Oscar

I can only say - as a supporter of Jabiru - that certain parts of that message are hypocrisy of the first order. The second paragraph is Trump-esque in its disconnection with the truth.. If one is classically Chinese, one would say that there is a special Hell being prepared for its author. As to the rest: as a Jabiru owner I can only hope it is basically true.

AFAIK, it was one of the batch of 5,000 that Rod had made in China. The ones with the circlip groove machined off centre, that needed re-machining, that then made the standard circlips less than optimal and the replacement circlips were of crap quality and many failed on installation.. There was a Jabiru Service Bulletin about the circlips and how to install them so as not to reduce their tension capability - which would not have been necessary if the re-machined circlip grooves mandated circlips stressed beyond their reasonable loading for installation.

gw - I assume that you mean: show me evidence of any CAMit engines that have been fitted then removed? And I also assume - because I know you keep your ear to the ground - that it's a rhetorical question - and very fair. AFAIK, there have been three CAE-plated engines with problems. The first, was the one installed in NZ, that failed and had the celebrated stuff-up take-off from a beach. The failure there, was a kinked fuel delivery line that shut off the fuel; when re-routed, the engine fired up happily enough for the pilot to drive it into the surf.. The second, was failure of the oil lines to the oil cooler: Chinese line that burst. CAMit re-built that engine at no cost to the owner... though the offending Chinese hose was nothing to do with CAMit. The third, was a piston collapse - of a Jabiru-supplied piston with very few hours on it, included in a CAMit re-build of a Jab. engine at the owner's request to save $$. I have first-hand knowledge that Ian Bent did not demand of his customers that they meet his specs., but was happy to deliver to them an engine to their requirements. I HAVE one such engine, so I speak with first-hand experience.. If anybody has direct experience of CAMit engine problems, "let them speak now - or forever hold their peace" - to use a phrase that we all know. As a supporter of CAMit, I think it is very valid that ALL of the owner experiences should be bought out; that allows potential customers to make their own informed decisions. And if that seems ingenuous at this time: I sincerely hope that CAMit will rise from its ashes and that its history will encourage future customers to buy CAMit.

CAMit heads were a different - and thermally better - material. Valve seats and guides for the Exhaust valve, were far improved.

The Rotec heads were a good idea in concept, but do have the problem of introducing a new mode of failure to the engine: that being, the electric water pump. The Davies-Craig pump they use (or used, they may have changed?) had somewhat of a reputation for unreliability and not wonderful performance; very few people put them on their cars and some I know who did, got rid of them quite quickly. It also negates the ability of the engine to run without electric power, which is a fundamental requirement under a lot of standards. It's fair to say that Jabiru themselves introduced new problems with the early iteration of Hydraulic tappets. CAMit's developments have never introduced 'new' problems, as far as I am aware (if anybody has different information, I'm happy to accept that if it is properly founded). That takes a lot more thought, research, design care, development and testing than just bolting on something new - particularly when it has to fit an existing 'package'.

Absolutely correct, and Ian Bent knew that. However, I think Jabiru has made a grave error of long-term judgement in the way in which it has handled its relationship with CAMit; there are many customers with Jab. engines who will NOT be pleased at being forced to buy the new engine prematurely because the parts supply has dried up. It won't be as simple as dropping the new engine in; installations will have to be modified and 're-tuned' for satisfactory cooling and intake changes. Sue Woods's comment that they will just find new suppliers is ingenuous - at best. Suppliers will have to meet not only the cost of development of the CNC programming for new parts, but also obtaining inventory of raw material stock in small quantities and the implementation of specific QA systems to meet the standards. All things that CAMit had amortised over thousands of engines and in no small part had contributed to the 'Joint Venture' nature of the original relationship between the two companies. I have the terrible feeling that Jabiru is betting the farm on the new engine. There are quite a few people fairly close to the action, who would know that that is at best - on history of its development - not a bet that prudence would endorse.

Mark: nobody knows whether CAMit is in receivership, or has shut down while still solvent, to regroup. Also, the details of the IP agreement are unknown. Too soon to make prognostications.

I have always been a dedicated supporter of Jabiru - but all I have to say about that story, is that Sue Woods must hope that Karma is no more than an urban myth. There is SO MUCH backstory that may one day come out - but Sue's comments are a complete abrogation of the truth of the circumstances that has lead to this situation.. Of all the comments that might be applied - I believe that 'cutting off one's nose to spite one's face' is the most apposite. I leave it to others to consider to whom my comment applies.

Jw - not trying to pick any fight here! The 'rules' for testing, do not require running flat bikkies for three days. More power to Jabiru if they have done that - as a test for their own satisfaction. BUT: the test regime has been developed as a test for use in real life conditions - and NO engine runs for three days 'flat bikkies'. A typical flight pattern is: start-up - warm up - taxi out - full power/max revs. for Vy climb for maybe 5 minutes - cruise power for a period - descent power for 5 minutes or so - taxi -in - shut off. It's not just running at max. revs. It's also about thermal loading conditions, load, period of transition through difficult harmonics etc. Just spinning an engine at max. revs does not replicate all of those. I have spent quite a bit of time over four years in development of an engine Test Cell to meet the test requirements and it is exponentially more complicated than just a frame to bolt an engine to and have it run. This is no 'dig' at Jabiru - but it's not properly representative of the test requirement to simply state that: 'we've run the engine flat bikkies for three days.'

The ASTM certifying requirements specifies 200 hours of testing, in runs of (mostly) 2-hour blocks, that have phases of operation designed to provide the same stresses that happen in real life - including idling, full-power running, 75% power running, power-back running. This simulates not just the reciprocating stresses but also thermal changes - heating and cooling. There are also 'limit' tests by which the manufacturer sets the operational limits (to less than the test performance), plus tear-down inspections etc.

The value of having people from the local community who might not have every visited the strip, seeing that the whole operation is well-ordered, that the site is very 'professional', and that Rec. Aviators are not a bunch of crazy 'wannabe Red Barons' but sensible, 'real' people, will have done a heap of good. It's exactly this sort of event that changes people in nearby communities from running out of their houses waving their fists at the occasional lightty overhead to waving happily, on the off-chance that it's their neighbour in that plane!.

And removing barrels disturbs the crankcase seal. IF Jabiru uses the same Loctite seal methodology for the crankcases as in the present engines, this will prove to be a major problem, with seal breaking and crankcase fretting, and consequent loss of pre-tension on the through bolts - which now also hold the heads on, with four rather than five point attachment ( the earlier development 2210 engines needed several additional head bolts to maintain head sealing). .. CAMit moved to a different crankcase seal technique over three years ago.

To all: BRILLIANT! Rec. Aviation is a community asset. This sort of action proves that.

Jw, I am sure you have some of the story correct, and the gfc must have played a major part, but the development of the J2200 and subsequent development of the 3300 and 4400 was very much a joint effort. Without CAMit's input, they probably would not have happened, and the IP was certainly shared. Beyond that, it is absolutely not my place to comment, but for a slightly broader perspective, you might take a few things into account: When KFM pulled the rug from under Jabiru, for reasons that Phil Ainsworth detailed in: AMME - Aerospace Construction and Workshop Technology, Jabiru determined to build a suitable engine to match the airframe rather than re-design the airframe and have to throw away everything that it had managed to achieve to then - which would have included at least most of the moulds. A hell of a lot of development had already gone into them: if you'd like to see a pair of the early wings, hand-modified to make the damn flaps work effectively, I can show you them.. However, the 1600 engine was in reality not very successful; the castings were a particular issue with porosity problems leading to a high reject rate. It was also only marginally sufficiently powerful for the original LSA55 at 430 kgs MTOW and had no future for heavier versions which were becoming allowable as the regs. developed. I believe that about 65 1600's were built and put in service; my own aircraft was sold with one, but had been used by the factory for development work on the 2200, and it is Jab. airframe no #50. That indicates how quickly Jabiru needed to move to the more effective and powerful 2200 and later engines, and CAMit was the organisation that made that happen. There was no happenstance that there was an aircraft engine manufacturing facility just down the road from Jabiru.. The intricacies of the agreement between Rod Stiff and Ian Bent are for their knowledge only (unless either decide to make them public) but in short, without the co-operative nature of that agreement, Jabiru development may well not have happened so successfully. My first visit to CAMit was at its original factory, where everything was cheek-by jowl to get the throughput - and not long after that, Jabiru were advertising on their web-site that they were producing 90 engines a month!. CAMit's expansion was necessary in order to meet that level of demand from Jabiru, and the current CAMit facility was tooled-up for that throughput - at Ian Bent's expense, not Jabiru's. I suggest you need to think of the initial relationship between Jabiru in terms of 'Joint Venture' rather than Contractor and Supplier. Here's another thing you might take on board: Rod Stiff is a very hard-nosed businessman. I say that NOT to denigrate him in any way - Jabiru would NOT have succeeded had he not been so. Look at the Australian aircraft manufacturers - with good products - who are no longer 'Australian': Gipps Aero, Seabird, Brumby to name recent(ish) companies gone from Australian control. Look at those who have flourished and subsequently flamed out: Skyfox, Thruster, Drifter; even CAF.. Lightwing continues but has been very quiet of late, and with the death of Howie Hughes, I suspect its future may be tenuous. Jabiru is by so far Australia's most successful aircraft manufacturer that it is in a class of its own - world-wide. Do you think - seriously? - that if there was not shared IP in the Jabiru engine, Rod would not have stomped on CAMit? Jabiru under Rod is not a philanthropic organisation - it would never have gotten to where it is if it were. And every Jabiru owner has reason to be thankful that when we need a part, or advice, or support, Jabiru is there providing it. And they do that very well, cheerfully and efficiently. Jabiru airframes are universally acclaimed, and rightly so. Their engines are the Archilles heel of the product and even the most fanatical of Jabiru supporters would have to admit that some of Rod's design initiatives have been very unsuccessful - hence the divergence in development approach between Jabiru and CAMit. Jw, let's be honest here: Rod Stiff does not take kindly to criticism - overt or implied. If you have every been on the receiving end of Rod's displeasure at a comment you have made - and I have - you need a dragon's hide to escape without fourth-degree burns and a Medivac team. He does not take your comments on board - and I know that he did not look favourably on CAMit's ideas. It would have been to both their advantage - and to all of Jabiru's customer's advantage - if he had. But that is now history. There is no fortune to be made by manufacturing small capacity, piston aero-engines in small numbers - look at the slow uptake of good designs such as Ul Power and d-motor. There are in reality three companies who DO make decent profits from piston engines: Textron (Lycoming), Rotax (Bombadier), and Continental (now Chinese-owned, AFAIK..). Do you think CAMit has gone effectively head-to-head with Jabiru so it would make a fortune? Ian Bent is no fool, nor a dreamer - but he does believe, deeply, that he can build a better mousetrap. And frankly, having seen many of the developments, I concur with that. Rod has made some very, very bad decisions with regard to 'cheaper' parts, that have adversely affected Jabiru engine reliability. I don't propose to go into detail here. For some of those, CAMit has been on the receiving end of unwarranted criticism. Ian Bent's personal aircraft is a J230. It is used as the development mule - Ian flies behind his product. If you had the facility, the knowledge and the desire to make the thing that turns your prop. better - would you not take it?

Mark, if you have the chance to visit CAMit, please take it - even if the place is not in production, it is eye-popping for those who haven't seen it to realise just what is involved in producing a world-class aircraft engine. I have the happiest memories of spending nearly three weeks there, rebuilding my own Jab. engine with CAMit upgrades, surrounded by happy and proud workers who would stop massive machines just to show me (actually us, my co-owner and I were there doing that job together) the intricate machining processes involved in making those parts. The place was already starting to hum into operation at 0700, and gently wound down for the day at around 1700-1730. Absolutely anybody on the floor would take the time to not just answer our (sometimes, incredibly naive) questions, with not just a 'what', but a 'how' and 'why' response; show us how to use complex tools properly and check we'd really understood and learned, look after us to make sure the engine we went away with was as good as it could be. And when we strapped it into the test cell, it ran like a happy canary - and Ian Bent checked it out and stated that it was 'good'. That was due to the help we had at every step of the way - not our competence. Both of us had built motor car racing engines, at the 'turn a production engine into a racing (or Rallye) engine' level. That included things like modifying production pistons to racing spec, welding up and re-machining ports and water cooling paths and re-machining them, static balancing, stress-relieving rods and valve gear.. the usual 'hot-rodding' level stuff. What we learned at CAMit was at an entirely higher level again. One starts to gain an appreciation of to what level of precision they operated, when two parts won't actually fit if they are not assembled at the same ambient temperature (one having just been taken from working on it, and attempting to fit it into another that has been settling for a day or so..) Then finding, that WHEN at the same ambient, they slide together with a push-fit!. Being taught when to use a formed thread rather than a cut thread. Using a light-box to check the finish of the edges of each individual compression ring for full seal all around the barrel. Checking our valve-seat lapping performance on a vacuum-gauge tester, rather than by eye for the seat finish - it went on and on. We learned so much in three weeks at Camit, that we were mentally exhausted at the end - it was like doing a full Cert IV course on engine building in three weeks! The CAMit facility is, by any standards, world-class. In the comparable HP range / weight calculation, only Rotax has produced more engines. Walk through the CAMit factory and keep in mind that from here, an Australian company produced - for Jabiru and for itself respectively - thousands of engines for the world market. Rotax is a part of Bombadier: a multi-billion $$ turnover company. Rotax makes a vast number of engines, for a wide variety of markets: hell, even BMW put Rotax engines in their motorcycles!. Rotax engines are good engines - no question about that. I don't personally like the crankshaft manufacturing technique for the 9X series - but I DO accept that very few fail. Mark - please visit CAMit, even if it's currently in suspension pending a re-organisation of its operation. The huge CNC machines may not be humming; the assembly shop may not be quietly putting together engines - but you will see the bones behind the manufacture of a damn good engine -not perfect, but then, what is?.

Jw: :a lot of good points there. Many people do not understand the complexities of all three of: Certification (which is proven compliance with testing to an international standard, such as, for example, JAR 22H, for the J2200C, which has to be supervised by the Airworthiness Authority (CASA); Certifying to ASTM standards (for later 2200 and all the 3300 engines) and Legal Responsibility. .Both Certification and Certifying require many, many expensive hours of testing and proving - we are talking Hundreds of $k's. Legal Responsibility is a minefield, which is almost never settled without a Court case to 'test' the situation - and again, huge $$ for all concerned.. It would take pages of explanation as to why a company would not admit to a 'fault' in its product; even if it knows that in fact, that was the case. For an example, look at the cost for Samsung of the exploding batteries in its latest smartphone... Jabiru has to juggle all of those factors. Nobody should underestimate how difficult that is and still stay in business. Personally, I don't believe that anybody who 'supports' CAMit ( and yes, I am one of those) wants to see Jabiru exposed to the possibility of being castrated as a business; we love the aircraft for the cost/efficiency of ownership, the good performance, the safety and the support we get. In my own case, I have family connections to the development of Jabs. from the first LSA55: I own airframe no #50 - the very first VH-registered Jabiru - and a family member has a record of flying it in his log-book when test-flying it in the development of the 2200J engine!. As a family, we have known and worked with Rod Stiff, Phil Ainsworth and Ian Bent from the very first days. And ALL of those remain as family friends (even though I have been on the receiving end of a Rod spray, as many have..). CAMit has had the relative luxury (in a way) of having the facility, the expertise and the freedom to develop alternative solutions to Jab. engine problems. Don't underestimate for a moment the advantage of having an extremely high-tech manufacturing plant and the type of mind that looks at problems as a 'system' that needs to be changed from one end of its effects to the other - and being able to actually build, test, refine and re-test.the proposed solutions to a level of accuracy that is almost mind-boggling, over being the manufacturer who has to keep the entire business of a total aircraft manufacturing operation - in operation.. EVERY engine that comes out of the CAMit factory (whether it has a Jabiru plate or a CAMit-plate on it) is measured to an order of accuracy that is simply not achievable by hand, in conditions that are held at calibrated standards. EVERY engine is test-run on a dyno. The standards that apply to Jab.-spec engines is the minimum that CAMit applies to its own engines - as it should be. Your point about the statistical questionability of a small sample, is absolutely fair. It was a massive failure on the part of CASA to NOT identify which particular Jab. engines had 'failures' in excess of others and apply a wholesale ban. Nobody should believe that there are NOT models of Lycontinentals - or Rotaxes, for that matter - that have a bad record. A massive part of the urban myth about the reliability (or unreliability) of Jabiru engines has been generated from a lack of understanding or analysis. Some of the contentions, such as the willfully ignorant but oft-repeated claim perpetrated by a person with such poor knowledge of metallurgy that it was laughable had it not contributed to the 'push' against Jabiru engines, that the billet-crankcase was the root of all evil, would have been laughed out of court by any sophisticated audience. Seriously, I don't think that anybody who prefers the approach that CAMit has taken to improving the Jabiru engine - which amounts to a serious re-design of almost every component - should imply that they (alright - WE) - are in the business of trashing Jabiru. I am happy to fly behind any well-maintained and operated Jabiru engine; my own choice is to take on board CAMit's changes where I can do that. This is not a 'two-legs BAD, four legs GOOD' situation: I have researched and seen the nature of CAMit's developments, and I like them - but that does NOT mean that I repudiate Jabiru's efforts.

AHA - good info. Less than I thought; I suspect there are quite a few that Ian has allowed (and supported) to be built (like mine) using a mix of low-hour Jab. parts. with CAMit mods, for reasons of economy for the owners. Absolutely not fair to CAMit to ask for a CAE plate for those..

Machining to the basic barrels and heads for that engine was done by an aero-engine manufacturing facility nearby in Bundaberg for additional head bolts, coming up from underneath the heads. If you look carefully at the pictures Jabiru released on their Facebook page of the engine, you can see the reliefs in the barrel bases for the holes for those.. Jabiru Aircraft Bundaberg - Timeline | Facebook

Jw, the CAMit-plated engines have been undergoing continual development for a number of years - I was at the factory three years ago when the first CAE-plated 3300 was being crated up for delivery to the USA, and I know that there have been developments since then - the new flywheel and shaft mods for the attachment being one of those. So - not all CAE engines are exactly similar, though the ASTM-certified ones used in the Bathawks will be. I'd guess at about 200 at least CAE-plated engines 'out there', with (as reported by the Bathawk manufacturer, at least ONE with 2K hours on it and merrily flying along). Quite a few more 'bitzers' - including my own - with significant CAE mods incorporated but NOT CAE-plated: 'experimental' by definition. No idea of the number of 'new-spec.' Jab. engines 'out there'.

John: just in on the Sonex 'Jab/CAMit engines' thread, responding to a question about upgrading to CAMit rockers: 2b Re: Camit Rocker Upgrade Tue Oct 4, 2016 3:39 pm (PDT) . Posted by: kevin_k814 Hi Nick, I bought a set a couple years ago. Here's a few things I noticed, and my opinions: Above rocker shaft there is an oil hole to allow oil to flow directly to the bushing shaft interface, with grooves in the bushing to distribute oil throughout, and constantly flush the bushing/shaft with oil, instead of the original style where the ends are oily and some works its way in from the side. The stock setup doesn't refresh this oil, and oil deposits/wear material just tend to sit in there embedding into the rocker bushing (I carefully examined my old ones under magnification. The stock setup should last well over 1000 hours, but this is a definite improvement in design which should greatly reduce wear further. The geometry of valve actuation is different. Stock rockers when pressing on a valve push in, but also push the stem down against the bottom of the valve guide as it's going in. The improved geometry puts less side load on the stem as it presses it in, reducing valve guide wear, along with reduced wear at the rocker/valve stem interface (valve stem tips are hardened, so the main wear reduction is to the rocker and guide). Valve adjustment is much much easier. Instead of the big clunky nut that you can barely fit a wrench on, there's a smaller nut that fits a box end wrench (spanner?) very well, and instead of a slot end adjusting screw, it used an allen (hex) wrench. No more tightening and loosening the lock nut as it moves the screw out of pisition. Simply hold the allen wrench in one hand, and tighten the nut with the other. No fussy readjustments, and it takes me about 10 seconds per valve. Usually though, they don't need adjusted, just checked. I've gotten a few parts from Camit, and it seems if you look close enough when comparing it to the old part there are subtle little changes. Several of which seemed very clever, liked the improved oil pump assembly that helps reduce leaks with a squiggly little groove that directs any wayward oil to the cam/case opening, and other things that I don't necessarily feel comfortable talking about publicly, in case it would undermine Camit by giving free ideas to the competition. Hopefully others will add to this or correct me if I was wrong on anything. I also wouldn't hesitate to talk with Camit directly. I think you can trust what they tell you, and aren't just trying to sell you stuff you don't need. Two years ago they spent a lot of time, effort, and materials to help me out when my Jab had a problem and Jabiru ignored me. I wasn't a Camit customer, and I basically just went complaining to them. It was humbling how much they were willing to help a customer of a different brand, and I can honestly say in my 49 years on this planet, Camit is head and shoulders above any company I have ever dealt with in regards to integrity and customer service. I'm hoping to get a lot more years out of my Jab, but when it needs replaced, there's no doubt who I'll be calling. Kevin K. Sonex 3300 Cincinnati, USA

John, the Sonex Jab./CAMit thread on Yahoo also report many happy Sonex owners of CAMit engines.

About the only parts in a current-spec. CAE engine that don't have changes from a Jabiru engine, are - I think - the rods and the oil pump. CAE engines have the benefit of many, many years of research and design improvement, done with facilities and competence considerably better than Jabiru itself can bring to the problem, and HUGE experience - because CAMit was making, assembling, testing and delivering more than 5,000 Jabiru-spec. engines. Neither CAMit nor Jabiru - and for that matter, practically anybody in the Aviation Industry - contributes to this site. There is a reason for that, and for that reason, I will also not be bothered to contribute what I know.. However, for those wishing to gain information regarding the developments that CAE engines have made, I suggest contacting Ian Bent directly. He can be found at: CAMit Aero Engines: Home of the CAE 2200 & 3300 engines + accessories

<post edited - Mod> FH is referring to the notice required for Constitutional change - not general questions that may arise in a general meeting. An AGM has a required agenda and it is quite usual that an AGM is immediately followed by a GM in which general questions may be aired. Nothing new, radical, or in any way unusual there. The AGM must meet specific reporting requirements; the segue from that to a GM is an efficient way to ensure that 'general business' can be handled at the least incremental cost to the organisation. That segue is an effective way to rule a line under the organisation having met its legal obligations for reporting as required at the AGM, to discussing matters of concern to its members. Management of the RAA under the 'old Constitution'; and by 'the old guard', had led to the utter debacle of the CASA audit and of course the Emergency GM at Queanbeyan. Plus the questionable employment of Tizzard to complete certain documentation (at a high cost, and never completed), and the Myles Breitkreutz saga... Altogether a clusterfarqh. One of the most tried and proven adages is: ' If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Well, here's a newsflash for those who are so stridently opposing the changes: it WAS broken, by any objective measure - and the best objective measure of that was the fact that so many aircraft were grounded as non-compliant with the basic regulations. There is no MORE objective measure than - if you are a member of an organisation so that you can legally fly your aircraft and that organisation has failed to meet that standard of performance - your membership is useless. The incontrovertible metric of 'member concern' over such matters as 'regional representation', or the quality/cost/delivery mechanism of Sport Pilot etc. lies in the voting figures. I do not recall there every being figures that support the idea that even 10% of the RAA membership gives a continental, fur-lined flying faark about all of these peripheral issues; I deduce that 90% of members simply want to pay their dues and receive in return, legal coverage for their flying. A group discount (and simplicity) of enrollment in an insurance coverage for their 3rd-party liability is a bonus. Following the 'Emergency Meeting' at Queanbeyan, members voted for change. They have voted for the version of change that we now see starting to actually happen. However, some people, disappointed that their desired version of change has not been accepted by the majority, are fighting tooth and claw to dismantle it. This smacks of disappointed political ambition for power within RAA to pursue their vision of RAA's future. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that some have commercial interests in supporting alternatives to RAA as a service provider. That may become more obvious as events unfold. Since the 'new' RAA has hardly had time to draw breath, the opposition to it cannot be based on experience of failure to deliver. Loudly expressed opinions that it WILL fail to deliver, are no more - at this stage - than opinions, which (as another aphorism has it), are as common as cloacas - everybody has one. And the E & LAAA 'alternative' - yet to emerge as a properly-constituted organisation with the necessary expertise and procedural manuals in place to support its operation - seems to me to be a chimera which has more 'A's' than might be useful..

Then I'm impressed, Keith - you should be making a fortune with your legal expertise. Oh, and I don't tip for the Melbourne Cup - anything I select, dies at the jump. Much like the horse you appear to be backing, as it happens..

A dodgey Constitution? Do you happen to know who drafted the new RAA Constitution? I do, and I'll back his expertise against the Rocky Horror Show mob every time.