the history of that engine?
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
Jabiru 2200A #1574
Tennessee Prop 64x32
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
- Gloria Steinem
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308628#308628
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughnessEngine roughness |
Hugh,
I had pretty much the same thing happen on my Kitfox with the older mid
90's engine. The engine would quit on one" mag " After a lot of wire
switching,etc it ended up being a broken wire.
Check the red power wires to the A and B modules. (or whichever doesn't
work) The way I did it was to get an ohmmeter and but one lead to a ground on
the engine (engine is NOT running by the way) then get a sewing pin and work
your way down the wire from the connection at the modules. Punch thru the
plastic sheilding of the small red wire with the pin to make sure you have
continuity in the wire.Do this about every couple of inches or so all the way
to the back of the engine I would be willing to bet you will find a break in
the underlying wire and it is just barely touching at the broken end thus
causing the module to be intermittently powered.That was the case with mine
AND the break was in a straight wire run making it totally invisable from the
surface . I found the internal wire break just a few inches from the module
connection. I cut the wire,spliced it ,and am now back in business !
I hope that is your problem
Dick Maddux
912 UL
Milton,Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughnessEngine roughness |
AH nuts! I wrote so fast on the reply trying to help Hugh, I forgot to use
spell check! Am somewhat embarrassed. I can fly airplanes but can't spell
worth a flip !!!
Dick Maddux
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hugh McKay" <hgmckay(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness |
Thom/Dick,
Ok, I understand what you are telling me to do, and I will. However, being
an engineer (civil, not electrical) my brain is asking what is causing the
engine to cut off when I turn off the one mag? If the wire is broke in the
first place, what does turning the switch off have to do with shutting the
engine down? I am confused (which may be normal in my case)!
Hugh
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 6:20 AM
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughness
>
>
> Hugh,
>
> A mag not firing is far more likely to be a wiring or switch fault than a
> faulty mag, also cheaper to remedy. I would start looking at the magneto
> switches first. If the connections are clean and secure, these generally
> fail before other components since they are mechanical and are switched
> off an on at least twice every flight. Randomly occurring faults are a
> hit-and-miss proposition when looking for them so if the switch seems
> okay, check out every inch of the wiring to/from that switch.
>
> Keep us posted on what you find.
>
> --------
> Thom Riddle
> Buffalo, NY (9G0)
> Kolb Slingshot SS-021
> Jabiru 2200A #1574
> Tennessee Prop 64x32
>
>
> The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
> - Gloria Steinem
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308626#308626
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912ULS gearbox tear down |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Thom,
There is no rust here. It is factory applied anti-seize. It is on every new gearbox
from the factory and I will use it to put it back together. It's not on
every part, but enough for you to see. Over time it goes away.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308644#308644
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughnessEngine roughness |
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
Dick:
What caused the wire to go intermittent in the first place?
Any ideas?
Barry
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:52 AM, wrote:
> Hugh,
> I had pretty much the same thing happen on my Kitfox with the older mid
> 90's engine. The engine would quit on one" mag " After a lot of wire
> switching,etc it ended up being a broken wire.
> Check the red power wires to the A and B modules. (or whichever doesn't
> work) The way I did it was to get an ohmmeter and but one lead to a ground
> on the engine (engine is NOT running by the way) then get a sewing pin and
> work your way down the wire from the connection at the modules. Punch thru
> the plastic sheilding of the small red wire with the pin to make sure you
> have continuity in the wire.Do this about every couple of inches or so all
> the way to the back of the engine I would be willing to bet you will find a
> break in the underlying wire and it is just barely touching at the broken
> end thus causing the module to be intermittently powered.That was the case
> with mine AND the break was in a straight wire run making it
> totally invisable from the surface . I found the internal wire break just a
> few inches from the module connection. I cut the wire,spliced it ,and am now
> back in business !
> I hope that is your problem
> Dick Maddux
> 912 UL
> Milton,Fl
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jonathan" <jonathan(at)entry.co.za> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughnessEngine roughness |
I have just had this exact problem, the red wire was broken 10mm away from
the plug! (Found the problem using the pin and Ohm Meter method)
I then bypassed the plug, with a new piece of wire, left the second ignition
unchanged.
Flew for 2 Hours, to discover that the second ignition, now had a broken
wire! About 15mm from the plug!
In both cases the wire had broken INSIDE the plastic insulation!
Please note that I did NOT install any of these wires, this is as installed
by ROTAX.
How can such an expensive engine have such crappy wire!
Jonathan
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE
Sent: 13 August 2010 02:43 PM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughnessEngine roughness
Dick:
What caused the wire to go intermittent in the first place?
Any ideas?
Barry
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:52 AM, wrote:
Hugh,
I had pretty much the same thing happen on my Kitfox with the older mid
90's engine. The engine would quit on one" mag " After a lot of wire
switching,etc it ended up being a broken wire.
Check the red power wires to the A and B modules. (or whichever doesn't
work) The way I did it was to get an ohmmeter and but one lead to a ground
on the engine (engine is NOT running by the way) then get a sewing pin and
work your way down the wire from the connection at the modules. Punch thru
the plastic sheilding of the small red wire with the pin to make sure you
have continuity in the wire.Do this about every couple of inches or so all
the way to the back of the engine I would be willing to bet you will find a
break in the underlying wire and it is just barely touching at the broken
end thus causing the module to be intermittently powered.That was the case
with mine AND the break was in a straight wire run making it totally
invisable from the surface . I found the internal wire break just a few
inches from the module connection. I cut the wire,spliced it ,and am now
back in business !
I hope that is your problem
Dick Maddux
912 UL
Milton,Fl
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Hugh,
Magnetos that are working correctly, are functional UNLESS the the "P-Lead" is
GROUNDED. When you turn the mag switch to the OFF position, that grounds the mag
so it will not function. If the mag is inadvertently grounded without turning
the mag switch to OFF, then it will not work. So essentially, you are looking
for an inadvertent grounding of the mag that "fails" when you check them during
the run-up.
The fact that mags function unless grounded is why it is important to check the
mag off switch for proper functioning during pre-take-off check. Your check for
rpm drop is important but also making sure the switch does ground the mag is
a safety issue too. If the switch does not ground the mag, it is always hot.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
Jabiru 2200A #1574
Tennessee Prop 64x32
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
- Gloria Steinem
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308646#308646
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912ULS gearbox tear down |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Aha! That explains why I've never seen it before. I've never inspected a new gearbox,
only ones that have reached the specified time in service. Sure looks like
rust in the photos, glad its not.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
Jabiru 2200A #1574
Tennessee Prop 64x32
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
- Gloria Steinem
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308647#308647
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hugh McKay" <hgmckay(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness |
Thom,
My head is probably really thick on this one. I still do not understand what
would cause the engine to completely cut off if there is a break in the wire
on that mag when the mag switch is turned off. I there is a break in the
wire between the switch and the engine anyway, what does activating or
de-activating the switch have to do with it?
Hugh
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:55 AM
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughness
>
>
> Hugh,
>
> Magnetos that are working correctly, are functional UNLESS the the
> "P-Lead" is GROUNDED. When you turn the mag switch to the OFF position,
> that grounds the mag so it will not function. If the mag is inadvertently
> grounded without turning the mag switch to OFF, then it will not work. So
> essentially, you are looking for an inadvertent grounding of the mag that
> "fails" when you check them during the run-up.
>
> The fact that mags function unless grounded is why it is important to
> check the mag off switch for proper functioning during pre-take-off check.
> Your check for rpm drop is important but also making sure the switch does
> ground the mag is a safety issue too. If the switch does not ground the
> mag, it is always hot.
>
> --------
> Thom Riddle
> Buffalo, NY (9G0)
> Kolb Slingshot SS-021
> Jabiru 2200A #1574
> Tennessee Prop 64x32
>
>
> The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
> - Gloria Steinem
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308646#308646
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hugh McKay" <hgmckay(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughnessEngine roughness |
Jonathan,
What "plug" are you referring to? Where is it located?
Hugh McKay
From: Jonathan
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:54 AM
Subject: RE: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughnessEngine roughness
I have just had this exact problem, the red wire was broken 10mm away
from the plug! (Found the problem using the pin and Ohm Meter method)
I then bypassed the plug, with a new piece of wire, left the second
ignition unchanged.
Flew for 2 Hours, to discover that the second ignition, now had a broken
wire! About 15mm from the plug!
In both cases the wire had broken INSIDE the plastic insulation!
Please note that I did NOT install any of these wires, this is as
installed by ROTAX.
How can such an expensive engine have such crappy wire!
Jonathan
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
FLYaDIVE
Sent: 13 August 2010 02:43 PM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughnessEngine roughness
Dick:
What caused the wire to go intermittent in the first place?
Any ideas?
Barry
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:52 AM, wrote:
Hugh,
I had pretty much the same thing happen on my Kitfox with the older mid
90's engine. The engine would quit on one" mag " After a lot of wire
switching,etc it ended up being a broken wire.
Check the red power wires to the A and B modules. (or whichever doesn't
work) The way I did it was to get an ohmmeter and but one lead to a
ground on the engine (engine is NOT running by the way) then get a
sewing pin and work your way down the wire from the connection at the
modules. Punch thru the plastic sheilding of the small red wire with the
pin to make sure you have continuity in the wire.Do this about every
couple of inches or so all the way to the back of the engine I would be
willing to bet you will find a break in the underlying wire and it is
just barely touching at the broken end thus causing the module to be
intermittently powered.That was the case with mine AND the break was in
a straight wire run making it totally invisable from the surface . I
found the internal wire break just a few inches from the module
connection. I cut the wire,spliced it ,and am now back in business !
I hope that is your problem
Dick Maddux
912 UL
Milton,Fl
ist"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-Listttp
://forums.matronics.com_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-Listhttp://forums.matroni
cs.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Hugh,
When you turn off the Left mag switch (for example), that action should ground
the Left mag (disabling it), thus leaving the engine running on the Right mag
only. If you turn off the Left mag and the engine quits, it means that the Right
mag is not firing the engine. This means that one (or combination) of the following
things is happening:
1) Right mag is faulty.
2) Right mag is grounded.
The Right mag being inadvertently grounded could be caused by one of two things,
that I can think of:
A) A bad switch (mistakenly grounding the mag when the switch is in the on position),
unlikely but possible.
B) Right mag wire has made ground elsewhere, most likely.
So, what you are looking for is these two things. If you find no fault in either
of these, then you need to look deeper, i.e., check out the functioning of the
mag itself. That is beyond the scope of my ability to explain in an email.
I hope this helps.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
Jabiru 2200A #1574
Tennessee Prop 64x32
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
- Gloria Steinem
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308657#308657
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill S" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912ULS gearbox tear down |
Re: Fig #9 (Large retaining collar) Is thair a proper tool for the
removal of this collar? Doc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 11:30 PM
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Rotax 912ULS gearbox tear down
>
> Hi All,
>
> Here are some pictures from a Rotax 912 gearbox. This is being torn down
> and examined from a prop strike on an RV-12.
> You will see a gearbox clutch in one of the pictures and they are
> installed in the 912ULS 100 hp, but not the 912UL 80 hp. Everything has to
> come out including the oil seal and bearing. A dye penetrant test now
> needs to be done down by the bearing opening. The shaft was checked for
> run out tolerances on the flange and crankcase shaft. These happen to be
> okay on this plane, this time. that isn't always the case. If you are
> going to have a prop strike do it at idle or engine off. High speed
> strikes don't do the prop shaft any favors.
> I thought some of you may enjoy looking at the inside of a gearbox.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308616#308616
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/binder3_154.pdf
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott DeMeyer <scottsr1100rt(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness |
I have had this broken wire problem too, several times with exactly the sam
e symptoms. The faulty wire(s) in my case was the one coming from the stato
r assembly and was broken just before the module connector.
Scott
--- On Fri, 8/13/10, Thom Riddle wrote:
From: Thom Riddle <riddletr(at)gmail.com>
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughness
Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 6:56 AM
Hugh,
When you turn off the Left mag switch (for example), that action should gro
und the Left mag (disabling it), thus leaving the engine running on the Rig
ht mag only. If you turn off the Left mag and the engine quits, it means th
at the Right mag is not firing the engine. This means that one (or combinat
ion) of the following things is happening:
1) Right mag is faulty.
2) Right mag is grounded.
The Right mag being inadvertently grounded could be caused by one of two th
ings, that I can think of:
A) A bad switch (mistakenly grounding the mag when the switch is in the on
position), unlikely but possible.
B) Right mag wire has made ground elsewhere, most likely.
So, what you are looking for is these two things. If you find no fault in e
ither of these, then you need to look deeper, i.e., check out the functioni
ng of the mag itself. That is beyond the scope of my ability to explain in
an email.
I hope this helps.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
Jabiru 2200A #1574
Tennessee Prop 64x32
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
- Gloria Steinem
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308657#308657
le, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912ULS gearbox tear down |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Doc,
There may be a special tool but I insert a large common (flat blade) screwdriver
in the gap and twist so that it comes apart enough to slide over the parts above
it.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
Jabiru 2200A #1574
Tennessee Prop 64x32
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
- Gloria Steinem
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308666#308666
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jonathan(at)entry.co.za> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughnessEngine roughness |
There are two electronic modules, on top of the motor, marked A and B,
these modules each have two plugs attached to them, one 4 Way and one
6Way
The 6Way plug connects, mostly to the Coils (HT Side), but one of the
connectors attaches to a red wire, that is from the exciter coil,
mounted on the back of the motor, where the pickup sensors are mounted.
The 4way connector is for the pickups at the back of the motor.
These two red wire comes from the back of the motor, and are shrouded in
metal braid, which stops just before they plu into the 6way connector.
It is just before the 6way connector, that the wires break inside the
insulation.
So all I had to do, was find the end of the Red wire(s) that still
worked, bypass the 6way connector, and wire it straight into the
respective modules.
Hope this helps
Jonathan
----- Original Message -----
From: Hugh McKay
To: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughnessEngine roughness
Jonathan,
What "plug" are you referring to? Where is it located?
Hugh McKay
From: Jonathan
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:54 AM
To: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughnessEngine roughness
I have just had this exact problem, the red wire was broken 10mm away
from the plug! (Found the problem using the pin and Ohm Meter method)
I then bypassed the plug, with a new piece of wire, left the second
ignition unchanged.
Flew for 2 Hours, to discover that the second ignition, now had a
broken wire! About 15mm from the plug!
In both cases the wire had broken INSIDE the plastic insulation!
Please note that I did NOT install any of these wires, this is as
installed by ROTAX.
How can such an expensive engine have such crappy wire!
Jonathan
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
FLYaDIVE
Sent: 13 August 2010 02:43 PM
To: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughnessEngine roughness
Dick:
What caused the wire to go intermittent in the first place?
Any ideas?
Barry
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:52 AM, wrote:
Hugh,
I had pretty much the same thing happen on my Kitfox with the older
mid 90's engine. The engine would quit on one" mag " After a lot of
wire switching,etc it ended up being a broken wire.
Check the red power wires to the A and B modules. (or whichever
doesn't work) The way I did it was to get an ohmmeter and but one lead
to a ground on the engine (engine is NOT running by the way) then get a
sewing pin and work your way down the wire from the connection at the
modules. Punch thru the plastic sheilding of the small red wire with the
pin to make sure you have continuity in the wire.Do this about every
couple of inches or so all the way to the back of the engine I would be
willing to bet you will find a break in the underlying wire and it is
just barely touching at the broken end thus causing the module to be
intermittently powered.That was the case with mine AND the break was in
a straight wire run making it totally invisable from the surface . I
found the internal wire break just a few inches from the module
connection. I cut the wire,spliced it ,and am now back in business !
I hope that is your problem
Dick Maddux
912 UL
Milton,Fl
ist"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-Listttp
://forums.matronics.com_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-Listhttp://forums.matroni
cs.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jonathan(at)entry.co.za> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness |
Yep that is where I had the problem too.
Jonathan
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott DeMeyer
To: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughness
I have had this broken wire problem too, several times with
exactly the same symptoms. The faulty wire(s) in my case was the one
coming from the stator assembly and was broken just before the module
connector.
Scott
--- On Fri, 8/13/10, Thom Riddle wrote:
From: Thom Riddle <riddletr(at)gmail.com>
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughness
To: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 6:56 AM
Hugh,
When you turn off the Left mag switch (for example), that
action should ground the Left mag (disabling it), thus leaving the
engine running on the Right mag only. If you turn off the Left mag and
the engine quits, it means that the Right mag is not firing the engine.
This means that one (or combination) of the following things is
happening:
1) Right mag is faulty.
2) Right mag is grounded.
The Right mag being inadvertently grounded could be caused by
one of two things, that I can think of:
A) A bad switch (mistakenly grounding the mag when the switch
is in the on position), unlikely but possible.
B) Right mag wire has made ground elsewhere, most likely.
So, what you are looking for is these two things. If you find
no fault in either of these, then you need to look deeper, i.e., check
out the functioning of the mag itself. That is beyond the scope of my
ability to explain in an email.
I hope this helps.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
Jabiru 2200A #1574
Tennessee Prop 64x32
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
- Gloria Steinem
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308657#308657
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List -->
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clive Richards" <s.clive.richards(at)homecall.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness |
Thom
The break in the wire they are referring to is in a Red
power supply wire to the electronic module not the P lead which if grounded
by mag switch or a short to ground turns that module off.
Clive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hugh McKay" <hgmckay(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughness
>
>
> Thom,
>
> My head is probably really thick on this one. I still do not understand
> what would cause the engine to completely cut off if there is a break in
> the wire on that mag when the mag switch is turned off. I there is a break
> in the wire between the switch and the engine anyway, what does activating
> or de-activating the switch have to do with it?
>
> Hugh
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:55 AM
> To:
> Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughness
>
>>
>>
>> Hugh,
>>
>> Magnetos that are working correctly, are functional UNLESS the the
>> "P-Lead" is GROUNDED. When you turn the mag switch to the OFF position,
>> that grounds the mag so it will not function. If the mag is inadvertently
>> grounded without turning the mag switch to OFF, then it will not work. So
>> essentially, you are looking for an inadvertent grounding of the mag that
>> "fails" when you check them during the run-up.
>>
>> The fact that mags function unless grounded is why it is important to
>> check the mag off switch for proper functioning during pre-take-off
>> check. Your check for rpm drop is important but also making sure the
>> switch does ground the mag is a safety issue too. If the switch does not
>> ground the mag, it is always hot.
>>
>> --------
>> Thom Riddle
>> Buffalo, NY (9G0)
>> Kolb Slingshot SS-021
>> Jabiru 2200A #1574
>> Tennessee Prop 64x32
>>
>>
>> The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
>> - Gloria Steinem
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308646#308646
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Clive,
I never mentioned a broken wire, that was someone else. I was providing guidance
to Hugh to help him find a possible source of the problem, beginning with the
mag switches on to the mag grounding wires. I know an OPEN in a ground wire
will not cause a mag to 'fail', but to remain hot.
In any case, since the failure appears to be intermittent, it is likely to be a
bad connection or partially broken wire if on the power side, or a "sometimes
grounding" P-lead or p-lead switch wire.
Thom
http://sites.google.com/site/riddletr/a&pmechanix
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
Jabiru 2200A #1574
Tennessee Prop 64x32
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
- Gloria Steinem
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308688#308688
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912ULS gearbox tear down |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Doc,
Thom's right, just a really wide tip flat head screwdriver. It's still a PITA to
take off. Keep your hand and fingers from behind the screwdriver tip. It will
slip and it will jab you in the hand enough to make you use some new words.
[Shocked]
Been there.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308695#308695
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912ULS gearbox tear down |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Roger,
I have already forgotten the blood blister I acquired from the first time I did
that. Glad you brought up that caution.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
Jabiru 2200A #1574
Tennessee Prop 64x32
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
- Gloria Steinem
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308697#308697
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness |
| From: | "sdemeyer" <scottsr1100rt(at)yahoo.com> |
Thom Riddle wrote:
> Clive,
>
> I never mentioned a broken wire, that was someone else. I was providing guidance
to Hugh to help him find a possible source of the problem, beginning with
the mag switches on to the mag grounding wires. I know an OPEN in a ground wire
will not cause a mag to 'fail', but to remain hot.
>
> In any case, since the failure appears to be intermittent, it is likely to be
a bad connection or partially broken wire if on the power side, or a "sometimes
grounding" P-lead or p-lead switch wire.
>
> Thom
> http://sites.google.com/site/riddletr/a&pmechanix
Sorry Guys, there are two threads going on here with almost exactly the same subject.
My reply was meant for the other thread!
Scott
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308699#308699
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Do I follow the 100 hr or Annual Condition Inspection |
times?
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi All,
Many have ask and many more are confused about the time tables for inspections.
Do you follow the 100 hr. time table set by the engine and aircraft Mfg or do
I follow the FAA and Mfg Annual condition Inspection time table?
The simple answer is both and neither. You may say not so fast here pal, but here
is the straight scoop from all authoritative entities.
First the FAA doesn't care how often the Annual is rest so long as it is addressed
and done. Flight Design and Rotax have both 100 hr. and Annual inspections.
They don't care so long as they are done and addressed and both the annual and
the 100 can be done at any time and the time table for each can be reset.
So what does this mean for me and you? If you only fly 50 hours a year then you
will be doing the Annual Condition Inspection most of the time. An example is:
you have 50 hours on the plane in one year and the Annual is due. So the Annual
and 100 hr inspection is the same. You do the Annual and sign off in the log
that both have been addressed. Your next Annual is 12 months from then and
the next 100 hr. is at 150 hrs. If the Annual comes around again at let's say
110 hrs then you will do the annual and also address the 100 hr inspection. Now
the Annual is again in 12 months and the 100 hr. is due at 210 hrs. and so on.
So if you are a low time pilot (less than 100 hrs a year) then you will do
more Annual condition time table inspections.
What if you are a 100+ hr a year pilot. Let's say you fly 175 hrs or 225 hrs a
a year. Then you will be doing more 100 hr time table inspections and addressing
and resetting the Annual time table. So lets say your first year you put on
100 hrs. before the annual was due. Now you do the 100 hr. inspection and reset
the Annual which then would come due in 12 months from that date. Now you put
on another 100 hr. before the annual is due again. You will do the 100 hr.
inspection and reset the annual again for 12 months down the line.
This type of schedule give pilots some flexibility for inspection times. You must
make sure you write in the logbook that you have done both or you may be doing
two inspections separate from each other.
I know it is clear as mud, but that's it in a nut shell.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308706#308706
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Blumax008(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Do I follow the 100 hr or Annual Condition Inspection |
...
OR...YOU CAN DO LIKE I DO...OWN 3 ILLEGAL ULTRALIGHTS, DON'T REGISTER THEM
AND TELL THE FAA AND ALL THE REST TO GO (it begins with an F) THEMSELVES.
I'M 62 YEARS OLD, HAVE AN FAA ATP LICENSE AND AM ABSOLUTELY SICK OF ALL THE
(it begins with a B). THEY HAVE WORN MY ASS OUT OVER THE PAST 40 (it begins
with an F) YEARS AND I TRULY FEEL SORRY FOR ALL YOU YOUNG WHIPPERSNAPPERS
AND ALL THE REST OF THE SHEEP OUT THERE WHO THINK THEY HAVE TO DO
EVERYTHING THAT DADDY SAYS. WHO WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THEIR (FAA) (it begins
with
a B) FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVES. YOU HAVE MY SYMPATHIES.
In a message dated 8/13/2010 4:13:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com writes:
--> RotaxEngines-List message posted by: "Roger Lee"
Hi All,
Many have ask and many more are confused about the time tables for
inspections. Do you follow the 100 hr. time table set by the engine and aircraft
Mfg or do I follow the FAA and Mfg Annual condition Inspection time table?
The simple answer is both and neither. You may say not so fast here pal,
but here is the straight scoop from all authoritative entities.
First the FAA doesn't care how often the Annual is rest so long as it is
addressed and done. Flight Design and Rotax have both 100 hr. and Annual
inspections. They don't care so long as they are done and addressed and both
the annual and the 100 can be done at any time and the time table for each
can be reset.
So what does this mean for me and you? If you only fly 50 hours a year
then you will be doing the Annual Condition Inspection most of the time. An
example is: you have 50 hours on the plane in one year and the Annual is due.
So the Annual and 100 hr inspection is the same. You do the Annual and
sign off in the log that both have been addressed. Your next Annual is 12
months from then and the next 100 hr. is at 150 hrs. If the Annual comes around
again at let's say 110 hrs then you will do the annual and also address
the 100 hr inspection. Now the Annual is again in 12 months and the 100 hr.
is due at 210 hrs. and so on. So if you are a low time pilot (less than 100
hrs a year) then you will do more Annual condition time table inspections.
What if you are a 100+ hr a year pilot. Let's say you fly 175 hrs or 225
hrs a a year. Then you will be doing more 100 hr time table inspections and
addressing and resetting the Annual time table. So lets say your first year
you put on 100 hrs. before the annual was due. Now you do the 100 hr.
inspection and reset the Annual which then would come due in 12 months from
that date. Now you put on another 100 hr. before the annual is due again. You
will do the 100 hr. inspection and reset the annual again for 12 months
down the line.
This type of schedule give pilots some flexibility for inspection times.
You must make sure you write in the logbook that you have done both or you
may be doing two inspections separate from each other.
I know it is clear as mud, but that's it in a nut shell.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308706#308706
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Do I follow the 100 hr or Annual Condition Inspection |
...
Are you planning on firing the escape slide and jumping in? :-)
-- Craig
_____
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Blumax008(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Do I follow the 100 hr or Annual Condition
Inspection ...
OR...YOU CAN DO LIKE I DO...OWN 3 ILLEGAL ULTRALIGHTS, DON'T REGISTER THEM
AND TELL THE FAA AND ALL THE REST TO GO (it begins with an F) THEMSELVES.
I'M 62 YEARS OLD, HAVE AN FAA ATP LICENSE AND AM ABSOLUTELY SICK OF ALL THE
(it begins with a B). THEY HAVE WORN MY ASS OUT OVER THE PAST 40 (it begins
with an F) YEARS AND I TRULY FEEL SORRY FOR ALL YOU YOUNG WHIPPERSNAPPERS
AND ALL THE REST OF THE SHEEP OUT THERE WHO THINK THEY HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING
THAT DADDY SAYS. WHO WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THEIR (FAA) (it begins with a
B) FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVES. YOU HAVE MY SYMPATHIES.
In a message dated 8/13/2010 4:13:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com writes:
Hi All,
Many have ask and many more are confused about the time tables for
inspections. Do you follow the 100 hr. time table set by the engine and
aircraft Mfg or do I follow the FAA and Mfg Annual condition Inspection time
table?
The simple answer is both and neither. You may say not so fast here pal, but
here is the straight scoop from all authoritative entities.
First the FAA doesn't care how often the Annual is rest so long as it is
addressed and done. Flight Design and Rotax have both 100 hr. and Annual
inspections. They don't care so long as they are done and addressed and both
the annual and the 100 can be done at any time and the time table for each
can be reset.
So what does this mean for me and you? If you only fly 50 hours a year then
you will be doing the Annual Condition Inspection most of the time. An
example is: you have 50 hours on the plane in one year and the Annual is
due. So the Annual and 100 hr inspection is the same. You do the Annual and
sign off in the log that both have been addressed. Your next Annual is 12
months from then and the next 100 hr. is at 150 hrs. If the Annual comes
around again at let's say 110 hrs then you will do the annual and also
address the 100 hr inspection. Now the Annual is again in 12 months and the
100 hr. is due at 210 hrs. and so on. So if you are a low time pilot (less
than 100 hrs a year) then you will do more Annual condition time table
inspections.
What if you are a 100+ hr a year pilot. Let's say you fly 175 hrs or 225 hrs
a a year. Then you will be doing more 100 hr time table inspections and
addressing and resetting the Annual time table. So lets say your first year
you put on 100 hrs. before the annual was due. Now you do the 100 hr.
inspection and reset the Annual which then would come due in 12 months from
that date. Now you put on another 100 hr. before the annual is due again.
You will do the 100 hr. inspection and reset the annual again for 12 months
down the line.
This type of schedule give pilots some flexibility for inspection times. You
must make sure you write in the logbook that you have done both or you may
be doing two inspections separate from each other.
I know it is clear as mud, but that's it in a nut shell.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308706#308706==================
===========================
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ===============================================
- List Contribution Web Site sp;
==================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Blumax008(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Do I follow the 100 hr or Annual Condition Inspection |
...
In a message dated 8/13/2010 5:28:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
craig(at)craigandjean.com writes:
Are you planning on firing the escape slide and jumping in? :-)
Hell, I might be like the folks you see on the news, just get fed up & get
ta' blastin'! :)
Thanks for allowing me to blast off. It keeps me from having to do the
above.
BUT MAN WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO COME UP WITH NEXT?
Where's 100LL going? And now we've got Ethanol to deal with.
Just heard yesterday some stupid, lame brained politician (is there any
other type?) is trying to make a new TCAS-like instrument mandatory for all
general aviation aircraft (and maybe LSAs too)...at "only" $10 to $12,000
per aircraft! How neat! I mean what the hell ever happened to pilots who
could actually think & look to avoid for themselves? Good God!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Do I follow the 100 hr or Annual Condition Inspection |
times?
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Roger, you fail to address those who use their aircraft for training or
hire. Then the 100 hr. inspection is due at 100 hrs and it doesn't matter if
it's two weeks, two months, or a year. The flying club where I got my
private ticket had a couple of 172's that were the student's favorites. On
average they had a 100 hour inspection every month.
Rick Girard
LSARM #3178721
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Roger Lee wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Many have ask and many more are confused about the time tables for
> inspections. Do you follow the 100 hr. time table set by the engine and
> aircraft Mfg or do I follow the FAA and Mfg Annual condition Inspection time
> table?
> The simple answer is both and neither. You may say not so fast here pal,
> but here is the straight scoop from all authoritative entities.
> First the FAA doesn't care how often the Annual is rest so long as it is
> addressed and done. Flight Design and Rotax have both 100 hr. and Annual
> inspections. They don't care so long as they are done and addressed and both
> the annual and the 100 can be done at any time and the time table for each
> can be reset.
> So what does this mean for me and you? If you only fly 50 hours a year then
> you will be doing the Annual Condition Inspection most of the time. An
> example is: you have 50 hours on the plane in one year and the Annual is
> due. So the Annual and 100 hr inspection is the same. You do the Annual and
> sign off in the log that both have been addressed. Your next Annual is 12
> months from then and the next 100 hr. is at 150 hrs. If the Annual comes
> around again at let's say 110 hrs then you will do the annual and also
> address the 100 hr inspection. Now the Annual is again in 12 months and the
> 100 hr. is due at 210 hrs. and so on. So if you are a low time pilot (less
> than 100 hrs a year) then you will do more Annual condition time table
> inspections.
>
> What if you are a 100+ hr a year pilot. Let's say you fly 175 hrs or 225
> hrs a a year. Then you will be doing more 100 hr time table inspections and
> addressing and resetting the Annual time table. So lets say your first year
> you put on 100 hrs. before the annual was due. Now you do the 100 hr.
> inspection and reset the Annual which then would come due in 12 months from
> that date. Now you put on another 100 hr. before the annual is due again.
> You will do the 100 hr. inspection and reset the annual again for 12 months
> down the line.
>
>
> This type of schedule give pilots some flexibility for inspection times.
> You must make sure you write in the logbook that you have done both or you
> may be doing two inspections separate from each other.
>
>
> I know it is clear as mud, but that's it in a nut shell.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308706#308706
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Just a guess, but the wire is broken and the insulation is holding it such
that it makes intermittent contact.
Rick Girard
LSARM # 3178721
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Hugh McKay wrote:
> hgmckay(at)bellsouth.net>
>
> Thom/Dick,
>
> Ok, I understand what you are telling me to do, and I will. However, being
> an engineer (civil, not electrical) my brain is asking what is causing the
> engine to cut off when I turn off the one mag? If the wire is broke in the
> first place, what does turning the switch off have to do with shutting the
> engine down? I am confused (which may be normal in my case)!
>
> Hugh
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 6:20 AM
>
> To:
> Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughness
>
>> riddletr(at)gmail.com>
>>
>> Hugh,
>>
>> A mag not firing is far more likely to be a wiring or switch fault than a
>> faulty mag, also cheaper to remedy. I would start looking at the magneto
>> switches first. If the connections are clean and secure, these generally
>> fail before other components since they are mechanical and are switched off
>> an on at least twice every flight. Randomly occurring faults are a
>> hit-and-miss proposition when looking for them so if the switch seems okay,
>> check out every inch of the wiring to/from that switch.
>>
>> Keep us posted on what you find.
>>
>>
>> --------
>> Thom Riddle
>> Buffalo, NY (9G0)
>> Kolb Slingshot SS-021
>> Jabiru 2200A #1574
>> Tennessee Prop 64x32
>>
>>
>> The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
>> - Gloria Steinem
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308626#308626
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Do I follow the 100 hr or Annual Condition Inspection |
times
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Rick,
Your right, I didn't get into all the other regs that apply to commercial use,
just the recreational pilot and a lot aimed at SLSA.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308743#308743
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Do I follow the 100 hr or Annual Condition Inspection |
times
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Roger,
Since you are dotting the I's and crossing the T's you should make the distinction
between the terms Annual Inspection and Condition Inspection. Using the correct
words is important to the FAA guys who make their living by looking for
arcane semantic infractions, and insurance adjusters looking for justifications
not to pay claims.
The Inspection for an experimental aircraft (most of the readers here) that occurs
within the last 12 months to be legal, is called a Condition Inspection and
the sign off must be worded that way, along with "safe operation" in the appropriate
place.
The similarly timed inspection for type certificated aircraft is called an Annual
Inspection and must be signed off that way including the phrase "airworthy
condition" in the appropriate place.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
Jabiru 2200A #1574
Tennessee Prop 64x32
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
- Gloria Steinem
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308759#308759
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Do I follow the 100 hr or Annual Condition |
Inspection times
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
All too true, Thom. Good call.
Rick Girard
LSARM 3178721
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Thom Riddle wrote:
> >
>
> Roger,
>
> Since you are dotting the I's and crossing the T's you should make the
> distinction between the terms Annual Inspection and Condition Inspection.
> Using the correct words is important to the FAA guys who make their living
> by looking for arcane semantic infractions, and insurance adjusters looking
> for justifications not to pay claims.
>
> The Inspection for an experimental aircraft (most of the readers here) that
> occurs within the last 12 months to be legal, is called a Condition
> Inspection and the sign off must be worded that way, along with "safe
> operation" in the appropriate place.
>
> The similarly timed inspection for type certificated aircraft is called an
> Annual Inspection and must be signed off that way including the phrase
> "airworthy condition" in the appropriate place.
>
> --------
> Thom Riddle
> Buffalo, NY (9G0)
> Kolb Slingshot SS-021
> Jabiru 2200A #1574
> Tennessee Prop 64x32
>
>
> The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
> - Gloria Steinem
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308759#308759
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Do I follow the 100 hr or Annual Condition Inspection |
times
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
What a tough crowd today. I'm going to have to have my editor check me for political
correctness. [Laughing] [Laughing] [Laughing] [Laughing]
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308762#308762
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughnessEngine roughness |
Dick:
What caused the wire to go intermittent in the first place?
Any ideas?
Barry
Johnathan and Berry
When I first attendend Lockwood's 912 engine course,Dean(the instructor)
mentioned that the most likely problems you will find during troubleshooting
ignition problems is, broken wires under the sheilding. As to how it
happens,I really don't know but I would guess it is vibration. What happens if
you
bend a paper clip many times ? Even though the wire in question is braided
wire,that is what happens. The shielding can take more bending prior to
breakage so therefore,you don't see the break in the underlying wire.
That was the case with my engine and I suspect it will happen again.
Dick Maddux
912UL
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Do I follow the 100 hr or Annual Condition Inspection |
...
OR...YOU CAN DO LIKE I DO...OWN 3 ILLEGAL ULTRALIGHTS, DON'T REGISTER THEM
AND TELL THE FAA AND ALL THE REST TO GO (it begins with an F) THEMSELVES.
I'M 62 YEARS OLD, HAVE AN FAA ATP LICENSE AND AM ABSOLUTELY SICK OF ALL
THE
(it begins with a B). THEY HAVE WORN MY ASS OUT OVER THE PAST 40 (it
begins
with an F) YEARS AND I TRULY FEEL SORRY FOR ALL YOU YOUNG WHIPPERSNAPPERS
AND ALL THE REST OF THE SHEEP OUT THERE WHO THINK THEY HAVE TO DO
EVERYTHING THAT DADDY SAYS. WHO WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THEIR (FAA) (it
begins
with
a B) FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVES. YOU HAVE MY SYMPATHIES.
AAAhhh now you are my new hero Bluemax ! (prior was slide blowing flight
attendent...hmmm that didn't sound quite right) ... That is precisely the
reason why I let my medical expire. I too am tired of the BS. I do however stay
current with my condition inspections,biannual reviews etc just in case I
crunch the airplane and find myself getting sued by land owner,loosing my
license,no coverage on busted aircraft,etc. I am comfortable with that.
BAAAAHHHHHH (sheep sound)
Dick Maddux
Milton,Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughnessEngine roughness |
Hugh,
Something else you might try is switching wires from one module to the
other and see if the problem follows.
Dick Maddux
Milton Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Do I follow the 100 hr or Annual Condition Inspection |
times
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Roger,
We are not tough, just careful readers :-). No harm, no foul, but since you started
this hair splitting thread, I thought I might join in and split the hair
splits a bit finer, so to speak.
It is all done for our mutual benefit and/or amusement. Those who don't care to/for
split hairs can choose to ignore it.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
Jabiru 2200A #1574
Tennessee Prop 64x32
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
- Gloria Steinem
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308781#308781
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Do I follow the 100 hr or Annual Condition Inspection |
times
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
8) :D :D
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308786#308786
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | attn: Blum ax008 |
I wonder if you might;
(a) curb your native language so as to prevent my grandchildren from an
education they don't require,
(b) attempt to control your emotion, a function which does not coincide
with the ATP we all seem to have, and
(c) get some time in. You'll be amazed what the next 18 years will
produce.
Ferg Kyle
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "h&jeuropa" <butcher43(at)att.net> |
Its been five years on our 914 so we're looking at changing hoses. We'd like suggestions
from those that have done this on how to do it efficiently and without
making a huge mess. Access to the water pump hoses seems difficult with the
exhaust system in place (muffler lies under the engine).
Jim & Heather
Europa XS 914
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309082#309082
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
h&jeuropa wrote:
> Its been five years on our 914 so we're looking at changing hoses. We'd like
suggestions from those that have done this on how to do it efficiently and without
making a huge mess. Access to the water pump hoses seems difficult with
the exhaust system in place (muffler lies under the engine).
>
> Jim & Heather
> Europa XS 914
JMO,
if the hoses are still in good shape, I'd consider just going "on condition" on
them and leaving them be.
I recently hit 5 years on my water tubes on my 912ULS and decided not to change
them. They're still pliable with no cracks, etc., so I think I'd have just been
changing out some perfectly good hose with some other perfectly good hose and
that's about it.
I did change my radiator hoses not long ago, but those were visibly beginning to
deteriorate.
One diagnostic to check for is black residue in the bottom of your coolant overflow
bottle. If there's a lot of it after just a short period of time, something
is beginning to rot and its probably the hoses.
That's the diagnostic I'm using on my old water tubes; if I see a bunch of the
stuff at my next check (I did a thorough cleaning of the bottle after changing
my radiator hoses) I'll probably then go ahead and change my water tubes regardless
of how they look.....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309105#309105
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Jim,
In some cases this task will take a little more time than others depending on how
the engine is mounted in your particular plane. You may have to remove the
exhaust to get at the bottom hose and unfortunately some mess is unavoidable.
In my CT I will have to pull the engine out at least part way to get to the hoses
against the firewall behind the engine. The only suggestion I have is to start
with one set of hose and just remove and replace. You will need some band
clamps and a set of band clamp pliers. Try "Chads ToolBox" or a company call
"Jegs" on line for these. Your best bet for hoses and rubber carb parts is from
one of the 3 Rotax distributors. CPS, Lockwood and Leading Edge. For the
CT it is a 2 day job. If you have hose ferrules that secure some of your hose
use a Dremel toll with a cut off blade to slice them open then you can just pull
the hose off. Use a band clamp to re-install the new hose. I use the single
ear band clamp as it is easy to install and easy to remove when the time comes.
It meets ASTM standards. You should use a band clamp on the firesleeve, too.
Starting in 2011 and through 2012 there will be a pile of CT's to do in the
US. Close to a couple of hundred.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309107#309107
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kitfox George <kitfoxsport(at)verizon.net> |
I'm not sure on the use of the Dremel tool. Especially in my hands! I use a
old =0Alarge dull screw driver (curved by intention) and just slightly lif
t up the =0Aedges of-the hose and spray WD- 40. Move to other reachable a
reas and do it =0Aagain and then massage the hose (lightly bend --twist).
The hose will easily =0Aslide off. This works great if you plan on reuse.
Also will aid on putting new =0Ahose on. =0A=0A=0AGeorge=0A=0Ado not archiv
e =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Roger Lee <ssadiv
er1(at)yahoo.com>=0ATo: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Tue, August 17
, 2010 7:06:05 AM=0ASubject: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Hose Change=0A=0A--> Ro
taxEngines-List message posted by: "Roger Lee" =0A=0AH
i Jim,=0A=0AIn some cases this task will take a little more time than other
s depending on =0Ahow the engine is mounted in your particular plane. You m
ay have to remove the =0Aexhaust to get at the bottom hose and unfortunatel
y some mess is unavoidable. In =0Amy CT I will have to pull the engine out
at least part way to get to the hoses =0Aagainst the firewall behind the en
gine. The only suggestion I have is to start =0Awith one set of hose and ju
st remove and replace. You will need- some band =0Aclamps and a set of ba
nd clamp pliers. Try "Chads ToolBox"- or a company call =0A"Jegs" on line
for these. Your best bet for hoses and rubber carb parts is from =0Aone of
the 3 Rotax distributors.- CPS, Lockwood and Leading Edge. For the CT it
=0Ais a 2 day job. If you have hose ferrules that secure some of your hose
use a =0ADremel toll with a cut off blade to slice them open then you can
just pull the =0Ahose off. Use a band clamp to re-install the new hose. I u
se the single ear band =0Aclamp as it is easy to install and easy to!=0A-
remove when the time comes. It meets ASTM standards. You should use a band
=0Aclamp on the firesleeve, too. Starting in 2011 and through 2012 there w
ill be a =0Apile of CT's to do in the US. Close to a couple of hundred.=0A
=0A--------=0ARoger Lee=0ATucson, Az.=0ALight Sport Repairman - Maintenance
Rated=0ARotax Repair Center=0A520-574-1080=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic o
nline here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309107#30910
========================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Jim,
Never reuse any of those ferrules, especially if all you did was slide them off.
A Dremel is very easy to use with a cut off blade. Just slice the ferrule from
top to bottom at two places and open it up some with a screwdriver. Just slice
the ferrule you don't need to go deep enough into the hose itself. Then pull
the hose off. Toss that ferrule in the garbage. Use a new band clamp so the hose
can not just be pulled off by hand.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309204#309204
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Kulp <undoctor(at)ptd.net> |
A question for the experts. I have a 447 on a Kolb FireFly and have
been unable to get the engine to settle in mid-range RPMs. If I have
the throttle set at a certain point the engine runs strong at 5400Rs,
but when I try to decrease the Rs to about 48-5000, the smallest
reduction causes the engine to slow to about 4300.
I pulled the plugs after landing yesterday and the front cylinder's plug
is an even tan color, but the rear plug is the same tan on half of the
electrode and ceramic cone and sooty black on the other half. First
thing that comes to mind is a leaking head gasket, but also wonder if I
should check the torque on the head bolts first, and has anyone ever
heard of a spark plug "leak" - either the gasket or the plug itself?
Further info that may or may not be pertinent, my CHT gauges show one
cylinder in normal heat range and the other is rather chilly. Checking
this out a while back I checked the temp of the plugs and the heads with
a laser thermometer and they were withing a few degrees of each other,
so I attributed the difference to the gauge or the thermocouple. But
maybe it has something to do with the Blackie Carbon lurking on half my
rear cylinder plug.
Any thought from the experts on the list will be greatly appreciated.
Dave Kulp
Bethlehem, PA
FireFly 11DMK
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
undoctor wrote:
> A question for the experts. I have a 447 on a Kolb FireFly and have
> been unable to get the engine to settle in mid-range RPMs. If I have
> the throttle set at a certain point the engine runs strong at 5400Rs,
> but when I try to decrease the Rs to about 48-5000, the smallest
> reduction causes the engine to slow to about 4300.
>
> I pulled the plugs after landing yesterday and the front cylinder's plug
> is an even tan color, but the rear plug is the same tan on half of the
> electrode and ceramic cone and sooty black on the other half. First
> thing that comes to mind is a leaking head gasket, but also wonder if I
> should check the torque on the head bolts first, and has anyone ever
> heard of a spark plug "leak" - either the gasket or the plug itself?
>
> Further info that may or may not be pertinent, my CHT gauges show one
> cylinder in normal heat range and the other is rather chilly. Checking
> this out a while back I checked the temp of the plugs and the heads with
> a laser thermometer and they were withing a few degrees of each other,
> so I attributed the difference to the gauge or the thermocouple. But
> maybe it has something to do with the Blackie Carbon lurking on half my
> rear cylinder plug.
>
> Any thought from the experts on the list will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Dave Kulp
> Bethlehem, PA
>
> FireFly 11DMK
Yeah, both of my 447's did this. My single carb 503 did it also tho to a lesser
degree. I think it's just a property of the single carb configuration, but what
the exact cause is I couldn't say.
There's not a whole lot you can do about it, really. One thing that seemed to help
on my engines was varying the load in the spot where it tended to wander.
I.e. add a little pitch (or just fly slower) to load the engine a bit more. This
will require opening the throttle a little more which may get it out of that
wandering range (that worked on my old 447 equipped trike) and make it settle
down.
I also tried different needle settings on the theory that it was lean in that spot.
Raising the needle one notch helped with the hair-trigger throttle on my
trike's 447, but it also made it so rich it stumbled and burbled a little bit.
That was more objectionable to me than the wandering so I set it back where it
was.
It sounds like your EGT's are actually a little cool in that range which could
be either a little rich or too much load (or both).
The really expensive option is to go with the dual-carb setup, if you can still
get the little Bing carbs and manifolds for this. This will completely eliminate
the problem (or at least it did on a friend of mine's Starlight/447), but
it may be too pricey and difficult to make it worth it.
I just learned to live with it myself, generally by just flying slower and loading
the engine a little more when in that particular throttle range....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309284#309284
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
David, A little info please. Is this problem a sudden onset or did it happen
gradually?
Did the engine sit awhile in storage?
Is there any crud in the carb float bowl.
Have you checked the carb socket for cracks?
How is your prop set? What RPM do you get static? What RPM do you get at WOT
in straight and level flight?
Rick Girard
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:00 AM, David Kulp wrote:
>
> A question for the experts. I have a 447 on a Kolb FireFly and have been
> unable to get the engine to settle in mid-range RPMs. If I have the
> throttle set at a certain point the engine runs strong at 5400Rs, but when I
> try to decrease the Rs to about 48-5000, the smallest reduction causes the
> engine to slow to about 4300.
>
> I pulled the plugs after landing yesterday and the front cylinder's plug is
> an even tan color, but the rear plug is the same tan on half of the
> electrode and ceramic cone and sooty black on the other half. First thing
> that comes to mind is a leaking head gasket, but also wonder if I should
> check the torque on the head bolts first, and has anyone ever heard of a
> spark plug "leak" - either the gasket or the plug itself?
>
> Further info that may or may not be pertinent, my CHT gauges show one
> cylinder in normal heat range and the other is rather chilly. Checking this
> out a while back I checked the temp of the plugs and the heads with a laser
> thermometer and they were withing a few degrees of each other, so I
> attributed the difference to the gauge or the thermocouple. But maybe it
> has something to do with the Blackie Carbon lurking on half my rear cylinder
> plug.
>
> Any thought from the experts on the list will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Dave Kulp
> Bethlehem, PA
>
> FireFly 11DMK
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Dave,
The one 447 I've owned had the rpm instability in the mid-range like you described
but it did not have the half black spark plug nor a wide difference in EGT
nor CHT between the two cylinders. I suspect the RPM instability is characteristic
of this engine but know that the half black is not. I would ignore the RPM
issue until you've discovered and fixed the cause of the half black plug.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
Jabiru 2200A #1574
Tennessee Prop 64x32
The world is round; it has no point.
- Adrienne E. Gusoff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309360#309360
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Thom, RPM instability is not a characteristic of a properly set up 447. I
suspect that Dave's trouble is prop loading, i.e., the usual suspect, but
without more info I can't say for sure.
When I do the break in and set up per the Rotax manual so that the prop is
pitched to reach the peak HP area of the engines power curve the engine
performs without quirks. On an older engine it's tough to say without more
info. If nothing else, making sure the prop is right, assuming a ground
adjustable, is cheap, quick, and most often effective.
Rick
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Thom Riddle wrote:
> >
>
> Dave,
>
> The one 447 I've owned had the rpm instability in the mid-range like you
> described but it did not have the half black spark plug nor a wide
> difference in EGT nor CHT between the two cylinders. I suspect the RPM
> instability is characteristic of this engine but know that the half black is
> not. I would ignore the RPM issue until you've discovered and fixed the
> cause of the half black plug.
>
> --------
> Thom Riddle
> Buffalo, NY (9G0)
> Kolb Slingshot SS-021
> Jabiru 2200A #1574
> Tennessee Prop 64x32
>
>
> The world is round; it has no point.
> - Adrienne E. Gusoff
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309360#309360
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Kulp <undoctor(at)ptd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
Thanks to both of you for your contributions, Lucien and Rick. I've
messed with the load factor and there are times I can get it to pull
steady at 48 - 5000, but I seem to be descending (just ordered a digital
Attitude Indicator which will make it easier than using the VSI) It's
encouraging to know that this part of my question seems to be the
"nature of the beast." The 50% tan 50% black spark plug has me a bit
more concerned, though.
To answer your questions, Rick: The plane sat for pretty close to a
year from when I bought it, picked it up and got a home for it. The
carb bowl is clean and emptied regularly. The carb socket is supple and
sound. The prop is unchanged from when I bought it. I show 6200 at 60
MPH climbout, and I've only run it wide open once straight and level and
I believe it was 6800 Rs (being a multi-million mile 18 wheeler jockey I
tend to shy away from high RPMs - I even buy motorcycles that are heavy
on low RPM torque rather than the high horsepower at high RPM
screamers... maybe my mindset is part of the unsettled mid-range question).
Hope that info helps your analysis. I sure appreciate your input - I
feel so alone up there when I'm concerned there's a problem; you
probably know why (20 year anniversary of the incident today!!).
Best,
Dave Kulp
Bethlehem, PA
FireFly 11DMK
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Dave, If it were me, the first place I thing I would do is crank in a little
more prop pitch. I usually set a 447 for 6000 RPM static when tied down on
the ground at WOT. This puts the engine near the top of the HP curve, but
not at the peak. Like you, I'm uncomfortable setting up an engine so that it
can run close to it's WOT red line RPM (6800 RPM for the 447).
Anyway, with the engine set for 6000 RPM static, you'll find that WOT
throttle, in flight will be about 6400.
I recommend, since your engine did sit for a year, that you pull the carb
and thoroughly inspect the two idle air bypasses at the floor of the
throttle bore. Even a tiny amount of fuel that is allowed to congeal in them
will throw off the carb throughout it's range. My 582 drove me nuts trying
to tune it up after a year layup while I rebuilt systems on the aircraft.
Even though I was careful to drain the float bowls and put in preservative
oil, a drop of fuel was all it took to close both those passages and nothing
helped until I took a fine needle and a can of carb cleaner worked all the
crud out of those two little passages. Put the carbs back on, did a carb
synch and no problems since.
In summary, pull the carb check passages, all jets and the needle valve, pay
attention to the idle air passages. When you're sure the carb is all clean,
reinstall and set static airplane RPM for 6000. IF the problem persists, at
least you have the basics set properly to you can begin checking other
things. Without this basic setup you can chase your tail until you're nuts
and never find the problem. Seen that one enough times to know.
Good luck.
Rick
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:53 AM, David Kulp wrote:
>
> Thanks to both of you for your contributions, Lucien and Rick. I've
> messed with the load factor and there are times I can get it to pull steady
> at 48 - 5000, but I seem to be descending (just ordered a digital Attitude
> Indicator which will make it easier than using the VSI) It's encouraging to
> know that this part of my question seems to be the "nature of the beast."
> The 50% tan 50% black spark plug has me a bit more concerned, though.
>
> To answer your questions, Rick: The plane sat for pretty close to a year
> from when I bought it, picked it up and got a home for it. The carb bowl is
> clean and emptied regularly. The carb socket is supple and sound. The prop
> is unchanged from when I bought it. I show 6200 at 60 MPH climbout, and
> I've only run it wide open once straight and level and I believe it was 6800
> Rs (being a multi-million mile 18 wheeler jockey I tend to shy away from
> high RPMs - I even buy motorcycles that are heavy on low RPM torque rather
> than the high horsepower at high RPM screamers... maybe my mindset is part
> of the unsettled mid-range question).
>
> Hope that info helps your analysis. I sure appreciate your input - I feel
> so alone up there when I'm concerned there's a problem; you probably know
> why (20 year anniversary of the incident today!!).
>
> Best,
>
>
> Dave Kulp
> Bethlehem, PA
>
> FireFly 11DMK
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us |
Hi Group I never worked or flew with a 447. It however sounds like too
lean of a mixture. First thing is to identify the exact position of the
throttle when it happens, then identify what part of the carb controls
things at that time.May be taper or shapeof jet needle or
cutaway of slide that is just not right, not just jet needle position.
Some needle jets have holes in the side to draw air,could be that
too. If easy perhaps you could select the RPM range and richen the mixture
to see if it helps out. Easiest is to try enriching circuit, if no change
try tosquirting some fuel incab, if no good
tryrestricting intake of carb if you can do it safetly.
Just
some ideas. I remember making a new jet needle for a single carb Cayuna
with a similar problem that helped out quite a bit. Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Ron, All I can tell you is that two strokes are different from other
engines. Getting the power loading of the engine correct is the first
essential thing to do before you even try and evaluate any condition (short
of known bad parts like stuck rings, metal transfer caused by seizure,
piston damage through detonation. On new engines I've never had to do a
thing more that drop the needles one notch. Chasing jet combinations is a
fools errand for the most part. Stock Rotax engines work out of the box if
you A: break them in per the Rotax schedule and B: Set the prop for the
correct power loading. It is B: that sets two strokes apart from other
engines.
Rick
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:42 PM, wrote:
> Hi Group I never worked or flew with a 447. It however sounds like too lean
> of a mixture. First thing is to identify the exact position of the throttle
> when it happens, then identify what part of the carb controls things at that
> time. May be taper or shape of jet needle or cutaway of slide that is just
> not right, not just jet needle position. Some needle jets have holes in the
> side to draw air, could be that too. If easy perhaps you could select the
> RPM range and richen the mixture to see if it helps out. Easiest is to try
> enriching circuit, if no change try to squirting some fuel in cab, if no
> good try restricting intake of carb if you can do it safetly.
> Just some ideas. I remember making a new jet needle for a single carb
> Cayuna with a similar problem that helped out quite a bit. Ron Parigoris
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Rick
I agree that 2 strokes can be quite different than 4 strokes when it comes to carb
tuning. For one thing many don't have an exactly flat torque curve where there
is less than optimal combustion taking place at a given RPM range. It could
be that all the burnt exhaust gasses are not being expelled from the combustion
chamber or that some of the fresh charge is blowing right out the exhaust.
The type of exhaust affects power band, as does the intake tuning. BTW I have
had great success adding a canister to intake to act as a dampener in several
cases with this sort of thing that happens. Yamaha called it a tuned intake.
What happens on tune of some 2 strokes is that instead of only sucking through
carb, there is a pulse that shoots back out carb a little at certain RPMs. This
really screws things up. The canister helps even out this shooting back of
airflow. This is usual when engine is out of ideal power band where you are getting
a nice fresh charge in cylinder. I agree that first and foremost make sure
carb is clean and functioning correctly. (You did remove all jets and make
absolute sure no carb snot? Also make sure number on jets is as specified by
Rotax). It's true that loading can affect this searching mode. On motorcycles,
lets take for example a 1972 Kawasaki H2 3 cylinder two stroke. When you are
crusing at 55mph there is little load on motor and motor is not quite in efficient
part of torque curve. It would do this hunting trick. I made a pilot controllable
air jet where I ran the pilot air screw a little rich with fuel for the
55mph cruise, but you could lean it a bit of other times when you were in stop
and go mode. Worked great. Anyway if prop is not loading in a specific install,
carb adjustment can quite possible resolve. I forget specifics on motor
origin of motor with this problem, but if motor was tuned for higher altitude
operation and is now operating at a lower altitude, that will cause a leaner mixture.
I also shoehorned a YTZ250 engine in a YZ 80 frame, took tune of motor from 5 ports
and 32mm carb to 7 ports and 42mm flat slide pretty close to motocross tune.
Again had problems with light loading hunting and made a reach down when riding
airscrew adjustment after getting carb set optimal. Worked great. BTW tuning
did in fact include getting optimal taper to jet needle.
Remember that the exhaust system can greatly effect tune of a two stroke. If it
is a tuned exhaust almost always to get optimal performance carb needs tweaking
if it was originally tuned for only a muffler. Another often overlooked issue
is an exhaust system that changes. On motorcycles with high time carbon coats
inside. A slick trick is to light carbon on fire with a oxy acetelene torch,
then turn off acetelene and only let oxygen into chamber, watch carbon burn
out (cherry red patch). A few taps releases this fine brown/tan residue after
carbon stops burning. I have had a handful of subtle tuning issues end up being
exhaust related. Not only carbon clogging, but damaged expansion chambers can
cause change.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309466#309466
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Yes, the phenomenon of fuel going back up and out the carb, known as fuel
stand off, can be a real issue. This problem was the reason for the
invention of velocity stacks. Unlike the exhaust port the intake port has
to rely on a vacuum pulse to pull that ejected charge back down the throat
of the carb. Similar problem exists at the exhaust port where a reflected
wave is needed to stuff the charge back into the combustion chamber when it
would just as soon follow the exhaust gas right on out the pipe until the
piston closes the exhaust port.
One of the reasons Rotax has come to dominate the market for two stroke
engines, IMHO, is that they have offered a package that works right out of
the box as long as the installer does two things, break the engine in per
the table Rotax puts in the installation manual and set the prop for the
right loading. It's that simple. The only mod I have ever had to do is drop
the needle one notch.
Look at the Hirth as the counter example. I had one go round with them and
that was enough. The customer absolutely swore the distributor set up the
jetting in the carb, and I believe him only because further talk revealed
him to be an absolute moron about anything mechanical and removed all
question of why he wore velcro closure shoes. Of course the distributor
disowned the jet settings I found in the carbs and could tell me nothing
about the cut and paste exhaust. Of course they do have a 1000 hour TBO, but
I don't think that actually includes engine run time.
Anyway, thanks for writing back. Do you still fly the balloon? That article
you sent me was a hit with my EAA chapter.
Rick
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 5:02 PM, rparigoris wrote:
> rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
> Rick
> I agree that 2 strokes can be quite different than 4 strokes when it comes
> to carb tuning. For one thing many don't have an exactly flat torque curve
> where there is less than optimal combustion taking place at a given RPM
> range. It could be that all the burnt exhaust gasses are not being expelled
> from the combustion chamber or that some of the fresh charge is blowing
> right out the exhaust. The type of exhaust affects power band, as does the
> intake tuning. BTW I have had great success adding a canister to intake to
> act as a dampener in several cases with this sort of thing that happens.
> Yamaha called it a tuned intake. What happens on tune of some 2 strokes is
> that instead of only sucking through carb, there is a pulse that shoots back
> out carb a little at certain RPMs. This really screws things up. The
> canister helps even out this shooting back of airflow. This is usual when
> engine is out of ideal power band where you are getting a nice fresh charge
> in cylinder. I agree that!
> first and foremost make sure carb is clean and functioning correctly. (You
> did remove all jets and make absolute sure no carb snot? Also make sure
> number on jets is as specified by Rotax). It's true that loading can affect
> this searching mode. On motorcycles, lets take for example a 1972 Kawasaki
> H2 3 cylinder two stroke. When you are crusing at 55mph there is little load
> on motor and motor is not quite in efficient part of torque curve. It would
> do this hunting trick. I made a pilot controllable air jet where I ran the
> pilot air screw a little rich with fuel for the 55mph cruise, but you could
> lean it a bit of other times when you were in stop and go mode. Worked
> great. Anyway if prop is not loading in a specific install, carb adjustment
> can quite possible resolve. I forget specifics on motor origin of motor with
> this problem, but if motor was tuned for higher altitude operation and is
> now operating at a lower altitude, that will cause a leaner mixture.
> I also shoehorned a YTZ250 engine in a YZ 80 frame, took tune of motor from
> 5 ports and 32mm carb to 7 ports and 42mm flat slide pretty close to
> motocross tune. Again had problems with light loading hunting and made a
> reach down when riding airscrew adjustment after getting carb set optimal.
> Worked great. BTW tuning did in fact include getting optimal taper to jet
> needle.
> Remember that the exhaust system can greatly effect tune of a two stroke.
> If it is a tuned exhaust almost always to get optimal performance carb needs
> tweaking if it was originally tuned for only a muffler. Another often
> overlooked issue is an exhaust system that changes. On motorcycles with high
> time carbon coats inside. A slick trick is to light carbon on fire with a
> oxy acetelene torch, then turn off acetelene and only let oxygen into
> chamber, watch carbon burn out (cherry red patch). A few taps releases this
> fine brown/tan residue after carbon stops burning. I have had a handful of
> subtle tuning issues end up being exhaust related. Not only carbon clogging,
> but damaged expansion chambers can cause change.
> Ron Parigoris
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309466#309466
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com> |
David,
I think part of your issue is thats you are running too low RPM
447 503 , 582 will run all day at 5800 to 6000 rpm with EGT in a comfortable
range. They are made to run in this range and WOT at 6500 to 6800 no
problem. Stop worrying.
I assume that you have a stock rotax exhaust ?
Dave
http://www.youtube.com/user/kitfoxflyer
Hundreds of videos with 2 stroke Rotax.
--------
Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada
http://www.cfisher.com/
Awesome *New Forum *
http://rotaxaircraft.com/forum/
Realtime Kitfox movies to separate the internet chatter from the truth
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=kitfoxflyer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309485#309485
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us |
Hi Rick
"Do you still fly the balloon? That
articleyou sent me was a hit with my EAA chapter."
I
haven't in several years. building a Europa XS, but will drag it out when
I am flying the XS.
BTW I needed to cut and paste back together the
expansion chamber to get it to fit the "Screwball" frame which
changed things a little and also installed a sock air filter that changed
things a lot. That engine is 73cc and puts out 22HP. After some fiddeling
the thing runs great!
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
undoctor wrote:
> Thanks to both of you for your contributions, Lucien and Rick. I've
> messed with the load factor and there are times I can get it to pull
> steady at 48 - 5000, but I seem to be descending (just ordered a digital
> Attitude Indicator which will make it easier than using the VSI) It's
> encouraging to know that this part of my question seems to be the
> "nature of the beast." The 50% tan 50% black spark plug has me a bit
> more concerned, though.
>
>
You probably won't ever be able to get the mixture exactly the same on both cyls
when running the single carb. Like I said, the 503 has the same problem when
run single-carb, tho to a lesser degree. So it's not really just a problem with
the 447.
So the best you can do is identify the lean cylinder and ensure that that one always
runs sufficiently rich. Generally, tho, when jetted according to Rotax specs,
you're practically always where you need to be with that. So if you find
that you have to jet a long ways from the recommended settings for your altitude
and temp, then you know you have a problem.
Rick is right tho that the load on the motor is the main treatment. Particularly
if you're underpropped the engine will really wander around in that midrange
throttle setting, is what I found.
Finally, and not meaning to be contrary, 6000 rpm all the time is really too much.
The 2-strokes, especially the 582, aren't like the 912 series which can be
run at max power pretty much all the time. They're 2-stroke engines and they
work harder than the 4-stroke 912's do. The 447 is generally more forgiving of
this than the other two, but for the longest life I'd personally limit the max
rpm on a continuous basis to about 5600; 5400 is the "sweet spot" for the 447/503.
6000+ all the time will knock a bit off your TBO as well as use a lot
more gas than you really need to burn.
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309514#309514
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "qaz11" <sinkar88(at)gmail.com> |
yes you have now found the true meaning of high pressure hose, these are a heavy
duty hose, and the ends are bonded to the rubber for maximum durability, there
is nothing I have heard of that can hold up to the pressure, the return line
is easy, but not the high pressure, I dont know why but that sure seems like
a lot of money you might get the part numbers and start doing an internet search,
is there like a ton of work to change this hose,? or is it an expensive hose?
good luck
--------------------------------------------
Income Protection Insurance (http://www.guardianinsurance.com.au/Income-Protection-Insurance.aspx)| Life Insurance Quotes (http://www.guardianinsurance.com.au/Life-Insurance-Quote.aspx)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309612#309612
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Kulp <undoctor(at)ptd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
**
this than the other two, but for the longest life I'd personally limit the
max
rpm on a continuous basis to about 5600; 5400 is the "sweet spot" for the
447/503.
6000+ all the time will knock a bit off your TBO as well as use a lot
more gas than you really need to burn.
Thank you all so much for lots of input. Now I can adjust my flying to what's
most agreeable to the 447; especially the RPMs and engine loading.
I guess it stands to reason the place my engine wants to run is between 52-5400
Rs. That just felt to me like I was abusing it, but I guess not.
The difference in CHT the gauges show isn't a concern, since checking the temp
of the plugs and heads with a laser thermometer immediately after
landing shows they're virtually identical.
But I'd like to determine why one plug has two different burn rates. I have a
thought/question that may shed some light. Is there a recommended
order in which to install the spark plug gasket and the ring that sends the CHT
to the gauge? Does the gasket go up against the plug with the ring
between the gasket and head, or does the ring go against the plug with the gasket
between the ring and the head? Maybe this is a source of
an air leak and may be why the gauges show such a difference in CHT.
Again, thanks for the input on the RPM question. Much appreciated!!
Dave Kulp
Bethlehem, PA
FireFly 11DMK
**
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com> |
David, 52 to 5400 is not a sweet spot and this is why you might be having issues.
I can run a 503 for 600 hour plus with oil injection at 5800 to 6000 rpm
with NO teardowns, de carboning etc- change plugs 100 to 150 hours.
Rotax exhaust is what tunes your inpulses( timing ) they do not like to run much
under 5400 . Many guys will modify their exhaust to make things fit but really
mess up the tuning. 2 " can lose you 10 to 15% HP easy and change the rpm
band of where you get HP and torque.
To each their own but i base mine on thousands of hours behind them and over 30
years in the air.
--------
Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada
http://www.cfisher.com/
Awesome *New Forum *
http://rotaxaircraft.com/forum/
Realtime Kitfox movies to separate the internet chatter from the truth
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=kitfoxflyer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309626#309626
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Dave, I have to take issue with the ideas presented here about 447
performance. First take a look at the performance graphs found on page 10-3
of the Operations Manual. The idea that it is best to operate the engine as
low as 5200 RPM just isn't supported here. Best fuel consumption, maximum
horse power, and maximum torque all occur in the 6000 to 6500 RPM range.
Then look at page 10-1 Operating Parameters, cruising speed - 6500 RPM.
Now I know there will be lots of comments and I don't claim any kind of
expertise, but when I start thinking about doing something different from
the Rotax spec's I remember Brian Carpenter's line, "Rotax has a hundred
white coated engineers working on these engines for the last 30 years, what
chance do you think you have to come up with something they haven't?"
So, I still say do it as the book says. Just MHO.
Rick
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 8:31 AM, David Kulp wrote:
> *
> this than the other two, but for the longest life I'd personally limit
the max
> rpm on a continuous basis to about 5600; 5400 is the "sweet spot" for the
447/503.
> 6000+ all the time will knock a bit off your TBO as well as use a lot
> more gas than you really need to burn.
>
> Thank you all so much for lots of input. Now I can adjust my flying to what's
most agreeable to the 447; especially the RPMs and engine loading.
> I guess it stands to reason the place my engine wants to run is between 52-5400
Rs. That just felt to me like I was abusing it, but I guess not.
> The difference in CHT the gauges show isn't a concern, since checking the temp
of the plugs and heads with a laser thermometer immediately after
> landing shows they're virtually identical.
>
> But I'd like to determine why one plug has two different burn rates. I have
a thought/question that may shed some light. Is there a recommended
> order in which to install the spark plug gasket and the ring that sends the CHT
to the gauge? Does the gasket go up against the plug with the ring
> between the gasket and head, or does the ring go against the plug with the gasket
between the ring and the head? Maybe this is a source of
> an air leak and may be why the gauges show such a difference in CHT.
>
> Again, thanks for the input on the RPM question. Much appreciated!!
>
> Dave Kulp
> Bethlehem, PA
>
> FireFly 11DMK
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com> |
Rick. you are saying pretty well what I am saying.
Dave
[quote="rickofudall"]Dave, I have to take issue with the ideas presented here about
447 performance. First take a look at the performance graphs found on page
10-3 of the Operations Manual. The idea that it is best to operate the engine
as low as 5200 RPM just isn't supported here. Best fuel consumption, maximum
horse power, and maximum torque all occur in the 6000 to 6500 RPM range. Then
look at page 10-1 Operating Parameters, cruising speed - 6500 RPM.
Now I know there will be lots of comments and I don't claim any kind of expertise,
but when I start thinking about doing something different from the Rotax spec's
I remember Brian Carpenter's line, "Rotax has a hundred white coated engineers
working on these engines for the last 30 years, what chance do you think
you have to come up with something they haven't?"
So, I still say do it as the book says. Just MHO.
Rick
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 8:31 AM, David Kulp wrote:
>
> > [b]
> > this than the other two, but for the longest life I'd personally limit
the max
> > rpm on a continuous basis to about 5600; 5400 is the "sweet spot" for
the 447/503.
> > 6000+ all the time will knock a bit off your TBO as well as use a lot
> > more gas than you really need to burn.
> >
> > Thank you all so much for lots of input. Now I can adjust my flying to what's
most agreeable to the 447; especially the RPMs and engine loading.
> > I guess it stands to reason the place my engine wants to run is between 52-5400
Rs. That just felt to me like I was abusing it, but I guess not.
> > The difference in CHT the gauges show isn't a concern, since checking the temp
of the plugs and heads with a laser thermometer immediately after
> > landing shows they're virtually identical.
> >
> > But I'd like to determine why one plug has two different burn rates. I have
a thought/question that may shed some light. Is there a recommended
> > order in which to install the spark plug gasket and the ring that sends the
CHT to the gauge? Does the gasket go up against the plug with the ring
> > between the gasket and head, or does the ring go against the plug with the
gasket between the ring and the head? Maybe this is a source of
> > an air leak and may be why the gauges show such a difference in CHT.
> >
> > Again, thanks for the input on the RPM question. Much appreciated!!
> >
> > Dave Kulp
> > Bethlehem, PA
> >
> > FireFly 11DMK
> >
> > [/b]
> >
> > ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
> > tp://forums.matronics.com
> > _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >
> >
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
> [b]
--------
Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada
http://www.cfisher.com/
Awesome *New Forum *
http://rotaxaircraft.com/forum/
Realtime Kitfox movies to separate the internet chatter from the truth
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=kitfoxflyer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309632#309632
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Blumax008(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
In a message dated 8/21/2010 12:11:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dave(at)cfisher.com writes:
"Rotax has a hundred white coated engineers working on these engines for
the last 30 years, what chance do you think you have to come up with
something they haven't?"
For the same reason that the American Cancer Society has had 100,000+ white
coated researchers trying to find a cure for Cancer.
What they've actually found is that Cancer is a BIG MONEY MAKING BUSINESS!
That's why Rotax recommends overhauls at 300 hours when I know from
experience that you can go 1,500+. Don't believe everything you read. I've got
32
years flying Rotax 2-cycle motors. I know what they will & will not do &
don't need a book to tell me.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hugh McKay" <hgmckay(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness Engine roughness |
OK guys, We have checked all the wiring everyone has suggested for
continuity:
"P" leads, Kill Switches, wires to all the ignition pick-ups, and the
two red wires going down to the engine (these two red wires are grounded
in the engine per the Rotax 912 engine wiring diagram, so we just
disconnected one end of each red wire on top of the engine and ohmed
each wire to ground and we got continuity. Therefore we assume the red
wires are good. We put everything back together and the engine did the
exact same thing. The engine started and ran, but had a slight roughness
to it. I ran it up to 2200 rpm and killed the left mag switch. There was
no drop in rpm at 2200. The engine continued to run. I then opened the
left mag switch and closed the right mag switch, and the engine died
(was killed) immediately. Same problem!!
Dick you suggested switching all the wires from one ignition module to
the other. Are they identical and can they be switched without harming
the engine? If we do this and the problem still occurs, but is on the
other mag, what does this tell us? If the problem still occurs but is on
the same mag, what does that tell us?
Still searching,
Hugh McKay
Allegro 2000 ELSA
Rotax 912 UL
N661WW
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughnessEngine roughness
Hugh,
Something else you might try is switching wires from one module to the
other and see if the problem follows.
Dick Maddux
Milton Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness Engine roughness |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Hugh, Has anyone tried to verify you have spark by grounding out the plug
and trying to see spark jumping the gap on the plug recently? I remember
this from Rotax Cert school. Attempting to do this can kill an itty bitty
diode in the ignition module and since the module is potted there is no
other way to fix it but to replace the module. What symptoms this blown
diode would exhibit was never discussed.
Hope this helps.
Rick Girard
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Hugh McKay wrote:
> OK guys, We have checked all the wiring everyone has suggested for
> continuity:
>
> "P" leads, Kill Switches, wires to all the ignition pick-ups, and the two
> red wires going down to the engine (these two red wires are grounded in the
> engine per the Rotax 912 engine wiring diagram, so we just disconnected one
> end of each red wire on top of the engine and ohmed each wire to ground and
> we got continuity. Therefore we assume the red wires are good. We put
> everything back together and the engine did the exact same thing. The engine
> started and ran, but had a slight roughness to it. I ran it up to 2200 rpm
> and killed the left mag switch. There was no drop in rpm at 2200. The engine
> continued to run. I then opened the left mag switch and closed the right mag
> switch, and the engine died (was killed) immediately. Same problem!!
>
> Dick you suggested switching all the wires from one ignition module to the
> other. Are they identical and can they be switched without harming the
> engine? If we do this and the problem still occurs, but is on the other mag,
> what does this tell us? If the problem still occurs but is on the same mag,
> what does that tell us?
>
> Still searching,
> Hugh McKay
> Allegro 2000 ELSA
> Rotax 912 UL
> N661WW
>
> *From:* Catz631(at)aol.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 14, 2010 10:31 AM
> *To:* rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughnessEngine roughness
>
> Hugh,
> Something else you might try is switching wires from one module to the
> other and see if the problem follows.
> Dick Maddux
> Milton Fl
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness Engine roughness |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Rick
"Has anyone tried to verify you have spark by grounding out the plug and trying
to see spark jumping the gap on the plug recently? I remember this from Rotax
Cert school. Attempting to do this can kill an itty bitty diode in the ignition
module and since the module is potted there is no other way to fix it but to
replace the module. What symptoms this blown diode would exhibit was never discussed.
Hope this helps.
Rick Girard"
This doesn't make much sense to me. Are you sure you don't mean pulling plug wire
off spark plug and turning over motor where the plug wire can't find ground??
(I have heard this warning on many electronic ignitions)
Or perhaps you mean completely shorting out plug wire? (I never heard this before)
Allowing a plug to make a spark is exactly what is supposed to happen, no?
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309696#309696
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness Engine roughness |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
I tried to explain it as it was explained in school, but perhaps I should
have given more detail.
The warning was to not try the old 39 Ford method of pulling a spark plug
and grounding it on the engine case to try and see a spark. If the plug does
not ground, the energy has nowhere else to go but through this diode in the
module which will kill it.
Sorry for the confusion.
Incidentally, the proper way to check for spark on any Rotax engine is to
put an ignition spark tester in the spark plug circuit. The tester has a
light driven by the spark energy, it's bright enough to see in broad
daylight, and the circuit is complete so there is no potential for damage to
the ignition modules. You can get spark testers from almost any auto tool
supplier for under $10 (I think Snap On has one for about $15, but that's
Snap On) Harbor Freight regularly has them on sale for $1.99, but their
quality is so spotty I don't know if I'd risk an $800+ ignition module on
one.
I hope that is a more complete explanation.
Rick
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 9:01 PM, rparigoris wrote:
> rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
> Hi Rick
> "Has anyone tried to verify you have spark by grounding out the plug and
> trying to see spark jumping the gap on the plug recently? I remember this
> from Rotax Cert school. Attempting to do this can kill an itty bitty diode
> in the ignition module and since the module is potted there is no other way
> to fix it but to replace the module. What symptoms this blown diode would
> exhibit was never discussed. Hope this helps.
> Rick Girard"
>
> This doesn't make much sense to me. Are you sure you don't mean pulling
> plug wire off spark plug and turning over motor where the plug wire can't
> find ground?? (I have heard this warning on many electronic ignitions)
>
> Or perhaps you mean completely shorting out plug wire? (I never heard this
> before)
>
> Allowing a plug to make a spark is exactly what is supposed to happen, no?
>
> Ron Parigoris
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309696#309696
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
dave wrote:
> Rick. you are saying pretty well what I am saying.
>
Heh, I'm used to getting push-back on this one, so nowadays to save time I generally just refer the doubters to Mark Smith of Tri-state Kite sales (www.trikite.com). He's flown and worked on the 447 and 503 since the 80's and still does several engines a week. He'll give you the scoop on how to operate them for the longest life and least trouble.
Most of the time, the guys who don't listen to me do listen to him once they see
that he's been working with them for over 30 years.
If not, well, it's your engine ;)
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309714#309714
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
dave wrote:
> David, 52 to 5400 is not a sweet spot and this is why you might be having issues.
I can run a 503 for 600 hour plus with oil injection at 5800 to 6000 rpm
with NO teardowns, de carboning etc- change plugs 100 to 150 hours.
>
This ought to tell you something too - going 600 hours with no teardowns or decarbs
just by itself is brinksmanship with a Rotax 2-stroke even when running it
right, not to mention running it too hard in addition.
But again, I've already done my time online with all this and now just refer guys
to Mark Smith for the way it really should be done with a 447/503.
Let's be careful out there, folks,
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309715#309715
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
| From: | "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com> |
Lucien, There are many of us running Rotax for over 30 years with no troubles.
I think Mark a great guy as well but the point is the original guy who asked is
running it on the low end and that is likely contributing to his troubles.
--------
Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada
http://www.cfisher.com/
Awesome *New Forum *
http://rotaxaircraft.com/forum/
Realtime Kitfox movies to separate the internet chatter from the truth
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=kitfoxflyer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309717#309717
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 analysis |
> Dick you suggested switching all the wires from one ignition module to
the other. Are they identical and can they be switched without harming
the engine? If we do this and the problem still occurs, but is on the
other mag, what does this tell us? If the problem still occurs but is on
the same mag, what does that tell us?<
What this should tell you is if the problem is with the modules or the
wiring. If the problem now goes to the other mag ,you have a wiring problem
(i.e.,: possible grounding of a "P" lead, open power lead,etc). You should be
able to switch plugs at the modules. It won't hurt the engine. You could
switch the wires at the mag switches if you have too. It is just a matter of
right becomes left...left is now right.
If the problem remains in the same "mag" after switching all the wires,
then the problem lies somewhere in the module to engine.
Case in point. I had a similar problem. When I did my mag check. on one
mag it would run rough and often quit.( the other was OK) I reversed the
wiring to the module and now the other mag was cutting out so I knew the problem
was in the wiring somewhere (probably a break ...which it was... in the red
wire)
I fixed that problem by cutting and splicing the offending wire but I
still had a drop on one mag(about 200 I think) but,it didn't quit. When I flew
the aircraft, you could feel the engine miss in flight.
After landing, I pulled all the plugs and "bomb" (spark) tested them in an
AC spark plug tester and low and behold one plug was intermittently firing
with a super weak spark. I chucked that plug and put in another new
one...problem solved. By the way all the plugs were new but I had a bad one so,
when
in doubt, test them!
Hope this helps as I know your frustration!
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Kulp <undoctor(at)ptd.net> |
Still more info on the care and feeding of the 447 Rotax. Thanks so
much! It's more than I could learn by flying it for hundreds of hours.
Thanks so much.
Dave Kulp
Bethlehem, PA
FireFly 11DMK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Davies" <brian.davies(at)clara.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness Engine roughness |
Hi Hugh,
Glad to hear that you have fixed your problem. On the subject of crimping
it is considered bad practice to tin the conductor before crimping because
the solder can flow under the crimping pressure and result in a loose joint.
Some types of "open" connectors where you wrap tangs around the cable, can
be made more secure by soldering after crimping. This is not necessary with
barrel type crimp connectors. A properly crimped connector with good
support for the insulator as well as the conductor, should give good service
provided it is protected from vibratiion. A soldered connection runs the
risk of the solder wicking up the cable inside the insulation and creating a
stress point which will result in a broken conductor if there is any
vibration caused by a poorly supported cable.
Whatever method you use, the important thing for electrical wiring in the
engine area is to make absolutely sure that nothing moves when the engine
is running. Lots and lots of cable ties is the answer. Copper work hardens
when subjected to repeated bending and will become brittle and then break.
Regards
Brian Davies
Europa 912ULS
_____
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hugh
McKay
Sent: 25 August 2010 01:37
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughness Engine roughness
OK guys, Thom, Ron, Rick, Roger, Dick, Clive and others:
I have found the problem and fixed it. I took all of your advice and
counsel and went back again and began to systematically check each wire
especially at or near the plug connectors on top of the engine. I went back
and re-checked all the wiring one more time. This time I found a small break
in the grey wire that goes into the A module coming from the connector to
the red power wire coming up from the engine. I disconnected the plug and
began to ohm the grey wire to ground. I got an open circuit. When I closely
examined the crimped end of the connector on the end of the grey wire there
were only a few strands of conductor that were not broke. Most were broke. I
noticed also that the ends of the grey wires were not "tinned" before being
crimped to the connector. They were just stripped and the connector plug
crimped on the strands. This is very poor practice, and no wonder this type
problem keeps showing up on these engines.
Anyway, I cut the old connector completely off, "tinned" the bare ends of
the brown wire and and the red wire, crimped on a new insulated male/female
spade connector, secured everything and fired the engine up. Every thing is
now working normal. She is "purring like a kitten"!
Going flying tomorrow!!
Thanks,
Hugh McKay
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thom Riddle <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness Engine roughnessRe: Engine |
roughness Engine roughness
Hugh,
Very glad to hear you found the wiring culprit. If you don't mind doing so,
it would be helpful if you could take the time to post a snapshot of the
area where you found the almost broken wire, pointing out in the photo which
wire was it was. The utility of this list depends upon each of us adding
what we can to the knowledge base.
Thom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MacDonald Doug <dougsnash(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: roughness Engine roughness |
Hugh, I hate to be the barer of bad news but you just created a gauranteed, gonna
fail again situation. NEVER tin a crimp on connection in a high vibration
environment. It creates a stress riser inside the wire where the solder ends.
This problem will return in fairly short order. When it does, it will likely
look like someone cut the wire off just past the end of the solder you applied.
Essentially, there are solder type connections and there are crimp on connections
but you should never combine to two techniques. Solder connectors have built
in strain relief to support the cable.
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch Builder
Industrial Electronics technician (day job)
NW Ontario, Canada
QUOTE
I noticed also that the ends of the grey wires were not "tinned" before being
crimped to the connector. They were just stripped and the connector plug crimped
on the strands. This is very poor practice, and no wonder this type problem
keeps showing up on these engines.
Anyway, I cut the old connector completely off, "tinned" the bare ends of the brown
wire and and the red wire, crimped on a new insulated Male/female spade connector,
secured everything and fired the engine up. Every thing is now working
normal. She is "purring like a kitten"!
Going flying tomorrow!!
Thanks,
Hugh McKay
END QUOTE
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness Engine roughness |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
I second Brian's thoughts on soldering. Use good quality PIDG crimp
connectors and a good crimper, not the auto parts $4.99 special type
cheapies, and you won't have wire strand breakage problems. Soldering just
gives the wire a hard edge to start the break, particularly in a high
vibration environment. See AC 43.13.
Rick Girard
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Brian Davies wrote:
> Hi Hugh,
>
> Glad to hear that you have fixed your problem. On the subject of crimping
> it is considered bad practice to tin the conductor before crimping because
> the solder can flow under the crimping pressure and result in a loose
> joint. Some types of "open" connectors where you wrap tangs around the
> cable, can be made more secure by soldering after crimping. This is not
> necessary with barrel type crimp connectors. A properly crimped connector
> with good support for the insulator as well as the conductor, should give
> good service provided it is protected from vibratiion. A soldered
> connection runs the risk of the solder wicking up the cable inside the
> insulation and creating a stress point which will result in a broken
> conductor if there is any vibration caused by a poorly supported cable.
>
> Whatever method you use, the important thing for electrical wiring in the
> engine area is to make absolutely sure that nothing moves when the engine
> is running. Lots and lots of cable ties is the answer. Copper work hardens
> when subjected to repeated bending and will become brittle and then break.
>
> Regards
>
> Brian Davies
>
> Europa 912ULS
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Hugh McKay
> *Sent:* 25 August 2010 01:37
> *To:* rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughness Engine roughness
>
> OK guys, Thom, Ron, Rick, Roger, Dick, Clive and others:
>
> I have found the problem and fixed it. I took all of your advice and
> counsel and went back again and began to systematically check each wire
> especially at or near the plug connectors on top of the engine. I went back
> and re-checked all the wiring one more time. This time I found a small break
> in the grey wire that goes into the A module coming from the connector to
> the red power wire coming up from the engine. I disconnected the plug and
> began to ohm the grey wire to ground. I got an open circuit. When I closely
> examined the crimped end of the connector on the end of the grey wire there
> were only a few strands of conductor that were not broke. Most were broke. I
> noticed also that the ends of the grey wires were not "tinned" before being
> crimped to the connector. They were just stripped and the connector plug
> crimped on the strands. This is very poor practice, and no wonder this type
> problem keeps showing up on these engines.
>
> Anyway, I cut the old connector completely off, "tinned" the bare ends of
> the brown wire and and the red wire, crimped on a new insulated male/female
> spade connector, secured everything and fired the engine up. Every thing is
> now working normal. She is "purring like a kitten"!
>
> Going flying tomorrow!!
> Thanks,
> Hugh McKay
>
> **
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable
to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness Engine roughnessRe: Engine |
roughness
Sneaky little devils(those wires) aren't they Hugh ? Glad you found it !
Dick Maddux
Milton,Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness Engine roughness |
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
Brian:
Very good post.
If I may add to your post...
The basic rule of securing items is: Movable items to Movable AND Fixed to
Fixed.
What that means is: If you are securing say a wire that is coming out of
the firewall secure it to the engine mount. If you are securing say a EGT
or CHT probe secure it to the engine side of the mount first.
The difference being the engine is on the movable vibration dampening side
of the engine mount.
THEN if you have to go to a Fixed point or visa-versa just make a service
loop to remove strain and give flexability.
Here is a trick that I have been doing for YEARS (about 15 of them). When
it comes to crimping and soldering:
1 - Use the proper crimp tool.
The cheep dimpling type you find at Home Depot is NOT the type you want to
use. They create stress points. Yes, a good one CRIMPS not dimples the
connector and wire. And Yes, they cost a bit.
2 - O! The trick: On your battery lugs, do the following:
a> Clean the connection very well.
b> Even if the connection is a used connection this can be done - Clean it
very well - I use MEK.
If it is OIL soaked, you can soak the cable in mineral spirits and them
rinse with Alcohol.
c> After you crimp the lug onto the wire - SOLDER - Yes, solder but here is
HOW:
Solder ONLY the end of the wire next to the mounting hole.
Use Silver Solder - 3% or higher.
AND don't use excessive heat.
You will probably need to use a propane torch WITH a small pointed flame.
This is to keep the heat concentrated. AND even a 500 Watt gun does
not develop enough heat.
d> REMEMBER - Only enough solder to cover the END of the cable Let me
repeat that.... SOLDER ONLY THE RING END OF THE LUG & WIRE.
DO NOT FLOW THE SOLDER ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE LUG.
What this does for you is - Makes both a excellent Mechanical and Electrical
connection.
It keep OIL from getting into the cable.
Over the years you will have a fantastic connection and CORROSION can not
start within the crimp.
REMEMBER - CLEAN the connection before and ESPECIALLY AFTER soldering.
Again for this type of connection I use a 50/50 mixture of Alcohol & MEK.
Hope this helps the builders out there.
Barry
Whatever method you use, the important thing for electrical wiring in the
> engine area is to make absolutely sure that nothing moves when the engine
> is running. Lots and lots of cable ties is the answer. Copper work hardens
> when subjected to repeated bending and will become brittle and then break.
>
> Regards
>
> Brian Davies
>
> Europa 912ULS
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Hugh McKay
> *Sent:* 25 August 2010 01:37
> *To:* rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Engine roughness Engine roughness
>
> OK guys, Thom, Ron, Rick, Roger, Dick, Clive and others:
>
> I have found the problem and fixed it. I took all of your advice and
> counsel and went back again and began to systematically check each wire
> especially at or near the plug connectors on top of the engine. I went back
> and re-checked all the wiring one more time. This time I found a small break
> in the grey wire that goes into the A module coming from the connector to
> the red power wire coming up from the engine. I disconnected the plug and
> began to ohm the grey wire to ground. I got an open circuit. When I closely
> examined the crimped end of the connector on the end of the grey wire there
> were only a few strands of conductor that were not broke. Most were broke. I
> noticed also that the ends of the grey wires were not "tinned" before being
> crimped to the connector. They were just stripped and the connector plug
> crimped on the strands. This is very poor practice, and no wonder this type
> problem keeps showing up on these engines.
>
> Anyway, I cut the old connector completely off, "tinned" the bare ends of
> the brown wire and and the red wire, crimped on a new insulated male/female
> spade connector, secured everything and fired the engine up. Every thing is
> now working normal. She is "purring like a kitten"!
>
> Going flying tomorrow!!
> Thanks,
> Hugh McKay
>
> **
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Blackmore" <blackmore(at)platinum.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness Engine roughness |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)primus.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine roughness Engine roughness |
Hugh,
Actually tinning is not advisable in these wire connections. When you
tin, the solder runs down into the wire beyond the crimping, setting up
a stiffness which will cause the wire to break at the end of the
tinning, up inside the insulation.
Considered a bad practice.
Dave Austin - 601 HDS 912 UL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Fasching" <n29cx(at)ridgeviewtel.us> |
Here is a bolt from the gear box of a 912ULS...factory new engine. Bolt
was removed for box inspection and never re-installed. Looks like severe
over torque or bad manufacturing, but Rotax could not have properly
torqued the bolt because when I tried it the bolt would go in a certain
distance and then just spin without ever tightening.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave" <daberti(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Are you sure that it did not get that way when it was removed. Did you
check the installed thread engagement length against where the distortion
occurred?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Fasching
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:08 PM
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Bad Bolt
Here is a bolt from the gear box of a 912ULS...factory new engine. Bolt was
removed for box inspection and never re-installed. Looks like severe over
torque or bad manufacturing, but Rotax could not have properly torqued the
bolt because when I tried it the bolt would go in a certain distance and
then just spin without ever tightening.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Spins without ever tightening? Sounds like stripped threads, which would be
the other symptom of this having been put in and over torqued. What happened
when you put in a new bolt? Did it spin, too?
Rick Girard
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Dave wrote:
> Are you sure that it did not get that way when it was removed. Did you
> check the installed thread engagement length against where the distortion
> occurred?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *John Fasching
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:08 PM
> *To:* rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RotaxEngines-List: Bad Bolt
>
> Here is a bolt from the gear box of a 912ULS...factory new engine. Bolt was
> removed for box inspection and never re-installed. Looks like severe over
> torque or bad manufacturing, but Rotax could not have properly torqued the
> bolt because when I tried it the bolt would go in a certain distance and
> then just spin without ever tightening.
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable
to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
John:
This is real crazy and not in a good way.
The bolt - Allen Head Cap Screw - looks like it is plated. Either Nickel or
Chrome. And in my plating days I have seen the same mis-shaped threads
Happen because of poor electrical contact where the wire was attached to the
screw.
Notice the shape of the threads in the reduced area. They profile
the original. right down to the crown. Just that the MAX Diameter is not
correct.
This can happen during plating, since in the cleaning process they use
reverse current. Add that to a poor wire contact and that is what you will
see.
NEXT - Possibility - I can not tell from the picture very well, but, measure
the distance over the thread crests. See if they get wider.
This would be a good indication that the screw was over torqued
and stretched.
Barry
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:08 PM, John Fasching wrote:
> Here is a bolt from the gear box of a 912ULS...factory new engine. Bolt
> was removed for box inspection and never re-installed.
>
> Looks like severe over torque or bad manufacturing, but Rotax could not
> have properly torqued the bolt because when I tried it the bolt would go in
> a
>
> certain distance and then just spin without ever tightening.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Fasching" <n29cx(at)ridgeviewtel.us> |
No, a replacement bolt went in and torqued up properly...I don't
understand it either, but it seems OK now....just some weird thing I
though folks might be interested in and perhaps know the reason...it
came out readily without any excessive force - same as its mate on the
other side of the gear box.
JohnF
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Bad Bolt
Spins without ever tightening? Sounds like stripped threads, which
would be the other symptom of this having been put in and over torqued.
What happened when you put in a new bolt? Did it spin, too?
Rick Girard
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Dave wrote:
Are you sure that it did not get that way when it was removed. Did
you check the installed thread engagement length against where the
distortion occurred?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Fasching
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:08 PM
To: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Bad Bolt
Here is a bolt from the gear box of a 912ULS...factory new engine.
Bolt was removed for box inspection and never re-installed. Looks like
severe over torque or bad manufacturing, but Rotax could not have
properly torqued the bolt because when I tried it the bolt would go in a
certain distance and then just spin without ever tightening.
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be
unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clive Richards" <s.clive.richards(at)homecall.co.uk> |
Hi All
If you reply to a post such as this please remove the large picture &
large amounts of text from original attached post as Mats guide lines, I
thought I was still on dial up after 4 copies, some of us can only get
snail band 0.5 meg or less.
John
Is the eroded part of the bolt at a place where two parts join or is
in a place open to internals of gear box ? if so could be caused by
corrosion.
You say it only went in part way & spun so the threads down to this
point must be stripped, did the protruding part have sufficient length
left that sufficient thread are left for new bolt to hold safely?.
Clive
----- Original Message -----
From: John Fasching
To: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Bad Bolt
No, a replacement bolt went in and torqued up properly...I don't
understand it either, but it seems OK now....just some weird thing I
though folks might be interested in and perhaps know the reason...it
came out readily without any excessive force - same as its mate on the
other side of the gear box.
JohnF
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Bad Bolt
Spins without ever tightening? Sounds like stripped threads, which
would be the other symptom of this having been put in and over torqued.
What happened when you put in a new bolt? Did it spin, too?
Rick Girard
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Dave
wrote:
Are you sure that it did not get that way when it was removed.
Did you check the installed thread engagement length against where the
distortion occurred?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Fasching
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:08 PM
To: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Bad Bolt
Here is a bolt from the gear box of a 912ULS...factory new
engine. Bolt was removed for box inspection and never re-installed.
Looks like severe over torque or bad manufacturing, but Rotax could not
have properly torqued the bolt because when I tried it the bolt would go
in a certain distance and then just spin without ever tightening.Kolb
Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to
be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
GOOD POINT Clive.
ALSO Gaggle.. I have noticed there becomes a few responses that are NOT
attached to the original post. Keeping a thread can become a bit garbled
when responses are NOT done on the SAME post.
Just good educate... Not that I'm PC or anything like that.
Barry
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Clive Richards <
s.clive.richards(at)homecall.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi All
> If you reply to a post such as this please remove the large picture & large
> amounts of text from original attached post as Mats guide lines, I thought I
> was still on dial up after 4 copies, some of us can only get snail band 0.5
> meg or less.
> John
> Is the eroded part of the bolt at a place where two parts join or is in
> a place open to internals of gear box ? if so could be caused by corrosion.
> You say it only went in part way & spun so the threads down to this
> point must be stripped, did the protruding part have sufficient length left
> that sufficient thread are left for new bolt to hold safely?.
>
> Clive
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* John Fasching
> *To:* rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 26, 2010 6:57 PM
> *Subject:* Re: RotaxEngines-List: Bad Bolt
>
> No, a replacement bolt went in and torqued up properly...I don't understand
> it either, but it seems OK now....just some weird thing I though folks might
> be interested in and perhaps know the reason...it came out readily without
> any excessive force - same as its mate on the other side of the gear box.
>
> JohnF
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Richard Girard
> *To:* rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 26, 2010 6:33 AM
> *Subject:* Re: RotaxEngines-List: Bad Bolt
>
> Spins without ever tightening? Sounds like stripped threads, which would be
> the other symptom of this having been put in and over torqued. What happened
> when you put in a new bolt? Did it spin, too?
>
> Rick Girard
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Dave wrote:
>
>> Are you sure that it did not get that way when it was removed. Did you
>> check the installed thread engagement length against where the distortion
>> occurred?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> *From:* owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
>> owner-rotaxengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *John
>> Fasching
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:08 PM
>> *To:* rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Subject:* RotaxEngines-List: Bad Bolt
>>
>> Here is a bolt from the gear box of a 912ULS...factory new engine. Bolt
>> was removed for box inspection and never re-installed. Looks like severe
>> over torque or bad manufacturing, but Rotax could not have properly torqued
>> the bolt because when I tried it the bolt would go in a certain distance and
>> then just spin without ever tightening.Kolb Mk IIIC
>>
>> 582 Gray head
> 4.00 C gearbox
> 3 blade WD
> Thanks, Homer GBYM
>
> It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be
> unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
> - G.K. Chesterton
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Guys,
I agree about replying to post. Use the "reply" tab at the top or bottom of the
page. Don't use the quote tab. Some of these post are terribly long to scroll
through to read the other persons answer.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310232#310232
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi All, The 6 year time is closing for a huge group of us.
I wrote this for another website, but because this site has many LSA aircraft here
and of many different types I thought this may be a good place to spread the
word.
Okay here is the scoop right from Dereck at BRS.
First they are just coming into the repack times for SLSA. Yes they have been doing
some from the Ultralight fliers and some from the GA world. These groups
are of two different mind sets. Tell an Ultralight flier they need 6 weeks and
he's good to go. Tell a GA pilot that and they grumble over a week. So the truth
will lie in the middle. They are just now getting to the repack times for
SLSA and we and they know that starting in 2011 some will start to trickle in.
We both know that in 2012 that they will be swamped as they have never been before
in their history. So time may run from 2-4 weeks to be realistic. 3 weeks
may be a good bet. They will have hundreds to do in 2012 and in 2013. We talked
about a way to help this process and make it as quick as possible. First don't
wait until the last day of the month it is due to send it in. Plan out at
least 2 months. Then call them and make a tentative appoint or time that yours
will show up. this helps them plan for parts and personnel availability instead
of getting caught off guard when they come to work Monday morning. It takes
at least 3-4 days to repack. They have to open and inspect every inch of the
chute. They then refold it and use a ram with tons of pressure to press it into
a jig. Then it gets baked at 170F for 16 hrs. Then it cools for at least 4
+ hrs. So if you have limited staff, get hit with a ton of chutes all at one time,
get wiped out on parts and have a week of shipping from you and a week back
to you, you will have 3-4 weeks of down time. We breached the idea of a chute
swap, i.e. as yours come in then you may get someone elses and out the door
it goes in a round robin. I personally didn't like the idea because I don't know
how the other chute was taken care of. The other guy's may have sat on the
ramp all its life and mine was in a nice dry climate hanger. So I don't think
this may go over that well.
The cost will be around $1K give or take $100. Just remember some of this is new
for everyone. The owner and BRS know the first LSA's are just now starting to
come due. They said after things start rolling maybe they can get a better handle
on the actual large scale influx of LSA chutes.
The key here is to plan ahead and don't procrastinate when you are getting close.
There are not only CT's out there, but other LSA to consider in this repack time
table.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310234#310234
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Silvano Gai <pilot(at)ip6.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
My Galaxy BRS expired at the end of 2009.
I had to take it apart, remove the rocket, and fire the trigger.
I shipped it regular ground to SportFlyingShop.com that is the US dealer.
They had it repackaged in the Czech Republic at the factory.
It came back in a metal cage to comply with hazardous shipment rules.
It costed $1,800, including shipping and it took 7 weeks.
The new BRS came with a nine years expiration.
-- Silvano
On 8/26/10 4:04 PM, Roger Lee wrote:
> --> RotaxEngines-List message posted by: "Roger Lee"
>
> Hi All, The 6 year time is closing for a huge group of us.
>
> I wrote this for another website, but because this site has many LSA aircraft
here and of many different types I thought this may be a good place to spread
the word.
>
>
> Okay here is the scoop right from Dereck at BRS.
> First they are just coming into the repack times for SLSA. Yes they have been
doing some from the Ultralight fliers and some from the GA world. These groups
are of two different mind sets. Tell an Ultralight flier they need 6 weeks and
he's good to go. Tell a GA pilot that and they grumble over a week. So the
truth will lie in the middle. They are just now getting to the repack times for
SLSA and we and they know that starting in 2011 some will start to trickle in.
We both know that in 2012 that they will be swamped as they have never been
before in their history. So time may run from 2-4 weeks to be realistic. 3 weeks
may be a good bet. They will have hundreds to do in 2012 and in 2013. We talked
about a way to help this process and make it as quick as possible. First
don't wait until the last day of the month it is due to send it in. Plan out
at least 2 months. Then call them and make a tentative appoint or time that yours
will show up. this helps them plan for parts and p!
>
> ersonnel availability instead of getting caught off guard when they come to
work Monday morning. It takes at least 3-4 days to repack. They have to open
and inspect every inch of the chute. They then refold it and use a ram with tons
of pressure to press it into a jig. Then it gets baked at 170F for 16 hrs.
Then it cools for at least 4 + hrs. So if you have limited staff, get hit with
a ton of chutes all at one time, get wiped out on parts and have a week of shipping
from you and a week back to you, you will have 3-4 weeks of down time.
We breached the idea of a chute swap, i.e. as yours come in then you may get someone
elses and out the door it goes in a round robin. I personally didn't like
the idea because I don't know how the other chute was taken care of. The other
guy's may have sat on the ramp all its life and mine was in a nice dry climate
hanger. So I don't think this may go over that well.
> The cost will be around $1K give or take $100. Just remember some of this is
new for everyone. The owner and BRS know the first LSA's are just now starting
to come due. They said after things start rolling maybe they can get a better
handle on the actual large scale influx of LSA chutes.
>
> The key here is to plan ahead and don't procrastinate when you are getting close.
> There are not only CT's out there, but other LSA to consider in this repack time
table.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310234#310234
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
If there was ever an argument against these D*** A** things, this is it.
Frankly, there are only two ways I would keep a BRS on my airplane, my wife
wouldn't let me fly without it, or the minimum equipment list and the
aircraft manual make it a requirement to keep the aircraft's airworthiness
certificate. If either makes the BRS optional, let the silly thing rot and
put that money and time into flight training.
Just for the record, I do have one on my Kolb. It was on there when I bought
the plane and I've left it on for weight and balance reasons. And while I'm
doing mea culpas, I've also saved my life with a hand deploy 'chute when I
was hang gliding. That being admitted to, the minute I get the new rudder
built and the flutter issues are over, the BRS will be on eBay. Never
forget, 2/3 of BRS is BS.
Just my personal opinion and an excuse to rant......
Let the flames begin.......
Rick Girard
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Silvano Gai wrote:
>
> My Galaxy BRS expired at the end of 2009.
>
> I had to take it apart, remove the rocket, and fire the trigger.
> I shipped it regular ground to SportFlyingShop.com that is the US dealer.
> They had it repackaged in the Czech Republic at the factory.
> It came back in a metal cage to comply with hazardous shipment rules.
> It costed $1,800, including shipping and it took 7 weeks.
> The new BRS came with a nine years expiration.
>
> -- Silvano
>
>
> On 8/26/10 4:04 PM, Roger Lee wrote:
>
>> --> RotaxEngines-List message posted by: "Roger Lee"> >
>>
>> Hi All, The 6 year time is closing for a huge group of us.
>>
>> I wrote this for another website, but because this site has many LSA
>> aircraft here and of many different types I thought this may be a good place
>> to spread the word.
>>
>>
>> Okay here is the scoop right from Dereck at BRS.
>> First they are just coming into the repack times for SLSA. Yes they have
>> been doing some from the Ultralight fliers and some from the GA world. These
>> groups are of two different mind sets. Tell an Ultralight flier they need 6
>> weeks and he's good to go. Tell a GA pilot that and they grumble over a
>> week. So the truth will lie in the middle. They are just now getting to the
>> repack times for SLSA and we and they know that starting in 2011 some will
>> start to trickle in. We both know that in 2012 that they will be swamped as
>> they have never been before in their history. So time may run from 2-4 weeks
>> to be realistic. 3 weeks may be a good bet. They will have hundreds to do in
>> 2012 and in 2013. We talked about a way to help this process and make it as
>> quick as possible. First don't wait until the last day of the month it is
>> due to send it in. Plan out at least 2 months. Then call them and make a
>> tentative appoint or time that yours will show up. this helps them plan for
>> parts and!
>>
> p!
>
>>
>> ersonnel availability instead of getting caught off guard when they come
>> to work Monday morning. It takes at least 3-4 days to repack. They have to
>> open and inspect every inch of the chute. They then refold it and use a ram
>> with tons of pressure to press it into a jig. Then it gets baked at 170F for
>> 16 hrs. Then it cools for at least 4 + hrs. So if you have limited staff,
>> get hit with a ton of chutes all at one time, get wiped out on parts and
>> have a week of shipping from you and a week back to you, you will have 3-4
>> weeks of down time. We breached the idea of a chute swap, i.e. as yours come
>> in then you may get someone elses and out the door it goes in a round robin.
>> I personally didn't like the idea because I don't know how the other chute
>> was taken care of. The other guy's may have sat on the ramp all its life and
>> mine was in a nice dry climate hanger. So I don't think this may go over
>> that well.
>> The cost will be around $1K give or take $100. Just remember some of this
>> is new for everyone. The owner and BRS know the first LSA's are just now
>> starting to come due. They said after things start rolling maybe they can
>> get a better handle on the actual large scale influx of LSA chutes.
>>
>> The key here is to plan ahead and don't procrastinate when you are getting
>> close.
>> There are not only CT's out there, but other LSA to consider in this
>> repack time table.
>>
>> --------
>> Roger Lee
>> Tucson, Az.
>> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
>> Rotax Repair Center
>> 520-574-1080
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310234#310234
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable
to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Goodings <goodings(at)yorku.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RotaxEngines-List Digest: Rotax 912 coolant hose |
It has been mentioned often, but I have forgotten. What is the ID of the
blue silicone coolant hose for use on the Rotax 912 engines? I gather it
is hard to get from anyone except Rotax/Lockwood, and is pretty expensive.
What is the price, and how much do I need? This would be very helpful.
Thanks.
John Goodings, C-FGPJ, CH601HD with R912S, Carp/Ottawa/Toronto.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | "ricklach" <rick(at)ravenaviation.us> |
OK Rick you made your point. How about some specifics as to your position. I have
a BSR in my 701 and its going to stay there mostly because it gives my wife
GREAT comfort. I think it will work if deployed but Im not so sure if the sh__
hits the fan I can get it deployed fast enough. I spend most of my time low
and slow. Well so much for me, how about your reasons for your comments.
Rick
--------
701Driver
N35 26.700, W118 16.743
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310279#310279
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RotaxEngines-List Digest: Rotax 912 coolant hose |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi John,
The generic coolant hose you can get from CPS at $2.50 ft. Different parts of the
water tubing are different diameters. Look in the CPS catalog on page 65 and
it will give you all the info you need. A couple of the hoses may also have
springs in them to keep them from crimping. You just push these out and reuse
them.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310289#310289
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
For me personally the chute makes perfect sense as an insurance policy and is just
part of doing business since I fly. Way too many people have died that may
have been saved. With 250+ saves under BRS's chute and more saves with other
chutes around the world it's just a good idea.
Here is the way I look at it since aircraft gets older and the skies more crowded.
What would you give if you were plummeting towards the ground? The answer at that
point in time is "anything and everything". So why not just give them a lot
less (the cost of a chute) right up front and save yourself all that anxiety
and money.
Everyone talks a good game when we are upright and flying is good. Have it turn
to crap and know you are going to die in the next few seconds changes all of
us, especially since you could have easily prevented it.
I am not trying to bash anyone here, but just appeal to good logic sense we have
chosen to fly and committed to be safe and come home to our family.
Which is another point. What happens when you take a friend or family member into
the ground and kill them too. What about all the trauma to the survivors they
leave behind.
So my last parting comment is, "It's just money and that can be replaced".
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310290#310290
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Blumax008(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | More good news from Papa FAA et al... |
I've got three (3) illegal ultralights and all three (3) will remain that
way as long as I have breath in my body. ANY FAA pipsqueak twerp that
doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground is going to have his head
removed
from his body by a shotgun blast if he comes around my airport telling me
I owe a registration fee. He better bring a F---ing Army with him.
Pilot Counsel
The new rule on aircraft registration
By John S. Yodice
Here is a new wide-ranging FAA rule that will significantly affect all
United States =9CN=9D-registered civil aircraft=94essen
tially all of general
aviation in this country. It becomes effective next month, on October 1,
2010. We
have periodically reviewed the requirement that =9Cno person may op
erate a
civil aircraft unless it has within itan effective U.S. registra
tion
certificate issued to its owner [or =9Cpink copy=9D temporary
authorization, or if
it is a validly registered foreign aircraft] (see =9C_Pilot Counsel
: Logging
Pilot-In-Command Time,_
(http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2006/pc0603.html) =9D March
2006 AOPA Pilot). We have also warned that it is a federal
crime to operate an improperly registered aircraft if it is done
=9Cknowingly
and willfully=9D (see =9C_Pilot Counsel: Aircraft Registratio
n,_
(http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2005/pc0503.html) =9D March
2005 AOPA Pilot).
Meeting the legal requirements will now become more difficult because of
this new rule. We have become used to aircraft registration certificates
that have no specific duration, certificates that are safely tucked up
somewhere on display in the aircraft, mostly escaping particular notice.
These
registration certificates remained valid indefinitely, or until an aircra
ft
was sold, destroyed, or scrapped, or the owner died, or in the unusual ev
ent
that the certificate was suspended or revoked by the FAA or voluntarily
surrendered by the owner. Since the 1980s we have had a related rule that
=9C
technically=9D required an owner to certify to the FAA every three
years that a
registered aircraft continues to be eligible for registration. But the wa
y
the rule worked, the burden on owners was minimized.
First, the FAA culled the aircraft registration list, eliminating aircraf
t
that had any registration activity in the past three years. Those owners
received nothing from the FAA. Then, to the remainder of the list, the FA
A
sent out a preaddressed postcard identifying the aircraft and owner, on
which the owner of the aircraft could certify that the aircraft continues
to be
eligible for registration=94essentially that the owner continues to
be a
citizen or legal resident of the United States and that the aircraft is
not
registered anywhere else (slightly more complicated for corporations that
are
not U.S. citizens). The instructions on the form stated that a return was
unnecessary if no change had occurred. The procedure was simple and not
too
burdensome. The registration certificate remained safely on display aboar
d
the aircraft evidencing to any interested party its valid registration.
That has now all changed. The new rule establishes a system for a
three-year recurrent expiration and renewal cycle. All aircraft currently
registered with the FAA will have their registration certificates (that
do not have
expiration dates stamped on them) terminated, and the aircraft will requi
re
re-registration in order that they be legally operated as a U.S. civil
aircraft. All new and renewed registration certificates will contain a
three-year expiration date printed on the certificate. The expiration dat
e will
follow the FAA=99s =9Ccalendar year=9D concept, so it
will be three years from the
last day of the month in which registration or re-registration occurred.
The re-registration process for currently registered aircraft will be
staggered depending on the month that the registration was issued. Over
the
next three years this rule will terminate the registration of all aircraf
t
currently validly registered. In this staggered system, some registration
s
will expire as early as March 31, 2011, only six months away. For example
, a
currently valid registration certificate that was issued in March of any
year (of course, it will not have an expiration date printed on it) will
now
have an assigned expiration date of March 31, 2011. One issued in April
of
any year will now have an assigned expiration date of June 30, 2011. Issu
ed
in May, expires September 30, 2011; issued in June, expires December 31,
2011; issued in July, expires March 31, 2012; issued in August, expires
June
30, 2012, and so forth until a registration certificate issued in Februar
y
of any year will expire on December 31, 2013.
The FAA plans to send out reminders for re-registration to the owners of
the registered aircraft at the address of record at FAA. The reminders wi
ll
be sent out well in advance. The FAA advises that re-registration and
renewal can be accomplished online at the registry website, as long as no
changes are necessary; otherwise, paper forms are required. The current
fee for
each aircraft for re-registration and renewal is $5, but higher fees ($45
and $130) are proposed in the House of Representatives-passed FAA
Reauthorization bill working its way through the legislative process. We
will have to
wait and see.
The important message here for owners of U.S.-registered aircraft is to
check the owner=99s name and address on the registration certificat
e in the
aircraft, or online at the _FAA=99s Civil Aircraft Registry_
(http://www.faa.gov/aircraft) . Then owners can notify the FAA of any corr
ections to be
assured of receiving the appropriate reminders. Remember that an improperl
y
registered aircraft may not be flown legally, and operating such an aircra
ft
could be a crime.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Roger et al, Took awhile to analyze and quantify the table of "saves" as
assembled by BRS. I used their reason for deployment and when there seemed
to be a crossover to another category I noted it.
First the table is not complete. BRS lists 255 saves, yet the highest number
of their numbering system is 240. BRS counts lives saved, yet their list is
by incident. There are also gaps in the numbering. All that being said there
are 149 separate incidents listed in 7 categories.
Loss of Control (LOC) 53 w/ additional info 15
Structural Failure (SF) 47 5
Engine Out Terrain (EOT) 22 2
Unknown (?) 16 3
Weather (WX) 8 5
Poor Assembly (PA) 2 0
Medical (RX) 1 0
So an LOC incident may say tumble, yet so does a WX incident or an LOC can
also say aerobatics and so will a SF.
WX had the highest percentage of incidents with additional info and 50% of
them listed tumbles. These were all hang gliders (if you've ever gone "over
the falls" exiting a thermal you'll understand). All these had the primary
reason as "violent air".
Of the (?) reasons the three incidents with additional info were for in
flight fire, midair collision and "struck an obstacle on approach".
Of the EOT's, the 2 with additional info were just engine out.
Taking them all together, of the 149, roughly 50% were simply pilot error,
poor judgement, or poor preflight inspection. I think this is fairly
conservative, since it could be argued that ALL the Loss of Control
incidents were due to pilot error.
Roger, All flying is unsafe. It can be mitigated with training, practice,
knowledge, and exercising good judgement. I fail to understand how adding a
device that can't be inspected during pre flight, has no circuit, sensor or
warning lamp to let a pilot know it is armed and ready, and for which the
pilot has no training whatsoever, makes flying safer.
Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary, that some pilots regard the BRS
as the out for everything. An instructor I know even had a student tell him
he didn't need to calculate fuel burn for a flight because if he ran out
he'd pull the cord. My friend sent him packing with the advice to forget
about learning to fly. Whether he did or not is unknown.
And then there is the fact that once the 'chute is deployed the pilot has no
control over anything. A test pilot for Cessna learned that one the hard way
when he was spin testing the model 162, Sky Catcher. Winds on the ground
were 20 gusting to 35 and when the airplane alighted it was dragged across
the ground and the pilot was injured trying to get out of the aircraft.
Just two weeks before that another Cessna test pilot, also spin testing the
162, attempted to deploy the BRS and it DID NOT FIRE. Fortunately he was
also wearing a conventional parachute. He exited the aircraft and landed
safely.
How many BRS's have done that? If one did, it certainly cancels out the idea
that an airframe parachute is a panacea.
Last, let me give you an example from my personal experience. I am a private
pilot and the phrase, "First fly the airplane" has been drilled into my
brain by every instructor I've ever trained with. Last year while departing
a local fly in I had an engine out. I attempted to restart the engine after
checking the fuel valve and when I was unable to get the engine to fire, I
resorted to training. Even though I had to fly upwind to get back to the
runway ( I was at pattern altitude so this was not an "impossible turn"
situation) I concentrated on maintaining best glide speed, on making sure
"the spot that doesn't move" was on the runway and watched for traffic and
obstructions. Even when the pilot of a twin took off downwind I took evasive
action and flew parallel to the runway to clear him, then slipped back to
the runway and completed the landing. At no time did I even think about the
red handle even though I have it mounted right on the stick in plain sight.
Throughout the incident, I heard Spence, my primary instructor throughout my
training saying, "First fly the airplane" as plainly as if he were sitting
next to me.
In conclusion, The cheapest BRS costs over $2000. That can buy a lot of
training. Studying about flying can be free if you use the local library and
even if you have to buy the books, they're cheap. Sitting in the aircraft
practicing emergency procedures is also free. Learning to say, "Not today",
can be hard, but the discipline it brings is priceless. All these will make
you a safer pilot. I am absolutely convinced a BRS does not.
Rick Girard
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Roger Lee wrote:
>
> For me personally the chute makes perfect sense as an insurance policy and
> is just part of doing business since I fly. Way too many people have died
> that may have been saved. With 250+ saves under BRS's chute and more saves
> with other chutes around the world it's just a good idea.
> Here is the way I look at it since aircraft gets older and the skies more
> crowded.
>
> What would you give if you were plummeting towards the ground? The answer
> at that point in time is "anything and everything". So why not just give
> them a lot less (the cost of a chute) right up front and save yourself all
> that anxiety and money.
> Everyone talks a good game when we are upright and flying is good. Have it
> turn to crap and know you are going to die in the next few seconds changes
> all of us, especially since you could have easily prevented it.
>
>
> I am not trying to bash anyone here, but just appeal to good logic sense we
> have chosen to fly and committed to be safe and come home to our family.
>
> Which is another point. What happens when you take a friend or family
> member into the ground and kill them too. What about all the trauma to the
> survivors they leave behind.
>
>
> So my last parting comment is, "It's just money and that can be replaced".
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310290#310290
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable
to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Tucciarone" <m.tucciarone(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
I agree with you Richard,
When I bought my Aventura II in 2003, it had a BRS 1200 on it. I never
felt comfortable with it on my plane. It's like you said, you can't
preflight it so you really don't know if it will work. Then you have to
be prepared as to when you would pull it. My decision was to only pull
if I lost control of the plane or if I was over the trees with an engine
out, at the last minute so as to slow the decent through the trees.
When 10 year mark came due on the rocket, I sold it on barnstormers. The
guy that bought it was going to put it on a kolb as is, out of date. I
am glad it is off my plane and I feel that I am a more cautious and
safer pilot. I find myself now always looking for that emergency landing
spot (something that I should have been doing anyway)
When you have a parachute on your plane I have to admit that in the
back of your mind you think "well if I get in real trouble, I can always
pull the chute".
My plane weighs 30 pounds less and I lost about a knot of drag.
From: Richard Girard
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 4:18 AM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: BRS chute repack time table
Roger et al, Took awhile to analyze and quantify the table of "saves" as
assembled by BRS. I used their reason for deployment and when there
seemed to be a crossover to another category I noted it.
First the table is not complete. BRS lists 255 saves, yet the highest
number of their numbering system is 240. BRS counts lives saved, yet
their list is by incident. There are also gaps in the numbering. All
that being said there are 149 separate incidents listed in 7 categories.
Loss of Control (LOC) 53 w/ additional info 15
Structural Failure (SF) 47 5
Engine Out Terrain (EOT) 22 2
Unknown (?) 16 3
Weather (WX) 8 5
Poor Assembly (PA) 2 0
Medical (RX) 1 0
So an LOC incident may say tumble, yet so does a WX incident or an LOC
can also say aerobatics and so will a SF.
WX had the highest percentage of incidents with additional info and 50%
of them listed tumbles. These were all hang gliders (if you've ever gone
"over the falls" exiting a thermal you'll understand). All these had the
primary reason as "violent air".
Of the (?) reasons the three incidents with additional info were for in
flight fire, midair collision and "struck an obstacle on approach".
Of the EOT's, the 2 with additional info were just engine out.
Taking them all together, of the 149, roughly 50% were simply pilot
error, poor judgement, or poor preflight inspection. I think this is
fairly conservative, since it could be argued that ALL the Loss of
Control incidents were due to pilot error.
Roger, All flying is unsafe. It can be mitigated with training,
practice, knowledge, and exercising good judgement. I fail to understand
how adding a device that can't be inspected during pre flight, has no
circuit, sensor or warning lamp to let a pilot know it is armed and
ready, and for which the pilot has no training whatsoever, makes flying
safer.
Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary, that some pilots regard the
BRS as the out for everything. An instructor I know even had a student
tell him he didn't need to calculate fuel burn for a flight because if
he ran out he'd pull the cord. My friend sent him packing with the
advice to forget about learning to fly. Whether he did or not is
unknown.
And then there is the fact that once the 'chute is deployed the pilot
has no control over anything. A test pilot for Cessna learned that one
the hard way when he was spin testing the model 162, Sky Catcher. Winds
on the ground were 20 gusting to 35 and when the airplane alighted it
was dragged across the ground and the pilot was injured trying to get
out of the aircraft.
Just two weeks before that another Cessna test pilot, also spin testing
the 162, attempted to deploy the BRS and it DID NOT FIRE. Fortunately he
was also wearing a conventional parachute. He exited the aircraft and
landed safely.
How many BRS's have done that? If one did, it certainly cancels out the
idea that an airframe parachute is a panacea.
Last, let me give you an example from my personal experience. I am a
private pilot and the phrase, "First fly the airplane" has been drilled
into my brain by every instructor I've ever trained with. Last year
while departing a local fly in I had an engine out. I attempted to
restart the engine after checking the fuel valve and when I was unable
to get the engine to fire, I resorted to training. Even though I had to
fly upwind to get back to the runway ( I was at pattern altitude so this
was not an "impossible turn" situation) I concentrated on maintaining
best glide speed, on making sure "the spot that doesn't move" was on the
runway and watched for traffic and obstructions. Even when the pilot of
a twin took off downwind I took evasive action and flew parallel to the
runway to clear him, then slipped back to the runway and completed the
landing. At no time did I even think about the red handle even though I
have it mounted right on the stick in plain sight. Throughout the
incident, I heard Spence, my primary instructor throughout my training
saying, "First fly the airplane" as plainly as if he were sitting next
to me.
In conclusion, The cheapest BRS costs over $2000. That can buy a lot of
training. Studying about flying can be free if you use the local library
and even if you have to buy the books, they're cheap. Sitting in the
aircraft practicing emergency procedures is also free. Learning to say,
"Not today", can be hard, but the discipline it brings is priceless. All
these will make you a safer pilot. I am absolutely convinced a BRS does
not.
Rick Girard
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Roger Lee wrote:
For me personally the chute makes perfect sense as an insurance policy
and is just part of doing business since I fly. Way too many people have
died that may have been saved. With 250+ saves under BRS's chute and
more saves with other chutes around the world it's just a good idea.
Here is the way I look at it since aircraft gets older and the skies
more crowded.
What would you give if you were plummeting towards the ground? The
answer at that point in time is "anything and everything". So why not
just give them a lot less (the cost of a chute) right up front and save
yourself all that anxiety and money.
Everyone talks a good game when we are upright and flying is good.
Have it turn to crap and know you are going to die in the next few
seconds changes all of us, especially since you could have easily
prevented it.
I am not trying to bash anyone here, but just appeal to good logic
sense we have chosen to fly and committed to be safe and come home to
our family.
Which is another point. What happens when you take a friend or family
member into the ground and kill them too. What about all the trauma to
the survivors they leave behind.
So my last parting comment is, "It's just money and that can be
replaced".
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310290#310290
==========
-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be
unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
Roger, Well said. I don't have a BRS on my plane but I am looking at option
s of =0Ahow I might install it on a Kitfox IV. My plane has a stall speed o
f just under =0A40 mph which is awesome and in-most engine out situations
...no shute needed. I =0Afly in and out of airports that have alot of stude
nt pilots...very congested. It =0Aonly takes one wrong move on the part of
one pilot and I don't have a wing or =0Arudder. There isn't one pilot here
that wouldn't welcome that rip-chord to yank =0Aon at that moment. =0A=0ADa
n B=0AMesa, AZ=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Matt Tuc
ciarone =0ATo: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com=0A
Sent: Sat, August 28, 2010 4:03:40 AM=0ASubject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re:
BRS chute repack time table=0A=0A=0AI agree with you Richard,=0A-=0AWhen
I bought my Aventura II in 2003, it had a BRS 1200 on it. I never felt =0A
comfortable with it on my plane. It's like you said, you can't preflight it
so =0Ayou really don't know if it will work. Then you have to be prepared
as to when =0Ayou would pull it. My decision was to only pull if I lost con
trol of the plane =0Aor if I was over the trees with an engine out, at the
last minute so as to slow =0Athe decent through the trees. =0A=0A-=0AWhen
10 year mark came due on the rocket, I sold it on barnstormers. The guy
=0Athat bought it was going to put it on a kolb as is, out of date. I am gl
ad it is =0Aoff my plane and I feel that I am a more cautious and safer pil
ot. I find myself =0Anow always looking for that emergency-landing spot
-(something that I should-have =0Abeen doing anyway)=0A-=0A-When yo
u have a parachute on your plane I have to admit that in the back of =0Ayou
r mind you think "well if I get in real trouble, I can always pull the =0Ac
hute". =0A=0A-=0AMy plane weighs 30 pounds less and I lost about a knot o
f drag. =0A-=0A-=0A-=0A=0A=0AFrom: Richard Girard =0ASent: Saturday,
August 28, 2010 4:18 AM=0ATo: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com =0ASubject: R
e: RotaxEngines-List: Re: BRS chute repack time table=0ARoger et al, Took a
while to analyze and quantify the table of "saves" as =0Aassembled by BRS.
I used their reason for deployment and when there seemed to be =0Aa crossov
er to another category I noted it. =0A=0AFirst the table is not complete. B
RS lists 255 saves, yet the highest number of =0Atheir numbering system is
240. BRS counts lives saved, yet their list is by =0Aincident. There are al
so gaps in the numbering. All that being said there are =0A149 separate inc
idents listed in 7 categories.=0A=0ALoss of Control - - -(LOC) -
- 53 -w/ additional info 15=0AStructural Failure - - (SF) - - 4
7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5=0AEngine Out Te
rrain (EOT) - - 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-2=0AUnknown - - - - - - - - - (?) - - 16 - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - 3=0AWeather - - - -
- - - - (WX) - - -8 - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - 5=0APoor Assembly - - - -(PA) - - 2 - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -0=0AMedical - - - -
- - - - - (RX) - - -1 - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - 0=0A=0ASo an LOC incident may say tumble, yet so does a
WX incident or an LOC can also =0Asay aerobatics and so will a SF.=0AWX ha
d the highest percentage of incidents with additional info and 50% of them
=0Alisted tumbles. These were all hang gliders (if you've ever gone "over t
he =0Afalls" exiting a thermal you'll understand). All these had the primar
y reason as =0A"violent air".=0AOf the (?) reasons the three incidents with
additional info were for in flight =0Afire, midair collision and "struck a
n obstacle on approach".=0AOf the EOT's, the 2 with additional info were ju
st engine out.=0ATaking them all together, of the 149, roughly 50% were sim
ply pilot error, poor =0Ajudgement, or poor preflight inspection. I think t
his is fairly conservative, =0Asince it could be argued that ALL the Loss o
f Control incidents were due to =0Apilot error.-=0ARoger, All flying is u
nsafe. It can be mitigated with training, practice, =0Aknowledge, and exerc
ising good judgement. I fail to understand how adding a =0Adevice that can'
t be inspected during pre flight, has no circuit, sensor or =0Awarning lamp
to let a pilot know it is armed and ready, and for which the pilot =0Ahas
no training whatsoever, makes flying safer.-=0AIndeed, there is evidence
to the contrary, that some pilots regard the BRS as =0Athe out for everythi
ng. An instructor I know even had a student tell him he =0Adidn't need to c
alculate fuel burn for a flight because if he ran out he'd pull =0Athe cord
. My friend sent him packing with the advice to forget about learning to
=0Afly. Whether he did or not is unknown.=0AAnd then there is the fact that
once the 'chute is deployed the pilot has no =0Acontrol over anything. A t
est pilot for Cessna learned that one the hard way =0Awhen he was spin test
ing the model 162, Sky Catcher. Winds on the ground were 20 =0Agusting to 3
5 and when the airplane alighted it was dragged across the ground =0Aand th
e pilot was injured trying to get out of the aircraft.=0AJust two weeks bef
ore that another Cessna test pilot, also spin testing the 162, =0Aattempted
to deploy the BRS and it DID NOT FIRE. Fortunately he was also wearing =0A
a conventional parachute. He exited the aircraft and landed safely.-=0AHo
w many BRS's have done that? If one did, it certainly cancels out the idea
=0Athat an airframe parachute is a panacea.-=0ALast, let me give you an e
xample from my personal experience. I am a private =0Apilot and the phrase,
"First fly the airplane" has been drilled into my brain by =0Aevery instru
ctor I've ever trained with. Last year while departing a local fly =0Ain I
had an engine out. I attempted to -restart the engine after checking the
=0Afuel valve and when I was unable to get the engine to fire, I resorted t
o =0Atraining. Even though I had to fly upwind to get back to the runway (
I was at =0Apattern altitude so this was not an "impossible turn" situation
) I concentrated =0Aon maintaining best glide speed, on making sure "the sp
ot that doesn't move" was =0Aon the runway and watched for traffic and obst
ructions. Even when the pilot of a =0Atwin took off downwind I took evasive
action and flew parallel to the runway to =0Aclear him, then slipped back
to the runway and completed the landing. At no time =0Adid I even think abo
ut the red handle even though I have it mounted right on the =0Astick in pl
ain sight. Throughout the incident, I heard Spence, my primary =0Ainstructo
r throughout my training saying, "First fly the airplane" as plainly as =0A
if he were sitting next to me.=0AIn conclusion, The cheapest BRS costs over
$2000. That can buy a lot of =0Atraining. Studying about flying can be fre
e if you use the local library and =0Aeven if you have to buy the books, th
ey're cheap. Sitting in the aircraft =0Apracticing emergency procedures is
also free. Learning to say, "Not today", can =0Abe hard, but the discipline
it brings is priceless. All these will make you a =0Asafer pilot. I am abs
olutely convinced a BRS does not.=0A=0ARick Girard=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Roger Lee =0A>=0A>For me personally the chute makes perfect
sense as an insurance policy and is =0A>just part of doing business since
I fly. Way too many people have died that may =0A>have been saved. With 250
+ saves under BRS's chute and more saves with other =0A>chutes around the w
orld it's just a good idea.=0A>Here is the way I look at it since aircraft
gets older and the skies more =0A>crowded.=0A>=0A>What would you give if yo
u were plummeting towards the ground? The answer at =0A>that point in time
is "anything and everything". So why not just give them a lot =0A>less (the
cost of a chute) right up front and save yourself all that anxiety and =0A
>money.=0A>Everyone talks a good game when we are upright and flying is goo
d. Have it turn =0A>to crap and know you are going to die in the next few s
econds changes all of us, =0A>especially since you could have easily preven
ted it.=0A>=0A>=0A>I am not trying to bash anyone here, but just appeal to
good logic sense we have =0A>chosen to fly and committed to be safe and com
e home to our family.=0A>=0A>Which is another point. What happens when you
take a friend or family member =0A>into the ground and kill them too. What
about all the trauma to the survivors =0A>they leave behind.=0A>=0A>=0A>So
my last parting comment is, "It's just money and that can be replaced".=0A>
=0A>--------=0A>Roger Lee=0A>Tucson, Az.=0A>Light Sport Repairman - Mainten
ance Rated=0A>Rotax Repair Center=0A>520-574-1080=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>Read t
his topic online here:=0A>=0A>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p
=310290#310290=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=========
===0A>-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rotax
Engines-List=0A>============0A>http://forums.matronic
s.com=0A>============0A>le, List Admin.=0A>="_blank
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A>==========
==0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A=0A=0A-- =0A=0AZulu Delta=0AKolb Mk IIIC=0A582 Gray h
ead=0A4.00 C gearbox=0A3 blade WD=0AThanks, Homer GBYM=0A=0AIt is not bigot
ry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to =0Aimagine
how we might possibly have gone wrong.=0A---G.K. Chesterton=0A=0A=0A
=0Ahref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List">http://www
.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.c
om">http://forums.matronics.com=0A href="http://www.matronics.com/contrib
===== =0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
Ah, the chute thread - this is one of my favorites ;). So I'll toss in my viewpoint.
I'm sympathetic to both sides, but I think the cons of the chute end up outweighing
the potential benefits so I choose to fly without one. To me, the cons are:
- The worst problem with the chute is its use can't be practiced. As we all know,
practice is the life-blood of emergency procedures because when it hits the
fan, training is what will save your life. When you're thinking it through in
an emergency, it tends to be, ok, let's assess the situation, hmm, I think I
still have elevator control, but seems like I can still.... ok, I got the chute...
should I or shouldn't I.... kablooey! You get the picture... if you can't
_practice_ it, it is ultimately of very little utility in an emergency situation.
- There's not really any specific or clear protocol for when you should fire the
chute and when you shouldn't, nor can you actually go up and simulate those
eventualities. Everything between a rough engine over hostile terrain and the
wings snapping off is pretty much a gray area. I personally know of a couple of
near-misses that resulted from an improper firing of a chute even tho the aircraft
was still intact and under control and engine was running. The inability
to train in the chute's use and a good protocol was the direct culprit (pilot
hit a bad spot of turbulence on final but the plane was still intact. Fortunately,
he survived but he and his passenger were injured and plane was totalled
- he couldn't say if he could have flown the plane to a landing or not, but
admitted that he probably could have gone around).
- The case where it would _clearly_ be a good option (complete loss of control
or enough loss to not be able to fly/land the plane) is also the _rarest_ situation
for us. Far and away, our planes stay together and are still flyable in
most emergency situations. True it can happen, but it's also hard to justify the
expense, weight and bulk to prepare for so unlikely an event.
- the chute itself is a potential hazard. Imagine if an in-flight fire happens
to reach the rocket - you thought the situation was bad before...? Also there's
always a slight chance of accidental firing, which would really ruin your day
when it wasn't already ruined by something else.
- extra weight and cost. The cost is the main thing here, money that'd be far better
spent keeping the plane up, engine well maintained etc.
Anyway, those are the basic cons of the chute as I see them. I know about the pros
which have already been listed and accept them, but I still don't quite see
them as outweighing the cons....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310373#310373
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Myers" <gmyers(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
I personally do not use a BRS having removed them from both of my ELSA's,
BUT I was taking lessons at Boerne Stage Airfield 5C1 in Boerne TX in july
2009 in a Czech built Lambada Motor Glider LSA. Nice plane With a rotax 912.
In July of 2009 a week before I was scheduled to complete my check ride
(don't ask) the tail fell off of it at 3000 ft. in normal operations. The
pilot pulled the BRS and the plane came down in some pretty rough country
but he and a passanger survived. Needless to say my instructor, Dave White,
will not instruct in a plane without one now. I will be glad to supply
contacts to the people involved off list if desired.
George E. Myers Jr.
San Marcos, TX 78666
512-353-4860
Rans S-12 582 3 blade warp
>Roger, Well said. I don't have a BRS on my plane but I am looking at
options of how I might install it on a Kitfox IV. My plane has a stall speed
of just >under 40 mph which is awesome and in most engine out
situations...no shute needed. I fly in and out of airports that have alot of
student pilots...very >congested. It only takes one wrong move on the part
of one pilot and I don't have a wing or rudder. There isn't one pilot here
that wouldn't welcome that >rip-chord to yank on at that moment.
>Dan B
>Mesa, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | This guy loves his BSR chute |
| From: | "ricklach" <rick(at)ravenaviation.us> |
Hope this YouTube link works. It's worth your time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnHuIET4P2s
Rick :D
--------
701Driver
N35 26.700, W118 16.743
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310381#310381
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul McAllister <l_luv2_fly(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone has ever used these probes with a Grand Rapids EIS ?
They are K type thermocouples and the offer grounded and un grounds tips. If
anyone has experience with these I'd appreciate some feedback.
BTW. The probes that GRT sell are too long and now bang into the oil tank on
one side and the Intercooler on the other side.
Thanks, Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Westach probes |
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
Paul:
I have a set of four grounded EGT probes with a 90 Deg hard tube bend. They
install very nicely and work great on grounded systems.
If you go this route I'll sel them at a very reduced price.
Barry
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Paul McAllister wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was wondering if anyone has ever used these probes with a Grand Rapids
> EIS ? They are K type thermocouples and the offer grounded and un grounds
> tips. If anyone has experience with these I'd appreciate some feedback.
>
> BTW. The probes that GRT sell are too long and now bang into the oil tank
> on one side and the Intercooler on the other side.
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi All,
Any equipment is only as useful, practical and and safe as the operator. The rockets
don't explode in a fire, they are a solid propellant and if it's that bad
a fire your toast any way so that isn't a real consideration. When to use it
isn't about practice, but education on when and how to use it. You can practice
your muscle memory on grabbing the handle in case of a true emergency. Plus
nothing else to practice sense you have nothing to do, but float to the ground.
No accidental firings since it takes almost 35 lbs. of pull to activate it.
Plus the handle can come out of the socket about an inch before the cable goes
taught. You have to tell the families of the Zenith (6) aircraft that had wing
failure that they weren't a good idea or the other saves they have actually
had around the world. I bet everyone of those Zenith pilots were thinking nothing
wrong with my plane. Tell it to the pilot just recently at that air show
that lost a wing and floated safely to the ground. What about the other mornon
that runs into you while you are minding you own business? Or after the mechanic
forgets to install something. Part failure in experimental's is a big cause
of failures.
I guess my whole point is what ever the cause of a failure may not be by your hand
or it may be because you were complacent or you just overlooked something.
What we don't know can hurt us, regardless of the old saying that it can't hurt
us.
Your right that you'll never need it, until that one time and no one anywhere can
predict that. I came within 50' of a midair two years ago from an idiot not
using his radio and trying to cut in front of two planes already in the pattern.
To me there are no cons only pros and that view point comes from research
and education and no myths, but facts.
As a retired fireman I can't tell you how many thousands of times I have heard,
"Well that has never happened to me before". Wish I had a dollar for each time
I heard that statement and every time they said it they dialed 911. Being a
victim is easy, keeping from being one takes some fore thought.
I know there are two sides of the fence I just want to be on the side that lives
when I fall off.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310452#310452
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
This is a Remos dealer 18 miles north of me. He hadn't sold one yet.
This is bad news.
2 injured in plane crash at Marana airport
Associated Press
Posted on August 28, 2010 at 11:31 PM
MARANA, Ariz. (AP) Officials say two people suffered serious injuries Saturday
morning after the plane they were flying in crashed at the Marana Northwest Regional
Airport.
Capt. Adam Goldberg of the Northwest Fire/Rescue District says the 46-year-old
flight instructor who was flying the single-engine Remos airplane suffered life-threatening
injuries.
A 16-year-old girl who was onboard as an introductory flight for possible flying
lessons also suffered serious injuries.
Goldberg says witnesses saw the plane take off, take a hard right, circle around,
miss the runway and land in a field next to the runway.
Federal Aviation Administration Kathleen Bergen says the federal agency was investigating
the crash.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310455#310455
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Roger, So let's get this straight. You fall on the side of the fence that
wants to be free to be stupid, careless and lazy when it comes to warranting
their safety and rely upon a magic bullet to save their butt when an
emergency happens. This is the same side of the fence that has the people
who buy lotto tickets as their personal retirement plan.
Unfortunately we don't have any data on those accidents you quote.
Did the Zenith pilot do a poor preflight? Did the builder of the airplane
substitute sub standard material into his airplane? Was it overloaded. Was
it one of the 601's that were built so piss poor by the manufacturer, AMD,
that the FAA had to step in? I know of one Zenith crash that killed the
mother and father of the owner. He was repeatedly warned of the problems
with his aircraft and chose to ignore them. Yes, it's a horrible price to
pay, but what does anyone expect when deliberate stupidity takes the pilot
seat?
I watched the video of the wing failure in Argentina. Pretty freaking stupid
to do inverted maneuvers in a strut braced wing aircraft. The original
report on that failure said it was a Rans aircraft. From Rans own site, they
only make one aircraft that they advertise as being used for aerobatics, the
S 9 "Chaos". The load limit rating of that aircraft is only +6 / -4. Yes,
this meets the requirements of FAR 23.337 for the acrobatic category ( +6,
-3) but only if it is built per the factory. Was it?
Your near miss experience. What did you do about it? Confront the pilot?
Notify the FAA? Anything but grumble?
In the end all we can do is disagree. Perhaps I'm just a relic. A relic of a
different time when professionalism, personal responsibility, and training
were the requirements for aviation, not relying on a "get out of jail free"
card when it comes to my personal safety.
Rick Girard
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Roger Lee wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Any equipment is only as useful, practical and and safe as the operator.
> The rockets don't explode in a fire, they are a solid propellant and if it's
> that bad a fire your toast any way so that isn't a real consideration. When
> to use it isn't about practice, but education on when and how to use it. You
> can practice your muscle memory on grabbing the handle in case of a true
> emergency. Plus nothing else to practice sense you have nothing to do, but
> float to the ground. No accidental firings since it takes almost 35 lbs. of
> pull to activate it. Plus the handle can come out of the socket about an
> inch before the cable goes taught. You have to tell the families of the
> Zenith (6) aircraft that had wing failure that they weren't a good idea or
> the other saves they have actually had around the world. I bet everyone of
> those Zenith pilots were thinking nothing wrong with my plane. Tell it to
> the pilot just recently at that air show that lost a wing and floated safely
> to the ground. W!
> hat about the other mornon that runs into you while you are minding you
> own business? Or after the mechanic forgets to install something. Part
> failure in experimental's is a big cause of failures.
> I guess my whole point is what ever the cause of a failure may not be by
> your hand or it may be because you were complacent or you just overlooked
> something. What we don't know can hurt us, regardless of the old saying that
> it can't hurt us.
> Your right that you'll never need it, until that one time and no one
> anywhere can predict that. I came within 50' of a midair two years ago from
> an idiot not using his radio and trying to cut in front of two planes
> already in the pattern. To me there are no cons only pros and that view
> point comes from research and education and no myths, but facts.
> As a retired fireman I can't tell you how many thousands of times I have
> heard, "Well that has never happened to me before". Wish I had a dollar for
> each time I heard that statement and every time they said it they dialed
> 911. Being a victim is easy, keeping from being one takes some fore thought.
>
> I know there are two sides of the fence I just want to be on the side that
> lives when I fall off.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310452#310452
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable
to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
Richard,=0AYou call yourself a relic...that is not quite the word I had in
mind. We all =0Ahave our opinions and there is no reason to slam folks for
expressing them. =0ARoger has earned the respect of many on this list as a
professional...learn what =0Athat means and act accordingly.=0ADan =0AMesa
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Richard Girard <asl
sa.rng(at)gmail.com>=0ATo: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Sun, August
29, 2010 7:10:22 AM=0ASubject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: BRS chute repack
time table=0A=0ARoger, So let's get this straight. You fall on the side of
the fence that wants =0Ato be free to be stupid, careless and lazy when it
comes to warranting their =0Asafety and rely upon a magic bullet to save t
heir butt when an emergency =0Ahappens. This is the same side of the fence
that has the people who buy lotto =0Atickets as their personal retirement p
lan. =0A=0AUnfortunately we don't have any data on those accidents you quot
e.-=0ADid the Zenith pilot do a poor preflight? Did the builder of the ai
rplane =0Asubstitute sub standard material into his airplane? Was it overlo
aded. Was it =0Aone of the 601's that were built so piss poor by the manufa
cturer, AMD, that the =0AFAA had to step in? I know of one Zenith crash tha
t killed the mother and father =0Aof the owner. He was repeatedly warned of
the problems with his aircraft and =0Achose to ignore them. Yes, it's a ho
rrible price to pay, but what does anyone =0Aexpect when deliberate stupidi
ty takes the pilot seat?=0AI watched the video of the wing failure in Argen
tina. Pretty freaking stupid to =0Ado inverted maneuvers in a strut braced
wing aircraft. The original report on =0Athat failure said it was a Rans ai
rcraft. From Rans own site, they only make one =0Aaircraft that they advert
ise as being used for aerobatics, the S 9 "Chaos". The =0Aload limit rating
of that aircraft is only +6 / -4. Yes, this meets the =0Arequirements of F
AR 23.337 for the acrobatic category ( +6, -3) but only if it =0Ais built p
er the factory. Was it?=0AYour near miss experience. What did you do about
it? Confront the pilot? Notify =0Athe FAA? Anything but grumble?=0AIn the e
nd all we can do is disagree. Perhaps I'm just a relic. A relic of a =0Adif
ferent time when professionalism, personal responsibility, and training wer
e =0Athe requirements for aviation, not relying on a "get out of jail free"
card when =0Ait comes to my personal safety.=0A=0ARick Girard=0A=0A=0AOn S
un, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Roger Lee wrote:=0A=0A-
=0A>=0A>Hi All,=0A>=0A>Any equipment is only as useful, practical and and s
afe as the operator. The =0A>rockets don't explode in a fire, they are a so
lid propellant and if it's that =0A>bad a fire your toast any way so that i
sn't a real consideration. When to use it =0A>isn't about practice, but edu
cation on when and how to use it. You can practice =0A>your muscle memory o
n grabbing the handle in case of a true emergency. Plus =0A>nothing else to
practice sense you have nothing to do, but float to the ground. =0A>No acc
idental firings since it takes almost 35 lbs. of pull to activate it. Plus
=0A>the handle can come out of the socket about an inch before the cable go
es =0A>taught. You have to tell the families of the Zenith (6) aircraft tha
t had wing =0A>failure that they weren't a good idea or the other saves the
y have actually had =0A>around the world. I bet everyone of those Zenith pi
lots were thinking nothing =0A>wrong with my plane. Tell it to the pilot ju
st recently at that air show that =0A>lost a wing and floated safely to the
ground. W!=0A>-hat about the other mornon that runs into you while you a
re minding you own =0A>business? Or after the mechanic forgets to install s
omething. Part failure in =0A>experimental's is a big cause of failures.=0A
>I guess my whole point is what ever the cause of a failure may not be by y
our =0A>hand or it may be because you were complacent or you just overlooke
d something. =0A>What we don't know can hurt us, regardless of the old sayi
ng that it can't hurt =0A>us.=0A>Your right that you'll never need it, unti
l that one time and no one anywhere =0A>can predict that. I came within 50'
of a midair two years ago from an idiot not =0A>using his radio and trying
to cut in front of two planes already in the pattern. =0A>To me there are
no cons only pros and that view point comes from research and =0A>education
and no myths, but facts.=0A>As a retired fireman I can't tell you how many
thousands of -times I have heard, =0A>"Well that has never happened to m
e before". Wish I had a dollar for each time I =0A>heard that statement and
every time they said it they dialed 911. Being a victim =0A>is easy, keepi
ng from being one takes some fore thought.=0A>=0A>I know there are two side
s of the fence I just want to be on the side that lives =0A>when I fall off
.=0A>=0A>--------=0A>Roger Lee=0A>Tucson, Az.=0A>Light Sport Repairman - Ma
intenance Rated=0A>Rotax Repair Center=0A>520-574-1080=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>
=0A>Read this topic online here:=0A>=0A>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtop
ic.php?p=310452#310452=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>======
======0A>=0A>ngines-List" =0A>target="_blank">http://www.matron
ics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List=0A>============0A
>http://forums.matronics.com=0A>============0A>le, Li
st Admin.=0A>="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A>===
=========0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A=0A=0A-- =0A=0AZulu Delta=0AKolb
Mk IIIC=0A582 Gray head=0A4.00 C gearbox=0A3 blade WD=0AThanks, Homer GBYM
=0A=0AIt is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be
unable to =0Aimagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.=0A---G.K.
======================= =0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
rickofudall wrote:
> Roger, So let's get this straight. You fall on the side of the fence that wants
to be free to be stupid, careless and lazy when it comes to warranting their
safety and rely upon a magic bullet to save their butt when an emergency happens.
....
>
> I watched the video of the wing failure in Argentina. Pretty freaking stupid
to do inverted maneuvers in a strut braced wing aircraft. The original report
on that failure said it was a Rans aircraft. From Rans own site, they only make
one aircraft that they advertise as being used for aerobatics, the S 9 "Chaos".
The load limit rating of that aircraft is only +6 / -4. Yes, this meets the
requirements of FAR 23.337 for the acrobatic category ( +6, -3) but only if
it is built per the factory. Was it?
>
Well I do want to defend Roger on this one point, because it's a good one. Aerobatic
flight is a much different regime than what we normally fly in - here the
chances of an in-flight breakup or other LOC really _is_ significantly high.
So in this case, a BRS is I think justifiable.
I also saw the video of the Rans breakup - it was an S9 I believe, but I was unaware
the S9 was strong enough to do the wild aerobatics the pilot was actually
doing. Well, obviously it wasn't, was it......
But even so, I'd still have to cross over the line and agree with the Pro BRS side
when it comes to aerobatics in an experimental airplane - here a chute is
arguably a good idea as was made clear in the video.
I still stand by my comments about training and practice, but I think Roger's points
are still well taken here. I have to admit he's right that if the fire is
that bad, yes, you're pretty well screwed at that point anyway ;)
As I said, I still believe the cons outweigh the pros, but that doesn't mean the
pros aren't actually pros. I think they are and in particular for aerobatics
like I said....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310496#310496
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi All,
I take no offense to different opinions because that is what makes the world turn
and work as we know and we are all allowed to make our own choices. That's
cool with me.
So guys no harm no foul with me, I'm good.
I guess my point boils down to we are all human and we all make mistakes. I think
we have all done something in our lives that didn't work quite as planned or
we missed seeing something right in front of us. So as long as we are that human
factor and God knows I have missed things then I just would like a good back
up plan in the air sense you can't pull over to the curb and once in a while
landing normally on a road or field isn't an option we are given. We all make
mistakes, this just gives us the second chance to play again and it gives my
family and friends the chance not to have to suffer through a funeral.
So all is good here.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310500#310500
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Lucien, FAR 91.307
(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute,
no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember)
may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds=97
(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
(e) For the purposes of this section, *approved parachute *means=97
(1) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical
standard order (C'23 series); or
(2) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF, or A
N
drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation or
specification number.
NO BRS meets these requirements, NONE.
Rick
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:25 AM, lucien wrote:
> lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com>
>
>
> rickofudall wrote:
> > Roger, So let's get this straight. You fall on the side of the fence th
at
> wants to be free to be stupid, careless and lazy when it comes to warrant
ing
> their safety and rely upon a magic bullet to save their butt when an
> emergency happens. ....
> >
> > I watched the video of the wing failure in Argentina. Pretty freaking
> stupid to do inverted maneuvers in a strut braced wing aircraft. The
> original report on that failure said it was a Rans aircraft. From Rans ow
n
> site, they only make one aircraft that they advertise as being used for
> aerobatics, the S 9 "Chaos". The load limit rating of that aircraft is on
ly
> +6 / -4. Yes, this meets the requirements of FAR 23.337 for the acrobatic
> category ( +6, -3) but only if it is built per the factory. Was it?
> >
>
>
> Well I do want to defend Roger on this one point, because it's a good one
.
> Aerobatic flight is a much different regime than what we normally fly in
-
> here the chances of an in-flight breakup or other LOC really _is_
> significantly high. So in this case, a BRS is I think justifiable.
>
> I also saw the video of the Rans breakup - it was an S9 I believe, but I
> was unaware the S9 was strong enough to do the wild aerobatics the pilot
was
> actually doing. Well, obviously it wasn't, was it......
>
> But even so, I'd still have to cross over the line and agree with the Pro
> BRS side when it comes to aerobatics in an experimental airplane - here a
> chute is arguably a good idea as was made clear in the video.
>
> I still stand by my comments about training and practice, but I think
> Roger's points are still well taken here. I have to admit he's right that
if
> the fire is that bad, yes, you're pretty well screwed at that point anywa
y
> ;)
>
> As I said, I still believe the cons outweigh the pros, but that doesn't
> mean the pros aren't actually pros. I think they are and in particular fo
r
> aerobatics like I said....
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> Titan II SS
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310496#310496
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unabl
e
to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Roger, I sometimes become to strident in my opinions. As I told Dan, I
respect your knowledge of things mechanical and Rotax.
We just disagree about the value of a BRS.
Thanks for all you contribute here and the chance to have this discussion.
If I said anything that was personally disparaging of you, it was without
intent and I offer my apology.
Rick
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Roger Lee wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I take no offense to different opinions because that is what makes the
> world turn and work as we know and we are all allowed to make our own
> choices. That's cool with me.
> So guys no harm no foul with me, I'm good.
> I guess my point boils down to we are all human and we all make mistakes. I
> think we have all done something in our lives that didn't work quite as
> planned or we missed seeing something right in front of us. So as long as we
> are that human factor and God knows I have missed things then I just would
> like a good back up plan in the air sense you can't pull over to the curb
> and once in a while landing normally on a road or field isn't an option we
> are given. We all make mistakes, this just gives us the second chance to
> play again and it gives my family and friends the chance not to have to
> suffer through a funeral.
>
> So all is good here.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310500#310500
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable
to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Dan, You have put your finger exactly on the problem as I see it. Roger is a
great guy, I value his knowledge of things mechanical and Rotax. In that I
do not believe we have a difference. I just don't believe that a BRS is good
for anything other than getting past your wife's/husband's/SO's objections
to flying. Beyond that they are just an expensive lump and I think the money
is better spent on training and knowledge.
Rick
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Dan Billingsley wrote:
> Richard,
> You call yourself a relic...that is not quite the word I had in mind. We
> all have our opinions and there is no reason to slam folks for expressing
> them. Roger has earned the respect of many on this list as a
> professional...learn what that means and act accordingly.
> Dan
> Mesa
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Richard Girard
>
> *To:* rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Sun, August 29, 2010 7:10:22 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: BRS chute repack time table
>
> Roger, So let's get this straight. You fall on the side of the fence that
> wants to be free to be stupid, careless and lazy when it comes to warranting
> their safety and rely upon a magic bullet to save their butt when an
> emergency happens. This is the same side of the fence that has the people
> who buy lotto tickets as their personal retirement plan.
> Unfortunately we don't have any data on those accidents you quote.
> Did the Zenith pilot do a poor preflight? Did the builder of the airplane
> substitute sub standard material into his airplane? Was it overloaded. Was
> it one of the 601's that were built so piss poor by the manufacturer, AMD,
> that the FAA had to step in? I know of one Zenith crash that killed the
> mother and father of the owner. He was repeatedly warned of the problems
> with his aircraft and chose to ignore them. Yes, it's a horrible price to
> pay, but what does anyone expect when deliberate stupidity takes the pilot
> seat?
> I watched the video of the wing failure in Argentina. Pretty freaking
> stupid to do inverted maneuvers in a strut braced wing aircraft. The
> original report on that failure said it was a Rans aircraft. From Rans own
> site, they only make one aircraft that they advertise as being used for
> aerobatics, the S 9 "Chaos". The load limit rating of that aircraft is only
> +6 / -4. Yes, this meets the requirements of FAR 23.337 for the acrobatic
> category ( +6, -3) but only if it is built per the factory. Was it?
> Your near miss experience. What did you do about it? Confront the pilot?
> Notify the FAA? Anything but grumble?
> In the end all we can do is disagree. Perhaps I'm just a relic. A relic of
> a different time when professionalism, personal responsibility, and training
> were the requirements for aviation, not relying on a "get out of jail free"
> card when it comes to my personal safety.
>
> Rick Girard
>
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Roger Lee wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Any equipment is only as useful, practical and and safe as the operator.
>> The rockets don't explode in a fire, they are a solid propellant and if it's
>> that bad a fire your toast any way so that isn't a real consideration. When
>> to use it isn't about practice, but education on when and how to use it. You
>> can practice your muscle memory on grabbing the handle in case of a true
>> emergency. Plus nothing else to practice sense you have nothing to do, but
>> float to the ground. No accidental firings since it takes almost 35 lbs. of
>> pull to activate it. Plus the handle can come out of the socket about an
>> inch before the cable goes taught. You have to tell the families of the
>> Zenith (6) aircraft that had wing failure that they weren't a good idea or
>> the other saves they have actually had around the world. I bet everyone of
>> those Zenith pilots were thinking nothing wrong with my plane. Tell it to
>> the pilot just recently at that air show that lost a wing and floated safely
>> to the ground. W!
>> hat about the other mornon that runs into you while you are minding you
>> own business? Or after the mechanic forgets to install something. Part
>> failure in experimental's is a big cause of failures.
>> I guess my whole point is what ever the cause of a failure may not be by
>> your hand or it may be because you were complacent or you just overlooked
>> something. What we don't know can hurt us, regardless of the old saying that
>> it can't hurt us.
>> Your right that you'll never need it, until that one time and no one
>> anywhere can predict that. I came within 50' of a midair two years ago from
>> an idiot not using his radio and trying to cut in front of two planes
>> already in the pattern. To me there are no cons only pros and that view
>> point comes from research and education and no myths, but facts.
>> As a retired fireman I can't tell you how many thousands of times I have
>> heard, "Well that has never happened to me before". Wish I had a dollar for
>> each time I heard that statement and every time they said it they dialed
>> 911. Being a victim is easy, keeping from being one takes some fore thought.
>>
>> I know there are two sides of the fence I just want to be on the side that
>> lives when I fall off.
>>
>>
>> --------
>> Roger Lee
>> Tucson, Az.
>> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
>> Rotax Repair Center
>> 520-574-1080
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310452#310452
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>>
>> ngines-List" target="_blank">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
>>
>> ==========
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Zulu Delta
> Kolb Mk IIIC
> 582 Gray head
> 4.00 C gearbox
> 3 blade WD
> Thanks, Homer GBYM
>
> It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be
> unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
> - G.K. Chesterton
>
>
> http://www.matronics="http://forums.matronics.com/" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://for========
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable
to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Rick and everyone,
Nothing personal here. I'm good if you are. I don't mind debates and discussions
at all. We all learn from constructive discussions and I respect anyones decision
on how they do things. We all get to make our own choices and that's what
America is about.
So off the our next discussion.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310544#310544
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
Roger,
I am 100% in your court on this one. When I bought my Kitfox 4 it had a
very nicely installed BRS chute. That to me was a big plus. As a retired
military pilot the value of a chute is well ingrained in me. All the training and
knowledge in the world will not help you if you were to have an inflight
failure and could not control the aircraft (which would be the reason for the
chute)
I have had two "deadsticks' while serving as an instructor in the Navy in
the North American T-28 Trojan ( engine blew at 3000 ft on one, the other
the prop came off with fire) Both aircraft are on a stick now(static display
in a couple of towns) I was very fortunate. It was nice to know that I had a
chute in case I needed it.
My only civillian crash was in a Pitts when I was going vertical at 200!
AGL. Engine quit cold turky and I put that one upside down in a
field.Couldn't have used a chute in that one but again if I have a choice of a
chute or
no chute on board...I will take the chute.
Dick Maddux
Milton,Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
Dick & Roger:
I have been reading with interest the thread on chutes.
I recall a few articles and NTSB reports about SR-22's having their chutes
pulled while the plane was at a high altitude. The report did not directly
say so but the indication was they were pulled prematurely and it might have
to do with human nature and the back of the mind idea that there was a chute
available. Could the plane have been flown to a good off airport spot or
even to a airport? That was not mentioned.
Do I like chutes? I would say yes. I only had to ware them when skydiving
and aerobatics. I have also been lucky; I had a few engine out situations
and was able to limp or glide back to an airport. Would I have jumped? No,
only because of lack of altitude and I had a passenger that would have
froze.
Hey Dick - THANK YOU FOR SERVING.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
rickofudall wrote:
> Lucien, FAR 91.307
>
> (c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute,
> no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember)
> may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds
>
> (1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
>
> (2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
>
> (e) For the purposes of this section, *approved parachute *means
>
> (1) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical
> standard order (C23 series); or
>
> (2) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF, or AN
> drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation or
> specification number.
>
> NO BRS meets these requirements, NONE.
>
> Rick
>
True, but 2 things:
- of course, nobody's suggesting that the BRS should _substitute_ for the personal
chute requirement. Or at least, I'm not suggesting such a thing and I don't
think Roger is either, etc.
- this reg doesn't say you _can't_ use a supplemental safety device like a BRS
during aerobatic flight. The FARs normally only specify _minima_ and they're doing
so in this case too. You're quite right the BRS by itself wouldn't meet this
minimum, but having the BRS fitted to the plane in addition to the approved
parachute isn't barred either.
Well, now I'm actually kind of on the other side again, ;), but when they're right
they're right ;).
Like I said, I still tend towards the no-chute camp for our normal ops for the
reasons I've stated, but credit still has to go where it's due....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310632#310632
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
rickofudall wrote:
> Lucien, FAR 91.307
>
> (c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute,
> no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember)
> may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds
>
> (1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
>
> (2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
>
> (e) For the purposes of this section, *approved parachute *means
>
> (1) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical
> standard order (C23 series); or
>
> (2) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF, or AN
> drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation or
> specification number.
>
> NO BRS meets these requirements, NONE.
>
> Rick
>
True, but 2 things:
- of course, nobody's suggesting that the BRS should _substitute_ for the personal
chute requirement. Or at least, I'm not suggesting such a thing and I don't
think Roger is either, etc.
- this reg doesn't say you _can't_ use a supplemental safety device like a BRS
during aerobatic flight. The FARs normally only specify _minima_ and they're doing
so in this case too. You're quite right the BRS by itself wouldn't meet this
minimum, but having the BRS fitted to the plane in addition to the approved
parachute isn't barred either.
Well, now I'm actually kind of on the other side again, ;), but when they're right
they're right ;).
Like I said, I still tend towards the no-chute camp for our normal ops for the
reasons I've stated, but credit still has to go where it's due....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310636#310636
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Blumax008(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
I wonder when Daddy is going to issue instructions on how to wipe our own
ass? I'm sure there'll be a fee to go along with it...an escalating fee
that is.
In a message dated 8/30/2010 10:06:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com writes:
--> RotaxEngines-List message posted by: "lucien"
rickofudall wrote:
> Lucien, FAR 91.307
>
> (c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved
parachute,
> no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a
crewmember)
> may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds=EF=BD
>
> (1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
>
> (2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the
horizon.
>
> (e) For the purposes of this section, *approved parachute *means=EF
=BD
>
> (1) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical
> standard order (C=EF=BD23 series); or
>
> (2) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF,
or AN
> drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation
or
> specification number.
>
> NO BRS meets these requirements, NONE.
>
> Rick
>
True, but 2 things:
- of course, nobody's suggesting that the BRS should _substitute_ for the
personal chute requirement. Or at least, I'm not suggesting such a thing
and I don't think Roger is either, etc.
- this reg doesn't say you _can't_ use a supplemental safety device like
a
BRS during aerobatic flight. The FARs normally only specify _minima_ and
they're doing so in this case too. You're quite right the BRS by itself
wouldn't meet this minimum, but having the BRS fitted to the plane in add
ition
to the approved parachute isn't barred either.
Well, now I'm actually kind of on the other side again, ;), but when
they're right they're right ;).
Like I said, I still tend towards the no-chute camp for our normal ops fo
r
the reasons I've stated, but credit still has to go where it's due....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310632#310632
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Blumax008(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
What people don't realize is that a deployment could actually put you in a
much more dangerous situation. I was doing some high alititude photography
one day on the Gulf coast. I had a strong north wind howling southward out
over the Gulf. I got to thinking...if that chute accidentally deployed, I'd
be blown out to sea for many miles. At that point I realized a person
needs to be aware of his particular flight situation before he deploys. In my
case at 15,000 ft. I would've had to ride a crippled aircraft down to a
couple thousand before I could attempt a deployment without going for a swim.
Use your noggin'.
In a message dated 8/30/2010 8:52:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
flyadive(at)gmail.com writes:
Dick & Roger:
I have been reading with interest the thread on chutes.
I recall a few articles and NTSB reports about SR-22's having their chutes
pulled while the plane was at a high altitude. The report did not
directly say so but the indication was they were pulled prematurely and it might
have to do with human nature and the back of the mind idea that there was a
chute available. Could the plane have been flown to a good off airport
spot or even to a airport? That was not mentioned.
Do I like chutes? I would say yes. I only had to ware them when
skydiving and aerobatics. I have also been lucky; I had a few engine out
situations and was able to limp or glide back to an airport. Would I have jumped?
No, only because of lack of altitude and I had a passenger that would have
froze.
Hey Dick - THANK YOU FOR SERVING.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi ll,
I have to take the blame for starting this thread. I had just talked to BRS for
a bunch of people on another site as thought I would just pass along the info
here since many have chutes. I thought it was going to be pretty
harmless, little did I know. [Laughing] All is good.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310647#310647
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | Paul Kuntz <paul.r.kuntz(at)gmail.com> |
OK, I'll contribute to the thread, since it's still kicking along.
I'm building a Pipistrel Sinus motorglider (see
http://www.pipistrelbuilders.com ) that will have a ballistic chute
installed. When I visited the Pipistrel factory in Slovenia, I asked if
their chute installation had ever been involved in a save. There has been
one instance, involving a high-time glider pilot soaring his fairly new
Pipistrel over the Alps. When he was done for the day and ready to head
back home, he wasn't paying close attention, and did what he was used to
doing -- he put the nose down and pointed it toward the airport. It's a
pretty clean airplane, so it quickly went to what they later estimated was
60+ knots over VNE. The wings fluttered and came off the airplane. The
fuselage then pitched forward and went inverted, at which point he pulled
the handle and fired the chute in about the worst possible attitude. That
is, he fired the chute pretty much directly against the aircraft's velocity
vector at very high speed. It worked as advertised and the pilot and
passenger walked away. Convinced me.
Regards,
Paul Kuntz
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Roger Lee wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Any equipment is only as useful, practical and and safe as the operator.
> The rockets don't explode in a fire, they are a solid propellant and if it's
> that bad a fire your toast any way so that isn't a real consideration. When
> to use it isn't about practice, but education on when and how to use it. You
> can practice your muscle memory on grabbing the handle in case of a true
> emergency. Plus nothing else to practice sense you have nothing to do, but
> float to the ground. No accidental firings since it takes almost 35 lbs. of
> pull to activate it. Plus the handle can come out of the socket about an
> inch before the cable goes taught. You have to tell the families of the
> Zenith (6) aircraft that had wing failure that they weren't a good idea or
> the other saves they have actually had around the world. I bet everyone of
> those Zenith pilots were thinking nothing wrong with my plane. Tell it to
> the pilot just recently at that air show that lost a wing and floated safely
> to the ground. W!
> hat about the other mornon that runs into you while you are minding you
> own business? Or after the mechanic forgets to install something. Part
> failure in experimental's is a big cause of failures.
> I guess my whole point is what ever the cause of a failure may not be by
> your hand or it may be because you were complacent or you just overlooked
> something. What we don't know can hurt us, regardless of the old saying that
> it can't hurt us.
> Your right that you'll never need it, until that one time and no one
> anywhere can predict that. I came within 50' of a midair two years ago from
> an idiot not using his radio and trying to cut in front of two planes
> already in the pattern. To me there are no cons only pros and that view
> point comes from research and education and no myths, but facts.
> As a retired fireman I can't tell you how many thousands of times I have
> heard, "Well that has never happened to me before". Wish I had a dollar for
> each time I heard that statement and every time they said it they dialed
> 911. Being a victim is easy, keeping from being one takes some fore thought.
>
> I know there are two sides of the fence I just want to be on the side that
> lives when I fall off.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310452#310452
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | LSA aircraft for sale ? |
Anyone know of an experimental/LSA for sale that would fit a 6ft 5 inch
pilot ? A friend of mine is looking and he just missed two. A Rans S-6,S-12,
Kolb mk 3 might fit the bill. Or ?
His budget is around $30-35000 or so for a nice aircraft. He lives close
to Ashville, NC so location would be important to go see the prospective
aircraft. Rotax 912 is preferable.
Thanks!
Dick Maddux
Milton,Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joel M." <dirtfly7(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LSA aircraft for sale ? |
I knew a pilot that was 6ft 7" that flew a Rans S-7.
--- On Tue, 8/31/10, Catz631(at)aol.com wrote:
From: Catz631(at)aol.com <Catz631(at)aol.com>
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: LSA aircraft for sale ?
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 6:23 AM
=0A =0AAnyone know of an experimental/LSA for sale that would fit a 6ft 5 i
nch pilot ? A friend of mine is looking and he just missed two. A Rans S-6,
S-12, Kolb mk 3 might fit the bill. Or ?=0A-His budget is around $30-3500
0 or so for a nice aircraft. He lives close to Ashville, NC so location wou
ld be important to go see the prospective aircraft. Rotax 912 is preferable
.=0A------- Thanks!=0A-------------
--------------- Dick Maddux=0A-----
----------------------- Milto
n,Fl=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS chute repack time table |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Paul, Roger, et al, This will be my last post on this thread, I promise.
If I had to pick a story that proves my point that having a BRS is conducive
to an unsafe attitude, this would be it.
Even using this incident, which I find extremely dubious since 60+ knots, as
stated, is 1.5X the factory published Vne for the aircraft, as a pretext to
justify anything is, frankly, stupid.
So far all the defense of the BRS has taken this tack. Freedom from
stupidity, from being responsible, from being safe, from following the
FAR's, from having your head in the upright and locked position. All I have
to do is pull the magic handle and everything will be ducky. La la la la
la.......
Paul, if this is truly an example of how you approach decision making, you
should very seriously think of getting into another activity, for your own
good and those of us who will have to pick up the pieces.
Now, to get back to a forum topic, can someone speculate as to why my 582-90
is using oil from the rotary valve reservoir? I've checked for leaks, made
sure the plumbing is correct and looked over the factory drawings in the
IPC. I can't account for the engine using enough oil for the reservoir to go
from max to min in about 4 hours. I'm using up the last of the Pennzoil Air
Cooled that I bought at Lockwood when I took the Rotax courses in 2007.
Ideas? In answering kindly change the subject title so any answer won't go
into the archives under the BRS discussion.
There, I've attempted to do as so many, like Thom Riddle, have asked and
steer us back to the forum raison d'etre.
Cheers,
Rick
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Paul Kuntz wrote:
> OK, I'll contribute to the thread, since it's still kicking along.
>
> I'm building a Pipistrel Sinus motorglider (see
> http://www.pipistrelbuilders.com ) that will have a ballistic chute
> installed. When I visited the Pipistrel factory in Slovenia, I asked if
> their chute installation had ever been involved in a save. There has been
> one instance, involving a high-time glider pilot soaring his fairly new
> Pipistrel over the Alps. When he was done for the day and ready to head
> back home, he wasn't paying close attention, and did what he was used to
> doing -- he put the nose down and pointed it toward the airport. It's a
> pretty clean airplane, so it quickly went to what they later estimated was
> 60+ knots over VNE. The wings fluttered and came off the airplane. The
> fuselage then pitched forward and went inverted, at which point he pulled
> the handle and fired the chute in about the worst possible attitude. That
> is, he fired the chute pretty much directly against the aircraft's velocity
> vector at very high speed. It worked as advertised and the pilot and
> passenger walked away. Convinced me.
>
> Regards,
> Paul Kuntz
>
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Roger Lee wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Any equipment is only as useful, practical and and safe as the operator.
>> The rockets don't explode in a fire, they are a solid propellant and if it's
>> that bad a fire your toast any way so that isn't a real consideration. When
>> to use it isn't about practice, but education on when and how to use it. You
>> can practice your muscle memory on grabbing the handle in case of a true
>> emergency. Plus nothing else to practice sense you have nothing to do, but
>> float to the ground. No accidental firings since it takes almost 35 lbs. of
>> pull to activate it. Plus the handle can come out of the socket about an
>> inch before the cable goes taught. You have to tell the families of the
>> Zenith (6) aircraft that had wing failure that they weren't a good idea or
>> the other saves they have actually had around the world. I bet everyone of
>> those Zenith pilots were thinking nothing wrong with my plane. Tell it to
>> the pilot just recently at that air show that lost a wing and floated safely
>> to the ground. W!
>> hat about the other mornon that runs into you while you are minding you
>> own business? Or after the mechanic forgets to install something. Part
>> failure in experimental's is a big cause of failures.
>> I guess my whole point is what ever the cause of a failure may not be by
>> your hand or it may be because you were complacent or you just overlooked
>> something. What we don't know can hurt us, regardless of the old saying that
>> it can't hurt us.
>> Your right that you'll never need it, until that one time and no one
>> anywhere can predict that. I came within 50' of a midair two years ago from
>> an idiot not using his radio and trying to cut in front of two planes
>> already in the pattern. To me there are no cons only pros and that view
>> point comes from research and education and no myths, but facts.
>> As a retired fireman I can't tell you how many thousands of times I have
>> heard, "Well that has never happened to me before". Wish I had a dollar for
>> each time I heard that statement and every time they said it they dialed
>> 911. Being a victim is easy, keeping from being one takes some fore thought.
>>
>> I know there are two sides of the fence I just want to be on the side that
>> lives when I fall off.
>>
>>
>> --------
>> Roger Lee
>> Tucson, Az.
>> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
>> Rotax Repair Center
>> 520-574-1080
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310452#310452
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>>
>> ngines-List" target="_blank">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
>> ==========
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable
to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Steele <rsteele(at)rjsit.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LSA aircraft for sale ? |
I'm 6'9" and I'm building a Zenith 650 (started as 601). The 650 has
more head room.
If you look at barnstormers, I think all of them have the upgrade, which
adds about 22lbs of aluminum and results in a very strong plane.
I choose the 601 buy walking around Sun-n-Fun and looking for an LSA I
could fit in. The Remos and CTSL and SportCruiser were close but not
there, and were out of my price range anyway.
I took flying lessons in a Tecnam Echo Super. Very tight, but doable.
Someone 6'5" might actually be comfortable, than the plane has a 600lb
useful load. It's the plane I'd buy if I could afford it.
Sitting height/leg length is more indicative than just height when right
at the edge.
On 08/31/2010 08:23 AM, Catz631(at)aol.com wrote:
> Anyone know of an experimental/LSA for sale that would fit a 6ft 5
> inch pilot ? A friend of mine is looking and he just missed two. A
> Rans S-6,S-12, Kolb mk 3 might fit the bill. Or ?
> His budget is around $30-35000 or so for a nice aircraft. He lives
> close to Ashville, NC so location would be important to go see the
> prospective aircraft. Rotax 912 is preferable.
> Thanks!
> Dick Maddux
> Milton,Fl
August 02, 2010 - August 31, 2010
RotaxEngines-Archive.digest.vol-ar