Oscar

More BS. In a glider, you establish FUST ( Flaps, Undercart, Speed, Trim) on downwind and you don't set them up for diving inverted into the ground. You modify your circuit height and speed by the use of the brakes and sideslipping.

You asked to be slapped - so be slapped. I suggest that you at least acquaint yourself with the ergonomics of a modern glider cockpit before making ignorant comments.

For what it may be worth.. I flush-riveted my plenum chambers, many of which were in tight areas, using 1/8" . I ended up, after considerable frustration, making up the small bucking-bar tool in the piccy: A bit of 1/2" decent steel rod ( very quickly turned down, no fancy polishing!) with a 'tit' on the end of 1/4" diameter. A small length of 4mm or so diameter pvc tube projects just enough past the end 'tit' to locate over the rivet shank, and I have a couple of bits of short steel bar with a 3/4" drill indent so I can grip the 'bar' itself and the extra weight in one hand. The pvc tube deflects enough to set the rivet very firmly and you don't have to watch out for it slipping off the rivet shank, as it (obviously) self-centres. So you can concentrate on the tool position against the head, which I found a great assistance for flush rivet work.

Ever tried to start an XL350 on a sub-zero day? I KID YOU NOT, I used to stand mine over the embers of the camp-fire for about 20 minutes before I could get the bastard to start. ( Alpine Rallyes, around 1974 - 1978).

Thank the gods that I bought a CAMit TOCA ( Thermostatically-controlled Oil Cooler Adaptor) while they were available. That's the 'pro' way: you have sufficient oil-cooling capacity installed, and the TOCA takes care of the amount being cooled. Quick oil-temp rise on first start-up - so no lingering on the ground waiting for the oil-temp to rise while simultaneously cooking the heads..

Not by coincidence, I suggest, right up near the top of the list of accident and fatality rates for LSA aircraft in the USA survey of LSA safety: http://www.jabiru.net.au/images/The Aviation Consumer - LSA Accidents.pdf

If you are a Glider pilot, you know that every flight beyond gliding range of the home field has the potential for a landing other than where you had planned. Although it was not taught to me as such, I rapidly became used to the idea that potential landing sites relative to current height and glide ratio, was in effect a 'cone' of area, and the centre of that cone was dependent on the local wind. If you are flying into a headwind, then the effective centre of that cone is behind you.. into a cross-wind, then downwind of you. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. But wait- there's more! (no steak-knives, however). Some appreciation of the 'local' terrain is really, really necessary. If - for instance - you are flying over an irrigation area ( think: near Narromine or Tocumwal), you have to be aware of the alignment of irrigation ditches/channels. If you are flying around SE Qld, then the presence of single-wire power lines, which are bloody hard to see if you don't know what to look out for. I imagine there are other areas where particular local conditions - say Canefield row orientation - is a major factor. In more diverse country, how to judge an upslope from a downslope..

Aha, in the photo from the USA brochure, it is obvious ( and stated, can't doubt that!) that they are cast crankcases, very nice castings indeed.

I am bemused at what appears, then, to be a fully externally-machined cast crankcase. An unnecessary expense, surely, for external, non dimensionally-critical or mating surfaces?. Most unusual. I note that the sumps for both the engines on the Jab. web-site remain castings - as they have been since the first ones.

Then perhaps I have the wrong browser. What mine shows ( http://www.jabiru.net.au/images/documents/2200_flyer.pdf ) has an obvious join line down the centre and has been cnc machined. That would require through-bolts to pull it together. Could you please point me at the url for the new version?

Well, I am now confused! (doesn't take a lot, I admit, but I am at least a step ahead of the piece of paper with 'Other Side' written on both sides..) On the Jab. website, the engine piccies show the new barrels and heads mounted on 'Gen 3' machined crankcases. So: is what Jabiru currently show, now been surpassed by another version?

With respect - on ALL of the evidence, could you seriously expect Jabiru to accept blame? That would be like requiring a surgeon to accept blame for the death of a former patient on whom he had operated, when several yards of Bunnings Medical Supplies garden hose and a bunch of plumbing fittings were found inside and the patient had admitted he did 'Home Surgery'.

Yes, manufacture of Certificated parts requires a Parts Manufacturing Authority ( 'PMA') which CAMit had.

I hope I didn't come across as being just a pedant, but it truly is an important distinction. For a Certificated aircraft, or engine, there is a recognised procedure for repairs / modifications - it is called 'Compliance' with the original Type Certificate OR an accepted ( by the NAA, in our case, CASA) issue of a Supplementary Type Certificate. It can be done by (in our local case) a Part 21M engineer (used to be CAR35) and must be approved by the NAA. Once approved, it keeps the aircraft eligible for all original operational limitations. For a Certified aircraft (or engine), it is entirely the manufacturer's responsibility to accept (or reject) the modification / repair scheme. Given that the legal liability for accepting any modification/repair for a Certified aircraft rests with the manufacturer, it is understandable that the manufacturer may not be prepared to take on the liability of a third-party-designed change. Some LSA manufacturers are very helpful in this regard - Tecnam is one - while others are simply 'not interested'... Let's talk actual examples. Modifying a C206 ( I think I have the right aircraft here.. not very conversant with the later Cessna models) for a 'jump door' could be done - since it is a Certificated aircraft - by (in this case) a CAR 35 engineer-designed mod. IF the 206 had been a 'Certified' aircraft, it would have required Cessna to approve the mod. (To lighten up the conversation here, I can recount an example of which I am familiar. A family member had designed a freight container for use by the aircraft that bought King Island cheeses to the mainland; CASA was dragging their feet on approving it. Said family member sent them an email, pointing out that further delays would mean no King Island Double-Brie would be delivered to the mainland if this wasn't approved; cue instant action from CASA. Do you reckon Textron would have given excrement for THAT argument??) In regard to spares for 2200J engines - it's a very vexed issue ( and since I have a 2200J but with many CAMit parts in it, it's of particular interest to me). My engine can only be used in either a VH-Experimental classified aircraft or a 19-reg aircraft, and the level of changes I have made to my own originally VH-reg ( it was ST1-00001, with a 1600 engine!), then changed to 55-reg, will make this an 'interesting' exercise when it's ready to fly (getting there..) CAMit parts would have kept 2200J engines flying; I suspect that now, the only likely source will be Jabiru SA for barrels, heads and crankcases. I don't know what parts from the Jab. Gen 4 engine fit, but - without having ever seen a Gen 4 engine - I cannot envisage that the new barrels and heads will fit on a 2200J crankcase, as the through-bolts cannot - I think - be in the same location as for the 2200 Gen.1-3 engines. Happy to be further advised.

Correction!! It was the 2200J model that was Certificated ( Certificate of Type Approval no. 160-2) I shouldn't type before my second cup of coffee in the mornings..

Guys, there is still confusion about the difference between 'certified' and 'certificated'. 'Certificated' means that the engine ( or aircraft) has been issued a Type Certificate by a National Airworthiness Authority to an ICAO standard (i.e. for us, CASA). The Jabiru 2200-C model was Certificated, as was the ST1 (and ST3) model aircraft. 'Certified' means that the manufacturer has declared compliance with a standard (for us, the ASTM standard). While in fact the ASTM engine test requirements and the Certification standard applicable are very close, the difference is - and this is a LARGE difference - that the responsibility for the validity of the testing is borne by the NAA in the case of 'Certificated' while it is borne by the manufacturer in the case of Certified. It might seem a fine legal point, but it is why, for airworthiness aspects, GA 'Certificated' aircraft are completely under CASA control, while LSA Certified aircraft are completely under the manufacturers control ( unless the relevant NAA interferes on 'safety' grounds, e.g. CASA for Jabiru engines, the FAA for the Icon weight limit variation).

Aha, thanks. It seemed early on to be accepted that it was Ian's aircraft, glad to have that sorted.

I suggest we do not have enough information to make truly informed decisions. I would further suggest, that Figure #4 in post 114, shows a previous detached exhaust valve head impacting the head, and bending the adjacent area, witnessed by the oil-blow-by adjacent to it. Figure #5 shows corrosion pitting, which to me suggests that this engine had been sitting idle for quite some time before being installed in the aircraft. I note that the engine had been 'rebuilt' some 400 hours before the accident. AFAIK, Ian Bent owned that aircraft until at least just prior to the demise of CAMit, which was in what - October, 2016? Yet, the engine was 'rebuilt' by the pilot and a friend. The accident happened some 9-10 months at best later; to have racked-up over 400 hours in that time is a remarkable achievement for anything but a FTF aircraft.

Aha, ok. I'll use that description sequence in future..

Now more info available: Investigation: AO-2017-063 - Engine failure and forced landing involving Jabiru J430, VH-OFR, 17 km S of Bundaberg, Queensland, on 18 June 2017 For those who wish to actually consider the evidence, rather than blaze into print with biased opinion, please look carefully at the picture of the 'modifications' done to the pistons - if you click on the photos in the ATSB report, they come up in detail. I have built racing car engines - including modifying and balancing pistons. I have also rebuilt my Jab engine at CAMit, under the supervision of Ian Bent personally and all of his terrific people who were part of CAMit. I will state on pain of dismemberment, that the piston mods. shown did NOT come out of CAMit in that condition; Ian Bent would not have allowed it. It is, frankly, bush-yard mechanic butchery. You don't have to be any sort of superior engine-builder to know that such rough work introduces stress-points / weaknesses, into pistons that are already very 'commercial' grade. You don't take a die-grinder and just blaze away with it, you polish all metal removal areas to ensure a safe transition of loads. The level of workmanship shown on the photos in the ATSB report, would probably work on a lawn-mower engine, for a while.

Surely, this refers to Gen 2 engines, the Gen 3 is the new 'Chinese' engine.

Amongst those photos, is a very, very evident 24-reg number... That's the sort of publicity Recreational aviation needs to be included in our submissions to Regional Councils, to consider their support for their local airfield. Federal politicians using RAA aircraft to commute to local events. Don't p$ss on the value of this.

Oh, FFS The politics has completely overwhelmed what was a good and reasonable question. Since we have deviated into the politics, I will declare my position: I think Hanson was of far more value to Australia as a supplier of fish and chips than she contributes as a politician. HOWEVER: that was NOT the point of the question and it is COMPLETELY irrelevant to discussion OF the question. What IS relevant, is that we, as Recreational Aviators, are having the capabilities of our class of aircraft exposed to the MSM as a viable, reliable, means of getting around the country. Hanson isn't flying around in an RAA-registered aircraft because she is on a crusade to promote Recreational Aviation. She is going about her 'business' in a Recreational-registered aircraft because it works for her. And THAT, I suggest most strongly, is the message that we should be promoting: that RAA-class aircraft are a very reasonable means of getting around the country. Hanson travels on a mission: her political exposure. An RAA-registered aircraft fulfills that mission. QED, RAA-registered aircraft are competent means of transport. That has HUGE implications for our survival. If we want to see Regional Councils looking favourably on local airstrips as a source of tourist income, we NEED an awareness that RAA-registered aircraft occupants are potential visitors..with money in their pockets.. Hanson is doing we Recreational aviators a favour. Forget her political position - we are getting GOOD publicity. And - as much as those who carry a bias against Jabirus might regret - the 230 appears to be chugging along with no dramas.

The aircraft doesn't get to choose who flies it. Hanson's (????) Jab. has done faithful service transporting her hither and thither. Good advertisement for Australian-buit, LSA aircraft. I doubt anybody cancels a flight in a 747 (or buys one) because Trump is carried about in one.

Aha - no doubt, by the elite band of those that had actually survived one?