Yes, and that is what I have (had already). Depending on how your belly radiator is mounted you might have to adjust it, maybe slide it a little to the side to get out of the way for the double pipes. I don't think belly radiator is a showstopper.
My stone is making waves... To my knowledge there is no "factory" built mount for Simonini that would fit Avid or KitFox but with fittings identical to Rotax 582 you can either reuse, or "easily" find, an engine mount that will almost fit. Much easier to modify an existing mount than to create one from scratch - particularly if you want to save the rest of your installation. As mentioned, the rear end of the engine is wider than a 582.
I made a new back plate, less protruding, and moved the ignition coils. If you have a "free air" mount, like on a trike, you could in most cases just remove your 582, bolt your Victor 2 on and have the engine changed over the day...
About the exhaust.. One of the reasons you get high power is the tuned exhaust pipes, Yes, exhaust pipes. And yes, the installation of the 2 pipes, rather impressive, can create some concerns... But if I can do it, anyone can... What you don't see in detail on the picture below is that the rear attachment of the pipes can extend downwards if pushed by the (traditional bungee) landing gear.
However, Simonini is aware of the double pipes being a potential issue so they propose a single pipe system as well now, much like the one for 582. You will loose a little power but with the 100 HP version you can afford that (or take the 110 HP version...). But having the pipes end behind you, rather than in front of you, is - sound level wise - nice. The belly is also much cleaner than before... Ed, I'm not sure what you meant by "other stuff"... I reused my radiators and radiator mounts, changed nothing. I had to make a small "bump" on the belly of the cowling but other than that... no "other stuff"...
Simonini Victor 2 Plus (the current "smallest" Victor 2 model) give 100 HP and weights ~20 kg less than a 912 (~7.5 gallons of fuel), consumes 12-13 liters/hour (like a 912). Compared to the 912, other than half price (costs like a new 582) and the already mentioned 20 kg less, you can also change to a light weight battery as you don't need a heavy lead battery in the tail for CG... (another ~1.5 gallon of fuel..). It uses the same fittings as the 532/582 and the propeller axis comes out at the same position but the engine mount might need some minor re-modelling as the rear of the Simonini is wider than the Rotax. You can reuse the radiators from your 532/582. I know Simonini is almost unknown in the US. I have only 150 hours on mine (the old model with only 92HP...) and it works like a charm. The power is there, no question about that, and no issues to report. I have been in contact with a number of Simonini Victor 2 owners and no one has any (first hand) issues to report. The only problem I have had is that excess oil accumulate in the spark plugs (mounted heads down, I had the same issue with my 532...) but this appears to have been resolved by a slightly different design of the cylinder heads in the current 100 HP model. A friend just installed one 100 HP in his Avid and he is very happy with it. To be clear, I have no relation to Simonini, I'm just sharing my experience (you can find more info on my blog, link in my signature). Nor do I have anything against Rotax, but when I got the opportunity to replace a 30 year old snowmobile engine with a modern engine I took a chance I have not regretted. Ok, maybe I have something against Rotax, maybe I got tired of the taste after getting fed Rotax morning, lunch and dinner every day...and paying it through the nose... Fred
I'm just about to put my skies on... taking off and landing on snow is a different feeling, very smooth... In my last video I went to a few mountain airfields where I plan to return on skies this winter and ski myself (I just added a ski rack to the side of the plane..).
C5engineer.. You have what I want... Do I understand you right, you have a Avid bush gear that you modified to fit the double shockmonster dampers... Right? What is the lengt required to install those dampers? Did you get the shockmonster dampers from Kitfox? If so... how much...?
Nice to see I'm not the only one thinking about what could be done about the Avid landing gear - I guess everyone how have done a hard landing think about it... There are several solutions on the market that we could get inspiration from. The Just Aircraft Super STOL give a real "badass" look but also requires major modifications. From a putting the forces in the right place this is probably the best solution (Layman's opinion...) KitFox have a STi Shock Monster landing gear that I find exactly right (would be easy to adapt as well) with double dampers that efficiently reduce the size of the package (but not the price...) See Trent Palmer's video below from 4 minutes (it should start at the right time) where he explain this modification, and other, to his KitFox. And do see all his videos, they are great. This kit is less expensive that the kit Beringer below, but still why more that we would dare to tell our wife...
An alternative is the French Beringer solution (that is just as expensive as it looks) here mounted on a Savage that is pretty close to our planes.
Another idea comes from the (French) manufacturer of the "Petit Avion", similar to ours with folding wings. It is a tricycle so you need to imagine the gear "the other way around". It would requires more modifications as what we have on the sides they have in the middle but for anyone doing rebuild this concept could be an option.
Time for another film.... The French taildragger brotherhood is arranging a yearly fly-in. I had never been there before but will absolutely come back... I obviously brougt my cameras and have just finished the film. I hope you enjoy it
Sure... but I'm not convinced it will help you as I'm in the metric world and you in the imperial world... I used 3 steel tubes to increase the diameter of the axis to 15 mm. Inner diameter 13 mm, external diameter 15 mm, length of each tube 20 mm. there is no added value of having 3 tubes but the longest they had was 20 mm.. and the alternative was ordering several meters of uncut tube... The new wheel need to be sitting 2 cm from the inner side to be centered. 1 brass tube with inner diameter 15 mm, external 20 mm and 20 mm in length. The shorter brass tube next to the nut is of the same initial dimensions and cut down to the appropriate length to get a snug fit. Hope this helps! And about the modification and the wheel itself... So far I have only landed on grass strips so it still looks like new. But to be very honest I had almost forgotten about it, it just sit there and does it job. It was much HARDER to forget the Maule wheel if you see what I mean...
Hi TSoftware, note also the recent post http://www.avidfoxflyers.com/index.php?/topic/4922-time-for-a-new-tailwheel/ I would not be too concerned about slightly raising the tail. I can't see the entire spring on your photo but it look rather short and with a 5 in wheel you might currently be lower than many others. True, if you have shopping chart wheel on the main gear... well... I do agree with previous comments, pneumatic is definitely the way to go. So is double spring...
We don't all have the same experience. I'm using an iPad 3 powered through a 2 amp converter (had to go through several before finding one that didn't generate too much static..) If I start with the iPad fully charged it will stay charged without any problems, nor does it over heat (when fully chaged and given 2 amp it appears that the battery is working less and therefore not heating much). However, extende use of gps and navigation program (AirNavigation Pro) will keep it warm and if it is mounted in direct sunlight it can get too hot an power down. I have fresh air comming trough a tube to the back of the iPad support to keep it cool. During my 2 weeks this summer with 90 dehrees and merciless sun I never had any issues.
Agree, time to get rid of that solid Maule ! The funny thing is that when many complain about the Maule tailwheel assembly it has always worked great for me. No unwanted releases while still releasing when I want it to (like when parking in the hangar. Maybe the geometry is optimum on my setup but it has always been stable during taxi etc. But it is soo damn stiff (and heavy!)… So I wanted to keep the Maule single arm fork and only replace the wheel with a pneumatic Matco wheel for $74.15 http://www.matcomfg.com/TAILWHEELASSY6PNEUMATIC-idv-3006-6.html and the matching tube and tire for $18.42 http://www.matcomfg.com/TIRETUBE6x24PRTUBE90DegSTEM-idv-3097-38.html This is the setup as used in the Matco tailwheel assembly http://www.matcomfg.com/TAILWHEEL6PNEUMATIC-idv-3373-69.html For our European friends: With VAT and shipping, minus the EU AircraftSpruce 10% anniversary discount, it final bill was 130 Euros…
The wheel and tire are really nice, there is no doubt on the quality here. And it is much lighter… The Maule wheel is 1490 g while the Matco wheel is only 700. Counting also the material used to fit the Matco wheel the difference is 750g / 1.63 lbs !
I used some “adaption” and brass tubes rapidly delivered from my favorite online bearing supplier to make the Matco wheel fit to the Maule fork.
I’ll put it in the plane this weekend and let you know how it works out.
Richard, thank you for your kind words. I didn't know about the LAA Rally but looked it up on the web, looks fantastic. Would be a great adventure to go there - and provide material to another film.... Fred
Some users are reporting difficulties accessing the file (particularly when using mobile device like a tablet) the workaround is to go through this link: http://avidsimonini.blogspot.fr/2016/11/old-dreams-never-die_20.html
Some of you followed my posts about my 2 week flight around France back in August. I have been working on a film from the trip that has taken more time than expected.
Well, it is finally done and posted. It breaks the basic rules of a YouTube clip, it is long and fairly slow - but it was a long and slow trip.
There are some really nice sceneries, France can be stunningly beautiful when seen from the right angle… At the end there are a few minutes from this year’s Ultra-light Festival at Blois. Obviously small compared to Oshkosh but rather impressive for a ultra-light only event (Ultra-light in France is up to 450kg at takeoff, max 100hp and stall below 65kph for 2 seats).
The film is called “Old dreams never die” in reference to the film I did 3 years ago of what should have been this trip but ended at lunch the first day after a hard landing.
This is the story about 2 weeks flying in France in an ultra light aircraft August 2016. The trip start close to the alpes and the first destination is the Loire valley castles before going to the Atlantic coast and the 3 islands Belle Ile, Ile d'Yeu and Ile d'Oleron. From the islands down the coast to the Basque country before going inland to Massive Centrale and the center of France. The trip end with a short visit to the annual Ultra light festival at Blois before heading back to the mountains.
The film is to long? Skip directly to (and miss spectacular sceneries): 00:00 Loire valley castles 07:00 Belle Ile (including transit to) 15:00 Ile d'Yeu (including transit to) 29:00 Ile d'Oleron (including transit to) 42:30 Bellac and Azat le Ris (Wanafly Airsports) 45:30 Blois 2016 (including transit to)
Bandit, if you always start turning from the same position (like from a mark on the cap facing forward) would you not always end up in approximately the same end position? My filler neck is threaded but the threads so big the there is only 2 or 3 entry positions allowing a fixed vent...
Bandit, glad you had a happy end on your "adventure". My mantra when flying is "Always know where to land". Sometimes it prevent me from going where I want. "Height is safety" is another one... C5Engineer, you worry me... I can easily see 3 (bad) scenarios, there might be a 4th good one but 3 against 1 is not the odds you want. A) If your caps are relatively airtight the fuel flow will work only a short time (just enough not to return safely to the airfield...). As fuel lines are narrow very little, or no, air will go backwards through the line and replace the used fuel. A vacuum created when using the fuel would easily stop the flow. Even with some air coming through the caps it would reduce the flow as the flow of fuel will have to compete with the less effort flow of air from the inboard tank vent. See also (C). Your vented inboard tank will be all you have to fly on. If your caps are not even slightly airtight 2 things could happen... B) A vacuum is created by the airflow and you can ask C5Engineer how fun that is... C) A vacuum is not, or only partially, created by the airflow and the outboard tank remain, more or less, vented. If the ventilation of the inboard tank is good (vent turned into the wind and therefore creating a slight pressure in the inboard tank) this pressure can prevent the flow from the outboard tank. The result will be similar to (A), but maybe a few miles later...
D) Sure, you could always be lucky and have just the right amount of air getting through the caps and not to high pressure by the inboard tank vent... That is, however, walking on very thin ice... And the really stupid scenario is when we have a vacuum on the inboard tank vent and it siphons fuel into the air directly from the correctly vented outboard tank... I think you would feel the smell easily so this probably would not go too far... So... The outboard tank is feeding the inboard tank and any pressure in the inboard tank would be of harm as it could counter the flow into the inboard tank... We want a positive pressure in the outboard tank that will help the fuel flow but we actually don't need the additional pressure in the outboard tank. Any vacuum created by the outboard caps (or bad vent line) will reduce the fuel flow and could even drain the outboard tank if the air but only if the fuel drained is replaced by other fuel or air. The fuel, or air, in the outboard tank could only be drained if replaced through the fuel line. The fuel line goes to the inboard tank or eventually to another outboard tank. We are getting close now but let me tell you a story first. I have, like the most of us, a Mikuni fuel pump. It is small and doesn't look very impressive.... I have a rather big (6 liter) inboard tank made of some fancy, very sturdy, plastic. The inboard tank has metal fitting molded into it. This inboard tank was full and both the inboard vent and the feed from the outboard tank were turned off... This was obviously not intentional... I taxied to the end of the field when the engine started coughing slightly. I increased the throttle and it stopped coughing, back on idle it coughed again so I taxied back. Better safe than sorry. That little piece of Japanese fuel pump had just done its job, sucking the fuel out of a closed container. The inboard tank was now deformed, imposed, to a degree I could never have done even by jumping on it. The metal fittings were no longer airtight so I had to get a new inboard tank. This to say that we don't only count on gravity flow, we are getting the fuel sucked through the lines with more (negative) pressure than we might expect... Yes to fuel, no to air... The easy solution is to have an inboard tank without permanent ventilation. The only time you need to vent the inboard tank is when filling it up, i.e. when the outboard tank is empty and the inboard tank is being used as the last fuel supply and you fill up the outboard tank. With fuel in the outboard tank you can now vent the inboard tank until it is full (i.e. filled from the outboard tank). The inboard tank vent can therefore come out under the belly rather on top where you don't want it. The outboard tank should always be vented. Creating a positive pressure (venting into the wind) is better as it will in best case create a positive pressure and in worst case at least not a vacuum. However, as explained above, a neutral vent will work just fine and even a vacuum will largely be compensated by the fuel pump suction (in the speeds we fly) under the condition that there is not another open vent in the system (like an always open vent on the inboard tank...). Having a vented inboard tank is normally not a problem as long as the the outboard tank is correctly vented into the wind with a positive pressure created. But if the pressure is too great the inboard vent can bleed (we have seen many damaged lean roofs due to that). However, the only added value of having the inboard tank always open is when you cannot see, or measure, the fuel level in the inboard tank. The original Avid Flyer inboard tanks were all metal and no probe and therefore had to be always vented. Once air is in the inboard tank it will only be replacing the fuel going out with the same amount going in. I.e. is you empty the inboard tank to say 50% after having emptied the outboard tank, it will remain on ~50% even when you top of the outboard tank. (Sure there will be a slight compression of the air in the tank and maybe you will have it 55% filled...). Just temporarily open the inboard tank valve until new fuel chases the air... As controlling the fuel and air flows is critical I would suggest avoiding having outboard tanks communicate as an empty tank is a tank filled with air - feeding into what is supposed to be a fuel line! By manually switching from one wing tank to the other we keep a better control of the flows and the fuel remaining. Placing a probe alerting when the fuel level goes down in the inboard tank and a led on the dashboard has made me fly more relaxed. Once the led start flashing I switch to the other wing tank, purge the air in the inboard tank through the inboard vent valve until the led stops flashing.
Sorry about a long, soap box, post... Regards Fred