Jump to content

ROGER.G

Members
  • Posts

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ROGER.G

  1. 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.
  2. O. K. In my case the AP was also the test pilot, so I guess I was lucky!
  3. 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!
  4. Yes, to "take notes and assist with documentation". This was 15 years ago, but I suspect the situation is still the same today.
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. Hi Paul, call me on 0411 214106.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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).
  12. 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.
  13. 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).
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Pretty much what was proposed to us. Council ultimately offered to construct the hangar itself, and charge an exorbitant rent per aircraft space. It is amazing how much more things cost when they are undertaken by a government organisation, probably because of quality control and significant official oversight!
  17. Did not attend the event due to holidays. I understand that this meeting will probably be mainly concerned with regulatory requirements, but I will throw in my two bobs worth because it may have some relevance to any further discussions regarding GA and private aircraft owner operations at Tamworth. A few years ago, I was involved in a 'consortium' of 10 aircraft owners which attempted to negotiate with Council for the provision of additional hangar space at the airport. My role, apart from being an aircraft owner, was that as a Civil Design consultant I prepared the documentation and design proposals which were submitted to Council. The basic idea was that the owners would fully fund the construction of the hangars, i.e. no capital outlay from council whatsoever. Council would simply make available the necessary airside space at a nominal rent. A considerable amount of effort went into this, various options were investigated and costed, but after several years of negotiation to and fro, agreement was not reached because council applied a 'commercial value' to the land which was excessive. So the end result is that nothing happened, several of the original owners have either departed or sold their aircraft, an area of 'commercially valuable' airport land has generated NO income for council and there seems to be a lot fewer aircraft parked airside. Fewer aircraft means less demand for maintenance, flight training etc etc. So in a nutshell, Lose-Lose all round. I still have all documentation related to this proposal. This may be of no relevance to what is being investigated by AOPA now, but I can make this available if it can be of any help. If Council is to be involved, all I can say is "Good Luck!" But then again, there have been changes to councillors and staff since, the defence contract with the air academy has been lost, so maybe the powers that be might take GA a bit more seriously now. So it may be worth another try.
  18. So really, with all the variables you mention, and the different locations of these components relative to the c/g datum, the only safe option, if undergoing an engine change, weigh both before and after the transplant.
  19. Thanks for the suggestion re- battery, mine is only 6 months old so don't want to junk it just yet. What are the approx dimensions of the LiFe?
  20. The reason I adopted the fuse join line is because I noticed there was a difference between LH & RH door frame in my aircraft, and as Oscar said "which one do I use?". Adopting the fuse join line is as good as you can get, as well as wing tip to wing tip. if you are fortunate enough to have a perfectly level hangar floor you have got it made, otherwise the best way is to beg/borrow/steal a laser level (if you do not already have one). CLARIFICATION. I used fuse join line for the longitudinal axis, wingtip to wingtip laterally.
  21. Another factor Oscar, is the relationship between purchaser and manufacturer. I have found my dealing with Ian Bent and his willingness to help to be totally positive. My superficial view of the CAMIT engine (mine was an engine core, so I had to do a bit of work to transfer components) was that a serious attempt has been made to rectify the reported Jabiru issues. By the way, I am not on any sort of commission from CAMIT!
  22. See my reply to Oscar. The c/g of the engine is some way forward of the nose leg, so an extra 9 (or 10) kg engine weight will translate to approx 18kg extra on the nose wheel, which is what happened to my aircraft.
  23. You are on the money there Peter. After overcoming early cooling issues, my engine was performing quite well, but the CASA action (coupled with some first hand negative reports from other Jab users as well as the grapevine) frankly knocked my faith in the Jab engine, so I opted for the CAMIT to obtain a bit of peace of mind.
  24. Oscar, I have dug up the specs for my original engine. For the Jab 3300, the 'Engine Curb Weight, complete with engine oil, exhaust and starter motor' is listed as 73kg. For the Camit, the Ramp Weight, including exhaust, Carburettor, Starter Alternator and Ignition is listed as 82kg. I can send you a copy of these if you like. These weights tie in quite well with my actual measurements of the aircraft. You obviously know much more about the technical details of these engines than a mug like me, all I know is what is in front of me. All I can suggest is that the later Jab engines must have gained a bit of fat over the early models with the changes to hydraulic, different barrels and whatever else.
  25. You are correct, I did replace the original automotive transmission cooler bit of rubbish and this was after the previous w & b. Also prop attachment upgrade (longer bolts, extra washers). The modified arrangements for cooling may have also added a few gm's. Additionally, I went to a fair bit of effort to ensure that the aircraft was level this time around using laser on the fuse join line, rather than a spirit level on the door sill as suggested by Jab, so it could be that the previous w & b calculations were flawed for that reason. Tilting the airfare , even a little, can make a difference. The first model SP6, as I understand, was virtually a slightly stretched version of the earlier four cylinder airframe with the heavier 6 cylinder engine shoehorned in, hence the nose heavy verdict after the initial weighing. I suspect the later J versions may be a bit less critical in this area. I suppose my point is that, just because two engines look the same and bolt up the same does not mean that a bit of diligence in these areas does not go astray.
×
×
  • Create New...