Pulsar-List Digest Archive

Tue 05/21/13


Total Messages Posted: 4



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 02:21 AM - Rotax 912 mounting options?.... (mjb777)
     2. 02:53 AM - Re: Rotax 912 mounting options?.... (GREGSMI@aol.com)
     3. 10:01 AM - Pulsar Airfoil Note (Everett Collier)
     4. 11:30 AM - Re: Rotax 912 mounting options?.... (GREGSMI@aol.com)
 
 
 


Message 1


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:21:21 AM PST US
    Subject: Rotax 912 mounting options?....
    From: "mjb777" <mattbrock777@gmail.com>
    Howdy again, I have just purchased a Rotax 912 engine which I am sure will please some of you who were horrified at my plans to use an Aerovee VW in place of the Rotax 582 engine in my Pulsar! Can the experts out there let me know what are my options regarding engine mounting? I recall seeing some pictures of conventionally (frame) mounted, and also some bed mounted 912's in pulsars??? Also, does anyone have a full set of construction manuals (.PDF would be excellent!), for the XP?? Regards, Matt. -------- Pulsar 1 TD Kit. Captain B777. Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401052#401052


    Message 2


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:53:39 AM PST US
    From: GREGSMI@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Rotax 912 mounting options?....
    Matt, if your Pulsar is truly a Pulsar 1, with a header tank, there is a good possibility the fuselage and tail section are not designed to take the extra load of a 912. Depending on the serial number, the early Pulsar kits were manufactured for the 582. The factory used a light weight glass for the fuselage. When the 912 was introduced in the XP, the fuel was moved to the wings, the fuselage was manufactured with a heavier glass, and the tail section was beefed up. I do not see anyway a early model Pulsar can be safely converted to a 912 XP. Greg In a message dated 5/21/2013 4:21:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time, mattbrock777@gmail.com writes: --> Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777" <mattbrock777@gmail.com> Howdy again, I have just purchased a Rotax 912 engine which I am sure will please some of you who were horrified at my plans to use an Aerovee VW in place of the Rotax 582 engine in my Pulsar! Can the experts out there let me know what are my options regarding engine mounting? I recall seeing some pictures of conventionally (frame) mounted, and also some bed mounted 912's in pulsars??? Also, does anyone have a full set of construction manuals (.PDF would be excellent!), for the XP?? Regards, Matt. -------- Pulsar 1 TD Kit. Captain B777. Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401052#401052


    Message 3


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:01:45 AM PST US
    From: Everett Collier <everettmcollier@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Pulsar Airfoil Note
    The Pulsar was originally going to have a cambered airfoil (MS(1)-0313) but Mark took out the camber for the wing after the fuselage molds were made. - If you want to see the original airfoil you can look at the wing shape on the fuselage wing root.- - I plotted the airfoil section (MS(1)-0313) out over 20 years ago when it wa s first published, probably in the newsletter.- If you draw a streight -line accross the bottom of the section that eliminates the camber you wi ll get what I believe Mark did.- Removing the camber has a couple of adva ntages for the builder.- Not having the camber might make skinning the lo wer surface easier (no camber in the ailerons or flaps)! - Everett Collier N167EC (Currently out of commision due to a broken-front wheel fork.) - -- - -


    Message 4


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:30:00 AM PST US
    From: GREGSMI@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Rotax 912 mounting options?....
    Matt, in a private message to me, you asked for information on how to modify the Pulsar 1 to accommodate a 912 engine. Since you started the subject on the forum, and others have asked the same questions in the past, I thought it best to repeat the answers for everyone. If you want to completely rebuild the airplane, then I guess it is possible. I will give you a few key parts that should be addressed then you can decide if the project is worth it or you want to do it your way. 1. With the extra weight of the 912, the fuel must be moved to the wings. You do not have enough elevator to handle a landing with that much weight on the nose and flight performance, stalls, a lot of safety issues. Dropping the nose on at higher speeds, with all that additional weight is risking a gear failure. 2. The wood spars will not carry more than 900 pounds gross, and then, only if they are the wood spars that had a long spar cap. If this is one of the early 582 Pulsars with the short spar caps, the gross is much less than 900 pounds. 3. The fuselage is made with 3 oz glass on the inside for the 582, The 912 Pulsar XP fuselage and tail surfaces are made with 9 oz. glass. 4. The horizontal spar tubes are much stronger in the 912 Pulsar. These are just some of the differences. The 912 Pulsar was not just a 582 Pulsar with a few minor changes. The plane went through a lot of design analysis to handle the weight and performance of the 912 engine. Matt, given the above facts, there is no way I would recommend or support such a project. There are way too many safety concerns. Even if you found a way to move the fuel, reinforce the fuselage, and rebuild the tail, you would be making the plane so heavy the spars would not safely take the load. And, if you found some way to beef up the spars, remember, the attach points in the fuselage are still to the 3 oz fuselage skins.




    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
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/pulsar-list
  • Browse Pulsar-List 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.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --