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  
Pindan

Jabiru 240 damage repair

Recommended Posts

Hi Everyone

 

IMG_0375.JPG.4890162f2dea4d6c48ae3770674b49c7.JPG

 

I recently ran my 230 of the runway on landing and did damage to the firewall where the nose wheel attaches and also ripped of the pilot’s side undercarriage leg.

 

Does anyone have any specs on the construction of the fuselage around the undercarriage leg mounting and details of how the plywood lower section of the firewall is epoxied to the fuselage.

 

I intend to cut out the lower ply section and replace it with new one which will need to be epoxied back to the fuselage and the remainder of the firewall.

 

The repair for the undercarriage leg will be a epoxy repair but there is some strengthening within the layers of fiberglass and I do not know how many layers Jabiru use in initial construction.

 

IMG_0342.JPG.7e6e86c9b7fd519ec5a8a5f76ab18c17.JPG

 

IMG_0344.JPG.1b19a82c5a790ed1d182d60b6c2c03f9.JPG

 

IMG_0399.JPG.8baee6e567cf8df2b49c88782ad7b414.JPG

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Everyone[ATTACH=full]52246[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]52247[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]52248[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]52249[/ATTACH]

 

I recently ran my 230 of the runway on landing and did damage to the firewall where the nose wheel attaches and also ripped of the pilot’s side undercarriage leg.

 

Does anyone have any specs on the construction of the fuselage around the undercarriage leg mounting and details of how the plywood lower section of the firewall is epoxied to the fuselage.

 

I intend to cut out the lower ply section and replace it with new one which will need to be epoxied back to the fuselage and the remainder of the firewall.

 

The repair for the undercarriage leg will be a epoxy repair but there is some strengthening within the layers of fiberglass and I do not know how many layers Jabiru use in initial construction.

Why not just ask Jabiru?

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Everyone[ATTACH=full]52246[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]52247[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]52248[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]52249[/ATTACH]

 

I recently ran my 230 of the runway on landing and did damage to the firewall where the nose wheel attaches and also ripped of the pilot’s side undercarriage leg.

 

Does anyone have any specs on the construction of the fuselage around the undercarriage leg mounting and details of how the plywood lower section of the firewall is epoxied to the fuselage.

 

I intend to cut out the lower ply section and replace it with new one which will need to be epoxied back to the fuselage and the remainder of the firewall.

 

The repair for the undercarriage leg will be a epoxy repair but there is some strengthening within the layers of fiberglass and I do not know how many layers Jabiru use in initial construction.

Maybe if you can get a busted whole piece; burn the resin out of it and you will be left with the layers of mat and their order of layup and the mat weight an type. If replacing only the lower section of ply are you doing a scarf join between the ply pieces. Ensure you get best advice assistance with the repair schedule. Post some pics of the work as it is educational.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did.............

 

I waited 4 weeks for them to come back with ....they would have to produce an repair schedule that would be estimated at $10000 and when asked if they could provide any detail of the original construction they refused

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to Blueadventures

 

I do not know what I am going to do yet. I did not start any cutting out or repairing yet as I wanted to understand the original construction in order to dismantle the sections correctly.

 

Your question of "a scarf joint between the pieces" is exactly the things I want to consider before I plug in the 9 " grinder......and start cutting.

 

It does look however when you shine light through the joint that the 2 pieces are just butted together and joined with a epoxy glass matting tape inside and outside. How many layers I do not know. Here is photo from inside.

 

Also the ply is bare on the outside but does seem to have a layer ( or more ) of matting internally

 

IMG_0363.JPG.5e9cbf9ce8489107d3b657fba8e924e2.JPG

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It might be worth a pm to @Oscar . I do believe he has repaired or is in the process of repairing a Jab airframe and I think he knows a bit about them (or at the very least would know where to get the right info you need)
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pindan,

 

There is a guy here in Perth that specializes in fiberglass work on aircraft. He did some fantastic work on a mates Glasair. If you want to PM me I will send you his contact details.

 

RE

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isnt that original work all done at factory - not many would have worked in here even kit builders.

 

Where do you stand with LSA status if you dont repair to manufacturer schedule

 

Its a serious repair so hope you know what you are doing.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isnt that original work all done at factory - not many would have worked in here even kit builders.Where do you stand with LSA status if you dont repair to manufacturer schedule

 

Its a serious repair so hope you know what you are doing.

Yes, be careful, if it's LSA you may void the C of A. I would refer to the Factory for guidance

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get yourself a a copy of the ac43.13-2b. Familiarise yourself with what needs to be done. It's probably not as easily done as you might think. It's not difficult to work out how many plies there are, but you still need the correct glass cloth, and resin, good surface prep knowledge and ideally some idea about vacuum bagging to get a sound result.

 

It's not impossible to do yourself, but I think it may be a much bigger task than you realise.

 

The harsh reality is that to remain compliant , you will at the very least need an approved repair scheme, that will need to come from an engineer, Jabiru or using the MARAP process, and good luck with the last one.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did.............I waited 4 weeks for them to come back with ....they would have to produce an repair schedule that would be estimated at $10000 and when asked if they could provide any detail of the original construction they refused

Did that repair schedule include the repair; if so, that's reasonable.

 

Don't try to do it yourself. There are compliance pitfalls as others have said, and this is almost the highest stressed part of the aircraft, so load bearing design skills are required.

 

Unless you're an experienced composites worker, you'll run into procesing difficulties apart from the design.

 

You're working in an area where 10 kg makes a significant difference to W&B, so it's not just a matter of sanding a taper and scarfing.

 

A secondary benefit with Jab doing it is that they can lay up repair sections in the mould, so it doesn't finish up looking like a pelican that's taken a few too many shotgun pellets.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No the repair schedule did not include the repair. They also quoted an additional 15k to transport the aircraft to the factory.

 

I understand the repair is structural so that is why I started this thread, in order to establish what options would be available.

 

It is the intention to move the aircraft from 24 rego to an E24.

 

The overall weight is not so important to me, I fly alone 99% of the time and have sufficient fuel stops on the way to Perth to be able to loose a few kg carrying capacity without effecting the use of the aircraft.

 

I don't see the repair adding more than a few kg which can be offset by additional counter balance in the tail to maintain a correct C of G.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No the repair schedule did not include the repair. They also quoted an additional 15k to transport the aircraft to the factory.I understand the repair is structural so that is why I started this thread, in order to establish what options would be available.

If you're up near Carnarvon, a whole lot of things change.

 

A lot of Jabs hqve run off runways, and you would think a lot of similar damage has occurred so I'm a little confused that a "repair schedule" is quoted at $10,000, unless that's flying someone Qantas from Bundaberg to Carnarvon, or Bundaberg - Gnaraloo. I would think and engineer would need to be involved to decide where to cut and the design of the new sections and repair specification.

 

I can understand the $15,000 to transport an aircraft to the factory without doing more damage.

 

It is the intention to move the aircraft from 24 rego to an E24.

 

These are the possibilities I can think of:

 

1.

 

Strip the unit back to the fuse, and remove parts that need to be out of the way for the repair.

 

The overall length of a J230 is 6550 mm spinner to vertical fin; the internal length of a 20'0" ISO Container is 5918 mm. You may get it in diagonally, or take the engineand fin off.

 

If you can get it into a 20' container in a wooden cradle and make it shakeproof, you can then look at normal transport operations down to Perth, backload rates to Melbourne, and Melbourne Bundaberg.

 

The shipping container provides security for the whole trip plus waiting time at the factory, which is just as important to the transport companies as it is to you.

 

Jab can then assess the repair as a local repair, and thatshould protect the registration status of the aircraft.

 

The skills and tools you need are mechanical, up on the station, so you can then look at flying someone up, or doing it yourself

 

2.

 

Organising the repair to be done at the Station and relicensing the aircraft, using suitably skilled engineering and process.

 

The skills are specialised, but flying someone up may be more economical than transporting the aircraft. It also may be possible to cut and sand the fues on site, then take the parts to Perth for processing.

 

The overall weight is not so important to me, I fly alone 99% of the time and have sufficient fuel stops on the way to Perth to be able to loose a few kg carrying capacity without effecting the use of the aircraft.I don't see the repair adding more than a few kg which can be offset by additional counter balance in the tail to maintain a correct C of G.

I was only concerned about the B (balance) part of W&B, but you are on it.

 

Good luck with it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point made about the desirability of access to the factory mould(s) is well taken, but from more than just cosmetic reasons.

 

The entire rigging of the aircraft necessitates accurate alignment of the primary structure, of which the front bulkhead and the lift-strut carry-through are critical members. The Jab. fuselage is effectively a tube (albeit a tapered one, so perhaps more correctly described as a 'cone'.) This example has damage to BOTH of those, so it is going to be hard, at the least, to ensure accurate end-to-end alignment from the bulkhead back to the tail-feathers without access to the assembly jig. Once the damaged section of the front bulkhead is cut out, the (already compromised) longitude accuracy of the 'cone' will be affected as it is no longer a 'sealed' tube (structurally speaking), and the damaged glass areas will tend to hold it out of alignment so setting up a temporary jig taken off the existing damaged airframe is fairly likely to simply reinforce the mis-alignment. If one had access to an undamaged 230 airframe, that would of course be easier.

 

Even a slight amount of twist in the 'cone' could introduce some nasty effects. For a start, you could get a change in the engine offset angles (both horizontal and vertical would be affected). A minute change in the relationship between the lift-strut pick-up points would change the wing downflow over the tail, possibly leading to unbalanced flying at cruise ( not trimming straight and level..) and a tendency for the thing to break harder in a stall in one direction vs. the other.

 

Then, there is the possible question of a requirement to at least proof-test the repairs to manufacturer's specs. It is worth watching:

 

to see the complexity of the rig (which had calibrated test instrumentation).

It is not impossible to do that, if you know what you are doing. But it IS complex to achieve.

 

I replaced the fin and rudder on my aircraft, to a repair scheme provided by Alan Kerr (the gentleman in the blue shirt seen in the referenced video). Rod Stiff not only provided me with a new fin and rudder ( at 'mates rates'- many thanks to him, but there is a long history behind that that goes back to the original LSA55 development) but blessed the upgrade from the original LSA55 fin and rudder to the UL/J120 version. It was NOT a trivial exercise!

 

Alan provided a 'proof-test' scheme designed for the level of a competent 'back-yard' workshop. I should add, that he knows my level of competence rather well.

 

This is the 'backyard' test arrangement that reproduces, with sufficient accuracy, that undertaken by the complex test mechanism you can see in operation from about 1:40 to 2:30 in the referenced video:

 

Testrig2.jpg.26fd86137860a59aa7d3f6ff0df06963.jpg

 

That arrangement is a 'whiffle-tree' that applies the load ( around 73kgs at the primary load-point, FYI) correctly across the whole of the fin structure. Despite the fact that it looks totally 'bush-mechanic' ( the load is water in containers, validated by double-weighing and water volume), it meets a very tight standard of loading specification ( and I am happy to say, met it NO WORRIES). But the major point is: without a scheme for loading provided by the guy who DID the testing for Jabiru, it wouldn't have demonstrably met squat.

 

Now, think of the test mechanism that would be needed to be developed to meet the standards of the factory tests shown in the referenced video. You are talking loads of WAY over 70kgs, needing to be not just applied but also reacted out correctly. Personally, I wouldn't try it.

 

Alan Kerr will tell you - and his is the definitive opinion, not just an idle comment - that ANYTHING on a Jabiru is repairable, due to its simple and durable construction. He will ALSO tell you ( I speak from personal experience) that the real issue is always: 'is it economic to do it?'

 

The actual glass work is not all that difficult: the resin is Araldite LC3600 ( I enthusiastically recommend CG Composites in Brisbane as suppliers), the 'glass is readily available - but you absolutely need to know WHAT 'glass, and WHAT lay-up schedule: what weights, weave, weave orientation. Also, whether there is Coremat in the lay-up. Jabs are 'ambient cure' ( the ambient needs to be around 24C), so it IS possible.

 

On the figures quoted by the OP, I personally think I would be going for a bare 230 fuselage from Jabiru and transferring all my good bits to that. The end result should be a 230 worth all of its real value, and a heap less angst.. An EL-restricted 230 will be worth a lot less.

 

And I say that from the POV of a fanatic about doing it myself, for around the last 50 years.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading all of this, I am so glad that I built a Zenith CH701 because when I damaged the firewall, nose gear and forward fuselage, repair was a simple, if time consuming, matter of fabricating the requisite new parts in accordance with the plans and then reassembling.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire tone of Pindans approach is one of major concern over cost. My approach would be, that if one is prepared to do ones own major, structural, fuselage repairs - in a less than favourable environment, and without access to factory skills, design knowledge, and appreciation of the risks involved - then one is immediately placing a very low value on ones own life.

 

In other words, if you're prepared to try and do major structural repairs on the cheap, and then fly in the machine, you obviously have little fear of dying. Any pax you carry, may have a different view to you, of the value of their life.

 

Jabiru's refusal to provide any details of the original construction to assist with your pastoral station repair, is quite understandable, and no other company would be any different.

 

They are protecting themselves from a potentially massive legal liability by not providing information that could be then be used in a courtroom later, after a major or fatal crash.

 

Oscars suggestion of a new bare fuselage sounds like the most satisfactory repair route. The damage shown in the photos is substantial, by anyones measure.

 

Alternatively, a professional repair in an aviation-skilled workshop in Perth, is possibly the next best scenario.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The entire tone of Pindans approach is one of major concern over cost. My approach would be, that if one is prepared to do ones own major, structural, fuselage repairs - in a less than favourable environment, and without access to factory skills, design knowledge, and appreciation of the risks involved - then one is immediately placing a very low value on ones own life.In other words, if you're prepared to try and do major structural repairs on the cheap, and then fly in the machine, you obviously have little fear of dying. Any pax you carry, may have a different view to you, of the value of their life.

 

Jabiru's refusal to provide any details of the original construction to assist with your pastoral station repair, is quite understandable, and no other company would be any different.

 

They are protecting themselves from a potentially massive legal liability by not providing information that could be then be used in a courtroom later, after a major or fatal crash.

 

Oscars suggestion of a new bare fuselage sounds like the most satisfactory repair route. The damage shown in the photos is substantial, by anyones measure.

 

Alternatively, a professional repair in an aviation-skilled workshop in Perth, is possibly the next best scenario.

I'm a bit curious why the insurance doesn't cover repair costs?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ derekliston After reading all this.....I wish I had learned to land properly.........hehe @onetrack Sorry I have to disagree with you regarding my approach. If it was solely over cost I would not be on here to try to find out OPTIONS that may be available, I would just of cut the bad bits out and replaced them. Noting about this will be cheap but there are many ways to make the repair more cost effective. Jabiru did not suggest a new fuselage they were going to repair it. Who knows after I have gathered the many different and no doubt confliction opinions I hope to receive on this forum I might decide not to go ahead with the repairs and scrap the aircraft.
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Round Engines

 

I cant seem to PM you for the contact details of the repairer in Perth, if it is aviation composites I am already in contact with them.

 

Thanks

 

 

  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a bit curious why the insurance doesn't cover repair costs?

Good point Derek....Pindan,do you carry Hull Insurance ?.......

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did have hull insurance but the insurance wrote it off as unenomical to repair. I am very remote on the west coast so transport played a major factor in the repair cost.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am very remote on the west coast so transport played a major factor in the repair cost

Yep, can't help but agree with that, after having stayed at Gnaraloo in July. That 75kms of road between Quobba and Gnaraloo must rate as the worst piece of road in Australia today, and you'd need to build a specially-shock-protected crate, to protect the hull from damage, if it goes out and back, by road.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No the repair schedule did not include the repair. They also quoted an additional 15k to transport the aircraft to the factory.I understand the repair is structural so that is why I started this thread, in order to establish what options would be available.

If you're up near Carnarvon, a whole lot of things change.

 

A lot of Jabs hqve run off runways, and you would think a lot of similar damage has occurred so I'm a little confused that a "repair schedule" is quoted at $10,000, unless that's flying someone Qantas from Bundaberg to Carnarvon, or Bundaberg - Gnaraloo. I would think and engineer would need to be involved to decide where to cut and the design of the new sections and repair specification.

 

I can understand the $15,000 to transport an aircraft to the factory without doing more damage.

 

It is the intention to move the aircraft from 24 rego to an E24.

 

These are the possibilities I can think of:

 

1.

 

Strip the unit back to the fuse, and remove parts that need to be out of the way for the repair.

 

The overall length of a J230 is 6550 mm spinner to vertical fin; the internal length of a 20'0" ISO Container is 5918 mm. You may get it in diagonally, or take the engineand fin off.

 

If you can get it into a 20' container in a wooden cradle and make it shakeproof, you can then look at normal transport operations down to Perth, backload rates to Melbourne, and Melbourne Bundaberg.

 

The shipping container provides security for the whole trip plus waiting time at the factory, which is just as important to the transport companies as it is to you.

 

Jab can then assess the repair as a local repair, and thatshould protect the registration status of the aircraft.

 

The skills and tools you need are mechanical, up on the station, so you can then look at flying someone up, or doing it yourself

 

2.

 

Organising the repair to be done at the Station and relicensing the aircraft, using suitably skilled engineering and process.

 

The skills are specialised, but flying someone up may be more economical than transporting the aircraft. It also may be possible to cut and sand the fues on site, then take the parts to Perth for processing.

 

The overall weight is not so important to me, I fly alone 99% of the time and have sufficient fuel stops on the way to Perth to be able to loose a few kg carrying capacity without effecting the use of the aircraft.I don't see the repair adding more than a few kg which can be offset by additional counter balance in the tail to maintain a correct C of G.

I was only concerned about the B (balance) part of W&B, but you are on it.

 

Good luck with it.

 

 

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...