jetjr

Any report is better than none, even a rough assessment of what make and model and was it mechanical/pilot /other causes does help

They shouldn't alter whats submitted.

Previously there was near nothing being submitted and some looong assumptions being drawn on reliability and CASA acted on it. This had massive cost to RAA aircraft owners and had a part in manufacturers closing

Not perfect for sure but better

People may be prone to providing unclear detail when insurance will end up being involved

Engine - which one/version , full history, 2011 puts it at a sensitive age with Jabiru engines not being at their best BUT flight schools have good arrangements to exchange engines regularly at good rates I believe.

Plenty would look to having some top end work at 500hrs - don't see this too much as bad thing, pretty cheap comparably.

No, increased weight wont apply to Jabirus due to stall speed remaining unchanged

Theres should be some Jabiru 2xx around, handles weight fine as AC flys in other catagories up to 760kg

Some older 19 reg are limited to 544 but some are 600kg

Can get a good one for $60 Id say, I know of one which might be for sale

I bought a fairy expensive Deca for quad and was dead after just a few starts, pulled down to 9 v on start. - returned for a credit happily supplied by reseller

Also had some warranties on optima, seems every brand can have problems.

"the PC 680,which is OK for Rotax or Jabiru. They do not like trickle charging"

Interested in more on this, I had a ~ 5 year old PC680 fail after I started regularly leaving on Ctek charger  - supposed to be Ok for maintenance on AGM

Thanks jetjr, yes I did that sb years ago. They supplied a moulding which replaced part of the front lower cowl leaving more room for the oil cooler and actually lowering the drag.

 

Yes, not that one, theres one regarding rear exit of cowl. they have system for estimating how bad overheating is and then 2 or three different cowel exit mouldings

https://jabiru.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Engine-Cooling-JSB016-1.pdf

Theres a similar one for J230 that discussed Gull wing baffles removal and theres pics of std ram ducts going deep into cylinders like pictured before

The plates joining heads on the outside - preventing air leaks, were also tried by CAE and crack after a short time. Cylinders must move independently it seems

Jabiru sell lower cowl pieces to modify cowl

theres an old sb about it

Not sure how the system will let you claim reduced stall speed?

Currently its claimed by owner/builder or manufacturer in RAA and it isn't as critically important in VH

The PPL syllabus is a lot different to the PC syllabus, and so is the training. 

 

How?

Don't think you can modify, have to be certificated. Experimentals stay as they are

CASA indicated there are a few hundred aircraft that can fit into new catagory

Appears targeted to GA aircraft dropping into RAA regs rather than RAA moving heavier - hence the original comment for this thread and the thought why are RAA spending energy on it.

The term "dark art" comes to mind.

Sure is, and in terms of air flow through cowl, (and fuel flow from inlet) it seems no to Jabs are the same

The big difference is made by sucking more air out - lower cowl lips,

then controlling the path that air takes - duct deflectors

I think sealing gaps etc is essentially playing around the edges.

There is a point where lower lip modifications can result in less flow and can cause exhaust to enter cockpit

When modifying older Jabiru heads, be careful as you cant easily get them anymore unless something has changed

Id not be able to work all that out in the few seconds decision time you had, by the time you worked out they weren't working could be too late anyway

If you had been a slow approach and everything going well, try to stop or run off somewhere safe

If things a bit fast, go around, think a bit and try again with more options prepared, grass etc is a good idea

Older Jabs not reknown for effective brakes, often loose performance on a hard brake/fast landing, not to be totally relied upon.

Pays to get good at slow approaches and have some options available for higher speed exit

Jabiru and CAE worked with "gull wing deflectors", they sat in valley between cylinders, Jabiru placed on top to shift more air to rear cylinders on 6 cyl, they were later deleted (actually was a direction to remove)

I fitted these under cylinders and it stabilised temps but no reduction

CAE supplied larger versions under cylinders std.

They also fitted shields to CHT temp probes to preventing air blast cooling and some high quality probes to try to sort out erroneous readings. CAE reads hotter (125 -137 in cruise, 150 on take off) but I think its just closer to reality, Previous Jab setup read probably 10-15 deg cooler and moved around much more in phases of flight.

Which is a worry when you consider some 150+ temps being seen with std Jab supplied probes

Yeah 100 deg cht is a low number, you need higher than this to get oil temps up Id have thought

But number isn't that critical so long as they are even and you have some idea what variation from actual cht

Two now talked about good results but none saying what was done?

Only if the airframe can handle it and manufacturer will support it

To measure that an aircraft is compliant with 45 kt stall, what should RAA or CASA do?

Measuring accuracy to 2-3 kts takes some smart gear and/or a significant flight program

Its been suggested Jabiru heads can deform permanently at 180 deg C 

With measurement errors, 170 is way too close I reckon

Might be wrong but reckon Bruce is talking about water mist on outside of cylinders, not water /meth injection

Gets used in some road vehicles but dust turns to mud, bakes on and clogs things up. Aircraft dont really have water proof electricals etc

And right now it isn't very measurable

I think they were shooting for a wing loading type limitation - calculatable and accurate, even on the ground.

No one (inc CASA id say) wants them involved in design checks.

No many at 750kg mtow

There are hundreds presently regd with RAA which can meet 48kts @ 700kg

Cutting fuel to meet MTOW based on a 2 kt stall increase is dumb

The stall speed increase required is around 2-3 kts

Don't think much thought went into LSA numbers as US and AU are different

The whole minimum stall speed needs review as measuring accurately is difficult, especially to 2-3 kts

be aware of air blast onto sensors

Fitting CAE wind shields around probes raised temps a bit

A slight block to cool side will help more get sucked into warm side,

Id prefer slightly high temps and even under limits of course

Why does a pilot need a PPL? Why does a pilot need a medical? These are just BS excuses. A CTR endorsement & transponder is in reality the only difference. Works fine elsewhere in the world but for some reason it can't possibly work here.

 

It can work here except there isn't a CTA endorsement for PCert nor system to offer training - all can be sorted out.

My point was in reference to an indication an RA aircraft cant fly in CTA - they can, normal RA pilot cannot

Fuel level shouldn't be that hard to setup but there has been problems with needle and seats not sealing over the years, some pumps can push past seat/needle.

Mech fuel pump, bing is sensitive to pump pressure, spring in pump adjusts this and they can corrode  - not sure how being vented to case.

getting it back together is delicate as plunger can bind once warm, close fit and easy to misalign

Raa wanted owner maintaind for heavier ac, CASA in their NPRM stated this wasnt the case

Raa wasnt happy about it