DCM Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 DCM Is it classed as a Jabiru engine or not in light of this proposed instrument. Or do you not know.Cheers Geoff13 From what I can gather my plane will not be affected by this proposed draft David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 DCM Is it classed as a Jabiru engine or not in light of this proposed instrument. Or do you not know.Cheers Geoff13 See post #149 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Thousands they built the lot,Older Solid lifter types are the basis for their work so it isnt a scratch built concept. The hours done on them counts for something, they "significantly report" to have much less problems With the new upgrades, dunno, Oscar knows but he is banned Not the Jabiru engines, but the CAMit engines which have had some big claims made about their reliability (I hasten to say not by CAMit) I'm interested in how many of these have been produced. I would expect to see a couple of hundred as a starting sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Ok and youd like to see 2000 hours on each, and done before June 2015? What size company and market do you think they are playing in? I think there are some with several hundred flight hours currently and work being done in test cells. Before this debarcle there was plans to try to certify them and all the testing which goes into this. CAE need to have regulations developed that ALLOW them to fit them into aircraft other than Experimental. Or at least get their own approvals to make parts for Jabiru engines. Ironic as they already do. RAA and CASA could easily assist this process. At best they can currently only supply to a small number of 19 and VH exp aircraft, maybe 1 or 2 per month, im guessing? Point I was making - with sarcasm - is that there are hundreds of examples of the solid lifter engines flying today with few problems. New heads fixed most of the ones they had. CAE have upgraded these to make their latest version. Even data from old versions has relevance but data is slim and held by Jabiru who are unlikely to provide it if it helps CAE And theres a new SB regarding service intervals - cant open it yet - JSL 010-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Not the Jabiru engines, but the CAMit engines which have had some big claims made about their reliability (I hasten to say not by CAMit)I'm interested in how many of these have been produced. I would expect to see a couple of hundred as a starting sample. Good afternoon Turbo "big claims":- the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. The other goodie is "The devil you know is better than the devil you do not know". The whole event is full of emotion, bias, arm chair experts and urban myths how can one get a clear view. "What has been proved" in real terms hanger chat and pub gossip. Regards KP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thruster87 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Hello Jabiru Fleet, Please find attached Jabiru FEA report AVS4CYL001-1 that we have produced in response to the RAA Airworthiness Notice 10102014 regarding Jabiru Cylinder Heads which the CASA is aware of. We know that many of you were concerned after the release of this RAA Airworthiness Notice so we have conducted a detailed Engineering Review including a Finite Element Analysis. From the investigation and analysis conducted, the cracks referred to in the report do not present a threat to the cylinder head structural integrity of the engine as a whole. This investigation also revealed that the cylinder heads on the engine with the cylinder head cracks sent to us had done 2,302.4 hours TTIS and 1,244.9 hours since the previous Top End Overhaul. The hours were done in a period of 2 years 4 months. There appeared to be confusion regarding the correct method of recording engine time in the maintenance log book. Jabiru requires that Hobbs Time be the sole method by which engine time is recorded. The problem with proper recording of engine time has prompted us to release the attached Service Letter (JSL010-1) regarding Service Intervals which clarifies your obligations concerning maintenance records. Please read the material carefully. Jabiru Cylinder Head AN.PDF Jabiru Cylinder Head AN.PDF Jabiru Cylinder Head AN.PDF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Same here. When I advised her that I'd happily sold the aircraft a year ago, because of 2 engines and 2 total failures in 730 TT - the tone changed and she decided that it would serve no purpose if I did their 'survey'. Methinks the 'survey' will be very much skewed towards successes rather than failures. happy days, Yea no doubt, and incredibly disappointing considering the depth of exrement they currently find themselves in. It was the last straw for me today, my comment for CASA's current discussion is now a lengthy document with todays conversation as the highlight and point in case, emails from Jabiru, maintenance history on several aircraft, engineering reports and engine data. Im happy to make my records,( both maintenance and flight records) available to CASA or who ever else is interested to see exactly what "operating" these machines in a busy school 'reads' like. Apparently jabiru dont find it significant, but im sure CASA will. Its a significant data file too. 2 x 230's (Both failed) 2 x 160's (Both failed, one of them on multiple occasions) 1x170 (failed 3 times) 1x Bantam jabiru ( failed twice in 100 hours) 1x LSA 55, valve failure ( First flight by owner after purchase) (Note, i have included through bolts and issues discovered on the ground as failures) Too be honest I was on the fence with regards as to how I should 'comment' to lee re the proposal. I was considering a balanced approach, with consideration to the thousands of hours we have done in them, all the students we have trained, and the quality of pilot that is generally produced when they learn in these aircraft, along with the failure reports. But jabiru have today proven to me where their concerns lay and have tipped me off the fence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 ...maybe one or two of us could come up with a solution to help Jabiru through this as quickly as possible. A bolt-on EFI kit. Feed the pots equally, avoid most problems. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Same here. When I advised her that I'd happily sold the aircraft a year ago, because of 2 engines and 2 total failures in 730 TT - the tone changed and she decided that it would serve no purpose if I did their 'survey'. Methinks the 'survey' will be very much skewed towards successes rather than failures. happy days, So is it a survey or are they desparately trying to stack the deck. Sounds like "surveys" that don't have the correct responses would find it hard to dodge the shredder anyway. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 It should be a survey conducted by an independent not the factory, to easy to come up smelling of roses if you bury the unhappy owners Alf 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I think the survey will be just a cover up. Until we know the cause of the problems we will not know the cure, so to say fit EFI, may not do any good except to the vendors of EFI equipment. from what Motz has posted it seems his operations are IAW the POH, but he does seem to have a terrible record of failures. What we want to know is "why?" My jab engine is not supposed to be run at 2400rpm, due to harminics, but I doubt that Jabiru aircraft can run at that speed economically. All the talk of Camit engines bewilders me. I thought Camit made engines for Jabiru, therefore they were Jab engines. If camit started making a modified engine surely it would still be a jabiru, unless they have approval from the designer. On those engines which have failed through bolts has there been any evidence of detonation? I would assume that detonation would add greatly to the tension on through bolts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 The Question might well be moot....As Dafydd as suggested, and others have also agreed these engines can only, at present, be fitted to 19 or E24 class aircraft and as such, given that if you want you can fit a steam engine providing the aircraft continues to meet the limitations of the exemption we fly under, limiting these further as per the proposed instrument is nonsensical given that usage of E24 and 19 is already limited above and beyond 24 and 25 so double jeopardy??Andy Personal view not a board view, and I have no more knowledge than you do on which I base my view Yes I do understand that Andy except for the point of not being able to carry non flying passengers, ie the wife. From what I can gather my plane will not be affected by this proposed draftDavid Thank you was just curious as to you being an owner whether you had something written on the matter. See post #149 Dafydd I know you had said that but as everyone keeps quote regs on here I was looking for something in writing. Cheers Geoff13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I think the survey will be just a cover up.Until we know the cause of the problems we will not know the cure, so to say fit EFI, may not do any good except to the vendors of EFI equipment. from what Motz has posted it seems his operations are IAW the POH, but he does seem to have a terrible record of failures. What we want to know is "why?" My jab engine is not supposed to be run at 2400rpm, due to harminics, but I doubt that Jabiru aircraft can run at that speed economically. All the talk of Camit engines bewilders me. I thought Camit made engines for Jabiru, therefore they were Jab engines. If camit started making a modified engine surely it would still be a jabiru, unless they have approval from the designer. On those engines which have failed through bolts has there been any evidence of detonation? I would assume that detonation would add greatly to the tension on through bolts. Do you not understand the difference between an engine made to one set of drawings and specifications, to one made from a different set? The Jabiru 2200 C, I say again (and again and again) has a Type Certificate issued by CASA. That TC refers to a specific Master Drawing List (it's on page 4 of the TCDS). Every Jabiru 2200C engine made by CAMit has to conform to that Master Drawing List; and CASA manufacturing division make sure it does, down to the last detail. Much the same applies to the other Jabiru engine models made by CAMit. All those engines have a Jabiru data plate. The CAE core-rebuilt engine is a Jabiru engine with modifications; there is a master drawing list for those modifications. It has a Jabiru data plate plus a CAE modification data plate, to specify the modification status. It looks virtually identical to a Jabiru engine, apart from the alternator. CAMit were also scratch-building essentially the same thing as the core-rebuilt engine, but not starting from an existing Jabiru engine, and that has only a CAE data plate. Because of the obstructions, these versions will now not be taken to certification, as far as I am aware. I assume they will continue to be built to order as experimental engines. Ian Bent is now concentrating on an engine that cannot be claimed to have any conflict with Jabiru IP. The intention - if it can be realised - is to take that engine through ASTM 2245. I can't make it any simpler than this. Dafydd I know you had said that but as everyone keeps quote regs on here I was looking for something in writing. So is Ian Bent. It's only verbal from CASA so far; we're all waiting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornis Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 CAE (CAMit Aero Engines) are generally similar to Jabiru. In my opinion CAMit has addressed the problems and made worthwhile improvements. CAMit holds the IP rights to its engines. I believe CAE are not affected by the CASA proposal to limit operations. Jabiru doesn't understand engines, as its "fixes" invariably demonstrate. I decided a CAE was the only sensible way forward for me when a broken valve munted my Jabiru 3300. Unfortunately Rod Stiff seems brain deaf and will likely go down with his sinking ship in a strait jacket rather than accept a life buoy in the form of Ian Bent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysmcc Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Sounds like CAE needs to take over all the jabiru engine business and Jabiru to focus on the Aircraft side (which they do pretty well). If only it was so easy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/RA-Aus-Submission-to-CASA-re-Jabiru-Proposal-dated-21-Nov-2014.pdf Well worth a read..sorry if this is posted elsewhere.... Interesting that CASa asked what the data meant after already publishing the instrument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilfred Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 This is the latest email out from RAAus and I don't know how I feel about it...The message I am getting from it is "if your business will suffer from the potential CASA action then send a letter to your local MP about it", the way I took it is that business comes before safety, well that is the feeling I got from it submission. Our stance, in simple terms, is that we agree there is a need for improvement but we feel that the restrictions proposed would put undue pressure on the recreational aviation sector and that this may have a negative impact on our ability to deliver safety benefits to this sector in future. We also feel that other sectors may be adversely affected by the proposed actions should they proceed. In addition to this RA-Aus has expressed considerable concern at the process used by CASA on this occasion. These concerns are reinforced in the findings of the Forsyth Report released some five months ago and, it appears, have been largely ignored by the regulator. This submission has been forwarded to CASA as well as the Minister for Transport. In accordance with the CASA website the consultation period has been extended until 27 November 2014 and all submissions should be forwarded to [email protected]. As previously advised RA-Aus also encourage members and businesses to contact federal and local members of parliament to provide input regarding the CASA imposed restrictions, detailing any potential impacts of the actions including, but not limited to, financial impacts or distress, loss of potential customers, negative effects on employment, reputational damage, etc. Your federal member details can be found at www.aph.gov.au with state and local details available at the relevant government website. Please include [email protected] on all correspondence to CASA and members of parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornis Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I have tried doggedly to read a whining letter to CASA. A monckey barking up the wrong tree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I have just read the RA-Aus submission to CASA and the Minister & I totally agree with the content. Michael has certainly climbed into CASA for taking scant notice of the Forsyth report and as a person who used to deal closely with a collaborative Civil Aviation Authority I believe he is right on the money. The real issue is will it have any effect or will they just close ranks. I am hoping that the Minister will get involved and the whole Aviation Industry needs to support the RA-Aus stance. Heads will have to roll but will they? They may end up being as defiant as Eddie Obeid although everyone is convinced of their guilt. This is not just about Jabiru. The current heavy handed process is what needs to be changed but seemingly not one blind bit of notice has been taken by CASA since the end of May when the report was released. 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Think whatever you want about the Jabiru attitude or the engines -separate issues by the way - thi is an attack on RAA and we should put effort into protecting our freedoms to assess and manage risk 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 CAE (CAMit Aero Engines) are generally similar to Jabiru. In my opinion CAMit has addressed the problems and made worthwhile improvements. Unfortunately Rod Stiff seems brain deaf and will likely go down with his sinking ship in a strait jacket rather than accept a life buoy in the form of Ian Bent. While I, and I am sure many others, are pleased CAMit are taking positive measures to make improvements, there is certainly not enough feedback yet, and that can only come with time, to assert if those improvements hold the answers or not to the issues. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Too be honest I was on the fence with regards as to how I should 'comment' to lee re the proposal. I was considering a balanced approach, with consideration to the thousands of hours we have done in them, all the students we have trained, and the quality of pilot that is generally produced when they learn in these aircraft, along with the failure reports. But jabiru have today proven to me where their concerns lay and have tipped me off the fence That was my original position - keep it quiet for pretty much the 'good of the industry...don't want the public alarmed' I sold in 2013 when the prices were reasonable - hate to think of what the resale market would be now. Anyway, as now it appears that Jabiru are intent on fighting this into the ditches, I have given CASA a detailed account of my experiences with operating a J160. They may make, what they choose, from it - but it's high time for everyone to come out from your foxholes and provide the regulator with your real experiences with Jabiru engines. (regardless of whether you've suffered in-flight failures...just how much extra maintenance has been required). It's my opinion that we, and our administrators, have been far too protective in our attitudes. happy days, 1 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 While I, and I am sure many others, are pleased CAMit are taking positive measures to make improvements, there is certainly not enough feedback yet, and that can only come with time, to assert if those improvements hold the answers or not to the issues. OK Bex. The time is ripe for you to release your certified, drop in replacement for the Jab motor. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I don't believe for one moment that the CAMit parts are in any way inferior to the originals and generally reflect a serious attempt to upgrade and improve quality and therefore reliability of the total package. The CASA action may frustrate that outcome, which would be a pity punitive and wasteful. Certainly I'm amazed that non training aircraft are included in the restrictions. The total aircraft package has proven safe by comparison with anything out there, so putting all the training into some other brands won't statistically improve things . The aim should be to improve the product powerplant -wise, and expedite anything that helps that process. I generally support the M Monk document. Nev 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianboag Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 In the pre-war days, British engineers tended to be "practical chaps" not contaminated with the likes of university engineering learning. That's why a Spitfire took 14000 man hours to build vs 6000 for an Me109. The Merlin was designed by practical chaps at Rolls-Royce. Their development path was to thrash it until something broke. Then they looked at the wreck, beefed up the broken bit and did it all again. Then it went into service ... from the Wikipedia page ... Initially the new engine was plagued with problems, such as failure of the accessory gear trains and coolant jackets, and several different construction methods were tried before the basic design of the Merlin was set.[14] Early production Merlins were also unreliable: Common problems were cylinder head cracking, coolant leaks, and excessive wear to the camshafts and crankshaftmain bearings.[15] The cheerful bit is that it ended up as a pretty good engine. Does this seem familiar? Do the factory people have what it takes to sort the problems faced by owners of Jabiru engines? 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts