---------------------------------------------------------- Pulsar-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 08/14/12: 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 01:02 AM - Pulsar List request. (Matthew Brock) 2. 03:03 AM - Pulsar weights and engine choices. (mjb777) 3. 05:28 AM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (GREGSMI@aol.com) 4. 08:34 AM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (Keith Palmer) 5. 09:13 AM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (Gose, Eddie) 6. 09:22 AM - Re: Pulsar List request. (Larry Wheat) 7. 11:30 AM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (GREGSMI@aol.com) 8. 11:40 AM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (GREGSMI@aol.com) 9. 12:20 PM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (Barry J Edwards) 10. 12:20 PM - Leaking fuel tanks (barrynorman@comcast.net) 11. 11:10 PM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (Alex Kozloff) 12. 11:47 PM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (mjb777) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 01:02:11 AM PST US From: "Matthew Brock" Subject: Pulsar-List: Pulsar List request. Hi, My name is Matthew Brock and I am building a Pulsar Kitplane. I'd really like to join your list for Pulsar Builders. Regards, Matt. ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 03:03:23 AM PST US Subject: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices. From: "mjb777" Hi guys, I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built. I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years old), Rotax 582 90 series engine. I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A and P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better off with me. I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax 582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end needle bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully overhauled for at least the seals and other perishables before I would take my Wife flying with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we have some large ground to cover and a couple of around Australia trips will be on the cards when we have the time. I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept the original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am sure there were more who have done the same. I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this engine. It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and has pretty much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it. I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which means I can fly the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia. Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)...... On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar. If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, extra engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase over the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar amount for a bed style mount. The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load limit is 900Lbs. If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced by ALL structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is way beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee conversion. I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then the load on the lower cowl for the original 582 at approx 132Lb engine weight at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb difference AT +4g. I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage bond and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load capability of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!! Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the Rotax 582 configuration at +6g. It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at -2g negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4. So....... If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g? Regards, Matt. -------- Pulsar 1 Kit. Captain B777. Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:28:29 AM PST US From: GREGSMI@aol.com Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices. Thank you Matt for answering several of my questions I had sent to you before you joined the list. I will try to now answer your new issues. The airframe you have was made for the 582. As such, it came out of the molds with a lighter glass than the 912 model. In other words, the 582 fuselage was not strong enough to support the 912. Now, you are wanting to mount an engine that is 40 pounds heavier than the 912 in a 582 fuselage. Are you intending to use the header tank also? The fuel was moved to the wings when the 912 was installed. Also, the spars you have limited to 900 pounds gross weight, if the spar caps go to the outboard edge of the wing tip. I understand your desire to go with the economical Aerovee engine, but the Pulsar airframe will not support the weight. The Jabiru 2200 weighs 10 pounds more than the 582 installed weight, which makes it a good candidate for this application, if you want to go with a four stroke engine. I do not know any other way to put this, installing the Aerovee in this airframe is a ticket for disaster, on so many levels. If you want to use the Aerovee engine, you must find another airframe. Greg In a message dated 8/14/2012 5:03:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time, mattbrock777@gmail.com writes: --> Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777" _mattbrock777@gmail.com_ (mailto:mattbrock777@gmail.com) I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built. I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years old), Rotax 582 90 series engine. I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A and P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better off with me. I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax 582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end needle bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully overhauled for at least the seals and other perishables before I would take my Wife flying with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we have some large ground to cover and a couple of around Australia trips will be on the cards when we have the time. I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept the original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am sure there were more who have done the same. I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this engine. It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and has pretty much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it. I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which means I can fly the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia. Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)...... On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar. If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, extra engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase over the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar amount for a bed style mount. The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load limit is 900Lbs. If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced by ALL structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is way beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee conversion. I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then the load on the lower cowl for the original 582 at approx 132Lb engine weight at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb difference AT +4g. I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage bond and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load capability of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!! Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the Rotax 582 configuration at +6g. It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at -2g negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4. So....... If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g? Regards, Matt. -------- Pulsar 1 Kit. Captain B777. Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:34:42 AM PST US From: "Keith Palmer" Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices. Hi Matt, Greg is quiet right - you are only reduceing your safty factor by over 33% Keith ----- Original Message ----- From: "mjb777" Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 12:02 PM Subject: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices. > > Hi guys, > > I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you > for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in > advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from > your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built. > > I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length > spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years > old), Rotax 582 90 series engine. > > I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he > hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A > and P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better off > with me. > > I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax > 582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible > corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end needle > bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully overhauled > for at least the seals and other perishables before I would take my Wife > flying with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we > have some large ground to cover and a couple of around Australia trips > will be on the cards when we have the time. > > I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who have > used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept the > original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am sure > there were more who have done the same. > > I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a > couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this > engine. It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and > has pretty much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it. > > I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue > with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur > built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which means I can > fly the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia. > > Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)...... > > On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and composite > spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar. > > If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, extra > engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase over > the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar > amount for a bed style mount. > > The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load > limit is 900Lbs. > > If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I > figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced by > ALL structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is > way beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee conversion. > > I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower > cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine > installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then the > load on the lower cowl for the original 582 at approx 132Lb engine weight > at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb > difference AT +4g. > > I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where > Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage > bond and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load > capability of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee > configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!! > > Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the > Rotax 582 configuration at +6g. > > It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at -2g > negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more > conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4. > > So....... > > If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and > so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee > conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g? > > Regards, > > Matt. > > -------- > Pulsar 1 Kit. > Captain B777. > Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889 > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:13:15 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices. From: "Gose, Eddie" Greg: Just a quick follow on question. I am aware of a Pulsar airframe that is currently for sale. It is advertised as a "XP" but seller claims it has wood spars. The current owner says that the airframe is set up for a 912. The photos show a bed mount configuration. The seller claims glass wing skins and wing tanks. My question is did Pulsar sell an XP kit with wood spars? Seems to me the wood spars/912 would limit pay load some...your thoughts? Eddie From: owner-pulsar-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of GREGSMI@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 7:25 AM Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices. Thank you Matt for answering several of my questions I had sent to you before you joined the list. I will try to now answer your new issues. The airframe you have was made for the 582. As such, it came out of the molds with a lighter glass than the 912 model. In other words, the 582 fuselage was not strong enough to support the 912. Now, you are wanting to mount an engine that is 40 pounds heavier than the 912 in a 582 fuselage. Are you intending to use the header tank also? The fuel was moved to the wings when the 912 was installed. Also, the spars you have limited to 900 pounds gross weight, if the spar caps go to the outboard edge of the wing tip. I understand your desire to go with the economical Aerovee engine, but the Pulsar airframe will not support the weight. The Jabiru 2200 weighs 10 pounds more than the 582 installed weight, which makes it a good candidate for this application, if you want to go with a four stroke engine. I do not know any other way to put this, installing the Aerovee in this airframe is a ticket for disaster, on so many levels. If you want to use the Aerovee engine, you must find another airframe. Greg In a message dated 8/14/2012 5:03:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time, mattbrock777@gmail.com writes: mattbrock777@gmail.com I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built. I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years old), Rotax 582 90 series engine. I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A and P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better off with me. I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax 582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end needle bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully overhauled for at least the seals and other perishables before I would take my Wife flying with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we have some large ground to cover and a couple of around Australia trips will be on the cards when we have the time. I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept the original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am sure there were more who have done the same. I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this engine. It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and has pretty much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it. I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which means I can fly the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia. Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)...... On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar. If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, extra engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase over the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar amount for a bed style mount. The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load limit is 900Lbs. If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced by ALL structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is way beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee conversion. I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then the load on the lower cowl for the original 582 at approx 132Lb engine weight at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb difference AT +4g. I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage bond and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load capability of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!! Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the Rotax 582 configuration at +6g. It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at -2g negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4. So....... If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g? Regards, Matt. -------- Pulsar 1 Kit. Captain B777. Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889 ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:22:01 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: Pulsar List request. From: Larry Wheat Matt, welcome aboard. I have just finished a Pulsar III and am now in flight test. Any help you need there is an abundance of knowledge available. Cheers, Larry N852LW On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Matthew Brock wrot e: > Hi,**** > > ** ** > > My name is Matthew Brock and I am building a Pulsar Kitplane.**** > > ** ** > > I=92d really like to join your list for Pulsar Builders.**** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > ** ** > > Matt.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > > -- Larry Wheat ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 11:30:47 AM PST US From: GREGSMI@aol.com Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices. You are limited to 900 pounds gross with the wood spars. There may have been a few shipped with wood spars, you should ask to see the cowling, if i t has a hump in the middle for spark plugs, it is a 582 cowl. It has been so long now it is going to be difficult to know what you are getting. If the cowl is 582 you can bet the fuselage is six oz. glass and n ot XP. Also, if there are no wing tanks, it will not accommodate a 912. In a message dated 8/14/2012 11:13:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time, E-Gose@tamus.edu writes: Greg: Just a quick follow on question. I am aware of a Pulsar airframe that is currently for sale. It is advertised as a =9CXP=9D but seller claims it has wood spars. The current owner says that the airframe is set up for a 912. The photos show a bed mount configuration. The seller claims glass wing skins and wing tanks. My question is did Pulsar sell an XP kit with wood spars? Seems to me the wood spars/912 would limit pay load someyour thou ghts? Eddie From: owner-pulsar-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of GREGSMI@aol.c om Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 7:25 AM Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices. Thank you Matt for answering several of my questions I had sent to you before you joined the list. I will try to now answer your new issues. The airframe you have was made for the 582. As such, it came out of the molds with a lighter glass than the 912 model. In other words, the 582 fuselage was not strong enough to support the 912. Now, you are wanting to mount an engine that is 40 pounds heavier than the 912 in a 582 fuselage. Are yo u intending to use the header tank also? The fuel was moved to the wings when the 912 was installed. Also, the spars you have limited to 900 pounds gross weight, if the spar caps go to the outboard edge of the wing tip. I understand your desire to go with the economical Aerovee engine, but the Pulsar airframe will not support the weight. The Jabiru 2200 weighs 10 pounds more than the 582 installed weight, which makes it a good candidate for this application, if you want to go with a four stroke engine. I do not know any other way to put this, installing the Aerovee in this airframe is a ticket for disaster, on so many levels. If you want to use t he Aerovee engine, you must find another airframe. Greg In a message dated 8/14/2012 5:03:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time, _mattbrock777@gmail.com_ (mailto:mattbrock777@gmail.com) writes: --> Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777" _mattbrock777@gmail.com_ (mailto:mattbrock777@gmail.com) I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built. I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years old), Rotax 582 90 series engine. I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A an d P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better off with me. I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax 582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end needle bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully overhauled f or at least the seals and other perishables before I would take my Wife flyin g with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we have some large ground to cover and a couple of around Australia trips will be on the cards when we have the time. I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept the original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am sure th ere were more who have done the same. I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this engin e. It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and has pretty much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it. I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which means I can fl y the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia. Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)...... On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar. If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, extra engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase over the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar amount for a bed style mount. The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load limit is 900Lbs. If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced by ALL structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is way beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee conversion. I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then the load on the lower cowl for the original 582 at approx 132Lb engine weight at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb difference AT +4g. I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage bo nd and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load capabili ty of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!! Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the Rotax 582 configuration at +6g. It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at -2g negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4. So....... If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g? Regards, Matt. -------- Pulsar 1 Kit. Captain B777. Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. Read this topic online here: _http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889_ (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889) http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 11:40:09 AM PST US From: GREGSMI@aol.com Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices. Eddy, just remembered, I saw the same Pulsar. I know the original builder and have tried to contact him in the past to get an idea of what it is all about. It is possible he has an early XP, before they went to glass spars. If the kit was bought piece meal, it could be anything. Wing tanks and the bed mount 912 suggest an early XP but without talking to the builder, I do not know what it is. In any event, the wood spars limit the aircraft to 90 0 pounds gross, and only if it has extended spar caps. In a message dated 8/14/2012 11:13:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time, E-Gose@tamus.edu writes: Greg: Just a quick follow on question. I am aware of a Pulsar airframe that is currently for sale. It is advertised as a =9CXP=9D but seller claims it has wood spars. The current owner says that the airframe is set up for a 912. The photos show a bed mount configuration. The seller claims glass wing skins and wing tanks. My question is did Pulsar sell an XP kit with wood spars? Seems to me the wood spars/912 would limit pay load someyour thou ghts? Eddie From: owner-pulsar-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of GREGSMI@aol.c om Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 7:25 AM Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices. Thank you Matt for answering several of my questions I had sent to you before you joined the list. I will try to now answer your new issues. The airframe you have was made for the 582. As such, it came out of the molds with a lighter glass than the 912 model. In other words, the 582 fuselage was not strong enough to support the 912. Now, you are wanting to mount an engine that is 40 pounds heavier than the 912 in a 582 fuselage. Are yo u intending to use the header tank also? The fuel was moved to the wings when the 912 was installed. Also, the spars you have limited to 900 pounds gross weight, if the spar caps go to the outboard edge of the wing tip. I understand your desire to go with the economical Aerovee engine, but the Pulsar airframe will not support the weight. The Jabiru 2200 weighs 10 pounds more than the 582 installed weight, which makes it a good candidate for this application, if you want to go with a four stroke engine. I do not know any other way to put this, installing the Aerovee in this airframe is a ticket for disaster, on so many levels. If you want to use t he Aerovee engine, you must find another airframe. Greg In a message dated 8/14/2012 5:03:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time, _mattbrock777@gmail.com_ (mailto:mattbrock777@gmail.com) writes: --> Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777" _mattbrock777@gmail.com_ (mailto:mattbrock777@gmail.com) I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built. I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years old), Rotax 582 90 series engine. I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A an d P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better off with me. I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax 582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end needle bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully overhauled f or at least the seals and other perishables before I would take my Wife flying with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we have som e large ground to cover and a couple of around Australia trips will be on th e cards when we have the time. I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept the original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am sure th ere were more who have done the same. I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this engin e. It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and has pretty much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it. I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which means I can fl y the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia. Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)...... On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar. If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, extra engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase over the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar amount for a bed style mount. The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load limit is 900Lbs. If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced by ALL structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is way beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee conversion. I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then the load on the lower cowl for the original 582 at approx 132Lb engine weight at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb difference AT +4g. I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage bo nd and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load capabili ty of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!! Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the Rotax 582 configuration at +6g. It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at -2g negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4. So....... If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g? Regards, Matt. -------- Pulsar 1 Kit. Captain B777. Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. Read this topic online here: _http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889_ (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889) http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 12:20:24 PM PST US From: "Barry J Edwards" Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices. Hi Eddie, I have a fairly early Pulsar XP with the 912 engine (actually the 1st XP tail-dragger ever to fly). Mine has wood spars but which also had a layer of 9oz glass cloth bonded on each side (as per the AD manual), it also has the plywood skins. The gross weight is 960lbs. It=99s been flying for over 1000hrs now in the space of 20 years. If yours has wing tanks it is almost certainly an XP, but yes, do check the cowl. To take the extra engine weight, the uni-glass =98straps=99 were doubled up as well as the fuselage glass being slightly heavier. Hope this helps you. Barry G-XPXP Tail-dragger UK, 1020hrs. From: Gose, Eddie Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 5:12 PM Subject: RE: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices. Greg: Just a quick follow on question. I am aware of a Pulsar airframe that is currently for sale. It is advertised as a =9CXP=9D but seller claims it has wood spars. The current owner says that the airframe is set up for a 912. The photos show a bed mount configuration. The seller claims glass wing skins and wing tanks. My question is did Pulsar sell an XP kit with wood spars? Seems to me the wood spars/912 would limit pay load someyour thoughts? Eddie From: owner-pulsar-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of GREGSMI@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 7:25 AM Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices. Thank you Matt for answering several of my questions I had sent to you before you joined the list. I will try to now answer your new issues. The airframe you have was made for the 582. As such, it came out of the molds with a lighter glass than the 912 model. In other words, the 582 fuselage was not strong enough to support the 912. Now, you are wanting to mount an engine that is 40 pounds heavier than the 912 in a 582 fuselage. Are you intending to use the header tank also? The fuel was moved to the wings when the 912 was installed. Also, the spars you have limited to 900 pounds gross weight, if the spar caps go to the outboard edge of the wing tip. I understand your desire to go with the economical Aerovee engine, but the Pulsar airframe will not support the weight. The Jabiru 2200 weighs 10 pounds more than the 582 installed weight, which makes it a good candidate for this application, if you want to go with a four stroke engine. I do not know any other way to put this, installing the Aerovee in this airframe is a ticket for disaster, on so many levels. If you want to use the Aerovee engine, you must find another airframe. Greg In a message dated 8/14/2012 5:03:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time, mattbrock777@gmail.com writes: I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built. I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years old), Rotax 582 90 series engine. I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A and P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better off with me. I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax 582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end needle bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully overhauled for at least the seals and other perishables before I would take my Wife flying with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we have some large ground to cover and a couple of around Australia trips will be on the cards when we have the time. I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept the original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am sure there were more who have done the same. I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this engine. It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and has pretty much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it. I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which means I can fly the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia. Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)...... On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar. If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, extra engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase over the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar amount for a bed style mount. The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load limit is 900Lbs. If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced by ALL structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is way beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee conversion. I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then the load on the lower cowl for the original 582 at approx 132Lb engine weight at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb difference AT +4g. I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage bond and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load capability of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!! Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the Rotax 582 configuration at +6g. It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at -2g negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4. So....... If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g? Regards, Matt. -------- Pulsar 1 Kit. Captain B777. Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 12:20:24 PM PST US From: barrynorman@comcast.net Subject: Pulsar-List: Leaking fuel tanks This is an update on the fuel tank issue. After getting the right wing home and filling it with fuel it was obvious it was leaking from the end plate at the top if the wing next to the spar. Once I removed the end plate, I al so noticed that the epoxy tank sealer around the flap return spring eyelet had cracked and exposing the spar to fuel in a area about the size of a hal f dollar. I cleaned that area up and the spar looked fine so I coated the a rea with polysulfide sealant. I also built a wedge much like the one Jim di d for his plane but I did it out of Hysol mixed with some flox that incorpo rated the fiberglass angle, the spar and the edges of the tank flange. Once it was curred I coated it with polysulfide sealant. The wedge appears to r eally tie that area where leaks are prone together and greatly reduces flex . After putting the end plate back on it's been filled with fuel for about 2 weeks with no leaks or seepage.=C2-Thanks to Jim for the details=C2-t his fix. =C2- Now I just need to finish=C2-repainting this wing and get the other one d one. =C2- Barry ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 11:10:44 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices. From: "Alex Kozloff" Matt: I have Pulsar I kit #190 with the Rotax 582 that I bought in 1990. I finished the plane in 2004 (I can explain the delay if you really want me to); but before I flew it, I had the engine overhauled with new gaskets, an added thermostat, and most importantly, a stouter crankshaft that required cageless needle bearings on the ends to bring it up to the newer "Blue Head" specifications. I've got about 650 hours on the plane to date and went for an additional engine rebuild during the past Eight (8) years. My only problems to date are two (2) rectifier failures that prevented the battery from charging. Luckily, in each case, I had a backup battery for the Dynon EFIS that allowed me to land safely. Using Jim Schmitt's suggestion, I had the GSC propeller thinned down and I now cruse at 100K using 4 gph at lower altitudes. Some time ago, Greg Smith, the Guru of all things Pulsar related, pointed out that the fuselage laminate for the 582 powered Pulsar I was lighter than the succeeding models and that larger engines than 66 HP were not recommended. (Someone put a BMW motorcycle engine in one and ended up breaking the fuselage, as I recollect). Good luck on your project, I'm sure you are going to enjoy building and flying this delightful and agile aircraft. On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:02:41 -0700, mjb777 wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of > you for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, > and in advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can > gain from your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may > have built. > > I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length > spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 > years old), Rotax 582 90 series engine. > > I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he > hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A > and P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better off > with me. > > I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax > 582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible > corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end > needle bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully > overhauled for at least the seals and other perishables before I would > take my Wife flying with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it > against me), and we have some large ground to cover and a couple of > around Australia trips will be on the cards when we have the time. > > I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who > have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept > the original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am > sure there were more who have done the same. > > I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a > couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this > engine. It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost > and has pretty much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it. > > I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue > with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" > Amateur built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which > means I can fly the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia. > > Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)...... > > On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and > composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar. > > If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, > extra engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb > increase over the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and > probably a similar amount for a bed style mount. > > The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load > limit is 900Lbs. > > If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I > figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced > by ALL structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs > which is way beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee > conversion. > > I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower > cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine > installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then > the load on the lower cowl for the original 582 at approx 132Lb engine > weight at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a > 76Lb difference AT +4g. > > I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where > Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage > bond and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load > capability of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee > configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!! > > Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the > Rotax 582 configuration at +6g. > > It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at > -2g negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even > more conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4. > > So....... > > If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and > so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee > conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g? > > Regards, > > Matt. > > -------- > Pulsar 1 Kit. > Captain B777. > Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889 > > > Alex Kozloff P.O. Box 866 Santa Paula, CA 93061(USPS) 416 East Santa Maria Street Hangar # 31 Santa Paula, CA 93060 (UPS & FedEx) (805) 525-1415 (949) 400-6364 Cell ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 11:47:27 PM PST US Subject: Pulsar-List: Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. From: "mjb777" Thanks for all the input so far guys I really appreciate it. I'd be very interested to learn more about the structural failure of the BMW conversion. I believe it was a landing incident and who knows what sort of strut type engine mount, or fuselage anchor points had been 'engineered'. If anyone has pictures or a website link that would be great. Can someone explain to me why, if the weight of the hypothetical Aerovee converted Pulsar at +4g is LESS than the 582 configuration at +6g, then why is there disaster looming with the wood spars? MTOW limits in this class of aircraft are only for the design limit G and safety factor after all. My spars have the Bi caps and I am aware that there are XP's out there with the spruce spar at 960lb WITH A +6g LIMIT AT THIS WEIGHT. So if I carry out a suitable strengthening of the forward fuselage to carry and distribute the extra loads at +4g with a factor of 2, (about 150lbs) ...........whats the problem? I know I am playing devils advocate here but the History books are loaded with stuff that we 'couldn't do'!! [Wink] Matt. -------- Pulsar 1 Kit. Captain B777. Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380945#380945 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message pulsar-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pulsar-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/pulsar-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/pulsar-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.