Oscar

Many glider pilots have had close experiences with Wedgetail eagles. Was in a thermal once, Wedgie 'dropped in' in me, using the lift off the outside wing as its own personal standing wave; slid on to about three or four feet away ( his inner wing was all but brushing the canopy), checked the vario, gave me a deprecating look and peeled off to find a better thermal nearby..

Geoff: Wow, 12 months ago, the excrement had totally hit the rotating airflow augmenter for CAMit... but your point is extremely valid. I sincerely believe that in the next 6 - 9 months, we are going to see a whole lot of useful information come from CAMit, but even now, it is in 'consolidation' mode rather than full-on 'production' mode.

Guys - equating what I am doing by repairing /tinkering in my workshop with what HITC is doing by design and construction of an aircraft from scratch to a standard that would support any 'How to do it' manual, is embarrassing! What HITC is doing by both his design and his construction is top-class stuff; those who know their structures analysis will recognise how all his multiple-tube clusters provide force lines through the common point, for instance. And then - he makes it so!. That is no mean feat by the standards of the best welders.. e.g. Barry Manktelow. HITC's reports on this thread ought to become highly-advised reading for anybody interested in building / maintaining a tube-and rag aircraft.

Geoff, that's a somewhat difficult question to answer! Ian Bent is the ONLY person who can give you an authoritative answer and he doesn't contribute to Rec Flying threads, any more than does anyone officially from Jabiru. CAE engines have been a 'work in progress' for a number of years now, as CAmit continues to develop the changes is has been making, test them, and refine them in some cases.. That is why they remain 'experimental'; there are complex reasons why this remains the case, including the CASA restrictions and some other factors that have yet to be finalised. However, I believe that in excess of 100 'CAE-plated' engines have been delivered to customers in Australia, N.Z., the USA and South Africa and possibly also the UK. A considerably greater number of engines not officially plated as CAE, incorporate components from the CAMit development programme. I personally have one such 'hybrid', which so far has only engine test cell running hours on it. Because nominally 'CAE' engines so far have often had a combination of both standard Jabiru and CAE-improved parts in them, the experience of users needs to be modified against the actual configuration of the specific engine. It would be facile to say: 'well CAMit are using its customers as test pilots' - because CAE engine operators understand that that is exactly the situation they are in, and they provide feed-back to CAMit. In the current parlance, you might call it a'crowd-sourced engine development programme'. You have asked: 'the pros and cons'. I would suggest that the 'pros' are: experience of over 5k engines manufactured as a basis for development, a detailed R&D programme based on analysis, development, testing and experience feedback. The 'cons' are: a limited number of high-hour examples of a fixed specification from which to prove conclusive statistics and a certified/certificated model specification for the derivation of such data. But: let's cut to the chase here. If you fly an aircraft that enjoys the advantages afforded by the weight/power delivered by a Jabiru/CAMit engine, then getting the 'best' engine is of serious interest to you. If you fly an aircraft that has been designed for a Rotax 9x-series, then your interest is curiosity: you are not going to suddenly decide to remove the Rotax and insert either a Jabiru or CAE engine. That in NO WAY means that Rotax owners ought not to have interest in Jabiru vs CAE engines, but 'skin in the game' provides a perspective that is, I believe, important in this context.

HITC - I'm SO glad that your comment shows I am normal ( for a given value of 'normal')... A wee story that might amplify.. ( and I suspect you'll have a good chuckle about). We replaced the fin and rudder on our damaged ST1 ( basically, an LSA 55) with a UL450 fin and rudder, which is considerably larger for both. This was done in consultation with Rod Stiff ( who graciously supplied us with a suitable fin and rudder at a very decent price, I must add), Dafydd Llewellyn and Alan Kerr, so it wasn't just a brain-fart on our part.. We duly put it on, faired it in, did a limit-load test etc. We were ever so careful to keep the Jab. supplied string for pulling the static line through the opening at the top of the fin in place. What we forgot, was to run that string through BOTH the 'saddle' in the top of the fuselage cone AND the dorsal fin extension on the fin... Cue several hours of me inserted into the rear of the fuselage cone, upside down and with sod-all room to move, to rectify that small oversight. THEN, we found that the holes in the UL 450 fin ribs are 'interestingly' disposed... My co-owner was a sparky in a previous existence, so he's extremely well versed in pulling stuff through 'interesting' spaces, but it took us the better part of six hours to get the bloody static line up to and out of the hole at the top of the fin. You only have one tiny hole in the fin spar ( for the aerial connection) to work through. Now, what Jab. assembly instructions say, is you put the static line onto the static probe tube ( a very nice bit of stainless tube with an el-neato end fitting to ensure good static line characteristics), and then glue the static probe tube into the top of the fin with an epoxy glue. Which works very well. HOWEVER - since I live in fear of the attentions of Murphy - it occurred to me that if we ever damaged the static probe tube so it needed replacement, while we could remove the tube by heating it until the epoxy softens, that simply allows us to remove the stainless tube BUT the static line would fall down inside the fin with NO possible way to secure a draw-string. The only alternative would be to cut out the top front corner of the fin, for which the replacement would NOT be a field-job - and I could see us stranded somewhere out the back of buggery with no way to do an effective replacement job. Jabiru could get us - as they do - with a replacement probe tube in a couple of days ( that's one real benefit of owning an Australian-manufactured aircraft with good customer support!) but the actual replacement work - which is very easy IF you have the basic 'glass skills - would be a right bastard with the static line lying in a coil at the bottom of the fin and no draw-string.. Woke up one early morning with a 'Eureka ( that's Ancient Greek for 'Give me a towel') moment; this is what I made up: Uses an O-ring in compression to secure the static probe tube; the threaded base is glued into the fin, the bullet-headed fitting screws down onto it to secure the static probe tube. By undoing the bullet-headed compression fitting, one can withdraw the static probe tube with the static line attached and replace the static probe tube. I knurled the compression fitting so I don't have to carry weighty spanners... It took a bit of fiddling to get the necessary clearance for the bend in the static probe tube to clear the base, but it works out. The end result? If we have a damaged static probe tube, we can replace it in about 10 minutes, anywhere. By hand. My co-owner, somewhat caustically, chastised me for spending several hours of lathe work and general fiddling, to produce a solution to a 'problem' that is not recorded anywhere in the annals of Jabiru history. I called him a Philistine; and when he manages to fly on from somewhere north-west of the Alice with minimal hassle for replacing the static probe tube, I will call in a decent bottle of red for due apology. I suspect that it will be my children or their children who will get to enjoy said bottle, but WTF...

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.

A long road indeed if it's a scratch-build and you're the designer - because ( just to add to everything else), you will see (as you have) things that need to be done to satisfy yourself that it's been done to the standard you expect of yourself!. Your lifting handles out the back are, I reckon, a classic example of sitting there and looking at it and thinking: 'jeez, I ought to do that, it'll make life easier / better /safer..' I've been watching and sometimes helping a family member build his own design tandem 'utility' style ( i.e. workhorse, intended to be airwork category), for something like 10 years at least. It has a tube cockpit, not at all dissimilar to yours except it wil;l have a moulded 'glass skin, a bulkhead monocoque structure alloy sheet tail cone and tail feathers, and 'glass wings. Abut six, maybe eight years ago, I built him a 35-tonne large-frame hydraulic press just to do the bulkhead and tailfeather rib pressings. Moulds for the glass work... moulds for the cockpit and cowlings... jigs for things like the FAA-compliant impact-absorbing pilot seat, it goes on - and that's before the actual building work can be done! Multiple hundreds of hours have gone into just those bits alone. Several complicated 'rotisseries' for welding tubular structures, for the airframe and the engine mount (which has been used for several other engine mounts along the way, to be fair, for other projects.) And it's still a long, long way off being actually built.. Do you sometimes go to bed with some detail problem niggling away in the back of your mind, and wake up in the early morning with 'the answer' suddenly hitting you? I damn well do, and sometimes it's 'the answer' to something that I hadn't registered as a problem. Maybe builders are subliminally obsessive by nature (aka 'weird').

HITC - just lovely work to look at, I tips me lid again ( as always). Amen to your comments about the magnetic effect, particularly for tig, it's a hopeless pain trying to chase the arc when it's coming off the electrode at 60-degrees from where you want it...

Aha, JJ, are you referring to a service provided by an equipment vendor as part of a 'maintenance contract', or 'after-sales service' type of arrangement? I'd imagine that where a specific manufacturer has a database of 'typical' condition, and/or keeps historical records of your specific piece of equipment, then for sure they'd be able to provide an authoritative report and opinion on how your particular item is travelling viz. the 'norm'. For us 'blow-in' types who are simply using the oil analysis service as a basically one-off analysis of what's in the sample, it's mostly going to be back on us to interpret the analysis report. However, maybe if we pass the results back to the manufacturer (e.g. Jabiru / CAMit / Rotax etc.) for comment, then they can - if they don't already do this - build up such a database which would allow them to make informed comment. AFAIK, that's planned for the CAMit engine test runs, and I would be pretty sure Ian Bent would welcome any such feedback from his CAE engine users. Which brings us to an interesting, and potentially useful point. For such a database to be of real utility, it would be very helpful if a bit more than just the engine number etc. was recorded: since there is such variation between types of usage, fuel used etc, it would be of great value if such details are reasonably faithfully recorded ( and a recorded history from an EMIS would be terrific for that.)

The CAMit TOCA ( Thermostat Oil Cooler Adaptor) is a really worthwhile addition to your Jab. or CAE engine, (if you have a 19-reg or E-LSA reg one, anyway). http://camitaeroengines.net/products/toca Not only does it ensure that your oil is not overcooled, but as a side benefit, you don't have to sit quietly heating up the heads too much while waiting for the OT to come up, thus taking off with an engine that has possibly some very hot heads if you haven't been able to get the thing pointed accurately into wind while doing the run up, but it incorporates the CAMit improved oil pressure relief valve. AND, you don't have to blank off part of your oil cooler for colder weather operation...

Quite often, CASA personnel do not know their own regs. When George Markey and Dafydd Llewellyn substantially re-wrote Section 21 of the CASRs ( a voluntary effort on their part, for those who don't know the story; there was mention on the obituary for George in Sport Pilot of Sept 2012, p.14), they became far more familiar with the rules than most of the CASA personnel with whom they dealt. George became somewhat of a holy terror to CASA; he would sit quietly in meetings ( yes, those who knew George will be duly incredulous that George would EVER sit quietly..) until someone made a mistake, and then he would pounce. One more than a few occasions, someone from CASA would make some statement about some regulation, and George would say: 'You're wrong. See Regulation XX, para XXX, part Q (ii). It's on Page X, 3rd para.' without even bothering to open his copy. Further, all too often CASA try to use the regs. as they WISH them to say, rather than AS they say. A classic recent case of this was the extension of the restriction on Jabiru engines in Experimental aircraft, which is plainly incorrect.

Russ: use WOT AND keep the speed at no less than 85 in climb, and your engine ought to run full TBO, no worries.. Just don't climb at WOT for more than 5 minutes at a time.

One of - possibly the worst - 'own goal' Rod Stiff ever made with Jabiru engines was to broadcast the statement 'run them hard', without qualifying what he meant by 'run them hard'. Jabiru has subsequently amplified on this, by explaining that it means they should be allowed to SPIN fast - i.e. WOT for climb BUT not loaded too heavily by pulling the nose way up and going for best climb angle, but by keeping the climb AIRSPEED up - which simultaneously keeps a rich mixture through widest throttle opening and keeps cooling airflow up, thereby reducing the incidence of detonation / high CHT's. Add to that the fact that Jabiru engines, with a single carburetor and a fairly constricted inlet tract from the airbox ( that introduces serious swirl to the airflow to the carby and therefore tends to create uneven mixture distribution to the individual heads that varies with the inlet tract air mass speed) and with incautious operation, it is all too easy to destroy a Jabiru engine in one climb-out. Those of us who grew up driving relatively high-compression, carburetor engined cars with manual transmissions, became rapidly familiar with 'pinging' (detonation) if we loaded the engine too hard. Alfa Romeos, with no vacuum retard on the distributor, were particularly prone to this. That stick between the front seats was there for a damn reason: if you were heading up a long hill and got to mashing the accelerator onto the floor to maintain speed, you changed down and let the engine rev. With modern EMS and auto gearboxes, the accelerator does little more than control the speed of the vehicle. With cruise control, you can drive for literally hundreds of k's without every having to use your right foot - because all the parameters of engine management INCLUDING compensation for varying fuel quality, local QNH, OAT etc. has been already incorporated in your car by software engineers... You don't have to think about engine management any more, just concentrate on not getting booked. Does anybody remember the vehicles of the 30's? Where there was, usually on the steering wheel quadrant, levers for spark retard/advance? My first car was a Peugeot 203, complete with an advance/retard knob in the centre of the dashboard, and one very quickly learned to play the thing for best performance, on a hill-by-hill basis. That was an object lesson in 'feeling' how the engine reacted to increasing load; there was no mixture control and a very crude induction system, but the 203, properly managed, was a very quick car for its time point-to-point. Witness, a story by David MacKay, of driving Sydney-Melbourne in a 203, with a contemporary Bently in company: MacKay had to stop and wait several times for the Bently to catch up!. A Jabiru engine (along with basically most carby-equipped Lycontinentals etc) is fundamentally a 1930's EMS technology engine; mechanical-injection Lycontinentals are a bit of a step forward but again, no unreliable electrons are involved. That is what the international standards require: it seems that the FAA etc. have yet to accept transistors as viable engine control components, except under fairly ludicrous standards of system duplication etc. One has to wonder whether the people setting the standards all drive 1952-model cars to work, because they don't trust the new-fangled devices. Which puts us back in the regime where 'engine management' tends to fall back on the operator. I doubt any Gypsy-engined operator is not attuned to the engine; Lycontinentals are fairly forgiving by being low hp/lb; 2-strokes are low TBO and if abused at all, will bite remorselessly. What CAMit is doing, I believe, is trying to remove any intrinsic engineering problems of the basic Jab. engine. However, that HAS to be viewed within the 'box' of the the regulations under which these engines operate - and that 'box' de facto requires that the operator uses the engine intelligently.

I am of a 'halfway house' mind on oil testing. If one has an engine one knows very well, with reliable monitoring of the critical factors (cht, egt), and is sensitive to things like the pull-through variation and does regular filter inspections at every oil change, I think it is unnecessary to progress beyond the old 'Eyeball Mk.1' unless said eyeball detects something unusual. If I am not mistaken, oil sample testing is most usually used as a predictive measure of maintenance requirements. Any sample analysis requires interpretation of the results with knowledge of the engine ( or, for that matter, gearbox etc.) from which the oil sample was obtained. If you are NOT technically familiar with extrapolating the oil sample report to understanding what has been going on in the component from which the sample was taken - it is no use to you to do it. The oil sample report does NOT come with ( in my experience) any statement of 'this is what is happening inside your [engine, gearbox, hydraulic motor etc.]. It's simply a statement of what was in the oil tested. Examination of the filter at every oil change, will tell pretty much anybody with a decent Eyeball Mk. I if there are suddenly bits of rings, pistons, large amounts of bearing metal etc. present. The Eyeball Mk.I is a somewhat coarse instrument, but valuable for early detection of impending failure, but it is equally not much damn good at detecting fine differences. It's a bit like 'holistic' blood tests for 'wellness': meaningless unless you have the diagnostic skills to correlate the results with the causes. As has been bought out on this thread: for the more sophisticated devices maintained by more sophisticated personnel, an oil test is simply a part of gathering information to be used to evaluate the 'health' of components. If you do not have - or utilise - the skills to extrapolate conclusions from the oil test reports: then they are of no use to you.

That's a better price than the Hastings-Deerings mob I used for my Jab. initial run tests ( about $100 for a pair of tests: after first hour and after 5 hours, as selected by me..)

Saw the end result of a severe microburst some years ago near a mates place a bit north of Taralga. It had cleared a patch of bush about 50 metres wide by 200-plus metres long almost as if drag-chained. Towards the middle of it, it had twisted a eucalypt with a trunk of about 400-500mm completely off about a metre above the ground - if you imagine a pencil that had gotten jammed in a pencil-sharpened and twisted around a dozen or so times with the end held stationary, you get the idea - and tossed the rest of the tree out to the edge of the swathe. The eucalypts in that area are a bit brittle, but bloody heck, I reckon that you'd be in mortal danger if in that in much less than a Cat D9.

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.

May I politely point out that even the venerable BMC 'A" series engine, was categorised in CC's? Trumpy's and Beezers, AFAIK, were also; the only bike engine I can readily think of that was and basically remains an 'incher', belongs to Harleys. And yet, for the most sophisticated motorcycle racing class in existence - motoGp, for which ALL the manufacturers are metric-country-based, and a motoGp bike is arguably every bit as sophisticated as an F1 car and costs typically well north of $1m euro, while the engine capacity is quoted in metric, the wheel rim sizes are quoted in inches.

If you all think imperial to metric is a mess ( and I share that opinion), try to compare the published capabilities of vacuum pumps! I have a 'Unit Converter' on my computer ( the one I use is ' Inventive Design Unit Convertor Professional'), and it can do things to things I have never heard of or imagined exist; I swear it can, probably, convert kilowatt hours to Cat rubs per foot of Acrylic rod - but rationalising between all the various forms of quoting vacuum defeats it. When trying to sort out a suitable pump for vacuum-bagging of wing skins etc., I ended up standing on my head with my underpants over my ears, singing the Marseillaise backwards in Olde Norske, it helped me regain sanity. Now, I am ok, as long as I keep taking the medication.

Give him a break!. Anybody who can hold their own on this forum will find a reporter a doddle..

And why in the world would we NOT want as much good publicity as we can get? Look at other 'special interest' groups that are - in the eyes of the 'general public' - usually regarded as fringe-dwellers on the edge of society. 'Outlaw drug-pedaling bikie gangs' get almost weekly publicity, but things like the 'Christmas Toy Runs' help balance that out a bit, and every motorcyclist gets a wee bit more respect from society in general as a result. Surfers were once generally regarded as dole-bludging amoral beach-bums; now they represent and are reasonably respected as pro-conservation, valued and liked members of society. Car racing teams were once pretty weird, death-wishing idiots to a lot of people; now they are more regarded as entertainers and professional businessmen, bringing in valued business to the areas where races are held. If we are not to be forced out ever further from centres of population where we can get services and access, we need to raise our profile as being a small but responsible and potentially useful part of society - not 'rich kids ( well, somewhat Senior 'rich kids' ) with very expensive toys that are a bloody menace'. Many regional areas of Australia are rapidly developing a richer 'cultural area', with 'foodie trails', 'art trails', 'eco trails' etc. - and RAA members are potential visitors. By way of example: the Birdsville Races just would NOT be the event it is without the fly-ins for the weekend. OK, maybe only a small proportion of the spectators arrive by aircraft, but I'll bet the aerial activity adds to the frisson of the event. How good would it be for our future if people welcomed the attendance of RAA aircraft as a signal of wider interest in their community and their activities? If we were welcomed as reasonable, decent, intelligent people from a wider audience that could carry the message of the attraction of the local area back to others, not as some sort of weirdo mob that are a damn annoying noise? I can't see otherwise but that we would win from better community understanding of us.

Nev - can't but agree. I grew up in a workshop (actually, a famous Luthier's workshop) where I was taught to use woodworking tools from an early age, there are still probably people wondering what to do with the Loquat-wood Serviette rings lathe-turned Christmas presents I made for them when maybe 8YO. But - the progress from home-assembled rag-and-tube chainsaw-powered single seaters, is not something to be mourned. The fact that the majority of RAA aircraft nowadays are very competent and safe aircraft is something we should embrace and promote to the general community. The general community needs to know that these are 'real', if small, planes, that they can be a significant contributor to - particularly - the 'connection' of rural/remote areas top the rest of Australia.

BRILLIANT! I was coming home from several weeks spent working near Toowoomba on my own aircraft; near Tamworth I passed (with my wee Jab on the trailer behind) a 'grey nomad' couple in their brand-new Range Rover Vogue with brand-new Airstream caravan behind. At a rough guess, around $225K for the pair. As an old Rangie owner ( mine is a 1973 model!), I have to say I envied them - if I HAD to have a caravan, an Airstream is classic and class. BUT: in my re-built Jabbie, I can go to places that they will never see. I can decide that I crave Bundaberg Tiger Prawns ( I do..), and damn well go and get a few kgs. I can head for Broome for the oysters, or Kakadu for fresh Barra,, or Darwin for large stubbies and running away from crocs. on the beach for sport. And - though I may have to camp overnight in a pup tent - I can look at landscapes other than a ribbon of road ahead of me..

Nev: the 19-reg sequence goes from 0430 to 8888. There are a lot of gaps, for sure, but I'd guess, maybe 500 aircraft with 19-reg. I'll go out on a limb here, and suggest that maybe 15% of the RAA fleet is 'owner-build', under the 51% rule. Time was, when most of the Australian Yacht manufacturers produced 'finish-it-yourself' hull and deck kits. I am not familiar with the market nowadays, but I think that has almost disappeared, because people don't have the time nor expertise to do that work. According to an article today in the SMH, Australia is one of the major markets for 'luxury' cars - we are a nation of workaholics who don't know how to build something, we just work our a$ses off and buy it. ( http://www.drive.com.au/motor-feature/why-australians-love-luxury-cars-20151207-glhkmp.html ) I suggest that building your own RAA aircraft is MOSTLY an exercise for retirees - though a project such as HITC is undertaking says that some of us just can't keep out of the workshop. Some retirees go fishing, or take up golf; those of a more enquiring mind, build themselves an aircraft...

Yenn, I hope ( and am pretty sure you would anyway!) include some information about Jabiru (and CAMit, for that matter) as part of the 'general scene': Qld has an enviable reputation for managing to 'just get on with it' and produce a world-class product. Even though we all wish Jabiru engines were more robust, the fact that Australia even HAS an aero-engine manufacturing facility is a testament to Qld. pioneering spirit (and yes, Rod Stiff's complete inability to accept that it couldn't be done!) The Jab. 'factory-assist' programme is surely worthy of mention too. The fact that an enthusiast can build a J430 that is highly-competitive with a C172, the world's most populous aircraft ( I believe!) is an eye-opener for just about anybody who has little understanding of light aviation, and a quick peek at a J2/4x 'kit' would dispel notions that we are all overgrown aero-modellers with an airfix glue addiction... And a visit to CAMit would blow the idea that 'ultralight' aircraft are products of bush mechanics tinkering with lawnmower engines out of the water..