Is this the end of microlighting in S.A. ?

[Wargames]

Thanks reinier,

Very interesting. Back to the point of this topic now.

You made an interesting comment on the manual of the 582 and that it is a "copy" of the 583. This could be the whole reason that the 582 needs a crank change, BUT that it in fact does not need a crank change because the engine is not so "loaded" by means of power and revs. This might be an error on rotax side that can cost them financialy at the end.

This then also answered my question as to why the 503 does not require a crank change.

Just don't know what the powers to be will make with this info.

[rainier]

Right - lets get real.
As you doubtless, know - many "big" engine users have discovered the "tachometer" form of hobbs meter. Here engine time is not measured in hours the engine is running - but you rather count the number of times the piston goes up and down and relate that to a suitable "average" or specified nominal RPM (valid for Engine TBO).

In a nutshell - if your Rotax spends a lot of time idling or you cruise happily at a low RPM - you get an effective credit.
This can be substantial - even to the extent of doubling your engines overall time.

I thinks this is difficult to argue against...

Case in point:

Example 1: Helicopter fitted with 582 (yes, there are a few around). Full power most of the time (or very close to it). Often tuned exhaust to get the full 90 hp out of the engine.

Example2: Single seater trike with 582 (yes, I know - but I have seen one !). Cruises happily at what is little above idle.

Current legislation applies the same 300 hours to both of them. Sound rediculus ? That is because it is !

Thoughts ?

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

[Wargames]

It is so nice to read a bit of sense. I would have liked to read this from someone at CAA, because then I knew we were on the right track from an aviation point of view.

Enough said. But you know what they say about common sense.

Thanks for the input. I have just learn my whole week quota in 2 hours.

Safe flying.

[rainier]

Thanks reinier,

You made an interesting comment on the manual of the 582 and that it is a "copy" of the 583. This could be the whole reason that the 582 needs a crank change, BUT that it in fact does not need a crank change because the engine is not so "loaded" by means of power and revs. This might be an error on rotax side that can cost them financialy at the end.

No, that is not correct. There is no 300 hour schedule for the 583 that I am aware of. It is used in non aviation applications where engine failure may leave you no more than either wet or cold.
The 583 is a single ignition engine using the excellent Nipondeso ignition system (they do not allow their system to be used in aviation which is why we are stuck with Ducati).
The block is 100% identical to the 582 except for the holes drilled and tapped to fit our greaboxes (the bosses are there so retrofit is possible).
The head is different (single plugs), they use a single, BIG carburetor and a tuned exhaust system.
Sea-doo owners often modify the engine further to get it in excess of 100 Hp.
Cranks on these engines do fail. Nearly always this is due to bearing corrosion. Ski-doos tend to suffer from operation in corrosive environments interspaced with long periods of inactivity - the death of a 2-stroke.
It's different on Ski-doos.

It is reasonably common in the U.S. to buy cheap 583 engines (often second hand as they are being phased out of Ski-doos due to environmental concernes) and use them in Ultralight aircraft.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

[Aerosan]

Rainier, I have to say that I cant agree with you more. Every single point that you made cannot be faulted. I used to use a 643 engine in my plane and changed to a 582 because I was a ski-doos that engine made more power than the 582 and used less fuel. I think Ill be putting that one back into my old plane. More power, less fuel and most of all NO 300HR RULE = happy man

[Chunky]

Guys, Again you are flying off the handle with the wrong information........

Lets take a few steps back. Whay are we angry at the CAA or Aviation Engines, neither of them are the problem. Rotax themselves of which AE is just an agent wrote a maintenance manual many years ago for all their engines. It was stated many moons ago that the 618,582,503 (Sorry Morph),447,462 and all of their other 2 strokes engines required a crank change at 300 hours. Everyone knew this before they bought their engines or they didnt do their homework.

This rule has ALWAYS been in place. Trevor Davies who manufactures the Thunderbird has never signed out an aircraft with a 2 stroke rotax engine with more the 300 hours for the last 10 or more years. This rule is nothing new its just being enforced.

The CAA failed their ICAO Audit last year. One of the problems was not sticking to Legislation. One such legislation is making sure aviators who fly aircraft with engines maintain them to manufacturers specs. The CAA was given the chance to correct these errors. Such was the reason that they employed people like the new CAA NTCA inspectors. If they fail the audit again, no international airliners will visit our shores. No World Cup..No No No.....

Now, the only problem is the we have not maintained our aircraft correctly, nothing else. Its nobody elses fault but Ours. Why now blame the CAA, Aviation Engines or Mike Blyth. They cant change the rules.

I support Nirren on this one. They offer a great service. Rotax still makes a great engine. Come on guys, 30k is not going to kill you. Use your common sense, change the crank and log 10 hours a year but stop all the bitching.

NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU BITCH CRY OR SCREAM, THE RULES ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE. Perhaps an extension to 450 hours but this is looking very very very slight indeed.

Work a little harder and save some money and buy a new crank.

[kloot piloot]

Chunky, your argument sucks (sorry, but you have me angry now).
Rainier and thousands of other replies have scientifically prooved to, and begged the authorities to review its stance !
All our pleas are based on science, facts, figures and real feed back. Dave Daniel and many others have tried through polls and any possible means to convince those in power to wake up to the fact that a stupid little crank is worth another 700 hours after the required TBO of 300 hours.
Rather spend your effort to have NGK remove their stupid picture from their box. You have more chance achieving that then convincing me that a crank is "moer-toe" after 300 hours.
I say, again, and Chunky this is not personal, but wake up, because I will come and check whether you fly with NGK's (IT IS ILLEGAL), or whether you are saving for a "quicK" crank change.
And to CAA, you have my PM, confront me if I confront you. I ask you, is your (CAA) heart with promotion of safe aviation (as you state in your mission statement), or do you agree with Chunky ? Save more to spend more ?

[Chunky]

Kloot

I am in the exact same position as you, perhapos even worse. I fly from the same club as Mike Cathro. He knows the situation with one of my aircraft far more than the others. I am sure that if he sees me flying my trike that has more than 300 hours I will also be knee deep in the shit.

What I am saying is we must all stop the bitching and change the crank. Unfortunately this rule is not going to change. No matter how much we try. I asked him yesterday if rotax are going to extend the crank hours infornt of the 2 guys at Solitude that had their ATF's denied and the answer was NO, not likely.

Nobody is prepared to put their balls on the line and take responsibilty for what might happen. We all know the cranks are good for more than 300 hours but Rotax have stated they must be replaced. The CAA are only following the manual given to them by Rotax.

I am probably going to go the HKS route for my trike. All my other aircraft have 912s fitted or engines that dont need to be changed at 300 hours so I am a bit lucky there.

The more time people waste here bitching about the rules the less they are going to fly. You will have to change the crank anyway so it may as well be sooner rather than later.

[rainier]

Kloot

Nobody is prepared to put their balls on the line and take responsibilty for what might happen. We all know the cranks are good for more than 300 hours but Rotax have stated they must be replaced. The CAA are only following the manual given to them by Rotax.

I am probably going to go the HKS route for my trike. All my other aircraft have 912s fitted or engines that dont need to be changed at 300 hours so I am a bit lucky there.

Yes, this is correct.
Do not point to CAA in this regard.
The problem lies squarly with Rotax. Before I continue let me just sidetrack to our famous "Rotax maintenance schedule" which is part of the root of all evil.

It has never been changed. It dates back to the very first single ignition engines. Since then countless improvements and updates have been done to the engines which includes cranks, bearings, RV shafts, ingintion systems, etc etc. The schedule should have followed this but never did.

Let us look at plugs for a second here. Regapping ? Change them at 25 hours ? That was fine in the old days with heavily leaded fuels and single ignition systems that beat the hell out of the plugs.
With a CDI system your plugs have almost no wear. It's similar to the system in a modern car. With unleaded fuels and good oils - there is only a light dusting of carbon on the plugs that will not get worse (similar to a 4 stroke). You can use those plugs for 100 hours at the very least.
Has the maintenance schedule been updated to reflect this ? No.

This is now going to go full circle. I have owned two 582 engines (one of which I still fly). Unless maintenance schedules change to more sensible ones I will not buy another. I am sure you will find many others thinking the same. That will be the end of 582 sales in SA. Niren - are you reading this - does Rotax understand the implications ?

Yes, I am aware that both the 503 and 582 will be phased out in the next years so perhaps Rotax does not care anymore...

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

[Morph]

It was stated many moons ago that the 618,582,503 (Sorry Morph),447,462 and all of their other 2 strokes engines required a crank change at 300 hours[/qoute]

Where Chunky, show me the document. Rotax's representitive i.e. Niren, told me that there is no document for the 503. Who do I believe him, or your

it was stated somewhere many moons ago

Everyone knew this before they bought their engines or they didnt do their homework.

Heresay, I personally have not seen the document that says so.

This rule has ALWAYS been in place.

When did it start?

There are 2 problems here.

1. Rotax's unrealistic "service recomendations" And talking to rotax is not going to help because they revert you back to their local agents. This is bad manners, I wanted an answer from them not the local agent

2. CAA legislating when a crank should and should not be replaced.

[Chunky]

Morph, Speak to Mike Cathro.

If your 503 has more than 300 hours on it without a crank change you will not receive an ATF. The 300 hours crank rule applies to all 2 stroke Rotax engines according to CAA.

My advice is we need to start looking at alernative automotive engines that dont have a maintenance schedule set in stone. That way you can write your own schedule and not have to worry

[ICEMAN]

Morph, Speak to Mike Cathro.

If your 503 has more than 300 hours on it without a crank change you will not receive an ATF. The 300 hours crank rule applies to all 2 stroke Rotax engines according to CAA.

IS this now the official ruling, coz the versions and interpretations change by the minute- even the agents seems to be waiting for the final outcome from the CAA......... as per my previous posting- we are still waiting for an offical spokes person to step up to the microphone....

[Cloud Warrior]

Acording to the Rotax maintenance manual for the 447, 503 & 582, you need to overhaul the engine at 300 hours OR every 5 years (which ever comes first). Will the CAA be enforcing the 5 years limitation as well?

[skybound®]

IS this now the official ruling, coz the versions and interpretations change by the minute- even the agents seems to be waiting for the final outcome from the CAA......... as per my previous posting- we are still waiting for an offical spokes person to step up to the microphone....

What exactly is the question that you need an official answer to? The law is published so is official, many responses here from first hand experience in talking to CAA and an official written response from CAA regarding the maintenance regime required even before the promulgation of Part 24.

[ICEMAN]

What exactly is the question that you need an official answer to

Skybound, perhaps i missed the plot, but the last 13 pages for this posting alone have essentially consisted of speculation- not in terms of the facts- but how they are to be applied.

1) Do 503`s need religious 300hr replacements or not?- read back- some say definately/ some say not applicable
2) Do 582`s need religious 300hr replacements or not?- once again some say yes- some say depends- some say "wait for the final outcome"
3) Are ATF`s issued last year (that exceeded 300hrs) automatically considered null and void as of 01/01/2008?- Where is the supporting notifications to owners on this one?- are we grounded or not coz i still see plenty trikes flying daily.
4) Do we need an approved person to change a plug or hose clamp or not?- once again i still see MPLs meticulously changing their own plugs, oil and filters- are they all wrong, ingnoring the law- or waiting for instruction.
5) If the issue is closed and written in stone, what excatly are the role players, agents and CAA meeting about (previous and upcoming)?
6) If the 300hr replacement period is cast in stone, why has it been disregarded for so long and ATF been issued?
7) Will all other discepencies be immediately addressed eg NGK plugs, in the same manner as the cranks?
If the 300hr is cast in stone, then whats all the speculation about increasing "life" to perhaps 450hrs?

I dont think that by a long shot i am the only one who doesnt know- there are 100`s of postings on this topic..... it has recieved one of the highest number of views for any post (why is that if the deal is signed and sealed). If the deal is closed- why are chaps all of a sudden placeing the pride and joys for sale at a give away price.... Its difficult two find two AP`s who agree exactly what is expected.

right, thats my 2 cents worth, wheres my valium.