Bad Experience with Jabiru

[gandalph]

You all are bragging how good the Camit engines are and none have done long hard hours yet, that is all what I was saying. I think I will wait till there are some big hard hours on the engines. Like school hours, then we can compare apples with apples.Regards,

KP.

We all? Who all? Bragging?

Keith, I think you are a bit off track there mate.

 

 

[facthunter]

With most engines fixing a known weakness is commonplace as a philosophy and practice so a basically sound design gets refined and improved. This can be done with aftermarket parts or whatever and is common with performance developed engines. Eventually as power increases more "weaknesses" emerge and you re-asses how much more is available from the basic design. (if you are serious). Sometimes in an aero engine it is the material spec. Heat treatment or Alloy) or machining details that are changed to cure some fault or a part is made stronger. Once that fault is addressed the engine HAS to be better than before, as it has one less known fault.

 

The idea of testing ONE engine over 100's of hours is a bit like witchcraft combined with a lottery. Sample variation in short run (low production volume) engines that are not identical is an obvious problem, questioning the validity of the result. Just because THAT engine did certain things doesn't mean the next one will

 

The maker should not be prevented by any required procedure from introducing superior parts which are adequately evaluated as long as they don't introduce massively new considerations in the design which are untested If you fit better tyres or brakes, you shouldn't have to re certify the plane. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

To build these engines economically both Jabiru and CAMIt need to take share from other manufacturers or grow the market for aircraft engines.I can't see that happening, CAMit only exists to take sales from Jabiru.

CAMit BUILDS Jabiru engines. Every J2200 and J3300 engine in existence has been built by CAMit - but to Jabiru's specifications, under licence from Jabiru who holds the certification / certified documentation. Jabiru holds the documentation (JAR 22H certification issued by CASA for the 2200, ASTM certified status for the 3300) and takes legal responsibility for the CAMit work done to produce its engines. For Jabiru engines, CAMit is a sub-contractor, operating to Jabiru's specifications, instructions, and QC requirements.

 

CAE-plated engines are NOT Jabiru engines - legally, or for regulatory authority (CASA) purposes - though they have obvious 'similarities', and there is shared IP from the Jabiru engine initial development time. However - and this is seriously important to grasp - CAE engines do not have any certification/certified status devolving from Jabiru's certification/certifying work. As things stand at as of this date, CAE does not produce certificated/certified engines. Any CAE engine produced as at 17/09/2015 is 'experimental' only.

 

For those not familiar with the distinction between 'certificated' and 'certified' - 'a 'certificated' engine is one that has been accepted by an ICAO signatory authority as having demonstrated that it meets a 'certification' standard ( JAR 22h, FAR 33 etc.. ) ASTM 'certification' requires that the manufacturer 'certifies' that the engine has met the ASTM standards. In practical terms there is little difference but in legal terms, the Jabiru 2200 engine has been 'proven' to JAR 22h in tests run under the control of CASA which has issued a 'certificate', while the 3300 engine has been 'certified' as conforming, by Jabiru - with no CASA oversight.

 

The CASA action has put a huge black mark on Jabiru engines. Whether this is deserved or not is a moot point at this moment, and that could only be resolved by CASA making a definitive statement that either: a) it was justified, and Jabiru engines fail to meet acceptable standards, or b) CASA states it was wrong, and Jabiru engines do meet all required standards. I do not see any likelihood of CASA doing either action - unless pinned to the wall by a judicial decision.

 

Once an engine has been certificated / certified, it becomes relatively 'frozen' in specification: any major changes require extensive re-testing.

 

CAMit engines - that is, CAE-plated engines manufactured by CAMit not operating as a contractor to Jabiru - have been developed (and that development is still underway, though now getting very close to being finalised for certification purposes) with the freedom, as an 'experimental' engine, to make changes. Pretty obviously, the changes that CAMit have made have been based on the knowledge of and research on areas where what CAMit considers are improvements can be made. Effectively, CAMit's research programme draws on the experience of 5,000+ engines produced. CAMit has concentrated on making changes where there is benefit to be gained; when it delivers a certified engine, that engine will look similar to and be an ideal replacement for the corresponding Jabiru engine but it will not be a Jabiru engine either legally or physically.

 

However, CAMit have not 'thrown out the baby with the bathwater' in terms of drawing on what is good about the basic Jab engine design, there is an obvious lineage present. I imagine that Ian Bent will, when he is ready, provide a pretty comprehensive list of and and explanation for changes in the CAMit engine, which can be assessed by those familiar with Jab. engines to determine whether they address 'issues'.

 

To suggest that CAMit only exists to take sales from Jabiru, has as much logic as saying that UL Power and d-Motor only exist to take sales from Jabiru. CAE engines (particularly when certified) will be an alternative to Jabiru engines, but unless Jabiru finds that it is seriously losing airframe sales because of the public perception of its engines, it is unlikely that it will approve any other engine for its LSA aircraft. Certainly, provided the CAE engine lives up to its promise, some of the OEMs that approve Jab. engines in their airframes ( Sonex, Zenith to name a couple with some pretty decent numbers of aircraft out there) will probably add CAE engines to their approved list alongside Jabiru engines, and the market will decide what they prefer.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So how many engines do you think they will sell in the US when their US distributor hasn't got a website, they have no FB presence and their website is pretty basic?

 

 

[gandalph]

So FT, are you suggesting that CAE should devote more time to developing a website rather than developing an Aero engine? Are you really that hard to please or is that just the notorious FT knock?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

As our dollar loses value against the U.S. dollar our exports to them become more competitive. American fliers seem to be a conservative lot and quite a few will prefer a simple, direct-drive engine, like Jabiru and CAMit make.

 

Because it has a market 25 times the size of Australia, both firms should be building a high profile in the U.S.

 

 

[facthunter]

If the changes are a Work in progress there's not a lot of point recruiting customers unless able to deliver specified products, at the time. Light weight is a major advantage of Jabiru /CAE engines as well as the Australian dollar depreciating. Just rebalancing by adding weight to the tail can adversely change spin characteristics of an aircraft, by distributing mass towards the extremities of the fuselage. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

So how many engines do you think they will sell in the US when their US distributor hasn't got a website, they have no FB presence and their website is pretty basic?

Just possibly, the market has more people out there that actually buy from judgement of the quality and value of the product rather than the web presence. That may be hard for you to grasp, but then they are putting their $$ up as evidence of their judgement, rather than just electrons. Zenith have apparently sold over 500 Jabiru FWF kits for their aircraft, and Sonex have a dedicated 'Jabiru engines' group with a solid nukmber of Jab. engine users..

 

Fortunately for the rest of the Aviation community, CAMit does not consider the opinions of FT to be worthy of attention. It is focused on production of a better aircraft engine. It deals in nuts and bolts and machining and research and testing and refining and development. It makes, flies, refines, improves and re-tests engine components. Everybody in the CAMit factory contributes; if you have ever witnessed it in action, you will find that the pride and interest the entire organisation has in making their engines is palpable. From the top down, there is a friendly but competitive spirit to see who can do anything better than the next person on the line, and Ian Bent spends a goodly part of his working day on the workshop floor resolving problems from the most minute to the greatest, in pursuit of a better product. And on the weekends, he comes in to work on his ideas for developments.

 

CAMit produces a product that can be tested, measured, used and further developed. FT produces electrons arranged to convey an opinion that is negotiable for precisely nothing.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...Just rebalancing by adding weight to the tail can adversely change spin characteristics of an aircraft, by distributing mass towards the extremities of the fuselage. Nev

Our little planes are already struggling to stay light, so why do people add weight? Much more sensible to relocate heavy components like the battery or the engine.

 

 

[facthunter]

The further back the less weight required, but the battery is a heavy item that is effective for rebalancing, but cables add weight too and can be a hazard. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

The tool kit is another heavy component which can be relocated to change CoG. I've seen so many planes with heavy hammers in their tie-down kit; they must be as heavy as a battery.

 

 

[BIKERFLYER DAN]

fly_tornado, not that many flying around here in the south west of USA (New Mexico).

 

 

[coljones]

fly_tornado, not that many flying around here in the south west of USA (New Mexico).

You don't know what you are missing.  Jabiru makes great plane.

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

Adelaide Soaring Club gets 1000 hours out of their Jabs and they are used for training. They stick to the book when it comes to maintenance. Too many pilot/owners do not and then cry when their plane breaks.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Old thread with lots of old BS. The local school here did the same. At 2000 hours a new engine as it was cheaper than overhauling the old one which had been maintained to Jabiru specifications throughout its life.

 

 

[nickduncs84]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saKPnSIu1iM

 

another jab failure. I find it hard to believe that anytime a jab engine fails it’s because of improper mx. 

 

 

[scre80]

Unless you know how it was maintained and fuel used, hard to know. We maintain ours to the letter, use avgas only, always get 1000 hrs on the TBO. That is across 3 x J170. 

 

 

[jetjr]

They fail for many reasons not just fuel and maintenence

 

 

[scre80]

They fail for many reasons not just fuel and maintenence

I recon you will find how they are maintained and looked after, plays a big part. Same with any engine, not just jabiru. 

 

 

[Keith Page]

They fail for many reasons not just fuel and maintenence

If it is not the above.

 

Most of the time it is the good old, "Fingers Disease".

 

KP

 

 

[jetjr]

From the info in the casa debarcle, it showed that professionally maintained Jab engines failed more often than others

 

 

[coljones]

From the info in the casa debarcle, it showed that professionally maintained Jab engines failed more often than others

There wasn't all that many that failed and probably insufficient to draw statistical conclusions.  There was, however, one LAME who had a number of failures which might indicate finger trouble - if you keep doing the same thing don't expect a different result.  There appears to be little evidence of continuing problems.

 

 

[jetjr]

Initial report indicated most in flight failures were in flying schools on 4 cyl

 

they must be maintained by L2

 

not much can be taken from these numbers, but the old story that theres no product problem and its all maintainers is pure manufacturer blame shifting

 

 

[scre80]

Initial report indicated most in flight failures were in flying schools on 4 cyl

they must be maintained by L2

 

not much can be taken from these numbers, but the old story that theres no product problem and its all maintainers is pure manufacturer blame shifting

Think you will find the CASA report was highly inaccurate. If you applied the same logic across the entire aircraft fleet, alot of other manufactures engines should have been affected too. 

 

I said, it it how they are maintained and run, nothing said about LAME's. There is different quality in LAME's as there is in owner maintainers. Yes I know of some specifics but a public forum is not the place for them. 

 

 

[Geoff13]

 There appears to be little evidence of continuing problems.

It appears that you are not looking very hard.