Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
Camel

Major weaknesses addressed

Recommended Posts

Ha Ha Nev, Like the frog, redit .

 

Be nice to see Jabiru let Camit use this engine in Jabiru LSA aircraft or at least Jabiru implement Camit mods in their engines. It's about time to think that the reliability has been improved.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope these engines are a good ( better) thing, I'd have one for my next project if I was confident they're going to last,,,,,and really don't care if they have or have not breached some IP or copyright , so I'd like to know important stuff,,, like how much$$$ , what's the TBO, what's the warranty ,,,,I'd have thought these would be relevant questions , they are for me anyway , Oscar are you part of the company, will they be doing some promo at Natfly ,I'd love to have a talk to someone about them

 

Matty

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really hope these engines are a good ( better) thing, I'd have one for my next project if I was confident they're going to last,,,,,and really don't care if they have or have not breached some IP or copyright , so I'd like to know important stuff,,, like how much$$$ , what's the TBO, what's the warranty ,,,,I'd have thought these would be relevant questions , they are for me anyway , Oscar are you part of the company, will they be doing some promo at Natfly ,I'd love to have a talk to someone about themMatty

Nope, not part of the company at all, and I have no idea of whether they are planning any PR work. We ended up doing the rebuild there due to a really strange set of circumstances, and the quid pro quo for that opportunity is we have participated in developing background notes (observations) for the instructions for other rebuilders, and we will be providing a copy of all engine performance data. There's no warranty implied or expected for anything we've done / used: we used our own judgement of what we saw and the information provided to us (plus, I have to add, some advice from other people very experienced with Jab. engines), did the work and paid the going prices for all parts used (including some parts from Jabiru, where appropriate/useful). I won't have definitive figures for how this engine performs for several months, while the rest of the aircraft is finished and returned to service. However other engines are out there gathering data.

 

As they say: watch this space!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yets cut to the chase, are GAMIT , after being frustrated. Trying to build their version of the Jab motor that they believe is the best clone of it ? I mean it couldn't be that hard to improve the product with the engines history.I would also like to see fuel injection to combat detonation .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yets cut to the chase, are GAMIT , after being frustrated. Trying to build their version of the Jab motor that they believe is the best clone of it ? I mean it couldn't be that hard to improve the product with the engines history.I would also like to see fuel injection to combat detonation .

Good question. I think the answer is yes. Bear in mind that CAMit (not GAMIT) know exactly what goes into a standard Jabiru engine, unlike any other would-be clone producer. They know why it is the way it is. But they have to do it Jabiru's way, because they are working under Jabiru's Production Certificate, whether they agree with what that requires or not. The Jabiru engine was an enormous step forward from what preceded it; and it has undergone a lot of development; and that road has not been an easy one. Do not make the mistake of undervaluing that achievement. But people are correct, the effect of certification of the design and manufacture do inhibit further development. Also, people's goals change; the Jabiru 2200 was originally developed to be a better option than a Rotax 2-stroke. To do that it had to be built down to a weight.

 

Nowadays, the relevance of that goal seems less significant; it would perhaps (amongst a dozen other considerations) be preferable to allow some additional weight, judiciously applied, in order to achieve greater durability. And whilst we're about it, the ability to run on lower-grade fuels. And be able to run leaner, and cost less, and . . . Everybody has a wish list, but not the slightest idea of what that might mean for the design compromises that must be chosen. If Rod Stiff had listened to all those things, he'd never have built anything. He had to shut his ears and make a start somewhere. It was a damn good start. There are still, and always will be, incremental improvements to be made; even Lycoming are still doing that, and their engines have been around for fifty years. You may like the idea of liquid-cooled heads, or EFI, or Nicasil barrels, or whatever, we all have our pet ideas. But you have no knowledge of what those things involve in regard to certification, product liability, production on a small scale, or any of a score of issues that must be weighed & balanced by the designer. Everybody is a hangar expert. The result is such a clamor that it's white noise to a designer.

 

Therefore, each engine designer has his own style, and generally sticks pretty much to it. Rotax produce mainly engine with built-up crankshafts and liquid cooled heads, that run at high RPM and use reduction gearboxes. That's their style of choice. You either like that style or you do not. Personally, I do not - but for some applications it has its uses. Rod Stiff has his style, and Ian Bent has yet another style. There's no such thing as one correct style. Therefore, a greater freedom of choice can only be a good thing.

 

However, making changes to a certificated product is a time-consuming, costly, and frustrating business. Jabiru as a company needs to keep going; and every Jabiru owner had better be aware of what would happen if it stopped. This sets their priorities - which may or may not be the priorities you or I might hanker for; but bleating about it serves no useful purpose.

 

Looking further, we see GM and Ford and General Electric pulling out of Australia, which dumps thousands of workers in the little support industries that supplied components, down the plug hole, with no compunction whatever. We NEED little businesses like Jabiru and CAMit who are in a sector of the marketplace that is too small for the giants to be bothered stomping on them. I'm all for these enterprises; they are all that will stop us from becoming a banana republic when the mineral boom runs down. So stop knocking, it doesn't help anybody.

 

CAMit are in a prime position to pursue further development of the Jabiru engine (and I understand they have a sufficient ownership share in its IP), and indeed they need to move this way because Jabiru are moving to Chinese and other sources of supply. It's time for the tree to branch, and CAMit will follow a different branch to what Jabiru are pursuing. The market place will vote with its cheque book. I hope they both make a go of it, because nothing can stay still and survive; one either grows or dies.

 

So stop asking damn fool questions that cannot be answered in this Forum; if you have a need to know, get on your bicycle and go visit CAMit. You won't be disappointed.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 8
  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If IP is an issue, it will be for the other clone engines. Superior, Titan, ECI etc all make exact clones of lycomings. I'm not sure the legalities of it, but they have been doing it (successfully) for years.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If IP is an issue, it will be for the other clone engines. Superior, Titan, ECI etc all make exact clones of lycomings. I'm not sure the legalities of it, but they have been doing it (successfully) for years.

Probabily licensed copies Hongie..........

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be.. they seem to be simply copies nowadays... and making oddball sizes that still bolt up to a dynafocal mount. Like a o-409. http://www.eci.aero/pages/engine_all.aspx#EngineSpecs

 

I do seem to remember reading about superior and lyc. having a licensing agreement in the eighties and a courtcase surrounding it... anywho... back on topic... sorry lol

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OZ manufacturing plants like Camit and Jab need to be nutured, accepted and improved ....... to compete and employ

 

its been mentioned but not answered - someone must have enquired .......................... no point getting to carried away if the Camit is 'X' times the cost

 

Whats the cost for a 4 cylinder Camit vs Jab and engine life difference ?

 

Whats the cost for a 6 cylinder Camit vs Jab and engine life difference ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life is never black and white, especially with flying factors (Usage and maintenance, fuels etc). Hard to quantify "life difference" Engine life is not a fixed number, but it will be better because effort is being expended in areas that matter.. RELIABILITY will improve, because there was always things that could be done . Cost? People I know in engineering have told me the cost of the materials to them is MORE than the manufactured finished article from CHINA. How do you compete with that? We tend to run our own products down in this country, often with no justification, and little understanding. Low volume makes it a special case because the BIGGIES are not interested. Australia has always been an innovative country. ( So has NZ). Hard to maintain a good quality control in another country when it is small batches, some of which will get contracted out because there is not enough money in it. Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All very interesting and good to see Camit at least trying to to improve something. It must be hard to ignore the trail of failed engines throughout this country, and indeed the world. Australia can and should produce better than that.

 

Regardless, whilst they continue to use the billeted CNC case, in lue of what everbody else uses (cast or forged), I predict the failures will continue regardless of all the pretty stuff they hang off the exterior. The very basic design flaw needs to be addressed also......................Maj....

 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cast crankcases are not without their problems either. Plenty of first life engines develop cracks. I haven't seen one in a Jab case but they may have . Has anyone seen any?. VW crankcases are pretty ordinary too. Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All very interesting and good to see Camit at least trying to to improve something. It must be hard to ignore the trail of failed engines throughout this country, and indeed the world. Australia can and should produce better than that.

Regardless, whilst they continue to use the billeted CNC case, in lue of what everbody else uses (cast or forged), I predict the failures will continue regardless of all the pretty stuff they hang off the exterior. The very basic design flaw needs to be addressed also......................Maj....

Perhaps you could share with us your reasons for making such a leading statement? No doubt you have a deeply informative well of analysis of metallurgy and manufacturing processes which you have summarised as a 'very basic design flaw' to help understanding of we less-well informed people? Obviously you wouldn't make such a statement simply on the basis that 'everybody else does it differently', and I'm sure we'd all like to know the in-depth story behind why billet/CNC is the wrong way to go. Don't hold back here, we'll do our best to follow the intricacies of the explanation.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cast crankcases are not without their problems either. Plenty of first life engines develop cracks. I haven't seen one in a Jab case but they may have . Has anyone seen any?. VW crankcases are pretty ordinary too. Nev

Yes you do get the occasional crack in cast crankcases, but considering the numbers out there, it's really rare in the big picture. On the other hand , many do their TBOS and return for another go. The radial 985 crankcases for instances just keep going on, and on. Some of the total time hours on those is very impressive, and they are still flying daily in Beavers etc....Let me know when any Jab engine comes even close to that..................Maj.....024_cool.gif.7a88a3168ebd868f5549631161e2b369.gif.

 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a paid-up, card-carrying member of "The Jabiru Engine-Failure club", who is still being hauled around the skies behind a Jabiru engine, I am all for Camit developing a product-improved version of the engine they build for Jabiru.

 

Once the engine has accumulated the hours, been de-bugged, tweaked and generally fettled into the best it can be, either Jabiru or Camit ought to bite the figurative bullet and get it certified so it can be fitted to 24-registered aircraft. I'll bet this has already been anticipated by the current Jabiru management, and has been right from the very initial stages of the project.

 

The Camit-built, Jabiru-sold-and-supported engine has always been a bit of a work-in-progress. However, it is slowly becoming a pretty decent powerplant, and given another decade of development and refinement it will be well on its way to becoming an aviation classic. The huge cost of certification, and the time involved, is the biggest single impediment. Clearly Camit have seen an opportunity to move in a direction which must ultimately be beneficial to both companies. Camit don't have all their proverbial eggs in one basket, and a component-supplier who can do something beneficial for his end-customer also does something beneficial for himself in the process. That way no-one loses.

 

Rod Stiff admitted to me in conversation several months ago "if I had known it was going to be as successful as it did I would have done some things differently". I smiled wryly at his candour. Success brings its own constraints, one of which is a need to focus on getting products out to customers on-time and on-budget, and this gets in the way of areas of R&D which a manufacturer might wish to pursue.

 

So, let Camit get as many of these engines in the air as it can and let the hours accrue. Time will soon show if they are on the right track or not.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes you do get the occasional crack in cast crankcases, but considering the numbers out there, it's really rare in the big picture. On the other hand , many do their TBOS and return for another go. The radial 985 crankcases for instances just keep going on, and on. Some of the total time hours on those is very impressive, and they are still flying daily in Beavers etc....Let me know when any Jab engine comes even close to that..................Maj.....024_cool.gif.7a88a3168ebd868f5549631161e2b369.gif.

Interesting. It may be rare in first-life cases; but most owners of Lycomings & Continentals would like to get three overhaul lives out of their crankcases - and nowadays there are a lot of third-life cases out there. We developed, in the '90s, in conjunction with Rudi's Aero Engines, a new welding process for cast Lycoming and Continental crankcases. It took a lot of effort on Rudi's part, with specimens from all the cracked crankcases he had laying around. I'd suggest, based on this experience, that very few Lycoming or Continental cases get to the end of their third life without a weld repair. It's a function of the long-term effects of heat, which causes all heat-treated aluminium materials to gradually lose strength, plus the migration of the copper in the cast crankcase alloy to the grain boundaries. I don't know where the Jabiru case fits in that, but I'd expect it to be very little different, except that it's not a copper-base aluminium alloy. Being forged billet material, it's inherently vastly better than any cast material in regard to porosity.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OZ manufacturing plants like Camit and Jab need to be nutured, accepted and improved ....... to compete and employ

its been mentioned but not answered - someone must have enquired .......................... no point getting to carried away if the Camit is 'X' times the cost

 

Whats the cost for a 4 cylinder Camit vs Jab and engine life difference ?

 

Whats the cost for a 6 cylinder Camit vs Jab and engine life difference ?

If you look at the early posts on this thread, the cost of a CAMit engine was said to be comparable to that of a Jabiru factory-rebuilt engine. Why don't you simply ask CAMit? Obviously, nobody knows the practical in-service life as yet - they haven't been around long enough; but since they are a concerted attempt to tackle the known issues in the original, one would logically expect the useful life to be increased, n'est-ce pas?

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If IP is an issue, it will be for the other clone engines. Superior, Titan, ECI etc all make exact clones of lycomings. I'm not sure the legalities of it, but they have been doing it (successfully) for years.

IP is only an issue if you have the money to chase someone. Having just finished a trademark dispute recently, I can tell you that even a win often ends up as a lose in the account balance for most small businesses. For something with the investment cost like developing aircraft engines, I suspect that they already had the IP issues sorted long before going down this road (maybe even as an initial agreement between the two companies when they first started together).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You fairly obviously do not understand the basis of patent protection. .

I have no idea if Jab have things patented or not but there's quite a number of patentable features surrounding Jab engines.

 

Wot patents? You think there's anything still patentable about a four-stroke, poppet-valve, spark ignition engine?

I have 6 recent patents to prove there is with more to come, try typing Honda or Toyota and engine into a patents search one day if you want to see ridiculous levels of patenting.

 

If IP is an issue, it will be for the other clone engines. Superior, Titan, ECI etc all make exact clones of lycomings. I'm not sure the legalities of it, but they have been doing it (successfully) for years.

I expect Lycoming's patents ran out a long time ago.

 

I'm told the heads on Camit engines are not the same as the Chinese made engines which Jabiru has now switched to: .

I believe they have certain raw components made here and do the final machining in Oz.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes you do get the occasional crack in cast crankcases, but considering the numbers out there, it's really rare in the big picture. On the other hand , many do their TBOS and return for another go. The radial 985 crankcases for instances just keep going on, and on. Some of the total time hours on those is very impressive, and they are still flying daily in Beavers etc....Let me know when any Jab engine comes even close to that..................Maj.....024_cool.gif.7a88a3168ebd868f5549631161e2b369.gif.

Certainly an impressive record for the old Wasp Junior, one has to agree. I'm surprised we don't see more of them powering ultralights, actually; I reckon that'd put a stop to the EFATO problem completely. And they're cheap to buy, run and maintain.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no idea if Jab have things patented or not but there's quite a number of patentable features surrounding Jab engines.

I'm pretty sure that for the future existence of both (or either!) of Jabiru's engine production or CAMit's potential developments, this information would be of great value. Would you care to share your ideas?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No doubt you have a deeply informative well of analysis of metallurgy and manufacturing processes which you have summarised as a 'very basic design flaw' to help understanding of we less-well informed people?

In the 1970's and 1980's Honda workshops, both cars and bikes, were extremely busy changing camshafts and rockers because the face hardening was disintegrating, even Honda's big efforts to hide it failed because there was just so many failures.

 

Now I'm not a metalurgist, nor were thousands of unhappy Honda owners all around the world but we all knew the engines had major design flaws.

 

Maj isn't a metalurgist either but there's enough recorded information surrounding Jab engine's now to proffer that they have design flaws.

 

I'm pretty sure that for the future existence of both (or either!) of Jabiru's engine production or CAMit's potential developments, this information would be of great value. Would you care to share your ideas?

You need to get down from your plynth Mate.

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...