Oscar

I had a Gardner diesel in my boat. It had a TBO of 40,000 hours / 400,000 miles in a road going vehicle (buses, trucks).. It weighed (bare) about 1.4 tonnes. It produced about 110 hp at 800 rpm (rising to 130 at 1800 or so) 6.3 litres (from memory). Reliability in the face of abuse that left Rolls-Royce in the distant shade. The crankshaft weighs more than an installed Jab engine...

 

 

Could be taken the wrong way but I mean it's pretty awsome and a great thing to have....Not really something every back yard mechanic has lying around...

You said " in my test cell" like everyone would have one....

A supply of fudge would be good to have for the interminable hours of sitting in the control room running the damn engines through the test sequences for certification... 50 hours at least of block tests of start, idle for X minutes, full power for X minutes, cruise power for X minutes, idle for X minutes, rinse and repeat..

 

 

Skyshop (Aircraft Spruce agents in Australia) sell SCAT and SCEET (as the aircraft industry with the exception of one L2 knows it), and SCAT is the one to get.

 

 

A 55-reg Jab will be able to fit a CAMit engine with an EO. Tough as a brick shithouse, simple, will need new control cables throughout, great as a cheap trainer, you'd want to upgrade the comfort factor a bit for a touring aircraft, cheap to insure and repair. No nasty flying characteristics but a bit light on rudder authority. Think Toyota Hilux ute (without the load capacity): can't kill 'em with a large stick, go anywhere, just not as fast or as comfortable as more expensive devices, but if you want to be able to go from A to B - no matter where A or B are - then they're up for it.

 

 

No, it's not what I meant, nothing to do with what you are posting about.

Ah, ok, then I'll leave you to it. There'll be a heap of research and (calibrated) testing information forthcoming in a few months, so I'll personally wait and see what transpires; I believe in hard evidence rather than theories.

 

Cheers.

 

 

JB - no, they didn't expect those pistons to take the same sized circlips - though I am aware of at least one engine that mistakenly had the original size circlips installed and had a circlip failure (jeez, who would have thought that?). They had to go from 22mm diameter circlips to 24mm diameter (I think it was, but my interests have been with the CAMit engine so I've not followed the latest Jab engine stuff in any depth) and that's why the service bulletin on circlip installation stresses that they must NOT be over-squeezed on installation.

 

When we rebuilt our engine at CAMit last year, for a complex set of reasons we used the old-style pistons with the wire circlips. This particular engine is a bit of a mongrel; it incorporates some parts that were sitting 'on the shelf' from an engine put together some years ago for a project that stalled, plus a number of CAMit development parts that were tried and proven at that time. It will be upgraded to full CAMit-spec in the future, but we need to do a period of test flying of other changes made to our aircraft and that will roughly coincide with the testing of the full suite of CAMit mods that is about to start, so we decided to hold off and get the hours we need on the airframe up before completing the engine upgrade.

 

When we complete the 'upgrade' work, we'll use the pistons and ring set-up that CAMit has selected running in CAMit barrels and using a CAMit-approved installation for cooling. I don't believe CAMit intends to use the new Jab pistons. I share your concerns re the 'new' pistons, especially the hot-spot potential if using 100LL - but that said, our approach is to rely on the research, development and testing work that CAMit has done and not to think that we have better ideas of what to mix-n-match inside our engine. Having had the invaluable opportunity to be somewhat involved in the CAMit development work (well, at the least, very well informed - talking to Ian Bent about how everything has to work together is a real eye-opener as to how complex the 'systems' working in the engine are interconnected), we're not going to be silly enough to think we have any better answers!

 

If you have time before you need to do the work on your engine to await the completion of the testing runs for the CAMit engine(s), you may find you have alternatives to simply rebuilding/refurbishing a 'Jab' engine that might be very attractive. We're probably talking around Christmas this year for that to be completed and the paperwork done.

 

 

If the cross is not on the runway it means "clear to jump"

Um - do the 'roos know that? (and surely, it should be 'clear to HOP'?)

 

 

That would have been a very expensive episode in the history of the Jabiru company.

Absolutely - but they copped it on the chin. I have no idea of the commercial arrangements, but presumably they were unable to demand re-supply of correctly machined pistons (which suggests to me that dealing with Chinese suppliers is a different world from dealing with suppliers from other countries).

 

The old adage that 'you gets what you paid for' seems to be apposite. A small company in Bundaberg can't compete with Chinese prices, but if you've visited CAMit, you'll see why their products deserve the QA cost.

 

 

Or you could mount a couple of speakers and a small MP3 player pumping out Barry Manilow, that would scare most things off.

Well, certainly anesthetise them...

 

 

Bex, with your deep knowledge of the Chinese manufacturing industry, I assume you have caught up with the fact that the Chinese piston manufacturer that supplies Jabiru with pistons delivered something like 5,000 pistons to Jabiru with the circlip grooves machined off-centre. What you may NOT know is that that caused Jabiru to have to strip and re-assemble several hundred engines twice - once to have the pistons re-machined, and then a second time to replace the 'replacement' circlips supplied (by a Chinese manufacturer) that were not to spec. for holding tension once installed.

 

The samples delivered for inspection, passed inspection. The bulk of the order, did not.

 

Let's not go there with different interpretations of the term 'forged'.

 

 

I believe Turbs is completely correct re the situation for livestock getting out of your property -a foreseeable risk. 'Natural' hazards MIGHT be regarded in a slightly different light, and if one could 'prove' that kangaroo infestation was not a normal occurrence but a result of, for instance, unusual circumstances (drought, a reduction of grazing habitat as a result of major fires in the area or somesuch), then you MIGHT stand a chance of mounting a defence - but I'd agree with Turbs, that lawyers are going to get seriously involved and that WILL cost heaps.

 

Here's a question for those with more expertise: if you own a private strip, and it is listed on any publicly-available information service (e.g. the AOPA National Airfield Directory etc.) - are you in effect 'offering a service' that might be construed as having some sort of increased 'duty of care'? What is the position of private property croppie strips etc.?

 

For instance - there is, almost directly opposite my own home, an entirely unmarked strip that is regularly used by the RFS as a service point for local-area firefighting (and having a fully-loaded Thrush Commander water-bomber heading out about 100 feet over the house 20+ times an afternoon gets a bit wearing, especially if a couple of choppers are also using the strip and dam).. Just because the property owner 'provides a service' to the RFS, does that make him liable for a 'duty of care'?

 

 

You're welcome, Bex, always glad to help where I can. Mind you, all of that info is available from the Jab website, and anybody who has ever stripped one would know it also - maybe not the metal spec, but certainly the method of manufacture, it's totally obvious..

 

 

If by 'another little clue' it is meant that the systemic nature of problems has another factor added to the sum of knowledge, then I think it's a fair comment. It obviously isn't a 'smoking gun' - there is NO 'smoking gun', despite the sometimes idiotic assertions that things like the crankcase material and manufacturing process lie at the heart of everything.

 

What Ian Bent has done is to build up a detailed picture of how the entire engine componentry interacts based on his knowledge of the manufacturing processes, the materials, the actual conditions the engine is experiencing, and then looking for the 'chains' of interconnected factors to determine how changes will be reflected 'down the line', as it were. That has two effects: it isolates primary causal factors and it allows analysis of what a change will affect - so changes are not addressing just one factor but are integrated into a 'system' upgrade approach. It follows the time-honoured 'weak link' principle: you don't just fix the obvious weak link, but you then look at the rest of the system to determine if you've actually improved the capability of the whole system rather than just moved the problem elsewhere - or indeed, created a new problem.

 

 

Yes, Ian Bent has gone for a more 'industry-standard' piston clearance for an air-cooled engine, but again I think it should be noted that the 'scatter factor' of Jab engine problems points in the direction of installation (cooling) effectiveness and probably quite subtle differences in the way they are treated as definitely contributing factors to either problems or alternatively, a relatively problem-free life.

 

However, (as has been discussed before), I think it is entirely fair to consider that Rod Stiff's 'run them hard' remark - taken not as he intended, but as interpreted (and not, I stress, unreasonably - it took Jabiru far too long to clarify what that was intended to mean!) has probably been one of the sillier things that could have been said. Nobody could reasonably blame 'operation' when the operators were not given clear and unambiguous information to follow and yet the effects of failing to best guess that comment shows up as physical evidence in a strip-down. I believe it was a serious own goal in the Jabiru history.

 

 

Geoff, they're no longer the old Holden pistons: https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t1.0-9/p480x480/10577206_515657385246600_1268174809877949968_n.jpg

 

Unfortunately for Jabiru, the first batch of these ( I think it was) had the circlip grooves machined off-centre, which was the main cause of the rash of circlip problems. However, it's not so much the pistons themselves but barrel cooling issues that are the main culprits - and research is underway to determine how best to address that problem.

 

 

Years ago, a bloke I know near Binalong had a set of carbide guns to scare roos off areas he'd just sewn to pasture. Seemed to work ok, though when some of the local lads decided one 'merry' evening to move them to around his house and stayed to watch the fun, they scattered when he came charging out of the house with his .303 (yes, it was that long ago) and proceeded to let off a few rounds.

 

But in seriousness, an auto-scarer needn't be a drone per se; a ground-based small cart with gps tracking around the perimeter of the strip and solar power than would work in flyable sun conditions with suitable noise-making apparatus ( I'd think a rap track would drive even roos to vacate the area) shouldn't be all that expensive to set up - only needs a steering servo, no gyros etc. and unaffected by (flyable) wind conditions.

 

Add a small petrol-powered mower that you start once a week to mow the path for it...

 

 

Oh, happy days.. now there's a new potential issue coming down the track: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-29/google-project-wing-drone-delivery-test-warwick-queensland/5707034

 

Presumably, such deliveries would be programmed to avoid the circuit area for recognised airfields, but for private strips on the flight path between the local eBay seller and the customers desperate for two soft-porn videos and some Tequila for that wild evening?

 

 

The conrods, the camshaft, piston/rocker pins, rockers and drive flange.

Keep digging, Bex, the hole is getting deeper.... About the only things you've stated correctly so far are the pistons and the fact that "Jab bottom ends seem to be as good as it gets by any World standards".

 

Crank, cam and rods are from 4140, not sure about the rockers but they are machined from rod and probably 4140, as are the flanges.

 

 

WTF? the Jab shaft is 4140 steel billet, machined by CAMit.

 

 

Oscar, how do you think Ian going to go selling those Camit engines at a higher price than genuine [albeit Chinese derived] Jabiru engines?

Well, FT, this is in fact a serious question that I am sure many more than you would like answered. I'm going to treat it as serious, rather than an attempt to gain a response that you can use to select a few words, quote out of context, and use as 'proof' of a ludicrous hypothesis - because if you choose to so do, your motives and your modus operandi will be entirely clear to all forum members, so that would be a 'win-win' for the progress of intelligent debate on the subject of Jabiru/CAMit engines.

 

Let's go back to history, for a moment - and that's cogent, since it is axiomatic that aircraft are designed around available engines. I have quoted this many times, but for those unfamiliar with the early history of Jabiru (and that needs to be taken in the context of the regulations in force at the time for 'ultralights'), see: http://www.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/AERO1400/Jabiru_Construction/jabiru.html

 

The 1600 engine Jabiru produced was marginal in terms of performance for the aircraft; a few more than 50 of the 1600-engined models were produced -and my own one was a factory 'hack' for the development of the 2200, and believe me, it shows! The work required to bring it up to a decent standard with a 2200-engine is not inconsiderable; the fact that it managed to achieve 2700 hours mostly as a training aircraft is mute testament to the fact that it had reserves of strength and general robustness and a huge tolerance of poor maintenance work, (mostly done - I am somewhat concerned to say - by LAMES/L2s). Despite all of that, it is, as far as I am aware, the FIRST VH-reg aircraft ever produced in Australia with an Australian-manufactured engine.

 

The 2200J engine was the first Australian-manufactured aircraft engine to gain certification to international standards - JAR 22H, the same standard as the Rotax 912A. Please correct me if I am mistaken here, but the Jab 2200 remains as the ONLY aero-engine manufactured here that has internationally-recognised certification acceptance.

 

Now let's fast-forward to today.

 

Firstly, let's just dispense with the 'Chinese-derived' furphy. ALL Jabiru engines are essentially manufactured by CAMit - but they do include Chinese-derived components. The apocryphal 'Chinese' Jab. engine has not been introduced; those with close association to Jabiru have good reason to believe that the mooted 'Chinese' engine has not been able to meet performance standards. The details of why that may be are not germane to this discussion. You will find Chinese-manufactured parts, if not the whole, in a vast range of 'Australian' products. Is this surprising? Was the Cessna Skycatcher a product of the 'good 'ol USA'?

 

The CAMit engine will of necessity be more expensive than a current Jabiru engine: it has more manufacturing processes, it has better components and it has a QC regime that, if you care to witness it which you can do with a five-hour drive from your home, is verifiably world's best practice. If I were Ian Bent, I would include the requirement for an audit of installation - as required by Lycoming - for the issue of a full guarantee.

 

Will people pay for a more expensive, verifiably and demonstrably better, Jabiru-derived engine? The question is valid, but the contra-question is: will people pay more upfront for something that has the credentials to deliver lower service-life costs?

 

That's not a silly question, because the costs of any alternative to a Jab. factory engine go way beyond just initial purchase cost: they include - $$/hour amortised costs, fuel economy, utility of their aircraft within MTOW restriction and far more cogently - utility for realistic use. A Jab with a Jab/CAMit engine is a damn good match to realistic use in this country, in terms of performance/range/x-country achievable speed in Australian conditions/purchase and running costs.

 

If your ambition is limited to flying two deckchairs around a 50K triangle in good weather, freezing your nuts off, then you do not have the perspective to consider the CAMit engine alternative. If you want to have something that has Gucci-graphics and c/f credentials to cause the folk in the next aero-club to your home field to have premature orgasms - go for it. If you want to have something in the hanger that you and you partner can decide on a Thursday evening to go to the Barossa for a weekend away and collect a couple of selected cases of great reds, or go to Bundy for ten kilos of prawns, or use as your 'ute' for outback maintenance duties - then you will be seriously interested in a Jab with a CAMit engine.

 

 

Jeez, I dunno - there's always SOME brassturd with a bigger knife in the park - and that IS a bigger knife.. it's a bloody broadsword... but I reckon one low pass down the strip - Herc low, that is -with everything hanging out on METO power and you'd blow the 'roos into the next State.. (also the strip, but what's the objective here? Total domination, THAT's the objective..)

 

 

Here's the best answer, if you're a good enough pilot to hit the buggers square-on - those that don't get kebabbed, get minced on the cabin antennas before they get to the prop.:

 

 

 

Gandalph part of the fun of owning a B brand is the religious desire to defend it and the satisfaction of "winning".

Now THAT is a comment deserving of a Gold Elephant stamp for personal best! Where is the emoticon for 'amazing hypocrisy'? I nearly laughed my coffee across the screen - well done, FT, you've left me chuckling for hours yet.

 

 

A jabiru and a land rover owner !We will have to organise a new club

Mick - actually, it was a Rangie - but in its defence, it was a very, very early one (the 613th ever built for the Aussie market, not even a rear window wiper) and extremely feral - Leyland P38 motor, hotted-up (9.55:1 compression, extractors, cam, Holley 400) with a bull-bar from 6mm wall rhs that took no prisoners. A proper electrical system, though, and I did probably 600K plus miles in it over the years with only two 'not get home' issues (well, three if you count running completely out of brakes on an up-ramp to the Sydney Harbour Bridge and deciding that peak-hour traffic and NO brakes was just not going to work, so I opted out of that one).

 

Now, if I could work out how to put a bull-bar on the Jab....

 

 

I'm wondering why you are not using Genuine Jabiru engine parts but instead using Cammit parts ? I believe this is the basis for all argument.

If you have a certificated Jab. engine in your plane, then the parts in that engine (to remain certificated) HAVE to be what Jabiru have used in the TCDS. Until CAMit have a fully TCDSd engine, a CAMit-modded engine can only be used for 'Experimental' purposes OR by the use of an EO - and that's restricted to Certificated aircraft, and the EO has to be issued for a specific aircraft, due to CASA's arcane regulations.

 

HOWEVER - Jabiru could adopt/approve a specific version of the CAMit engine for use in their LSA aircraft. I say specific because the CAMit mods cover a number of areas of upgrade, and they have been designed very purposefully to be, in the main, completely backwards-compatible with a standard Jabiru engine. That decision means that prospective owners of CAMit-modded engines have the assurance that they have - effectively - the 'back-up' of the Jab. factory parts available to them; they are not locked-in to an engine that does not have the corporate backing of the Jab. factory.

 

For what should be extremely obvious reasons, Jabiru would not want to adopt/approve the use of CAMit engines until they are proven to be at the very least, as good in every department as the official Jab. engine (and yes, I do realise that this is somewhat leading with my chin here - but remember, the Jab. 2200 has a TCDS so it has passed the JAR 22H test requirements, and the 3300 is just a 2200 with two extra pots and a few small tweaks.) The necessary testing of CAMit engines to the JAR 22H standard is about to commence in earnest and in the meantime, a number of CAMit engines are accumulating real flying hours.

 

The testing will also provide additional research in areas of engine performance not before fully investigated, and that research is very likely to lead to further developments that will solve - or at least very significantly mitigate - problems for which it has thus far been quite difficult to determine the chain of causal factors - due in large part to the over-riding fact that proper forensic examination of the entire chain of circumstances has not been uncovered and has too often been obfuscated by assumptions of causes by people without adequate knowledge of the 'systems' that produce the causes. Simplistic shouting about problems has been of mostly negative value; proper R&D requires a great deal of time, effort and money and a depth of knowledge about every aspect of engine design - plus a certain amount of serendipity in choosing the paths of investigation to be followed.

 

Once the CAMit engine mods HAVE been proven, then the ball will be, I believe, firmly in Jabiru's court to adopt/approve - or ignore. That ball is about to come into play, with proper industry-standard testing carried out by the most experienced team in this country in terms of aircraft engine manufacture, certification and performance testing.

 

Watch this space - as they say.