RotaxEngines-Archive.digest.vol-ar

August 02, 2010 - August 31, 2010



      > *
      >
      > *
      >
      >
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Prop balancer
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 02, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Information
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 02, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 02, 2010
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!
Date: Aug 02, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 02, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 03, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 03, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 03, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 03, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 03, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 03, 2010
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
Date: Aug 04, 2010
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 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 04, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 04, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 04, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 04, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 04, 2010
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>
Subject: Sensenich Prop
Date: Aug 04, 2010
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>
Subject: Sensenich Prop
Date: Aug 04, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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 > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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 >> * >> >> > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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 >> * >> >> > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: prop balancing
From: "dashwood" <dashwoodlock(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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
Date: Aug 05, 2010
-----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
Date: Aug 05, 2010
-----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
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 05, 2010
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 06, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 06, 2010
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
Date: Aug 06, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 06, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2010
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 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2010
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 06, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 06, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 06, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 06, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2010
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2010
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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2010
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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2010
Subject: Prop balance
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>
Date: Aug 07, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 07, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 07, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 07, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 07, 2010
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>
Subject: Out-dated?
Date: Aug 07, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2010
From: william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Out-dated?
=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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Out-dated?
From: Bob Comperini <bob@fly-ul.com>
Date: Aug 07, 2010
> Rotax-owner.com has all the manuals ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2010
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 08, 2010
From: william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net>
Subject: Manuals
- 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
Date: Aug 08, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 08, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 08, 2010
> 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>
Date: Aug 08, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 08, 2010
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 08, 2010
Subject: Re: Manuals
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
Date: Aug 08, 2010
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>
Subject: Out-dated?
Date: Aug 08, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 09, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 09, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 09, 2010
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
Date: Aug 10, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 10, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 10, 2010
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
Date: Aug 10, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 10, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 10, 2010
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 > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 11, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 12, 2010
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
Date: Aug 12, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 12, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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
...
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 14, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 14, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 14, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 14, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 14, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 14, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 14, 2010
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
Date: Aug 15, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Hose Change
From: "h&jeuropa" <butcher43(at)att.net>
Date: Aug 17, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hose Change
From: "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Aug 17, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hose Change
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 17, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 17, 2010
From: Kitfox George <kitfoxsport(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Hose Change
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 ======================== ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hose Change
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 17, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 18, 2010
From: David Kulp <undoctor(at)ptd.net>
Subject: 447 analysis
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>
Date: Aug 18, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 18, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 19, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 19, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 19, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 20, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hose Change
From: "qaz11" <sinkar88(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 21, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 21, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 21, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 21, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 21, 2010
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
Date: Aug 21, 2010
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
Date: Aug 21, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 21, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 21, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 21, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 22, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 22, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 22, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 22, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 22, 2010
From: David Kulp <undoctor(at)ptd.net>
Subject: 447 analysis
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
Date: Aug 25, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 25, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 25, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 25, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 25, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 25, 2010
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 > > ** > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 25, 2010
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
Date: Aug 25, 2010
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>
Subject: Bad Bolt
Date: Aug 25, 2010
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>
Subject: Bad Bolt
Date: Aug 25, 2010
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2010
Subject: Re: Bad Bolt
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2010
Subject: Re: Bad Bolt
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>
Subject: Re: Bad Bolt
Date: Aug 26, 2010
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>
Subject: Re: Bad Bolt
Date: Aug 26, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2010
Subject: Re: Bad Bolt
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 > > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bad Bolt
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 26, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2010
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 27, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 27, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 27, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 27, 2010
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
Date: Aug 27, 2010
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2010
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
Date: Aug 28, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 28, 2010
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
Date: Aug 28, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 28, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2010
From: Paul McAllister <l_luv2_fly(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Westach probes
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 28, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 28, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 29, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 29, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 29, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 30, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 30, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 30, 2010
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
Date: Aug 30, 2010
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
Date: Aug 30, 2010
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>
Date: Aug 30, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2010
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 31, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 31, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 31, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 31, 2010
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