Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

While we are on the subject, I was after some info. My uncle owns light plane and CASA has informed me that I can't add this to the engine due to a couple of things, 1. It's not an approved addative nor a patented product and the chemical composition is not up to aeronautical standards yada yada yada?!?!? and 2. It reduces metal integrity by imbedding it’s self into the metal which on constant revving engines can cause a decrease in thermal efficiency. Sounds a bit ‘how ya going’ to me, didn't really get a straight answer from them, but do you know if any of this is correct? Thanks :)

An internal combustion engine is a great big oversize heat pump... it relies on heat not escaping in order to be most effecient. I'm also aware that Roil isn't for use in the general aviation industry... having been a pilot for the last 4 years, and studied aircraft systems at Griffith University (I'll quote you my CASA ARN and Licence Number and that of my licencing delagate if anyone thinks I'm BSing!) And i don't beleive Roil afffects 'metal integrity' when the pinion drive that powered the 2000 Australian national drag Champion 'Sainty' that ussually has be be replaced after every second run, and even then comes out with hairline cracks, once a new pinion drive had been socked in Roil for 24hrs at last count I beleive has done its 26th run???

1roil.1.gif

Note the rather large Roil sticker infront of the right wheel!

HoeTrain, the reason CASA wouldn’t recommend it is because they are a bunch of spineless, ball'les beurocrats who will not accept responsibility for anything. They wouldn’t even tell you the time without receiving written conformation from another source (just incase they were wrong). In all honest CASA know next to nothing about mechanicals (or aviation for that matter) and are just a lot of mindless beurocrats that hide under the comment "its in the interest of safety" (translation = "I don’t know and am not prepared to make a decision")

Sorry a bit of a rant, but when you have been involved in aviation (both flying and maintenance) a our family have, you have little respect for these pencil pushing dickless morons.

id like to see a proper test done by the manufacturers... like BMW and Mobil did with an old e30 with mobil 1 in it. they put it on rollers for 1million km's (might of been miles, i cant remember) and ran the engine non stop, and varied the speed periodically. they didnt change the oil at all and when theyd finished there was very little damage to the engine (similar to an engine thatd run 100,000ks using basic oil).

if a test like this was done (a before and after) there would be no variences like driving styles. and no one could argue that your full of shit (im not saying you are)

they wouldn't have to do a 1million km test of course.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...