Oscar

Know the Salto well, it's cute like a kitten - but for sexy (and everybody who has flown one drools over it) : the Foka 5:

 

 

 

 

If we are to accept (and I do give some credence to Turb's point that it potentially opens up a new battlefront in the war between the legal profession and the operators of aircraft since lawyers will try on anything in order to win a case) that there is any validity at all to the argument that 'over-representation' in statistics should be taken as justification for the imposition of restrictions, then I believe that there should be deep concern by many aircraft operators as to where they might be placed in the case of a serious accident.

 

In fact, CASA has placed itself in an extremely vulnerable position and once a few people in CASA start to consider the flow-on implications of what it has done, I suspect it will be scrambling to cover its derriere. It has taken one factor in crash statistics - engine failure - and made a determination that, for reasons of 'safety', limitations on operation should be imposed on a particular engine that is 'over-represented' in the statistics. Let's, for the sake of this discussion, put the question of the accuracy of those figures aside and look at the philosophy of the imposition of the limitations.

 

CASA's argument is that Jabiru-engined aircraft have a greater than average potential for injury/fatality of passengers, solo student pilots and people below the flight path. As it happens, that potential has absolutely not been realised in 25 years of Jabiru aircraft / engine operations. We can rule out the 'danger to people below the flight path' as a problem, since it has yet to happen for recreational (and I believe also GA light, though some accidents have come perilously close) operation.

 

However, we cannot ignore fatalities/serious injury to aircraft operators/passengers. I believe that we can rule out CFIT accidents as obviously not airframe/engine induced. However, there is a large area of aerodynamic / structural deficiencies that have lead to fatalities / serious injuries in some aircraft that are well outside the 'statistical average'. Ironically, Jabiru aircraft are probably the 'gold standard' in terms of occupant safety, with a seriously good statistical base for that calculation.

 

I do not need to identify makes and models of RAA / GA light aircraft that figure too prominently in the fatality/serious injury statistics, we know them. Since CASA has determined to make an example of Jabiru for its engine statistics in the name of 'safety', how well could it stand up in Court if it does not make at the least similar determinations for specific makes/models of aircraft that have a demonstrated - not potential - fatality/injury rate that is greater than the 'gold standard'?

 

Someone in CASA Legal is going - eventually - to recognise just how far out on a limb CASA has placed itself if it does not apply the precedent it has created to other aircraft, where the statistics are incontrovertible.

 

Therefore, we would be silly to imagine (or gloat over, if that floats your boat) the fact that Jabiru has been singled out for attention is a good thing: this action is so transparently the thin edge of a wedge that anybody with a functioning intelligence should be able to see that it bodes extremely badly for the future of Recreational aviation (at the least).

 

 

Relevance of that article is zero.

He didn't say it was relevant, Frank - just reading. It's the vibe of the thing...

 

 

As long as you don't leave the (engine) fuel pump diaphragm and carby 0-rings completely dry for long enough that they harden and crack, that should work a treat. There are replacement carby floats for Bing type 64 /94 carbies that will tolerate ethanol / the aromatics in 98, but they are stupidly expensive and extremely hard to get hold of. Minimising the immersion of standard Bing type 64/94 floats will probably give you an acceptable life for standard floats.

 

 

Would it be at all possible to return this thread to its purpose? While I believe that Hiluxes have been designed in collaboration with the Chiropractic Association to maximise their profits and I have had far too many experiences with vehicalicidal 'Roos, neither of these fascinating topics of debate have the slightest to do with the CASA instrument regarding Jabiru engines.

 

 

There are Australian Design Rules for interior and driveby noise FH, and all engines, including air-cooled make it. They were introduced to counter progressive loss of hearing, and by comparison today, aircraft engines are very noticeable.Sooner or later someone is going to tip the bucket and descend on GA private and RA aircraft with pressure to quieten them down.

When they do, it should be reasonably easy to comply with the ADR drive-by noise level at any given point on almost any road except perhaps roads crossing runway climb out paths.

 

The ADR sets a noise emission limit from a vehicle under load at a certain distance from the vehicle. That is now Australia-wide.

 

Noise diminishes with distance.

 

So for example, if the ADR of the day specifies a driveby limit of 82 dbA 15 metres from the vehicle which coincides with the footpath, which might be 20 metres from the front of a dwelling, then it should be reasonable easy to show that an aircraft with open exhaust at 1500 feet will produce a lower noise level at those dwellings.

There are - and have been for years - noise limits for certificated aircraft. The Sunbird Seeker (for example) is performance limited for take-off by noise limits and achieving those has been a major problem for the engineers. The major source of unacceptable noise is NOT the exhaust - which is easy to muffle - but prop noise.

 

 

I hd the great fortune to undertake a work trip to gather information on aircraft storage and conservation, visiting with 'access all areas' privileges to the USAF Museum, the US Naval Air Museum, the San Diego air museum, Duxford, the UK Mosquito museum and more than a week at the Silver Hill restoration and storage facility of the NASM, and a side-trip to a major US private Warbirds museum ( not, unfortunatley, the Planes of Fame facility).

 

Saw the Hughes Racer 'up close and personal' - the finish is just amazingly perfect, every single flush rivet done to perfection. Crawled down the rear fuselage tunnel to the rear gunner position of Enola Gay. Kicked the tyres on an F-117. Crawled all over lots of aircraft that few people even know really existed!

 

The most amazing aircraft to see at first hand is, in my opinion, an SR-71 (saw two, at San Diego and the USAF Museum, and even when you're standing beside them, they exude a presence that can only be described as 'evil incarnate', with a major dash of 'no human could fly that thing, this is aliens territory'). Even just standing there, they look organic and somehow, alive.

 

The FW 190 is magnificent, even by Spitfire standards. The Mosquito is superb in the flesh. The Me262 is beautiful in every line (though rough as guts in the finish).

 

But of all the things I saw, absolutely the most visceral was the Tigercat at Duxford. Head-on, they are just two huge engines and props with a capsule for the pilot, impossibly slim and delicate. And every line, from any view, is simply perfect.

 

 

 

Mea culpa, I've never taken much interest in Harley evolution... but I also don't run around screaming that they be banned...

 

 

The only fault in that, is your gratuitous reference to Harley Boat anchors which you are treating in a way you resent Jabiru being treated. Modern HD's are right at the limit of aircooled reliable performance and have been higher quality , right through than non owners or people who don't work on them understand. I owned an ex Frank Musset 1947 1200 "U" model outfit that had done 350,000 MILES carrying other Harleys in a sidebox weighing so much two people couldn't carry the sidebox alone. The bike is still in excellent condition particularly notable is the frame which has no sign of any cracks whatever. I don't own it now. Nev

Nev - the efficacy of a boat anchor is (mostly) proportional to its mass... Traditional Harleys (even the EVOs) are not exactly overstressed. The XR-750s and I imagine the BotT ones, certainly punched to their weight. The Revolution in the V-rod pulls 100 bhp/litre, very respectable for an aircooled engine, I agree. However, they aren't featherweights....

 

 

The 2 ltr Petrol engine made a MASSIVE 72 horsepower at 4200 RPM Hence you could drive it all day long with your flat to the floor.

And the damn things weigh, with their integral cast bell housing, more than a Jab LSA55 empty. This whole diversion has been of zero relevance to the thread topic; my beloved VFR 750 engine and the BMW K100 engine I have sitting in my workshop will both run all day at 75% power and they both produce over 100 hp - and they both weigh more than a Jab 2200 even without a PSRU attached, according to my scales. If motorcycle engines were a viable alternative, they'd be seen in huge numbers in experimentals; a few BMW R75/90/100 engines have been used (and even a few Harley Boat Anchors), but the results have not caused any shake-up of the aero engine market.

 

The ONLY non-aero engine developed ( aka 'car conversion') engines that have made any significant inroads into the ultralight aircraft engine market are VW conversions and Subaru EA81 conversions - and they are both heavy for the delivered hp, though some turbo conversions of the EA81 start to be respectable. Many others have been tried; the Suzuki /GM GEO variants have some success, the Viking will probably fail just as every other Eggenfeller venture has turned to dross, probably more to do with the extreme dodgyness of the entrepreneur than the engine itself.

 

Jabiru engines are, worldwide, the second most numerous engines in service after the Rotax 912X series in the 'ultralight'/LSA class of aircraft. CASA has placed limitations on the operation of Jabiru-engined aircraft that are more onerous than for aircraft that have engines with higher recognised failure rates or engines that have such low representation in the statistics that they don't present themselves on the radar. CASA has drawn a line in the sand for reliability - but has not applied that standard unequivocally.

 

The CASA instrument cannot be seen as anything other than a specific and targeted attack on Jabiru engines. If CASA had defined a 'failure rate' of XX per XX hours of operation as unacceptable, then that is a quantitive expression of a de-facto standard that CASA has determined for engine reliability. NO quantitative figures have been defined; the measure has been 'more than Rotax'. There is NO international standard for aero-engine reliability.

 

Equally, there is no international standard for 'survivability / serious injury' rate for aircraft. If there were, we can all name quite a number of LSA, GA experimental / GA aircraft that would be subject to limitations before Jabiru aircraft. In fact, if the CASA 2014 statistics base period was applied just to fatals alone, we'd be seeing no passengers without signed release statements or student solo flights in Savannah, Tecnam, RV, Morgan, Cessna and a few others, for a start.

 

That improved reliability for Jabiru engines is a desirable state, is not an issue - it is a given. That the CASA instrument is a bugger's muddle, is obvious to anybody other than those who bear a vendetta-level grudge against Jabiru.

 

 

I dont buy the old argument of a aircraft engine needs to be ran at full power at the start and run at 75 % in cruise and other non aviation engines cant do that.

Then you don't understand the basis of engine certification / certifying. The performance figures for aircraft are based (mostly) on that exact premise: full power for take-off, cruise power for steady level flight. What car regularly - if EVER - runs at full throttle for 5 minutes as soon as the engine is up to operating temperature? Or runs at a constant 75% power for the full duration of a multi-hour journey?

 

Get real.

 

 

Also, I believe, commonly called 'dieseling'. Low MON/RON fuel will be more easily affected.

 

 

Trevor Bange is certainly one who instills an appreciation of engine management, but there are other sites as well that have had very satisfactory runs from Jabs. and I believe that they could provide much needed wisdom. I would suspect that those who do have good records will be less than overjoyed with the 'new' requirements although - and I think this is worth noting - Jabiru have made it fairly obvious that 'history' provides at the least a sign-post towards identification of 'good' and 'bad' potential situations.

 

How much, I wonder, does the specific situation of the training airfield and possibly specific elements of training emphasis affect engine management? Take - since it has been mentioned - the situation at Clifton. It's a small airfield with decent open spaces around, where (while Trevor makes sure you are keeping the climb airspeed numbers in the right place), there is plenty of option to vary the climb out to be sympathetic to the engine. No RPT traffic, very little need to hold for any excessive time on the ground beyond what's needed to do your checks and ensure the circuit is clear. No fixed taxiways forcing you to hold in an unfavourable position relative to the wind. Close enough to a major town and well-used airfield so that supply of reasonably fresh Mogas and Avgas is likely. Sufficient numbers of aircraft flying from it to keep the fuel use reasonable so it isn't sitting for too long in the tanks. Far enough from the local population centre to allow some 'creativity' in choosing the circuit points to adjust to what is good for the engine, allowing the introduction of engine management awareness to the rest of 'aviating' - not just clicking off speed, height and position in the circuit.

 

How many students have it drummed into them to 'fly by the numbers' - or learn in situations where high climb gradients and tight circuits have to be the norm, and therefore probably fly in that mode for the rest of their life? Ambient temps vary; fuel quality varies; 'the numbers' need to include more than just AGL and ASI figures.

 

While there is no reasonable argument that Rotax 912's ( but NOT, I believe, 914's) have a highly-desirable level of tolerance to user management, that does come at a price: not just $$ purchase, running and rebuild, but also a weight penalty that has flow-on effects to other parts of the total aircraft package, including usable weight and occupant safety. Everything in an aircraft design is a compromise.

 

The argument (if there is indeed one that is worthy of consideration) that users should not have to have due regard to engine management beyond that expected of the average motor-vehicle user - which appears to be 'if it starts when you turn the key, then it's good to go and nothing else needs to be considered' - is clearly bullsh#t, since the engine management for GA engines is absolutely NOT 'set and forget'. Even LSA aircraft have to be treated as something well beyond toys.

 

 

Sounds like hot carbon particles, probably on the exhaust valve, to me. Have you checked oil consumption for the flight? Other possibility, a mag earthing lead isn't working properly, do you get even mag drops?

 

 

The Jab. service letter ( JSL 014-1) issued on 7 December last year, presents a decent start to identifying the more 'at risk' engines. It's been hammered and hammered, that proper recording and analysis of engine performance with at least full cht and egt recording, is practically a minimum sensible requirement to gauge what's been happening, particularly on 'line operation' aircraft. It is entirely possible to cook a head between starting up and starting the T/O roll if attention isn't paid to things like holding time in a bad position (not pointed well into wind). I believe that much more could be done in comparing the overall operational environment in FTF's that have good service records with those that have a history of problems, because I believe some patterns would emerge that would further refine the 'picture' that Jabiru has tried to develop.

 

People don't go out of their way to treat their engines badly, I am sure - but 'innocent' abuse is still abuse from the engine's POV. Aero engines are not - and should not be expected to be - 'consumer goods'. We seem to accept readily that DI's are an essential part of flying safely but in general, engines get very scant attention.

 

 

He probably needs a bit of post-holidays sharpening up, he missed a golden opportunity to inform Turbs that the correct spelling of 'Senior Council' is 'Senior Counsel' - a bit of a slip from Turbs really, given his depth of knowledge of legal matters. (Though I somehow find it strange that any SC would not know how to pronounce 'hyperbole', they don't hand out SC-ships with a jumbo-pack of McTuckey Flied. I can see the 'uncouth brute' description though, I've watched Tom Hughes in action in Court, not just in his driveway with a cricket-bat.)

 

 

Turning Japanese?

Ha Ha.

 

 

Actually, there is a (sort of) relevance: rust in the bores will increase friction and that will add load to the flywheel bolts - especially in very cold weather when oil is thick etc. plus the bolts start to get to the temp. where they become more brittle than usual.

 

I have the CAMit inhibitor mod. in my engine, but I know there will be occasions when I'll be not flying for periods of more than several weeks at a time and I want to be able to simply pop a plug out of each cylinder and screw in dehydrator plugs without having to remove the cooling ducts, so the dehydrators I've made up will fit neatly through the standard Jab. plug lead holes. It's belt-and-braces stuff, but to me it isn't time wasted to make them (and they're actually not as simple to make as I had thought!) when I've spent a heap of time and $$ doing up the engine from scratch. And Nev's point re exhaust valve stems corroding is well taken.. as Niel Young said, 'Rust Never Sleeps'.

 

 

Oscar, i will chase down again but it was quite clear that with a new CAE core, it could now be classed as new engine make.It was advised to alter aircraft data in records being no longer Jabiru powered. That was VH regd.

The eminent CASA dept indicated that as only ancillary parts were kept and with the supplementary datalate issued by CAE

 

This was the preceeding discussion to getting email recently circulated confirming separation of new and new core CAE engines from limitations imposed

 

Probably a good question for tech man in RAA

Aha - not being a VH-reg owner, I don't get the CASA stuff. It makes sense from the POV of the amount of changes actually in a CAMit core rebuild, I agree.

 

 

Saw those, didn't like the colour... and I thought, geez, if I'm going to have dehydrator plugs, then ones that would actually screw into a Jabiru would be probably more useful than ones for Lycontinentals...

 

 

Kai - I have seen Jab engine intake pipes with injector bosses installed - for drone engines.

 

 

Nev, I'd say that at least in Norway the fuel companies are being more fundamentally honest than they are here. At least they (de facto) ADMIT that the octane rating goes to hell in just 6 weeks! Has anybody, ever, here tried to ask a service station 'when was your (95/98) tank last filled?' before filling their containers with mogas to pour into their tanks? ( and no, I haven't, either..)

 

 

Kai - you must be keeping in very good touch with Ian, since this work has mostly happened over Christmas! He's busy on I think the Mk.3 version, basically tidying up the actual installation details, and there are some tests to be run to check that there won't be any shaft cracking. (magnafluxing with the full tension on everything).

 

But for that work, his first engine (a 3300) for testing to ASTM certification would probably have been bolted up to the test cell rig for that to commence this weekend ( the bolting-up, not the testing - there's a bit of sensor installation, testing and some cooling airflow mods still underway for the cell). I'm glad it hasn't, as my own engine, which has been being both run in and used as the test cell development 'mule' for several months now, will be stood down and the delay has given me a chance to build some 12mm thread dehydrator plugs so we can do a full inhibit on it when it is stood down - as the aircraft has several months of work to go before we can think of bolting it in.

 

Re vapour lock - getting the aux. fuel pump as low (preferably, the lowest point) in the delivery circuit is the most critical factor; the ux. pump will add pressure to the fuel to the carby and help with vapour lock. Because of the ethanol hygroscopic problem we will be adding a gascolator to our own fuel circuit. It never ceases to amaze me that just about anybody in Australia has stories of 'dud' fuel loads in their cars, where the EFI systems can just barely cope with handling the problems but their car 'ran like a dog' until they got a new load of fuel in the tank - but it seems to never occur to many that the fuel they are putting into their aircraft tank from a mogas pump might just be as 'dud' as some they get in their car tank... and then blaming the engine for poor performance.

 

 

jj, I don't think that is correct - a supplementary-plated engine is still legally a Jabiru engine, not a CAMit engine. It might be a bit like 'grandfather's axe', with six new handles and a new head over time, but it's still 'grandfather's axe'..

 

 

Oscar, the info I saw from CASA indicated a core rebuilt WAS a CAE not Jabiru any longerIf it recieved a CAE plate

Yep, if it has a CAE plate and not just a CAE 'supplementary' plate plus a Jabiru 'primary' plate (as it were), then it's a CAE engine.