Legal ??

[Russ]

ok....factory build 24 reg.....

 

Was hyd lifter, now changed to solid lifter. Is everything coatio here ??

 

 

[planesmaker]

Check with aircraft manufacturer, they are the ones to say yes or no.

 

 

[Oscar]

Russ - it depends on whether it is a 'C' reg. - meaning Certificated, according to compliance with a CASA-accepted international ICAO standard ( in the case of a J160C - BCAR S) plus a Part 21M engineer's approval of 'compliance' - or a 'D' model, Certified by Jabiru as ASTM compliant.

 

The differences are, in practical terms, negligible. There is NO difference in the airframe, the engine weight or performance etc. WHAT the difference is - is that in the case of the "C' - Certificated' model, a Part 21M engineer can certify that modifications comply with the standard under which the Certification was issued.

 

In the case of an ASTM Certified aircraft, it is the manufacturer's sole responsibility to determine whether any modifications are acceptable to IT - as the 'authority' responsible for the aircraft. Any individual manufacturer is not going to be routinely bothered with 'approving' a modification to its aircraft - since it would have to test and be assured that the modification is acceptable, in order to take the legal responsibility of having approved it. Some are: I know that Tecnam, for instance, has a very good approach to someone designing a fix for a problem to its aircraft, while Foxbat takes entirely, and somewhat aggressively, the opposite position ( though ultimately, Foxbat did improve the poorly-designed component..).

 

So: if you have a J 160C with an engine that does not correspond to the J160 TCDS, but that has a Part 21M engineer's certificate of compliance, you should be OK. However - the really stupidly mired MARAP initiative, has complicated even that process. CASA needs to be taken out and kicked ( again, there is a conga-line of kickers awaiting it) for obfuscating the MARAP procedure.

 

Your solid-lifter engine SHOULD be kosher. I'd happily - more happily - fly behind a CAMit engine than a Jabiru engine.

 

 

[Russ]

Thanks mate.......it's not a ( C ) ......just a 230, factory build

 

 

[Oscar]

Oh, bugger. Then, Jabiru has the entire say. A huge pity - a 230 with a CAMit six, would be just the duck's testicles for a great aussie general-use airplane. If I win Tatts, I'll do one in a heartbeat - or half of that.

 

 

[nong]

Thanks mate.......it's not a ( C ) ......just a 230, factory build

If so, then it is either "C" or "D".

 

 

[jetjr]

Pretty sure, Just to confuse, the 230 c and d are not certificated, the c and d are simply version name

 

You would need approval from Jabiru, not sure 230 ever came with solid lifter engine

 

 

[Russ]

In 2010 they didn't.

 

 

[jetjr]

If its a Jabiru built engine I cant see why there would be an issue.

 

If its CAE upgrades then your outside regs

 

Everything with LSA must be approved by manufacturer, even small option changes or upgrades fitted after sale

 

 

[Russ]

Jab went to hyd some yrs back, I can't see jab allowing you/me to rip out their system, and going to solid lifters again.......just sayin.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

....... not sure 230 ever came with solid lifter engine

I reckon they did....mine is a B model 230, which is kit....,but it was shipped with solid lifters in 2005. The PoH in mine identifies that the 230 comes (at the time) as a 230A and a 230B. A has an MTOW of 700Kg and was meant for VH. 230B has an MTOW of, at the time, 544kgs and was meant for RAAus. It identifies that both models were structurally tested to an MTOW of 700Kg's which I feel I might need to rely on shortly..... The description of the aircraft in the section of teh PoH that deals with my specific aircraft rather than the model itself, which is the W&B section, merely identifies the engine as a 3300 jabiru engine.....so, ignoring the right to do as I please by virtue of the 19 registration, if I was constrained by the documentation then I don't feel overly constrained by virtue that all the variants are at their base level called 3300 jabiru engines.....

 

Russ how is your aircraft described in the PoH and your registration details at RAAus, does it have engine serial numbers which define series, and or does it specify more closesly in the PoH? At the time that mine was built there was a major split in terms of old solids vs newer Hydraulic so it may be that the doco has tightened up....

 

I do note however that at renewal time we are sent an extract of registration data for the aircraft with the ability to correct any anomalies.......perhaps a S/No update is called for

 

Andy

 

 

[Russ]

Andy.....it's a 2010 factory build, I understood that era all hyd.

 

This 230 is for sale, so I'm gathering data, crossing "T's, and dotting I's" before I proceed further.

 

I queried owner, did he get camshaft changed as well, he says there was no need to ??

 

Chap has also fitted a 3 blade bolly.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

well then I would be asking for the owner to show me an extract of the registration details that RAAus holds and provided that the engine S/N fitted is aligned with what's reported then I cant see you can do much more than that....

 

If they are different then I'd not be proceeding until they are.. Same with Prop S/No and specified manufacturer... Is the Bolly prop a prop directly from Bolly, or is it one of the ones that Jab sold so in effect a Jab prop?

 

 

[Russ]

Andy.....engine serial number would be the same as orig ( assume ) the "internals are not "

 

 

[facthunter]

It would be rare that a camshaft for hydraulic lifters was no different from solid ones. There's real reasons for it. Nev

 

 

[Russ]

Ok.....both cams the same.

 

 

[frank marriott]

AFAIK 3 blade prop not approved LSA (19?)

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Yep that's how I understand it too.... and furthermore I would say the likelihood of J approving its use is somewhere close to the likelihood of winning Lotto...for someone who doesn't play

 

 

[Russ]

Thanks guys.....I think I'll give this one a miss. Can see things going pearshaped.........for me.

 

 

[jetjr]

Wouldnt run too fast, Jabiru will still sell you a rebuilt solid lifter and offer conversions too. They certainly havent dropped them and there are hundreds out there with possibly better outcomes than even current hydraulics, let alone fragile earlier hydraulic models. No reason it cant remain LSA if they approve.

 

The serial number story isnt clear cut with so many upgrades and changes. There is a series where they were upgraded to hydraulic and no new cam. It was a problem I recall.

 

With respect to owner, without key details about engine state and upgrade spec its a liability

 

Id suggest, through CASA's hamfisted action will eventually mean all Jabiru engines will need upgrading to current spec (which changes) to have limitations lifted. Buying a new engine will be cost effective.

 

Do you really need LSA for training or CTA? If not then LSA is a liability.

 

Id look seriously at a good 230, convert to E rego and look to fitting new CAE engine. Your free of limitations and have a engine with problems sorted.

 

All comes back o cost of aircraft and what you end up getting for your money. With current prices of Jab aircraft theres some good value to be had.

 

Definitely the 3B Bolly isnt allowed. Can go 2 blade Jabiru version though but its $2K I think.

 

With E reg you can go 2B Bolly which is the pick of all options in my opinion. Depending on 3B size it may just be a new hub.

 

 

[facthunter]

SAME camshaft? You might get away with it but it's not an optimum situation. WHO is your authority for it being OK? At one time it wasn't.

 

This should have followed # 16 post...Nev

 

 

[Russ]

It would be rare that a camshaft for hydraulic lifters was no different from solid ones. There's real reasons for it. Nev

Seems I've got sumin wrong here.

 

 

[jetjr]

No Russ you could be right, some odd things were done at various times especially early hydraulic versions

 

You're right Nev, but its one of the dopey things Jabiru have done over the years of engine development on the run.

 

Arguably the introduction of hydraulic lifters was another. It seems they may well be sorting out the issues now but thats 8-10 years of legacy engines with some level of uncertainty and the basis for limitations.

 

 

[facthunter]

They also got the cam contact OFF the edge of the follower in one situation. That should have been fairly easy to check before it went into service. The roller is a good idea if you can keep the weight down. Hydraulic lifters normally require stronger valve springs. If there is a choice I would run solid lifter with rollers and put up with the need to check tappet clearances. If the top cowl is easily removed, you can check them fairly quickly, and a changing figure alerts you to the fact something is not right. Ie valve stretching or seat recessing. You can also check for lack of a good seal at the cyl /head joint. Soapy water is used with gas fittings and should work with this motor. Do it at the time the compression is checked. Wash off after so it won't stain the motor when it gets hot. Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

totally agree, just did clearances yesterday, takes around 20 minutes or less and tells a lot about engine health

 

You have cowls and rockers open every 25 hrs anyway for head tension even on hydraulic engines. Both cowls off for 25 hr oil change. Its just not a big deal.

 

Cant really do it with just top cowl off, not enough room.

 

Im sure they can make hydraulic lifters work, plenty have before but changing something so significant in production engines isnt clever. Certainly spring pressures and oil system were not up to the job. Still changing specs today.