Microlighters

Is that the first 300 hours

Is it legal to not rebuild if the Rotax manual says you should

I'm a stingy guy I will gladly go longer than required if I don't need to spend that extra +- R8k

But having said that I would not like to give these insurance corporates reason to reject a claim my wife might have, should something happen to me while flying

Have an AP check it out. He will have to stamp the log book which afterall is the legal document the insurance houses will look at. If in doubt go the safe route. I've spoken to lots of guys both here and on international forums and the general concensus is if a plane is flown a lot, and well maintained there is no reason for the crank not to last up to 700 hours. It's the months of standing with no lubrication that lets corrosion set in that does damage and the incorrect mixing of fuel/oil.

Rotax have determined that under the most extreme operating conditions, 300 hrs is a safe operating time before overhaul. Liability implications, especially from the US, prevents them from increasing this at the moment. This is a reply I posted on the SA Micro newsgroups in response to a comment about 582 crankshaft failures:

The 582 produces 30% more power for about the same weight as the 503, it will obviously require a little more TLC than you would give your 503.

While many 582's have reached 1000 hrs, most get 600 hrs quite happily. 582 crankshaft failures are mainly the result of vibration or corrosion due to the lack of preservation during storage. The 503 crankshaft is not as susceptible to corrosion due to the intake ports being on the cylinder and not on the crankcase, therefore extra care has to be taken to protect it on the 582. The preservation procedures are contained in the Operators Manual for the engine.

My recommendation is for the engine to be completely dissassembled. The crankshaft should be checked for corrosion and the wear on the big ends measured. If there are no signs of corrosion and if the wear on the big ends is within 50% of the tolerance, the ball bearings and seals should be replaced and crank put back into service. The pistons and cylinders must measured and re-honed/re-bored/replaced on condition. If the pistons are to be re-used, might as well install new rings while you have it apart, silly to re-use the old rings.

The crank should be inspected again at 450 TTSN, due to leagal implications I am reluctant to say to anyone that the crank may be used further. The decision lies with the owner.

Regards
Niren

The crank should be inspected again at 450 TTSN, due to leagal implications I am reluctant to say to anyone that the crank may be used further. The decision lies with the owner.

Niren that is why I posted the question in the first place "due to legal implications"

But the question is still unanswered

So Mr Middleman where are you

By the very nature of Aviation, great attention is given to safety. Therefore aviation authorities require aircraft manufacturers and maintenance organisations to confirm to certain standards.

The maintenance required for aviation products is very much precautionery.

You should check what the CAA legislation states in this respect.

Maybe you should choose a sport/hobby that better suits your budget!

Aviation Engines wrote: Maybe you should choose a sport/hobby that better suits your budget!

Ooh Niren, that's fighting talk, typical elitist arrogance that is not going to win you customers

Me thinks it's time to look at other engine manufacturers who perhaps have representitives that are more sensitive to the needs of their client and not feeding the pockets of the arrogant manufacturers who are trying to monopolise the market by slating the competition.

See this thread http://microlighters.co.za/viewtopic.php?t=757

We have looked at various engines and as typically anti-establishment as I have always been, didn't want to support Rattex initially. Now I will leave it up to other people to prove other engines to the extent that they have.

Niren and Amith have always gone out of their way to assist us, and although Niren has a good sense of humour, I don't think your comments are fair, Morhp.

Flying does cost money. Before it cost money, it cost many more lives.

FF, many I have come across who is in flying is in it for the love of the sport and in so doing often puts themselves into tight financial situations to afford it. I am one of those. This is an expensive sport but more so because there is no real competition as far as the supply of certain items are concerned. Then you get a manufacturer who is improving their product, trying to reintroduce into this market at a more cost effective level and the immediate reaction from the representative of the market leader is to slate them. And then they have the audacity to suggest us poor folk shouldn't be in the sport in the first place.

If I remember correctly, microlighting was introduced to make flying more affordable and more accessible to the average man. My how the wheel has turned.

You guys really are all waking up rather late.

I have been vociferously ouspoken against the CAA in their writing in of the Part 24 by special exemption of the commissioner.

Unfortunately, MISASA's input has not been much at all.

You guys all fly your micro's, but seem to know very, very little about the laws that govern it.

Part 24 really sucks. It states quite clearly that you HAVE to maintain the aircraft as per manufacturers recommendations. Hows that. The manufacturer only recommends, and CAA make it mandatory.

The fact that CAA are turning a blind eye to the reality of this damn law they wrote in by exemption, does not relieve us pilots from unscrupulous insurance agents.

So, to answer your question, please go read part 24. You can ask CAA to send it to you, you can most probably download it off the 'net, or try a 100 other ways of getting it. Your local school will have it.

As far as Morphs comments about Niren, I can only say that I challenge any supplier of any other kind of micro engine to offer the same service that Niren offers. He has helped me out on the 23rd December, while on holiday with his family. He has helped me out on Saturdays, Sundays, driving to Jhg international to personally put parts onto SAA cargo. He has assisted me with claims on motors which are outside of the Rotax warrantly. I can go on and on.

The fact is that we can import motors for our Skyrangers at a reasonably better price that what Aviation Engine suppliers to us for, is of no consequence in the greater scheme of running our business.

Thankyou Niren, and your staff, for the service you provide (especially when you follow up mistakes :D

I feel that have answered IFLYHI quite adequetly.

For the record I have not slated any products.

I don't make the rules for flying.

If anyone has any bones to pick with me, please call me, I would like to know what has made you so unhappy and try to rectify the situation.

I will not posting any further replies to this subject.

Thanks to the others for the support.

I't wasn't a personal attack at Niren just the industry,

I am now self medicated, taken my shots of Valium, and everythings fine

Hey why are the walls turning green

Morpheus wrote: .. then they have the audacity to suggest us poor folk shouldn't be in the sport in the first place.

If I remember correctly, microlighting was introduced to make flying more affordable and more accessible to the average man. My how the wheel has turned.

I think its about PRIORITIES, Morph. Come and meet me at La Mercy some time, and see what it is about for me. I don't cut corners, but I don't have a suburbia life either.

I have never, and hope that I will never, have a problem paying for the value of other people's schoolfees. What they did to get a reliable engine is very, very valuable to me. I have not yet had one engine failure in flight

Be Glad you have a Rotax. My plane was built in the late seventies/early eighties and has a Cuyuna engine. Try get spares and service for that. If anybody knows where I can get hold of agents/ local assistance, I would certainly appreciate hearing about them.

lamercyfly wrote:

Part 24 really sucks. It states quite clearly that you HAVE to maintain the aircraft as per manufacturers recommendations. Hows that. The manufacturer only recommends, and CAA make it mandatory.

The fact that CAA are turning a blind eye to the reality of this damn law they wrote in by exemption, does not relieve us pilots from unscrupulous insurance agents.

Thank you that answers my question
So to be legal the engine has to be rebuilt, including crank, every 300hrs
If not done so, the insurance corporates can refuse a claim, because CAA has made a law, of the suggestion from the engine manufactures

I wrote:

Mr Middleman

I refer to a insurance broker here, and still waiting to hear from one

Demon wrote:

I have had nothing but great service and concern from Aviation Engines in general

Amen to that, I will not have anything else purring upfront but Rotax :D
When I started out I was told "Put any engine in as long as it's a Rotax"
I know what I'm paying for and my life is not worth the few grand I can save by switching
I'm sure all other wannabe manufactures use Rotax as the benchmark as to what is the closest to an ideal

Aviation Engines wrote:

Maybe you should choose a sport/hobby that better suits your budget!

Ouch

If the outcome of this post was that I don't need to replace the crank and save a few bob, all legally, that would have been the cherry on top :D
The reality is however different, so in 278hrs from now I will again spend my hard earned +-R18000 to have it done, not by myself but professionally by the experts :D

my haypennie's wurth...

> # cheers for Niren and the lads at AE ... but it doesnt hurt to keem em keen huh!

> Rotax rules.. and I like HIRTH 2

> Insurance companies - they'r not in it for your benefit... and will ALWAYS try to find a way out

> This Forum really rocks