ROGER.G

Hi my name is Rob and this is my first post and hoping someone can help as I am at my wits end trying to solve this problem.I have a clicking noise on my Trig radio, the remote sender is behind the rear seat, it is rev related and will increase with rpm, I have renewed rotor arms and plug leads, it is much worse on left mag but sometimes will change to both when flying, all wires are screened.I used hand held radio inside the plane and could still hear the noise and so its not wiring to headsets, any help would be much apreciated.

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.

I have a microair radio installed(no I'm not a fan of them either), my transmission is so garbled it cannot be understood, reception is excellent. I have tried 3 different headsets, both pilot and co pilot sides, bypassed installed coax on antenna, checked all connections and earth terminals to no avail. I have side tone and seperate intercom works fine, no sidetone when I transmit though which used to be there. I have connected another like radio which was working fine in another aircraft but this too has not fixed my problem.To add to my frustration microair don't have any techs on site for quite a few months as they are focusing on another project, so much for the after sales service for those of us that have dished out a fair bit of money to purchase one of their products which they don't seem to want to know about now.

Any help from those knowledgeable techos out there would be very much appreciated, I am at a loss at this point.

From some of the above posts I get the impression that sime of you have not taken the time to read Rod Stiff's statement that was posted recently on the Jabiru facebook site. Here is is........Wayne.

From the Directors Desk

 

As expected there has been much discussion on forums and in the media about the closure of yet another Australian Manufacturer. In the years prior to 2009 the aviation market was experiencing a boom period. World-wide demand for products was high, especially in America and South Africa. It was a time of waiting lists and ramping up production to meet demand. Then in one fell swoop in 2008 the GFC occurred and markets were wiped out overnight. Our American market (the majority of our business) virtually disappeared within a week. No-one could have foreseen the GFC and we all had hope there would be some recovery in the months and years that followed however it was a long slow road to recovery.

 

The flow on effects of the GFC did more than simply wipe out demand. Australia’s banking system was in very good shape which caused a massive in-flow of deposits in to Australian banks. This in turn pushed the Australian Dollar up to $1.10 US Dollars. This rapid rise in the AU Dollar from 0.75 cents to $1.10 completed the wipe out of our export market and also led to a flood of imports. The subsequent introduction of LSA meant manufacturers no longer had to face the costs of governmental compliance so a hundred or more new manufacturers emerged and increased competition on the domestic market dramatically. Jabiru’s share of the world and domestic markets dropped dramatically. Fortunately we were structured to be able to operate at this diminished level and still remain profitable.

 

Prior to Jabiru, as many of you will know, I previously worked for many years in the sugar cane industry. I was an engineer and a senior manager of a local company manufacturing sugar cane harvesters for the world market. The success and fortunes of this industry rose and fell on the world prices for sugar. Anyone who has run a business locked in to world commodity prices for agricultural products will know it takes considerable management skills to sustain a business in a market with wild fluctuations in demand. The harvesting business survived until it was taken over by a multi-national company and shipped to Brazil. I learnt many valuable lessons in these years.

 

From this experience I learnt early on in the development of Jabiru to expect the unexpected and to structure a business to survive huge fluctuations in the market. My business principle has been to utilise contractors where ever possible to minimize the huge capital investment required for machinery and buildings. Our premises are humble, we keep it simple. Our profits are used to invest in research and development, design and marketing, certification and staff development.

 

When the world wide demand for product started to increase significantly back in 2006, I very strongly advised our major suppliers, including CAMit not to go in to massive amounts of debt to meet this demand but rather to look at the possibility of out-sourcing to contractors and other strategies. My advice to CAMit at this time in 2006, so they could stay viable in the long term was to start the process of converting the Jabiru engine to castings rather than machining from solid to reduce the capital input and massive debt that would be required for more machinery and new premises. This advice and direction was strongly rebuffed by CAMit. Jabiru at this time obtained prices from New Zealand suppliers for crankcase castings. Jabiru was fully prepared and offered to fund the entire pattern and associated costs for CAMit to implement this development. This however was also rebuffed. I could foresee the capital required for machinery was dangerously high and debt funded, and could place them in a precarious position. 2006 was the beginning of the research and development of the cast engine that would require very low capital input for machinery. Ideally, I had hoped CAMit would come on this journey and continue to produce and develop the next generation Jabiru engines however two different directions and thought processes were occurring.

 

When the GFC did strike in 2008 and the market disappeared I became very concerned that CAMit’s business may not be sustainable on this dramatically reduced volume. From experience, I knew this was the time for aggressive management action and restructuring by CAMit in order for them to remain viable. To allow CAMit time for this re-structure, Jabiru continued to order and buy engines when there was simply no market in an attempt to assist and keep them viable. This in turn forced Jabiru in to a borrowing situation to continue purchasing engines to the point where we had over 360 engines in stock. Jabiru’s own survivability as well as CAMit’s had to be seriously considered at this point. Insufficient action seemed to be taken by CAMit to reduce debt and I became increasingly concerned. What would happen to our valued customer base of 6,500 engines and 2,100 airframes worldwide if we were left without an engine manufacturer. Jabiru has been my life’s work and I feel a deep responsibility for our customer base and my staff.

 

Jabiru had already experienced early on in our development the failure of one engine manufacturer, KFM. At the time, this pushed the company to the brink and very nearly spelt the end for Jabiru. Everything Yvonne and I owned was mortgaged to the hilt to keep the company alive. I had visions of the same thing possibly happening again. It became increasingly evident that I needed to insulate the company as much as possible to ensure our longevity in the market should the unthinkable happen. I held grave concerns and sympathy for the situation CAMit was in.

 

Understandably, CAMit had to look to diversification and obtain other contracts. We were pleased and heartened when they obtained mining support work. Mining work is extremely competitive however and when the mining industry also experienced a contraction in demand it was another blow for CAMit. We were saddened, but not surprised when CAMit then entered the retail market with a look-alike Jabiru engine. Desperate needs leads to desperate deeds and I understood. I sincerely hoped that CAMit would survive. I am always saddened by the demise of any form of Australian Manufacturing be it competition or not.

 

CASA limitations further damaged our market world- wide and if it were not for our astute financial management and complete absence of debt we would have perished. We have been able to maintain our workforce and carry on.

 

As with the on-going research and development of any engine there are highs and lows, however at all times I have endeavoured to build an affordable, light weight, reliable engine and air frame that would enable the average man to enjoy the pleasures of flight. In this endeavour we have been successful and our brand is now known around the world. There has been much criticism of Jabiru but I remain fiercely driven and proud of the products we produce as a small concern with limited funds using many Australian suppliers.

 

As it stands today we have stock on the shelf and are arranging supply of the majority of components to support existing engines and spare parts. We are progressively placing the remainder of components with suitably qualified factories. We will put in our best effort to have a seamless transition for spare parts and engines.

 

Rodney Stiff

 

Managing Director

Ah yes, airflow over the sump. Did you know that the cooling fins are on the wrong side? they should be on the inside. The oil pick-up sucks red hot oil that sits on a layer of nice (relatively) cold oil just above the surface of the sump. Want to help? some nice tapered spikes or short ribs welded? to the inside of the sump....A'la AJS porcupine. What about painting the barrels black?....Maybe coarse sand blasting the cooling fins?

Nothing sudden, we monitored the situation and had a cut off if things got worse. To me the engine was sounding perfect, even when I did my BFR the instructor liked the sound, maybe too used to a 4 cylinder. About 3 cylinder heads were seaping oil after 25 hours and this was happening but there was a lot of oil the last 25 hourly.

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.

Did you work out why it suddenly happened (at 250 hrs).Suddenly getting hot must have been result of something happening.

A opportunity for Jabiru to buy Camit at a 'bargain price', mmmmmmmmmmmmmm, just sayin;. Stranger stuff has happened.

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.

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!

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.

A bit more information on weights, and a correction: the CAMit flywheel is, as JJ said, lighter than the Jabiru one. ( Mine is actually a spider-centre Jab. one, not a proper CAMit one - my bad memory there!) And the newer alternator is apparently same installed weight as the Jab. charging set-up, with all the advantages of the CAMit one - a no-brainer, I reckon!A set of four cht and clamp-type egt sensors plus cables and bracketry, weighs 540 grammes: 135 grammes/cylinder.. Standard Jab is one CHT: I don't have a weight for that, but I'd estimate around 50 grammes ( since the egts have a s/s hose clamp).. So, for a six-cylinder, I reckon add 760 grammes on the engine.

 

The old standard Jabiru oil cooler adapter is 211 grammes with the O/P sender and the hose barbs attached. The CAMit TOCA, is 324 grammes. (assuming my kitchen scales are fairly accurate!)

 

The CAMit cylinder anti-corrosion oil injection system adds around 450 grammes approx., maybe a bit less.

 

So, yes a fully-optioned CAMit engine is going to be a some kgs heavier than a basic early-model equivalent Jab. engine, but I just can't see anything like 10 kgs - maybe half of that or so, for really quite a bit more 'kit' - all of it highly desireable, I reckon, for a good and faithful life.

 

HOWEVER : my estimate is based on adding what I can think of. It would be far more reliable if someone could remove their Jab. engine with all ancillaries, weigh it, and the weigh all the direct replacement parts for a CAE engine swap, so it's a true apples for apples comparison. CAMit has measurement gear of an accuracy that most of us can only dream about; I wouldn't doubt their advertised weights for a moment.

Fair enough, id better weigh mine againIt does add value to light LiFe battery

I am happy with extra weight Camit has added, it in the right places, with performance upgrade it doesnt feel heavier.

 

with lower MTOW it could catch up quickly

Oscar, I have always done the spirit level on the door thing.. what do you recommend instead? Is the fuselage join-line the horizontal reference we should be using?

CLARIFICATION. I used fuse join line for the longitudinal axis, wingtip to wingtip laterally.

Roger: thanks for that info, you don't need to send it to me ( my 'bitzer' part-CAMit engine is a 2200) but it's going to be a useful reference for everybody considering heading down that track. Does yours include the CAMit engine-oiler system and the TOCA? I'll weigh those later today... It's axiomatic that 'weight creeps in' with changes. We've seen plenty of commentary regarding the possibility of changing over to a 912 in various threads here over quite a time, with most of that concentrating on the weight differential. Only one 'real-life' example of the rest of that conundrum has emerged - Ian Boag's conversion, which he estimated cost him around $40k. I believe that AAK is doing / developing a 'kit' but I know very little about that, though an initial report suggested the weight change was very little, so your comment that the Jab. has gained some weight over time sounds pretty much on the money to me.

 

There's a lot more to be considered than just weight in contemplating a change as radical as replacing a Jab. engine with a 912 and this is not the thread to go into that, but your experience is, to me, useful in comparing the weight question ( the 'buggerising around' question is a different one entirely!) so what you have reported will surely be of great interest. It will be ALSO be of great interest, I think, if the CAMit operating experience shows them to be competitive on reliability with the 912's - because I, for sure, would think that if the reliability of the CAMit is close to the 912, the relative purchase price, operating cost, and pretty much 'drop-in change' - though your comments re changing the cooling arrangement and the alternator wiring are noted - of the CAMit change-over would be pretty attractive!.

By the way, I am not on any sort of commission from CAMIT!

Somethings going on if youve picked up 20kg nose weightCamit flywheel is lighter I think, larger alt is off set by missing stator

Theres a new light weight altenator now too

 

Information i received was tht a w&b was optional as engine weights very similar

One of the sad things about CASA's actions has been that many people have had their trust in their engines destroyed even though they have had no problems. I read one owner's post to a forum saying that he wished he could afford to replace his Jabiru engine with a more reliable Camit engine. He then went on to say that he had had absolutely no problems with his Jabiru engine, so presumably more reliable than 0 problems is negative problems.At the time of the CASA action, I spent a bit of time going through all the accident and incident reports I could find, essentially the 2013 and 2014 reports on the RAA website, and eliminated all the reports that were obviously nothing to do with engine failures, such as running out of fuel. The things that impressed me were:

 

• The paucity of information and how many reports were incomplete
   
   
  
• There was no obvious increase in the number of failures from 2013 to 2014 so it was hard to see what CASA's justification of the increasing rate of failures was based on.
   
   
  
• There were several failures that could be attributed to broken through bolts or valve failures - these are obvious problems
   
   
  

 

 

The through-bolt failures puzzle me because with a rough calculation they would appear to be strong enough and they shouldn't be subject to fatigue loading unless they are not torqued up correctly. Apparently the problem didn't show up until the introduction of hydraulic lifters, but that shouldn't have any bearing on it.

 

I suspect the valve failures might be associated with high engine temperatures - my guess only. I think it is fairly common to only measure CHT on one cylinder, usually #4 on a 2200 or #6 on a 3300 because they are the rearmost cylinders but on my engine, the #6 is the coolest. #3 and #5 run hotter, so maybe pilots are unwittingly over-heating their engines.

 

Another consideration is that the majority of Jabiru engines end up in homebuilt aircraft, like my Sonex, which do have a higher failure rate than factory built aircraft, and over which Jabiru have little or no control. That isn't to say I think the engines are bullet-proof, they are very lightly built and that comes at a cost. All the same, it is very hard to find useful statistical evidence for CASA's action. They seem to just keep on repeating the same line without ever showing the evidence.

 

Peter Anson

 

Sonex 19-7898

 

Jab 3300 240 hours

Roger - I will guarantee that the door frame bottom on any of the early narrow-fuselage (aka LSA55/derivatives) is a complete pile of , ahem, for level. Just try it for comparison side to side: and pick the one that you like!.If your original W&B was done with the small wheels and you have changed to the larger ones since (as most people who fly out of anything other than tarmac strips have done), then the effect of the bigger diameter will add to the change for tilting. If you have changed to the later (heavy-duty) noseleg, that will also add a bit - and the bigger nosewheel + tyre would add a kg or more, I'd suspect.

 

The LSA55-airframe engine mount is the same - same part no. - for the 3300 and the 2200 engine, so the c/g of the 3300 engine moves forward by around 50% of the extra length. That's not the same effect on the W&B of 50% of the actual engine length difference, obviously, since the c/g of the engine will be aft of 50% of its length. The CAMit alternator and flywheel upgrade adds overall weight - but is closer to the aircraft c/g than the engine c/g, so the compensating tail ballast won't be at anything like 1:1. The move to using the Belleville washer pack for the prop retention would be sod-all in the scheme of things.

 

Can you think of ANYTHING that has been added - either since the original W&B was done, or within the context of the swap to the CAMit engine - forward of the firewall to your aircraft? This could be valuable advice to those who wish to follow your path.

 

Your point 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' is a really good one. Everybody should take note.

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.

Well, the CAMit barrels are 275 grammes approx ( 276 on my kitchen scales..) heaver than the Jab standard ones, so there's 1650 grammes already. The alternator is quoted as 1.7 kgs heavier than standard, so there's now 3350 grammes added. The stronger flywheel might add maybe 250 grammes? The through bolts are considerably more meaty than standard Jab ones, but I doubt if that could amount to more than about 50 grammes per bolt, and the Jabiru locating dowels go, so maybe 40 grammes? Rocker gear would be line-ball for weight. I don't recall the earlier CAMit flange being different from Standard, later ones may well be enhanced.I would have expected about 5 kgs all up heavier for a full-fruit CAMit engine, with a fair bit of that (alternator, flywheel) being fairly close to the c/g so compensating weight for that at the tail moment would be, (at a rough guess) maybe half of that?

 

Roger, did you add anything else - like replace the oil cooler? (the original Jab flat one was rubbish; a decent Aero Classics 7-row will add probably well north of 1KG and the lines a bit also.

 

Did you change props? Change to the s/s/ exhaust system from the original Jab?

 

Same as Gandalph, I am in NO WAY doubting your figures - getting an accurate handle on the conversion details is going to be important for lots of Jab. owners. In the (fairly likely, I suspect) event that there is a 'standard' conversion developed under MARAP, it is real experience such as yours that will contribute greatly to the development of the most effective 'scheme' for conversion. This is all valuable information!

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.

10 kg heavier Roger? Jabiru list their 3300 @ 83.5kg and Camit list their 3300 @ 82.4kg. Where is the extra weight in the Camit. Not doubting your figures, just asking.

When I completed the build, the aircraft was professionally weighed, and the verdict at that stage was that is was nose heavy configured 2POB with no fuel (my tank is behind the seats, no wing tanks), and I was directed to instal 6kg of lead in the ventral fin. It was in this configuration that the C of A was issued.

A couple of years down the track I had a think about this additional dead weight in the tail, and decided to relocate the battery from the firewall to the back of the luggage compartment. This had the desired result, and I could dispense with the ballast.

I honestly don't know what the manufacturers specifications are for the later Jab engines, I do know that one of the advertised differences between Camit and Jab is that the CAMIT has heavier cylinders. The flywheel attachment of the Camit is also significantly different to the Jab (heavier) and I also assume that the 40 amp alternator is heavier. What I can confirm with absolute confidence is that with the old engine, the weight on the nose leg was approx 65kg. With the Camit installed, this had jumped to 83kg! This was not some sort of aberration or my eyes reading the scales wrong, it took noticeably more effort to lift the front of the aircraft to move it around.

As for the desirability (not) of adding ballast to the extremities of the aircraft, probably a good point. But this was how my aircraft was granted it's C of A in the first place, so we are back to square 1 in that regard. I am trying to think of a way to relocate the battery further rearward and maybe ditch some of the lead, but it's a bit difficult without interfering with the structure, and that is a no-no.

Anyhow, all this does not seem to have made any difference to the handling. I don't know about spins, they are prohibited!