Yes with Dimona will dive start easly but the new falke engine L2000 has too good compression to dive start
Ian M On 26 October 2010 01:14, Michael Grimwood <[email protected]>wrote: > Ian > > Surely you don't use the starter when airborne? A dive start is much nicer, > needn't lose any height and doesn't faze the avionics. > > Michael > > *From:* Ian Mc Phee <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, October 25, 2010 9:56 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [DOG mailing list] Thoughts on starter motors > > Not in Dimona but i do know the falke that used to be at the now defunct > club at other end had their starter jam in flywheel resulting in an > outlanding on the beach one day and another day in a paddock. In both cases > it was unstuck once on the ground and flown out. > > I think the flywheel had chips in teeth and I think they got a new flywheel > at some stage and maybe starter was faulty also. > > Some GA planes have a warning light to indicate starter motor is stuck but > in GA you only use a starter on the ground!!!! > > Ian M > > > > On 25 October 2010 07:46, Rob Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> A rainy day and I'm staring out the window contemplating the meaning of >> life and thinking about starter motors......... >> A common thing to do after switching off is to tap the starter motor to >> move the prop out of your line of sight. Be aware that an aging starter >> motor, particularly one with too much end float, bearing wear or lack of >> grease can jam in the thrown out position when doing this preventing a >> restart. It can be dislodged by rocking the prop back and forth but that is >> not much help in the air. It is rare but has happened. >> If you are changing the starter the bottom bolt can only be got at with a >> small ratchet and about a 140mm extension bar. Ours is an 8mm alan bolt. >> Also worth noting that a rare few starter motors jam over centre if the >> internal yoke is assembled the wrong way around. The H36 fiat starter is one >> of those that will happily go back together with the yoke back to front and >> will work fine on the test bench. In situ however, the starter will crank >> but it won't stop and if the engine starts it will all become a bit of a >> mess. If you get your starter overhauled tell the mechanic as many don't >> seem to know about this. >> Rob >> >> >> >> PO Box 129, >> Lawson, NSW, 2783. >> phone 02 47592307 >> mobile 0429 493828 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ............................................. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Nigel Baker <[email protected]> >> *To:* DOGS <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Sun, 24 October, 2010 10:50:40 PM >> *Subject:* [DOG mailing list] Aileron Stiffness >> >> Hi All. >> As I mentioned before there is stuff in the archive on the subject of the >> aileron systems. >> I am sending this again from a February round on this subject. >> >> Ian I can save you the trouble on checking if the aileron horns out in the >> wing are interchangeable. >> They are not. >> One system works with the push rods in tension and the other in >> compression in relation to normal flight load so no they can't be >> interchanged unless you want to reroute the push rods and turn the Aileron >> movement around in your head to go stick left for right roll. >> Cheers. >> Nige. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Nigel Baker <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Monday, February 01, 2010 5:53 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [DOG mailing list] Dimona 1984 >> >> Hi Lasse and others. >> Well I am confused by the mk1 mk2 stuff. I really don't know where that >> comes from. >> There is only the one manual that I know of last issue Nov 1985. >> About 9 years ago we asked Diamond Austria for info on the springs in the >> aileron circuit and whether or not they were needed or could the grade of >> spring be changed. >> After a short while they responded to the effect they didn't know there >> were springs used and couldn't imagine why and couldn't see a problem with >> removal. >> I am not so sure on the last bit. >> I have worked on several Dimona's and of note the S/N's 3512, 3535. 3538 >> and 3539 (ours) >> All these aircraft are ex the Thai Air Force and part of a group of 14 >> H36's the Thai's bought in a package deal with Wolf Hoffmann the designer >> and business owner at the time. >> There is one main difference between these numbers and a big difference in >> handling. >> >> S/N 3512 and 3535 had what I believe to be the original aileron drive >> circuit. >> In these aircraft the push rods worked in compression in normal flight >> mode and are guided by nylon bushes. It is best identified by looking >> through the clear inspection panel at the Aileron bell crank pivot point >> in the lower wing surface. When looking through the inspection panel you >> will see a bell crank fabricated from steel tube. >> This system also has centering springs attached to the aileron push rod >> drive assembly under the fuel tank in the fuselage. >> >> S/N 3538 and 3539 had what I believe is the later version. In this >> instance the push rods work in tension in normal flight mode and are guided >> by fairlead rollers. This is easily detected again by looking through the >> clear inspection panel and in this instance you will see a bell crank >> fabricated from steel sheet instead of tube. >> >> The resulting difference in systems is large. >> Firstly is the difference between compression and tension in the loaded >> push rods. >> In the case of the later system with the rollers the friction is less for >> one main reason. The push rods are pulled straight in normal flight load and >> the guides are not influencing them much (except for normal wing flex) so >> the friction is low and they are rollers (well when not seized). On the >> other hand the earlier version in compression results in the bushes holding >> the rods straight and this creates friction in the guides. Couple that with >> the use of bushes instead of rollers and there is your answer. This can be >> helped with the application of Silicon Spray Lube (works as a dry low >> friction lube which doesn't collect dust) to the push rods at the points >> where the bushes work but it is a pain as it requires removal of the push >> rods. Something that would need to be done yearly to get the best out of >> it. There is little friction on the ground of course but it is noticeable in >> cruise (reasonable flight loads) as you can detect the system sticking with >> small control inputs. >> Other than flying it inverted there is no way round this situation. >> >> Secondly the other difference is in the "differential Ratio" of the >> ailerons. >> The Service manual has a broad range of tolerance for aileron deflection >> which conveniently covers both systems. >> The older system produces an up value near the top tolerance of deflection >> for the aileron and down is close to the bottom of tolerance. This delivers >> a differential ratio of more than 2-1. >> The newer system produces an up value near the bottom of the tolerance and >> a down value of near the top of tolerance and this results in a differential >> of less than 2-1. >> So what difference does that make. >> Well as pointed out by some it means that normal flight loads can at >> certain points of deflection result in dynamic loads driving the ailerons >> into further deflection rather than less thus a lack of centering force and >> in fact the reverse. >> So the springs in the older system are there to supply a centering load >> and while they do that they are a negative at times. >> >> I am still confused by this mk1 and mk2 thing but can confirm that while I >> have heard of 1 aircraft built after 3539 but very close to it (3541 I >> think) the change to the Aileron Circuit happened around the 3540 mark >> somewhere depending on order schedules during the change over. >> Interestingly one comment was made by Diamond during enquires about the 2 >> systems when they didn't seem to be able to find records of the earlier >> system at the time was that Hoffmann Aircraft were not very good at record >> keeping. >> >> >> Hope this if of help. >> Cheers. >> Nige. >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Ian Mc Phee <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:09 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [DOG mailing list] Dimona 1984 >> >> Interesting about tail wheel mod from Michael - sure gives smoother ride. >> >> You mention the heads/valves lasting only 300hrs. I would recommend to >> all analysis of exhaust at FULL POWER with lamdameter etc. You may find it >> is running slightly lean on full power (actually plugs look OK) but gas >> analysis does not lie. More recently i have been using digital CHT and you >> can really see what is happening. I set them up so full power CHT rises to >> about 170degC then very slowly falls. If you bring throttle back just a bit >> in revs CHT will quickly rise to 180degC and beyond. This proves to me you >> are running rich on full power- also confirmed on EGT. To achieve this it >> may be necessary to carefully thin out the end 6mm to 8mm of each the needle >> in carby and thus achieve the low CHT on full power. (do not think of >> touching jet) Fuel is cheap when compared to repairing heads. Limbach Tech >> bull 53 makes mention of max on climb of 180degC (forget what max the manual >> says - that is stupid value) Also Tech bull 44 (11page edition) is well >> worth a read. >> >> Ian mcPhee >> >> 2010/1/27 Michael Grimwood <[email protected]> >> >>> Hi John and Lasse >>> >>> I have owned a Mk1 H36 since 1988 (G-MRG in the UK, now VH-VRG in >>> Australia). It originally came with an un-sprung >>> >> >> >> > >
