New Floats from MS

[david]

si.912-029 Ref. is showing details.

[Roger Lee]

The reason the new floats have the inner brass guide cut back compared to the older style where the brass guide was longer is because the new floats weighed too much. Cutting back the brass guide saved weight. 

[procharger]

Why do they have different weight floats, you could adjust the float level with heavier floats

as long as the level in bowl is high enough 1/2 to 2/3 full yes or no?  What if you could shave the

floats enough to to get correct weight on each one? Just out of the box a little. Once the floats

get saturated or whatever happens to them do they continue to get heavy with longer use? I

normally check float level anyway after install of new or old floats just to make sure level

is good.

[Roger Lee]

Why even mess with it. Just use the Bing / Rotax floats from the service centers. They have worked the last few years to get it right. If you have an SLSA and had any type of incident then the carbs will be opened up and the MS floats could land you directly in the line of fire from the FAA and any one you may injure during an incident. This would open you up to liability where using the approved Rotax floats wouldn't. Rotax and Bing have already done all the experimenting and fixing and private owners don't have the tools, instruments or knowledge to play with these. No curb to pull over to in the sky or if severe flooding happened because of these and you caught fire I personally know I'm terrible at writing obituaries. 

[Anticept]

The reasons for different floats is because of suppliers.

Manufacturers are bailing out on aviation due to the obscene liability. So Rotax has to continually try to find new suppliers for all sorts of parts.

[Madhatter]

I understand that some folks are not familiar with type certified aircraft parts manufacturing requirements. MS carb epoxy floats are used in certified aircraft and will amount to hundreds of thousands of carbs, I have one in another certified plane. Making parts for light sport aircraft is easy compared to certified aircraft. Don't rule out MS, they have been making carbs for almost 100 years and almost every carbureted aircraft you see has their carb. Rotax has not exactly had stellar performance with floats lately. As for using their floats in SLSA that's another subject. If Rotax continues to have any more float issues that may cause Rotax to sink a little. 

 

 

[Tom Baker]

Madhatter, the MS floats do work fine in type certified aircraft, but that doesn't mean they will work fine in the Rotax. Type certified aircraft also have to use, for the most part, aviation fuel. I know there are STC's for auto fuel, but they specifically prohibit ethanol in the fuel. Rotax is approved for up to 10% ethanol. The ethanol in the fuel is where there is a problem with the MS floats.

[Madhatter]

I would expect that MS has done a lot of homework on the ethanol issue. I am sure this is not something they overlooked.

[Tom Baker]

I am not offering opinion, I am simply stating what was said in my Rotax recurrent training by the person who heads up training for maintenance of Rotax engines here in North America.

[Madhatter]

I am sure they want you to use Rotax parts, I would not expect them to endorse competition. I am not against Rotax parts but there are other options for me as I am ELSA. I do a lot of research before I make changes, and many times I can get info directly from the company engineering staff, these are things I used to do for several aerospace companies. I seem to always look for new ideas for improvements, can't help it.

[david]

if weight of new float pairs chang from 6.5 gram un.used and after some time used weight goes beyond 7.865 gram. what you suggest? S.914.029 REFER no chang in weight,

How we can find the quality of 861188 floats pair.

[Roger Lee]

If the floats weigh under  7 grams you're good to go. Brand new dry weight with the new floats is 6.3 grams +/-

[Doug G.]

On 11/4/2018 at 8:32 PM, Tom Baker said:

Doug, the floats for the Bing carbs are new, but the material is not. They have been using the same material for other carburetors for quite some time now. I think his opinion was based on issues with those floats while using auto fuel, especially auto fuel with ethanol in the other carbs.

I find this a bit odd. MS decided to make floats that don’t hold up in fuel approved for use with carburetors that use that fuel?

What type of plastic are they?

[Tom Baker]

4 minutes ago, Doug G. said:

I find this a bit odd. MS decided to make floats that don’t hold up in fuel approved for use with carburetors that use that fuel?

What type of plastic are they?

Doug, I don't know.  When I said there was issues with auto fuel, I was simply repeating what was said in my Rotax recurrent training class.

[Madhatter]

Talked to Marvel Schebler today at length about their new floats. There is a reason for them being heavier which I am not going to get into here however I would suggest people talk to them before guessing on the issues. They were asked by Rotax to develop these new floats. This float material has been tested in every fuel and liquid conceivable over the last 10 years, even carburetor cleaner. Lots are sold in Europe with no issues. They are not happy with the bad press in this country which they feel is unwarranted. As for legality in SLSA that's a different issue. I am not looking to debate this, I am only passing on this info.

[Anticept]

If there's no basis for the bad press, then they could very easily start a lawsuit with Rotax.

Rotax did the same thing to Silent Hektik's voltage regulator. Silent Hektik responded with a cease and desist and threatened a lawsuit, and Rotax backed down. Source: Silent Hektik when I suggested they try working with rotax to replace the crap ducati regulators, and the response was definitely one which they said have zero desire to ever work with Rotax because of what happened a couple years prior over this.

[Madhatter]

When said bad press I was referring to a lot of forums for different aircraft, Marvel Schebler is aware of this

In response to your comment on the voltage regulator I agree. The main problem with SLSA is there are no options for any secondary market parts EVER. The manufacturers control who you buy from and their prices, or you are in violation if you do not. This is a true monopoly and was an oversight by the FAA. There are no options for repairs no matter how minor even if they are allowed. There is no AC 4313 for SLSA . You have to do repairs their way even if it is substandard, and certainly some parts are poorly made and could never pass in the certified world. I have six different ways to get parts and changes approved on certified aircraft and have done many for many years. A lot of us complain about working with the FAA but SLSA really sucks.

Thats why I went ELSA

[Roger Lee]

"The manufacturers control who you buy from and their prices, or you are in violation if you do not. This is a true monopoly and was an oversight by the FAA. "

This is wrong. You're blaming the aircraft builder is wrong. You need to get all the facts before you point a finger. They are built to the US ASTM standards that must be met to qualify for the special light sport certificate.

You can only slightly blame the FAA, but more important the 150 person committee that made up the rules. This committee was staffed by EAA, AOPA and all the players in the flight community. 

These people made the rules and the FAA accepted them so long as they fell under the FAA regulations and under ASTM standards.

You can't just modify certified aircraft either without approvals of some sort. That came with more than 75 years worth of trail and error. Light sport has been around since 2003 and way too many have put their aircraft into the ground because of poor judgement and maint. practices. 

 

And as much as I don't always like the rules with SLSA it does help protect dumb people from themselves and you can see in the experimental world that there has been no shortage of them. Someone always knows more than the factory engineer's, the millions of dollars spent, thousands of hours on a test bench with instruments, millions of flight hours run, but the idiot next door that has nothing nor the education to back it up always thinks they know more. There are reasons for many things even if an owner doesn't know why. Their problem is they're not bright enough to research and find out why.

I see more than enough dumb things done on experimental's and some I won't touch.

 

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/50_8/safety/LSA-Accident-Review-Nothing-to-Celebrate_7228-1.html

[Madhatter]

Certified aircraft can be modified because there are numerous ways to do it. These options do not involve the manufacturer, I have done this for 40 yrs. I do agree that there are a lot of experimentals that are a disaster, there are a lot of certified aircraft that are pretty bad, it all depends on the owner. I however am able to make changes in my ELSA using the same practices and quality as certified. What I am saying is that there are no options for SLSA other than the manufacturer. I am very familiar with these options I was offered a DER    ( designated engineering representative) position with the FAA which would allow me to approve major alterations or repairs. I turned them down due to extreme liability.

 

[BravoFoxtrot]

That Aviation Consumer article that Roger posted is a real eyeopener. There should be lessons for everyone in there. Thanks for sharing.

[Madhatter]

No regulation will eliminate  stupidity.  I new a man who put ace hardware turn buckles  on Fly Baby flying wires. The wing folded, he had a surplus military parachute that had not been repacked since WW2. By luck it opened.

[FlyingMonkey]

23 hours ago, Madhatter said:

Talked to Marvel Schebler today at length about their new floats. There is a reason for them being heavier which I am not going to get into here however I would suggest people talk to them before guessing on the issues. 

Why won't you talk about it, did you sign an NDA or something?  Sounds weird, kind of the equivalent of   "I know the real story, but I'm not going to tell you...go find out yourself."

Very few people are willing to call about these new floats, when they are 2-4x more expensive and already have a shaky reputation in the aviation community.

[Madhatter]

This is what upsets MS, shaky reputation is here say from a few with no facts. I suggested they put out a statement on several forums to clarify their position. This takes time for them because they have clear everything with lawyers. I have their info but don't want to get into long debates with those that want to dispute it. One or two people say they had a problem and blamed MS. These are not confirmed to be valid without a detailed evaluation. I don't understand why these allegations have not been settled by communicating with MS.

[Tom Baker]

I've never had a problem with MS. I have one of their blue floats in the MS carburetor on my Warrior. I was simply repeating what was said by the instructor in my Rotax recurrent training class. I for one would be glad to have more information if you were willing to share.

[Madhatter]

Maybe your instructor should call MS and get their facts before passing on unverified information. There a lot using these floats with no issues. Rotax floats have had a number of failures which may be solved, but time will tell on both types of floats. I think it is only fair to evaluate all these floats with verifiable facts, and not someone's perceived idea of how they perform. It's not like these are unimportant components of the engine.