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

[rainier]

The biggest irony is engines used more often tend to be more reliable - .

This is exactly right. Two stroke engines operated regulary and often WILL last a lot longer and this mainly affects the crank.
This has been experienced in just about any flight school that I am aware of.

The reasons are of course simple.

Oils don't stick to metal for long and will run off. How long this takes depends nearly exlusively on the oils viscosity. Once your metal parts are exposed to air (and there is lots of this in the crank case and it is well ventilated unlike that of a four stroke) corrosion sets in. Most of your crank does not care about that - but the bearings and in particular the needle bearings in your piston will rust given the slightest chance. A tiny drop of water condensate is all it takes to get the process going - you get what is called "pitting". Really just a tiny rust spot. Once the bearing gets moving, that little indent starts to increase rapidly as it gets hammered every time it mates with the bearing race. This quickly destoys the bearing and it crumbles due to work hardening (Like a smithy overdoing his hammering).

So - easy to fix, fly as often as you can (now you have a real excuse) and use a nice high viscocity oil. Sorry folks - that excludes sythetic oils or semi synthetic.

This applies to any two stroke, not just Rotax.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

[lamercyfly]

Hi folk.

I'm long past posting facts and reason. It has been hashed and rehashed a-plenty.

So this post is just for general knowledge.

This stuff about regularly used motors lasting much, much longer is a fact across the spectrum of engines - not just 2-stroke. I recall reading, with interest, a lengthy story about Cessna-152 types, which operated daily, and were pushed through repeated cycles of hot/cold during training exercises, which at TBO, still had very usuable engines....

Anyway, let's see what the proposed amendments are going to look like in a day or two.

And then lets see what the CAA agree to.........I remain optimistic...

Regards.

[skybound®]

To fly an aircraft costs money.

An aircraft that stands in the hangar costs even more money.

And then lets see what the CAA agree to.........I remain optimistic...

Agreed, with our new commish, there appears to be sense returning on many levels. For instance with the introduction of Part 61, there are plenty of issues that have come to the forefront that require resolution. They have appointed another ex airline okie into the licensing section just to deal with these issues. Also believe with the language proficiency issue, there is to be some good news for the affected parties.

[rooikat]

Found this interesting 582/618 vs 912 operating cost analysis on Ultralight News. Apologies if y'all seen this before

www.ultralightnews.com/rotaxinfo/rotax912-582.html

cheers

Rooikat

[mike2flyfar]

There is an update on www.misasa.co.za on the issues being debated here

[Morph]

Thanks Mike,

We really appreciate the efforts

Greg

[gertcoetzee]

From the HKS website:

2005.05.09

You may be interested to know that after 50 hours trouble free flying the motor is run in and now delivers approximately 10 % more power than new, with the trike at sea level I obtain 1000ft per minute climb out (582 is 1100 ft) so I am very pleased with the performance. Fuel burn solo 8 litres per hour. It is very obvious that the engine requires a good run in period before it delivers full power. I use Shell synthetic 5w-40w oil. Oil temp at about 90 degrees C. No oil leaks at all.

Cheers Paul

[skybound®]

There is an update on www.misasa.co.za on the issues being debated here

Hmm, may need to pull my optimism down a notch. Keep up with the valiant efforts Mike. It aint an easy task.

[Ranger]

Got word from Morph that clu-less from Morningstar was denied an ATF. I don't know the reason. Maybe Morph knows. MORPH?

[lamercyfly]

Hmm... likewise, the optimism part....

Sorry I am late with my report back (said I would write something on Monday)...

I have spoken with 3 individuals, all senior members of the microlighting fraternity, who are either personally or collectively preparing a legal docket against CAA, challenging numerous issues, all related to the current laws.

Besides this, there is Aviation Engines trying to amend the schedule, and an apparent attempt from Aero Club to lighten the load.....

As a result of the above, I am prepared to wait, at least until I see the draft proposal which should be ready in a week at the most.... (comment Mike - proposal deadline and feedback)

I will then re-asses my involvement.

Thanks to all who have and still are supporting me.......

Regards.

[Wargames]

Got word from Morph that clu-less from Morningstar was denied an ATF. I don't know the reason. Maybe Morph knows. MORPH?

Hi ranger,

Clu-less was afraid of this. His 582 engine has over 400 hours on the clock.

I figure that this is the reason. Spoke to him on sunday morning and he was still waiting.

[Chunky]

To all the people who are flying Rotax 2 stroke engines other than 582's are still in for the high jump.

CAA are asking for clarification as to the 300 hour rule for these engines from Rotax in Austria. Early responses show that they are going to add all their 2 stroke engines to the 300 hour rule.

I know Mike Blyth and co are trying to rewrite the manual to allow for extension of crank hours but the document is being worded in such a way that there is nobody liable if there is a failure.

CAA will accept an amendment but only if the person writing the document will accept FULL responsibility for any failures. Any person in their right mind would never ever put their name to anything of the sort.

[zucac]

But that is the whole case, we will be liable for our own service we do
or not change the crank.If things go wrong so what,that is what the risk
is.If you do like it then get a AP to do the crank and spark plugs ETC.
I will sign that waver.
Brett Hill

[Wargames]

Well, why not put your name to the document??

The engines are not aircraft engines. Full stop.

The engines are prone to sudden stoppages. Full stop.

I don't know why CAA is so stuck up the issue. It is not as if they will be held responsible if anything should happen, and it is not as if Rotax will be held responsible either. Most of the responsibility lies with the pilot, and everyone knows that.

[ICEMAN]

Some points to ponder:


So in a nutshell, as i see it- CAA are happy to support the installation of a motor that is "not designed or tested for aircraft or flying", "stops at any time" and has same said motor installed with a"bsolute no no NGK" plugs- as long as its maintained "by the manual" (justified in the name of safety issues).........

I know the clauses about stopping, not tested etc etc are standard legal clauses, BUT they are part of the same manual, and thats what this whole bunfight now seems to have reduced to- "what does the manual say"

So, is it a case that only selected parts of "the manual" apply??.....

If the powers that be can insist on a word for word adherance to "the manual", what would happen if we, (the pilots/customers), insisted on the same from them........ ie if "the manual" is applied to us (the customers), we want the whole damn thing applied to all role players in the industry (the manufacturers)....... ie approve/ test/ certify it for flying or remove it from the market.

I love rotax motors, i have been hanging my butt from them since 1996- but it seems like the 582 at the very least is on its way out due to sudden rising running costs. Some motors are considered just "run in" at 300hrs- the 582 is considered time ex.The irony is that a 503 probably works harder and hotter, and spends more time at peak RPM than a 582....

thats enough rambling for one evening- good night!!