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  
stuartmspencer

Latest Jabiru 2200 - reliability

Recommended Posts

have received good news regarding installing a camit into 24 reg jabs. ......Can do, Prefixed "E 24". Am told several already done, Raa sanctioned. A 25hr initial "proving period" is required at this point, then all's good.

 

Now waiting on "detailed" directions etc etc...........then picking up the ph to camit. ( i wunder if injecting it ( EFI ), might be pushing my luck. ?? Feedback re EFI is all positive to jabs.........let's see.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re EFI, Run it first, mine shows numbers similar to SA injected kit. Find the extra $$ And buy a complete new CAE.

 

Be aware after going to E reg im pretty sure you arent allowed to train or hire, similar rules to 19 reg i think

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
have received good news regarding installing a camit into 24 reg jabs. ......Can do, Prefixed "E 24". Am told several already done, Raa sanctioned. A 25hr initial "proving period" is required at this point, then all's good.Now waiting on "detailed" directions etc etc...........then picking up the ph to camit. ( i wunder if injecting it ( EFI ), might be pushing my luck. ?? Feedback re EFI is all positive to jabs.........let's see.

Get that in writing is my advice ...

 

my understanding of 95.55 and the requirements of the CASR that are referenced in 95.55 mean that E-LSA is possible (E23- reg) but not experimental on a factory built that is not LSA ... if your Jab is not an ATSM compliance LSA airframe I would get it in writing from Tech Manager that E24 is a possibility ... I would not be spending $$ on being told by some its been done ... particularly as the whole idea of then doing 25 hours testing is non-applicable to this at all ... test hours are on the initial application for registration as 19-

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that we have an evolving situation here.

 

The LSA standard derived from ASTM specifications effectively removes from individual Airworthiness Authorities any decision-making power on modifications from the manufacturers statement of compliance. The FAA has already decided that it has the power to over-ride the ASTM standard in the case of the Icon seaplane, to grant it a 'special' CoA at above ASTM-limited MTOW - but still in the LSA class.

 

That is a major development. It means that individual Airworthiness Authorities - e.g. CASA - should NOT be bound by the ASTM specifications, but can determine that 'X' is acceptable. This is not without precedent: 95.55 has an MTOW that exceeds even the FAA equivalent. Add to that that EASA has mandated BRS fitment to LSA-class aircraft and we see significant divergence from the ASTM standard for LSA .

 

For non-LSA certified Jabirus: 55 reg or 24 'C' reg' aircraft for those operating in training/hire situations, 'compliance by equivalence' to BCAR S can be determined - I believe - by a Part 24M engineer.

 

Under MARAP - and this is most certainly a 'developmental' area - it appears to me that we are opening a niche for 'equivalence' for certification/ certifying of alternative solutions to the ASTM standard. A CAMit 3300 engine - once certified to ASTM - would be a direct equivalent of a Jabiru 3300. For the CAMit 2200 engine, it would require certification to JAR 22H. Both things are extremely possible; the required facilities exist.

 

Even if Jabiru will never 'accept' CAMit engines as approved changes to its ASTM-certified aircraft - which is likely - I believe that with goodwill, CASA will eventually accept them, no doubt under conditions.

 

That would be a major step forward for the Jabiru-owning/operating community.

 

Like Pantene Shampoo - it won't happen overnight, but it WILL happen.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one that killed Jeremy Monnet by failure on take-off?

 

You are, frankly, a very sick person. Your obsession with denigrating Jabiru engines is equivalent to some twisted religious mania. I do not ascribe to the generous view that you are a happy imbecile/vexatious troll, you have deep-seated issues that need to be addressed by someone with serious professional credentials.

 

Comparing an engine favourably that evidently killed the very person behind its development with another engine that has had problems of which NONE have resulted in serious consequences in terms of injury or death is a really twisted and deeply disturbing ploy. I don't mind light-hearted banter, but to drag by association the death of someone who has done a lot for the Sport Aircraft class development into your personal crusade as a point in favour of your position is just about the lowest dregs of debate I can imagine.

 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commiserations Stuart. I cannot help, but others may ask if your rego allows a CAMit engine.

Has CAMit engines got air hours on them yet?

 

We need hours to get a comparison.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keith, the 'CAMit engine' has been evolving for a number of years now and some of the basic CAMit re-design features (e.g. the strengthened barrels) must have many, many hundreds of hours on them in getting up to maybe 100 examples already. I think that one of the earliest ones has at least 600 hours on it by now - it's used as a 'daily commuter'.

 

Ian Bent has an enthusiastic 'family' of CAMit-engine users and he keeps very close watch on how their engines have performed ( and of course, he flies one himself which he uses for testing everything personally). First tests are done on his comprehensive in-house dyno - not some mobile engine test rig that gets wheeled out the back of the shed - thence to flight testing. Certfication/certifying testing will be done in a fully-calibrated engine test cell - the only one of its capability in Australia. The test regime/s to be used will be the international standards applicable to the certifying / certification standard.

 

The basic R&D programme that CAMit employ could perhaps be described as: analyse the problem ( at 'system' level i.e. what are all the contributory factors?) / design a solution to the problem / make and bench test the solution / refine as necessary / test fly / introduce the changed 'solution' to production engines / monitor real flying results. As we have seen on another thread, that 'monitoring' now extends to installation issues e.g. fuel delivery.

 

The 'final' specification for 'CAMit engines' - i.e. the one that will be tested for certifying / certification purposes, has not yet - as far as I am aware, and I have not kept abreast of latest developments - been determined. Once that happens, their development will be 'frozen' in terms of specification and they will become certified / certificated engines, with changes mandated by the manufacturer / CASA in SB's etc.. At the moment, they remain 'experimental' engines - as CAMit explicitly advises.

 

So: your point is valid. As at this moment, I believe that we cannot 'compare' the reliability of 'CAMit engines' with 'Jabiru engines', because 'Jabiru engines' have a definite base-line configuration whereas 'CAMit engines' do not - as yet.

 

However, on the 'upside' as it were, I sincerely believe that the 'risk factor' for those prepared to be early adopters of the 'CAMit engine' is exponentially less than for early adopters of any brand-new design. We have seen the financial disaster for early-adopters of the Thierlert engine as used in the Diamond aircraft. Both the UL Power and the d-motor engines are new from the ground-up (and I do NOT mean in any way to cast doubt on the quality of either), but it has to be recognised that the basis of R&D for the CAMit engine is over 5,000 engines produced and carried out by the organisation that produced them. Realistically, the CAMit engine 'builds' on that experience, whereas the Jabiru 2210 engine is an all-new engine, and re the point above: has no 'base-line' for the development of reliability statistics - it is also an 'experimental' engine.

 

In summary: the 'CAMit engine' does not come out of 'left-field', as it were to use a North American expression - it has a distinct and clear pedigree. Those of an inquiring mind might well look at the catalogue of problems with Jabiru engines and ask of the CAMit engines: 'has this been addressed?'. I personally believe that 'the CAMit engine' in its final form will have answers to that question, that will be validated by flight-time results - but as you suggest, ONLY flight time will provide the statistical proof. Nothing less than statistical evidence is adequate as proof.

 

For those of us who have an interest in history above and beyond the practical: I am not personally aware of ANY situation where a 'successful' aero-engine ( albeit with question marks against it) has been further developed by another entity. I THINK that this is a uniquely Australian experience! Just possibly, we should all quietly take a bit of pride in the fact that Australia has TWO aero-engine manufacturers - even if they have the same generic roots - capable of producing a world-class product.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok........near on 12mths has elapsed since casa dropped a bombshell. Massive amount of collateral damages resulted. ...

 

I want to change out my engine ( seriously big trip planned 2016 ) ........

 

Bolt in a brand spanker from jab............hangon, didn't casa deem their engines ( jab ) to be unsafe.

 

Or bolt in a Camit ( all reports are positive )

 

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to make a choice here.

 

Ok.......Camit for me, but the way the system is, i can only fit another jab engine ( the dud one ).......The option to fit Camit, with reg E24, has stalled, infact several folks have begun their change over, and casa are now in go slow mode, infact the delay could be 12 mths. The "Marap" option is in "roll out" and casa appear to be in no hurry to pull out their fingers.

 

Whispers are telling me, folks are just bolting in camits...........and SAYING NOTHING. Legally wrong, but to hell...it's my life, my machine, casa go screw. This is where we are 12 mths down the track.

 

I believe Raa are trying to get action here, but no success ...........to date. I also heard, the option to bolt in rotax, has now been stopped.........go figure.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russ, It is so true when one needs action all the warriors find excuses to go slow.

 

A lot of people say how good Camit engines are for me --- for them to get over the final hurdle there needs to more engines about with more time on the clock. The old saying the grass is always greener over the fence.

 

I do have a lot of sympathy for Jabiru regarding their engines.

 

These engine failures I believe it is not all Jab engine problem. Just me I have heard of two which was caused by incorrect oil (1) Had auto oil (2) Some beaut oil additive when the investigation was done made for Diesel engines.

 

The other goody, how many fiddle with the engine and think they are experts. Bit different to the old Holdens, Falcons, Valiants.

 

The way things are at the moment I would not be game to bolt a Camit up front.

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of lsa owners breaking the rules in various ways

 

Regulators assume that by saying so everybody complies. However the more regs that exist the more non compliance, many not on purpose but lots that balance risk and proceed anyway.

 

The whole marap process was designed for exactly this kind of problem or when manufacturer folds

 

I hear Jabiru are trying to prevent Camit moving forward with cert and approvals too

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps that should be referred to the ACCC. We are talking about safety . not preservation of a monoply. Of course the antagonism between the Parties won't go away. CASA is out of it's depth in this one from the start. Owners continue to suffer...Nev

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty classic case of shared IP and one party thinks they own it.

 

Often results in the thing they are fighting over being killed off.

 

It will just push CAE to "sustantially change" the engine if they can justify the expense

 

Jabiru already indicate they have a largely new model coming

 

Then we will have 2 new untested engines out there, great work!

 

Bend over once more owners

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snatching defeat from the Jaws of Victory. = Jabiru

 

They are so confused at Head Office they are running around stabbing each other in the chest=CASA.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How this sorry saga has not hit the press / media, bewilds me.

 

How this has not proceded to court action ( owners ).....again, bewilds me. Way back, early in the piece, there was talk about folks seeking legal help.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Camit build the Jabiru engine?

 

Did Jab pay Camit to build their engines and also build to Jab design.

 

Is the Camit engine a re hash of the original Jab design, with possible improvements?

 

Is the Jab engine as used in the USA considered a safety risk?

 

Why is the Jab engine considered a risk in Australia, when CASA have stated that they have faith in Jabiru and also they cannot state what is wrong with the engines?

 

People are always saying that Jabs are a risk. A fiend of mine stated quite openly that he wouldn't trust a Jab engine and was very scathing of them. Sadly he has passed away, possibly caused by the failure of another brand of engine.

 

The biggest problem at the moment is that CASA have screwed everyone and will continue to do so.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yenn, a lot of your questions have been covered in so many threads that people may be coming somewhat bored with the same old answers - but it probably never hurts to make the points again. For those who want more detailed information regarding the CAMit engine development history, I recommend the 'CAMit engine - anybody got one? thread, so I'll try to be reasonably brief. Answers in RED, interspersed with your questions.

 

Did Camit build the Jabiru engine? Yes, apart from some of the earliest ones ( all of which were the 1600, AFAIK).

 

Did Jab pay Camit to build their engines and also build to Jab design. Yes. Until several years ago, CAMit did not have its own Parts Manufacturing Authority and operated as a sub-contractor operating under Jabiru (actually, technically and legally, to Avtech Pty Ltd)., who holds the TCDS for the 2200J engine - TCDS 160-2. The 2200J is certificated under JAH22H and CASA issued the TCDS. More recent models of the 2200 and all of the 3300 models, as far as I am aware, are certified by Jabiru / Avtech under ASTM rules, but still built by CAMit operating under contract to and the direction of Jabiru. This is not a semantic issue, is is an extremely legal one of responsibility for the product, and CAMit builds Jabiru-plated engines strictly in accordance with Jabiru's instructions and incorporating parts supplied by Jabiru for the build, over which CAMit has no responsibility for QC etc. CAMit builds 'CAE' engines under its own PMA, and as CASA has stated, they are NOT 'Jabiru' engines (by legal definition of responsibility as the manufacturer).

 

Is the Camit engine a re hash of the original Jab design, with possible improvements? Broadly speaking, that is basically correct for CAMit -plated engines to date.

 

Is the Jab engine as used in the USA considered a safety risk? I am not aware that the FAA has placed any restrictions upon the operation of Jabiru engines.

 

Why is the Jab engine considered a risk in Australia, when CASA have stated that they have faith in Jabiru and also they cannot state what is wrong with the engines? We only have CASA's statements to work on.

 

People are always saying that Jabs are a risk. A fiend of mine stated quite openly that he wouldn't trust a Jab engine and was very scathing of them. Sadly he has passed away, possibly caused by the failure of another brand of engine.

 

The biggest problem at the moment is that CASA have screwed everyone and will continue to do so. This is only an entirely personal opinion, but I believe that CASA have also screwed themselves by not providing any measure by which they can say: 'Jabiru engine operational results has now satisfied us that these restrictions can now be lifted'. We are now five days away from the anniversary of the restrictions being imposed and there appears to be no end in sight. I believe that most people who have Jabiru engines and are on Jabiru's contact list will agree that Jabiru have substantially improved their communication and safety regime requirements, but there does not appear to be any indication from CASA that this is 'satisfactory' for the lifting of the restrictions.

 

CASA has still not publicly released the data that it stated was the foundation for the imposition of the restrictions in the first place. As far as I am aware, the ATSB has also not concluded its report on 'Research investigation into the reliability of light sport aeroplane engines' which was, I believe, slated to be completed by/in October 2015.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is very interesting view here - looks to me if one has a *Rotax * Camit or something else they will hot have engine failures, the only problem is with Jabiru.

 

I thought all engines have loss of power or failure not just Jabiru.

 

With a mind set like this there could be a false sense of security developing for all the non Jabiru powered aircraft.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is well to remember ALL ENGINES can FAIL and even the best won't keep going when the tank is empty...not selected or there is water in the fuel etc. Be mentally prepared for the noise to cease. Nev

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is very interesting view here - looks to me if one has a *Rotax * Camit or something else they will hot have engine failures, the only problem is with Jabiru.I thought all engines have loss of power or failure not just Jabiru.

 

With a mind set like this there could be a false sense of security developing for all the non Jabiru powered aircraft.

 

Regards

 

KP.

Keith, I don't think it is at all the position, at least for those enthusiastic about CAMit engines, that we maintain they won't / can't fail. However, what I do believe is that there are accepted areas for Jabiru engines where people have justifiable reservations about their propensity to fail under certain conditions and that any positive steps taken to improve their general 'robustness' cannot but be a good thing.

 

I will bet that someone like Keith Rule, whose expertise with Jab. engines is well-respected, could produce a list of things he believes could be done better and it would be most interesting to have Keith Rule 'evaluate' a CAMit engine - when the final spec. to be used for the CAE engine for certifying is determined - to get his reaction to the various changes made.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the most perfect lawnmower will get clogged up with grass cuttings and run hot, "someone" will find ways to negate CAMit or Jabirus newer engines, BUT If known problem areas are improved carefully, how could the outcome not be an improvement? Note that improved output is not the aim, but reliability, under in service conditions, which are not ideal conditions. The argument that any change can introduce more problems is most accurate when the outcome sought is extra power or money saving shortcuts. Nev

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a similarity between Jabiru and other aero engines. Camit are basicly building Jab engines with modifications and calling them Camit. in the US you can get engines practicly identical to Lycomong and Continental, built by other companies, who make claims that they are better. I think you can legally replace for example an O-360 Lycoming with an O-360 alternative make. you can also buy the alternative made engine and assemble it yourself.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but CAMIt built all jabiru motors. Certification rears it's (ugly and necessary sometimes) head and any non TSO'd part is bogus. If it has no genuine maintenence realease note with it. That's ok if all your work is "experimental". A certain number of well documented motors are certified as Jabiru still although affected by the actions of CASA. as to conditions of use. EVEN in experimental. Think about that.... You or anybody who adds a non certified part or any certified engine, or that hasn't complied with any appropriate AD's or is time expired is not airworthy. A certified engine spec remains fixed in time. You can't legally alter it to improve it without a great deal of paperwork. That's OK in some ways but a "dead hand" in others. Nev

 

 

  • 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...