ROGER.G

had endless radio noise problems with my SP6, once one issue apparently sorted another would manifest itself. Using shielded wire for EVERYTHING related to the radio, and making sure the wires from the tacho sender were twisted all the way seems to have fixed things, no problems for the last 5 years.

O. K. In my case the AP was also the test pilot, so I guess I was lucky!

Obviously a bit of a grey area. A situation where you could probably get away with it, as long as nothing serious happens and I guess it is up to the test pilot and his confidence in the aircraft. In my case, I was not required to 'take notes' until the aircraft had logged a few uneventful hours!

Yes, to "take notes and assist with documentation". This was 15 years ago, but I suspect the situation is still the same today.

Adrian, I have not trawled through all your other posts, so will probably repeat advice from others. But I did exactly what you are proposing, except I did not fully comprehend the ramifications! I purchased my Jabiru kit, constructed it over about two years and then expected someone to do a test flight and the train me in it straight away. Not quite so simple! Fortunately I found a Jab builder who agreed to complete the 25 hour test schedule, some of which with me in the right seat (to take notes, which was very handy, occasionally I was able to take the controls while he took notes), and then it is a matter of finding a willing instructor. The LAME who signed issued my C of A endorsed it for training, but for me only. This was not a huge problem, but the words "homebuilt" or "experimental" tend to send a shiver down the spine of some trainers, especially GA (which is the way I went). Nevertheless, I would do it again, just make sure you can find someone who is willing to complete the initial 25 hours for you and hope all goes well.

This story is a prime example of why a lot of the GA fraternity perceive RAA aviators as cowboys. Repair to the Jabiru airframe does not cost a lot of $$ to do properly, but it does take a bit of time and care. The example quoted by Bruce would probably be OK as a temporary paddock repair, sufficient to get home so that the job could be done properly, I wonder how the associated damage to the fibreglass tub was treated?

Just read of your trials and tribulations, sorry to hear of your misfortune. I have an early SP6, which came with the two seperate fuse halves, part of the fabrication included the bonding of the firewall to the top half. Additionally, I had a landing mishap in 2005 which resulted in extensive damage, repairs included replacement of the front lower fuse as well as the entire firewall. My aircraft was constructed under VH Experimental, so construction and repair was carried out by me, taking advice from my TC and the certifying LAME. Under this category, responsibility for the airworthiness of the aircraft rests wholly with the builder, so Jabiru takes no responsibility for the construction or subsequent repair. I don't know about other categories. My experience with the company at that time was nothing less than totally positive, very helpful with advice especially regarding splicing layers of the fibreglass components etc, and they were only too happy to send me anything I wanted. As I recall, the total bill for the replacement parts was in the order of $10,000, which I felt was quite reasonable considering the aircraft would otherwise have been regarded as a total write-off. It seems as though their attitude may have changed, maybe the fear of litigation is more of an issue now. While acknowledging the comments of some of the other contributors, frankly the joining of the firewall to the fuse was not much of a big deal, and I can send you the relevant parts of my construction manual as well as photos of the repairs carried out in 2005 if you like. Certainly you will need to take a lot of care with the alignment of the components, although to be honest, my airframe was not all that brilliant in that regard in the first place (especially around the door frames, which were fabricated in the factory). And as noted elsewhere, the C.G will be upset a bit, you may be surprised as to how much additional weight the repair will add! Needless to say, anything I give you will be in good faith, and no responsibility taken for the results of your repair. It could be that there may be subtle differences between the construction of an SP and a 430. Anyhow, contact me directly if you like.

Pretty much the same problem with me (pressing ptt resulted in lots of static). Microair were very good, servicing the radio twice at no cost (no substantial problems found). Even isolating the power supply from the aircraft electrical system through a separate battery did not work. The solution in my case was to double shield ALL wiring related to the radio, no more problem.

Read it, very interesting. I think we can forget about any possibility of Jab taking over the CAMIT operation and continuing with an emphasis on CNC major components.

Well, you learn something every day! I suppose the ideal would be fins to both sides? As for the cylinders, CAMIT are black (but still machined finish).

Sounds very much like my experience, my original Jab engine needed a top overhaul at 120 hours (oval and out of round cylinders). The fact that I initially had the 'standard' instrument package (which was just one CHT thermocouple under No 6 spark plug) did not help, subsequent installation of a 12 point monitor showed No 4 to be the hottest cylinder. Jabiru staff, while courteous, really had no practical solutions to my problems, a lot of trial and error in consultation with a local LAME and other flyers sorted things out. I think the Jabiru cooling issues would equally apply to CAMIT, and Ian Bent insists that individual cylinder CHT EGT be installed to his engines.

My own experience is that airflow around the Jab (and CAMIT for that matter) is critically important (my aircraft overheated from day one). I have heard of owners who have enlarged the outlet opening of the lower cowl, to no avail. This is counterproductive because this is a high pressure area, so simply enlarging this opening will actually inhibit the airflow within the cowl. In my instance the main solution was to add a deflector at this location to create low pressure at the outlet. Additionally, I found that airflow over the sump is just as if not more important as airflow through the oil cooler (mine is an early model with finned sump).

Another possibility is an opportunity for ROTEC to obtain the CNC coding and IP and expand their engine catalogue. I would certainly like to see some way that support for CAMIT engines to continue, having recently installed one in my SP6. (Going well, too.) Interestingly, I received an update of the service manual from CAMIT only last month, so there must have been some hope that the situation could have been retrieved, right up to the end.

I looked in at the second aviation rally at Tamworth last friday, and as expected it did not relate to these type of local issues (lots of passion though, and very loud, clear messages delivered to the government and CASA representatives about the effects of the current regulatory regime). Interestingly though, there are reports that our council is considering the sale of part of the airport property for the possible use as an airpark type development. It will be interesting to see where this goes.