jetboy

Yes same here starts well on Lh and cranks for some time on rh before starting . Now for something completely different has any one wired 2 cht probes to the one guage Lh/rh rear cylinder through a switch ?

but you have to be specific about this

depends on the type of gauge

is it floating - with respect to airframe electrically?

or are the probes floating (electrically insulated)?

is the gauge powered / amplified or energised directly by the current from the thermocouple?

The switch must select both wires - from each of the probes

The switch must be a suitable low resistance type if the non-powered gauge type is used.

Seeing its a Jabiru we are talking about, dont have to worry too much about the cold junction, or the accuracy of the probes

The MT410 series is a good enough unit there are smaller ones but they probably dont float.

You have to be mindful that when 7 years battery is up the official response is $280

There are reports of them setting off if moisture gets inside but thats only if used for tramping etc

if this happens they need disassembling and batteries disconnect to shut up - and another $280...

Mines stayed in its carry bag for 7 yrs and no problems.

A mk1 with 1600 is almost an Escort Mexico which i wish I'd bought back in the day. Ended up with a plain 1.3 mk2 - which i'd rate better than average of the Brit cars at the time. talking Vauxhal Chevette, Hilmans, Rovers and the like....or an Austin Kimberly. Mate had a Mini K - seemed the best of Minis.

Sure, my gearbox blew up all on its own, electrics by The Prince Of Darkness, and it burnt a valve just after warranty - but none of this cost more than $20 to fix.

In relation to choice of aircraft, consider how the plane is to be operated. if your familiar with a Kent engine, you'll be better placed to do your own work on a Jabiru. Of course you may very well have to. If you just want the plane to fly, dont know or care to maintain it, prefer someone else to take care of all that and just pay the bills, then 912 engines are good for that role. But stories of 5yrly mandatory hose replacements and $1200 for an ignition box when a Jab one costs $120 are things to consider.

Joe, the 2210 parts will not be useable on 2200 or 3300 engines. Because the cylinder and head fastening methods are different for starters.

Its unclear whether Jabiru will resume 2200 / 3300 production or introduce the -10 variants instead.

The other derivatives are Camit, ULPower and D-motor. Each has significant differences, like you say getting that information is hard. Watching their websites over a period of time does help form a picture of where theyre at. Although it might be nice to have clearance cutouts in the Camit pistons I gather its not as essential compared to the scenario that exists with Jabiru hydraulic lifters pumping up. With solid lifter engines if a valve sticks it often returns on its own without damage however the pushrod can fall off the rocker meaning loss of power to that cylinder until corrected. Piston cutouts would make no difference in this case and maybe the reason they are not introduced on Camit engines. Its not clear if the cutouts have adverse effects on detonation etc. also.

Could RAA be better served with the NZ part 103 solution?

It was based on the Canadian Advanced Ultralight system with acceptance of BCAR 'S' and French definitions coming in later.

The reasoning for the rules was "low inertia" and low risk to others / property due to flight restrictions.

http://www.caa.govt.nz/rules/Part_103_Brief.htm

http://www.caa.govt.nz/Advisory_Circulars/AC103_1.pdf

Registration is with CAA like any other aircraft as is the first flight permit inspection after that all things are handled by one of the 3 part 103 organisations. The craft must continually meet the design rule specifications for which they were accepted under and be maintained per the requirements of the operating manuals. The organisations can approve mods where that is allowed under the design rule. Part 103 does not include experimentals, small GA, LSA or hire / reward operations - which are covered under another rule and done with LAME maintenance.

I dont think many could operate under the old rule - called CASO 19, it limited empty weight to 150 kg and had a minimum wing area.

My 701 took a while to get fully used to - mainly the change in nose pitch with any sudden application / reduction in power

A pilot here whos had one a lot longer wrote this

http://www.acomodata.com/zenair701/index.htm

not covered in this article is later (1100 lbs) 701 has less flap extension - which might be a good thing

You should deliberately overcharge it, and if that produces no faults, deplete it with a continuous starter motor load.

If the battery has the cell monitoring wires available, a voltage check of each would be useful. They become hazardous if the cell voltages get out of range during overdischarge or overcharge, thats why most systems, both Lipo and LiFeP04 are said to require cell balancing during operation or cell conditioning at least periodically.

We've had a large Lipo pack built recently for an offroad EV and installed a BMS (Battery management System) in the battery case for this. the prototype battery has run perfectly well without any BMS or conditioning system applied and cell voltages are still perfectly matched.

https://app.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/boeing_787/UL/NTSB_Presentation_at_UL_Battery_Summit.pdf

yes this is just the ordinary Lipo system not LiFeP04 which is a safer type of lipo battery which you have. so the things to test for is its ability to fail through overcharge or overdischarge which would be common with a Jabiru regulator/ dynamo system if BMS is not used

and whether a battery meltdown is bad enough to make a fibreglass fire take hold

leave the guns and knives tests to mythbusters

Seeing we are way off topic, how is this.....aren't Rotax engines limited to ?? Max hrs before TBO, and or ?? Yrs in service.Just asking.

In addition, you will see that manufacturers operation limitations are much the same as the CASA instrument applies to Jabs:

Most operators are already factoring for a top @ 500 and a new core @ 1000 hrs anyway. These random failures dont seem to be wear related so whats the point in requiring a wear check early? and flying schools - if any left - would have to be tearing engines out every 10 months or so for nothing. CASA have no idea what the cause is or which engines or operating conditions have these failures. The instrument was put in place to allow limited operation to continue while they study the matter. When the cause and cure is known, we will be told the corrective action. It might mean certain parts to be replace, or indeed more frequent or extensive overhauls. I estimate a top overhaul would cost me $5,000 for my 2200 and double that for a full. It is solid lifter running 100/130 Avgas. I dont think doing overhauls twice as frequently will remove the likelihood of flywheel bolts, thrubolts or cylinder cracking. If these things are breaking, they often break before 200 hrs. If they dont break by then, they likely last the distance without trouble. So to avoid doubt, one could do an inspection every 180 hrs. Or follow the latest Jabiru inspection process. If you feel the J230 will be better by doing it then thats your choice.

My view is CASA should have suspended the type certificates for the engine. I'm in NZ so not directly affected by the ruling - thats just my idea of how it 'should' have been acted on. Its not over until the fat lady sings.

Ian, if it were that simple...there'd be a lot more certified / certificated engines around. However, all of the techniques you have mentioned will be used, but there is still a huge amount of data analysis to be done. The cost estimates were prepared by two of the most experienced aero-engineers in Australia (both of whom have experience in engine certification, btw, which is extremely rare in this country). Absolutely nobody will be getting rich from this exercise (except maybe CASA..).

Some of this certification stuff is a bit confusing to me.The certification process requires the on-site presence of CASA engineering staff at a gazillion dollars per hour with most of that being spent doing either nothing much or hardly anything. This is century 21 and video is soooo easy to generate in large quantities and data is sooo easy to log in vast quantities. So one might work on the idea that the process is all videoed (from as many angles as you want) plus all operational data (T's, P's, RPM, phases of the moon etc) is gathered at 5-second intervals. CASA take all of that and look for anything strange in it ... it would not be hard to sift out any bits of data that look a bit strange and go to the video to find out more. Assuming the results are unexceptional, two people should be able to knock that off in a couple of days. Even public servants with smoko/lunch breaks .... To keep people happy there could be the odd random auditing visit on site.

 

If there are fifty sessions of two hours, then someone could check out an uneventful session in about 15 minutes. Hence my two man-days estimate.

 

Over the years there have been a number of changes - hydraulic lifters, flywheel attachment, through bolt stuff, change ignition coils and probably more that I don't know about. Some of these would appear quite significant. One assumes the engine certification did not have to be redone from scratch (?). So there must be a point at which the post-mod engine becomes a "new" one and we (presumably) aren't there yet.

 

So if Jabiru took some/all of the Camit changes (and the Stiff/Bent differences were resolved), how hard would it be to call the result a "Jabiru 2200/3300"?

Ian, if it were that simple...there'd be a lot more certified / certificated engines around. However, all of the techniques you have mentioned will be used, but there is still a huge amount of data analysis to be done. The cost estimates were prepared by two of the most experienced aero-engineers in Australia (both of whom have experience in engine certification, btw, which is extremely rare in this country). Absolutely nobody will be getting rich from this exercise (except maybe CASA..).

There has been only 2 issues of type certificate for the 2200.

The first one, and then the change to hydraulic lifters.

If CASA think there is something wrong with the recent crop of engines, they should suspend the type certificate. Or revoke it if they can prove all the engines have an unforseen and uncorrected design flaw.

It does not appear they are required to re-test for every little or big change that is made to the engine, under the guise of "continual product development"

ASTM compliance was self declared for only the later versions of 2200 and 3300

They continue to self declare compliance. its up to ASTM to clip their wings if the product is non compliant.

Now for another angle: in the USA, a parts manufacturer can become approved to make replacement parts for engines, as in FAA-PMA status.

That same manufacturer can also apply for an STC - Supplementary Type Certificate - in order to make and fit modifications to any certified engine or aircraft.

Is this process possible under CASA?

They dont need the original makers approval. (unlike ASTM, which is so tricky in the case of the original manufacturer going bust or being uncooperative - that youd have to be very cautious about buying / running anything ASTM which doesnt have another design rule conformance to fall back on)

Superior Air Parts and / or Mattituck in the USA built "Lycomings" in this way - pretty much a carbon copy (but better)

I'd rather Camit didnt spend any money getting approvals for an engine that wont be approved by Jabiru anyway, under ASTM.

Because it needlessly increases the price of the engine for the rest of us. I may need one soon. My J2200a has done 482 hrs. I will not be overhauling it.

heres a photo of the different bolts

http://www.jabiruworkshop.com/through-bolts/

As long as you do not under drive them ( keep load on the prop) and keep T5 in the green so it don't snuff out the flame and no neg G so the oil press stays positive they can be run in any attitude all day long. Garrets weak spot is their gear box. Seems P&Ws halo has slipped a bit over the last couple years with the PT6 but there are a hell of a lot flying now. Along with the King Airs Twin Otters Caravans Porters there are now the PC12 and Kodiak on the market and the number grows every day. Maybe that affects the production and the law of averages.Other than the pilot driving NMV up a drain pipe the only other problem we have had with our 'van was the FCU trying to snuff out at 4 grand when it went out of trim.

There was also the air ambo PC12 flaming out at not over Perth while back. Still rather fly behind a turbine than a piston engine any day.

TV1 report last night talked about 'a loud bang, engine slowing down, lots of sparks up front and prop stopped' They decided it was 'quieter than normal so time to go'

Although the footage of the engine coming out of the water had the blades twisted back and round a fair bit

Spose we will wait the 18 mnths for the report

That's 2 XL750's down in NZ of recent times, fortunately nobody was killed in this one. Dare I ask how long before CASA makes a statistical "analysis" regarding these aircraft in jump ops in Oz?

Mike,

just reading this thread for first time - there is some discussion of similar nature here at moment

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/zenith-ch-701-thread.5964/page-21

The 701 does have plans with the option of folding wings, not easy because a fair amount of defuelling is needed and most people - even with Avid Flyers and kitfox types which are super easy to fold / unfold - usually dont bother to fold. I think the trailerable / folding wing aspect is something thats attractive to have until you get setup with a home base - which can be as simple as a polyester tarp over pipe arches type shed (which I built for about same cost as the 701 folding option would have) not forgetting that if one is prepared to remove seatcovers etc. after flight and regularly wash any grime off then models like Savannah and Zenair are OK parked outside.

Ralph

Does it come with Jabiru mounts?

Kenaviator asked (post 1485):

" How many flywheel bolt failures have there been since the upgrades were introduced? Are these failures happening to both solid lifter and hydraulic lifter engines?"

 

Again Ross, Are you able to provide an answer from the RAA files? I assume that as you raised these failures in post #1480 today you must have some facts that you could share?

This I know:

failures were becoming notable by 2006. By the end of 2006, The UK repair agents had changed bolt installation procedure to loctite and torque=30 ft-lbs. their problems first came to light on aircraft with a coarse pitch composite propeller. BMAA did vibration tests with various props and using mogas and avgas. the vibrations were different for each, "significantly it showed the vibration differed with the change of fuel"

In NZ there had been 3 failures - one reportedly with an over heavy (non standard) prop, and 2 to an installation that included a non-Jab prop extension fitting.

This had prompted Rex Kenny of CAA to visit CASA and Jabiru about getting a fix and resulted in an AD for NZ engines.http://www.caa.govt.nz/Airworthiness_Directives/Airworthiness_Directives_Engines.htm

Similarly RAANZ were looking into it for their members along with an engineering firm who had now reworked about 20 engines with flywheel bolts torqued to 40 ft-lb. The RAANZ report and supporting data is conveniently here. http://contrails.free.fr/engine_jab_bolts.php

To the present situation: Yes there have been bolts breaking on new engines with starfish, on engines with dowels, on engines maintained by LAME, on engines owned by the dealer, etc. Point is, most of these would be torqued to the Jabiru engine specs, either because they had to, or didnt know about or consider "UK" or "RAANZ" method. I'm not aware of any "nonstandard" maintained engines, fed & watered with correct fuel and prop loads, dowels or not, giving trouble.

For clarity: NZ avgas is only available in 100/130 grade (green) Is this what is being used in Australia?

What I hope to come from this new CASA awakening: the finite point engineering analysis done by Jabirus consultants on this joint and the reasons why the fix was justified. They produced this type of data within 2 weeks for the Raaus over the head cracks so they must have similar thoughts about flywheels, throughbolts etc.

Ralph

IF you have two different weights you could get away with orientating then in opposite positions. Ie for the FOUR cyl horizontally opposed, have both rear or both front cylinders the same weight pistons. Nev

I was asking if there could be a future issue due to these lighter pistons regarding piston rocking/slap effects due to the cutouts being in different sides on the different pistons. Of course if this was an issue then all pistons could be flycut on both sides.

Jabiru seem to be desperate to lower the compression ratio anyway. So long as there are no hot spots created on the crowns due to this.

ralph

Dmech,

are the old type pistons the same (offset) etc? I'm about to put new rings in (@500 hrs) which is an opportunity to consider this (depending on what else needs to happen)

also is there any effect in your model with regards to the flycut pistons - is the weight imbalance (and one bank of pistons has that imbalance on the opposite side) of any significance?

Ralph

Received a reply today from CASA in relation to my invited submission on the proposed draft document.In part below.

Sounds like they are on the front foot. IMHO

 

CASA has been looking at data and reports about Jabiru piston-engine failures for some time. In the course of that review, problems related to Jabiru engines that have stood out range from full and partial power loss and in-flight engine shutdowns, to rough running and oil leaks. CASA has identified more than 40 Jabiru engine problems and events that have occurred in 2014 alone.

 

Mechanical problems that have been identified by Jabiru include through bolt, valve and cylinder, and fly-wheel bolt failures. The contribution of particular kinds of operations (for example, student training) and maintenance-related factors to some of these failures has yet to be determined.

 

Jabiru, as the manufacturer of these engines, has certain obligations under the relevant International Standards, and civil aviation safety legislation in terms of the identification and rectification of such engine problems irrespective of when they occurred or what may have caused them, and CASA is working with Jabiru to arrive at a solution.

 

Phil.

"There is a lot of information not available to the operators. its only taken a couple of weeks for Jabiru to check and give engineering analysis on the RA cracked heads issue, so the info is there but not shared unless it suits the situation.

When the SB for throughbolts appeared, they also published AVDAL SR050 and later AVDAL SR071

Where are the other 70 AVDAL SRs, and the "advisory engine bulletins" - I have seen #17 and #18 (dec. 2010) - but what about the other 16?

The missing bulletins might be all trivial but what is in them?"

-and have CASA been looking at those too?

Ralph

There is a lot of information not available to the operators. its only taken a couple of weeks for Jabiru to check and give engineering analysis on the RA cracked heads issue, so the info is there but not shared unless it suits the situation.

When the SB for throughbolts appeared, they also published AVDAL SR050 and later AVDAL SR071

where are the other 70 AVDAL SRs, and the "advisory engine bulletins" - I have seen #17 and #18 (dec. 2010) - but what about the other 16?

The missing bulletins might be all trivial but what is in them?

People suggest removing the dynamo assembly and replacing it with a belt driven alternator, seems a good idea, but is it really going to reduce cyclic loads to the flywheel bolt assembly? The ignition magnets are mounted offset on the ali flywheel plate, so might flail about more with firing pulses in the rotation of that assembly? Might the dynamo magnets and frame have a dampening role here - where removal changes the situation? Jabiru must have done the analysis when designing the starfish - even though that analysis didnt affect the outcome - similarly they must have a lot of reasons to change the throughbolts, but not telling how they reached those conclusions.

We do know from recent issues of Jaba Chat, the reasons for staying with the single carb and I accept that information - no point waiting around for an official version with EFI - there are aftermarket kits for this or the alternate engines that branched from the J2200 design - the ULpower, D-motor and CAE. Which is OK for me as I'm allowed a choice. I suppose if the aircraft category permits no mods, users are stuck with whats officially available.

TP the valve I saw most recently from a failure was bent/broken at the neck. It had a fairly straight break without obvious signs of necking, erosion, radialcracking or the like. the valvehead didnt look overheated. If it was my engine I'd say the valve probably stuck and got slammed by the piston, which broke and bent the conrod. Owner has a different theory.

Another engine nearby me was apparently sticking valves when I got asked to help out. It would start and run rough. Found #4 pushrod had slipped sideways from cup and got stuck under the rocker, leaving the valve permanently shut. (got to be better than permanently open) This happened for about 4 repairs 3 involving cleaning/reaming the guide etc. and he gave up and put Rotec water heads on

None of these had hydraulic lifters, and have not had any throughbolt issues

I've decided to replace exhaust valves around 250 hrs intervals - and will be getting the original type with the halfround collet grips not the squarecut cheaper sourced ones they run nowdays

TBO is a nominal figure that the manufacturer decides for maintainence schedule purposes and as time in service of the design increases they gather enough data to revise that figure. For example, Continental O-200 came out with 600 hr TBO which was extended to 1800 hrs eventually. Mine had never got more than 900 hrs on a cylinder without removal and rework, over its 30 yr history. The average time for a pot to be removed was 500 hrs, according to the logs.

MTBF is unrelated and based on an actual failure rate experienced by something, averaged over the number of those items in service.

It could be quite a large time, but for any individual engine might be a very short time.

If the MTBF is getting shorter, there has to be an explanation as to the changes that have been made to the product or its operation.

Is it just me or are the maintenance instructions screwed (as always)

I mean there is a new JSB18-3 on the website which cancels all previous carb tuning instructions and refers to the current maintenance and current overhaul instructions, which I just downloaded and read the whole way thru - and it seems to say the carb tuning instructions of JSB18 are to be followed

Who dreams up this stuff?

because none of the engines coming out of Bundaberg right now have been in the field a significant amount of time, you'd be best to go visit the two outfits making engines there and make up your own mind.

I've only seen a recent 3300 here out of Camit and it seems to make sense to me. I'm constantly considering the same question in relation to my J2200 which is the ole solid lifter model but I've had no reason to look for a replacement yet however based on the problem rate with all versions of hydraulic lifters I wont be choosing anything from that line.

Short answer: same as long version = talk to Ian, I think he has a different opinion about the versatility of fine fins and overheating. Alloy specification might be more important.

As a newcomer here to educate myself on the J230D, I'm posting this not to resurrect the slanging match as it's been called, but rather to post what I gather from having read the entire thread and to express appreciation for info contained herein.What I gather about the Jabiru 3300:

 

- Requires meticulous attention to CHT and strict adherance to operating practices that manage them (cht's), i.e. climb @ no less than 90kt

 

- Is not a mature engine design and improvements are needed

 

- 13.2 Update History Table of the overhaul manual (25 June 2014 rev) indicates head design is evolving in attempt to address CHT (fine fin heads, etc)

 

Things such as Rotec Aerosport's liquid cooled heads at first sound like a "no-brainer" but then you're adding complexity (coolant pump) and weight. And of course that could only be done if aircraft is moved into the experimental category at which point you become your own warranty as well as your own liability insurance.

 

My question might be, what is thought by those who have posted here, of the state of the 3300's coming out of Bundaberg right now, serial numbers above #2539 with all the updates to the head design and with the roller lifters and cam, etc. I realize that these engines may not have been in the field long enough to form opinions as to whether some of the purported reliability issues have been successfully addressed, but I have to ask anyhow as I am, at this time, in the factory new market not pre-owned.

 

Short version: Are brand new 3300's likely to be less prone to the overheat problems discussed in this thread?

Carbs are prone to fuel flow issues:

The rubber tip float needle valves can become non sealing leading to float overflow (look for signs of fuel venting the float hoses)

with this you get too rich mixture at the full throttle end

The crankcase pulse fuel pump may need checking see that its getting the pulses and both lines are not getting air bubbles into them

with this you get leaning out of one carb

I liked my 503s, the model is in demand again as nothing better is available new