Oscar

The Jab engine install manual is also worth a good look: http://www.jabiru.net.au/eula/eula.php?u=/Manuals/Engine/JEM2202-6_Inst.pdf and http://www.jabiru.net.au/eula/eula.php?u=/Manuals/Engine/JEM3302-4_Inst.pdf. The general section regarding overall airflow is useful (though some of it is rather basic...)

 

Some other stuff on this site is also worth a read, for general backgrounding if nothing eg: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/low-oil-temperature-on-cold-mornings.51270/, which presents a pretty powerful argument for having a thermostatically-controlled oil temp bypass (CAMit are working on one, or there is the reference to the UK one from Steve Rance which has good reports) not just for the better general oil temp. maintenance but also so that once you have the oil cooler airflow worked out you don't change your head cooling characteristics by fiddling with the cooler airflow - as JJ shows is not necessarily without other effects. (Personally I'd prefer to see my oil cooler airflow kept right out of the lower-cowl equation anyway..)

 

Jabiru made their single biggest oopsy in my opinion by not including CHTs on all cylinders from the start (yes, I know the cost argument) but I believe a hell of a lot of grief for everybody could have been avoided, or at least reduced, by that move. Their documentation on cooling certainly promotes the use of CHTs on all cylinders, and given their admission that it's quite usual for CHTs to vary more than 30F, you'd have thought they'd have worked out what risks were being taken by only installing one CHT as standard.

 

If you're going to do any development work, I think it's a really good idea to not just have CHTs on all heads but also go to the trouble of checking that they are reading correctly! One dud splice in the wiring or even a dirty connection can really throw a CHT out of whack. To really get a good picture, a full set of EGT's is highly desirable as well; the somewhat cramped Jab. inlet manifolding can do odd things to the mixture distribution and that can change with different revs, so you might get inexplicable results that you think are an airflow effect that are in fact a mixture distribution effect and go chasing the wrong factor.

 

Something I learned on my recent trip to CAMit is just how intricately the whole engine 'system' is interlinked and how much research and thought it takes to work out how changes to one element can affect other things. This is precisely the reason that simplistic statements about problems are more often than not of very little value; it is very likely that at least some of the problems with Jab engines that get put down to engine faults have in fact been the result of some apparently unrelated change that the operator doesn't connect with its actual effect. JJ's experience with the CHT's and EGT's changing when he changed the airflow through the oil cooler are a very good example of this; sometimes it needs pretty much forensic-level skills to determine the connection.

 

 

I'm tempted to toss out the standard fibreglass ducts and install a conventional horizontal fence around the engine, with a vertical wall behind the starter. It would need "gull wing" baffles between cylinders. Shouldn't be too hard to build, and once installed, getting at plugs etc should be a breeze. Perhaps this has been tried before?

Now a new thread on this where things can be discussed would be of great assistance to Jab. engine owners.

 

I also have the intention of doing some serious work to see how the whole cooling airflow can be improved, but it can be a tricky and frustrating business to get everything right. At the very minimum you'd want to have CHTs on all pots and a test flying area that will allow you to easily abandon a 'heavy-duty' test and quietly potter back home if something you're trying isn't working as well as you'd hoped, e.g. you find you get flow choking in certain situations. A test set-up that can measure relative pressures past each barrel/head is fairly advisable ( old ASI's will do it, but there are other ways). The advice I've had - from someone who has done rather a lot of this stuff for certification and modifications work - is to go at it fairly gently and seek firstly to make sure you're getting the best out of the standard set-up and then tune it progressively. It's a somewhat boringly repetitive task, I'm told, requiring pretty accurate flying and some work converting ambient temps to a normalised state to get the real figures that show progress / regress as you change things.

 

Personally I'll be starting with a proper oil-cooler and installation (rather as per kgwilson's ideas, though a ram-scoop rather than a NACA duct is more effective at actually getting decent air pressure into the oil-cooler), an oil-cooler outlet that doesn't exit into the main cowl cooling area thus reducing effective relative pressure on the extraction side and a decent bottom cowl-lip to generate more effective extraction from the cowl area. A spinner better matched to the intakes is also tops on the list. From there, tweaking the plenums and the plenum interconnect to balance pressure on both intake sides and after that, more sophisticated baffling to get the damn cooling air balanced and effective past front and rear heads. On the plus side - my circuits should get really well-practiced...

 

As a small aside re knocking up a set-up if using aluminium sheet: thin aluminium subject to vibration is a right bastard for fatiguing at any attachment points if they can cause it high stress levels. I found out the hard way when building racing cars just how quickly something can break off. I think just about every aircraft owner knows this - I'm sure you will - but it's oh, so easy to overlook it in designing a fitting when space is tight. Been there, done that, had the dead bits thrown into the back of the trailer...

 

 

maybe not the same prang. My mate came unstuck during a lollydrop. That not the one?

Outboard wing lift reversal in a gust. Not actually ladylike behaviour.

 

 

Yeah found the service bulletin which says remove them. It s here http://jabiru.net.au/Service Bulletins/Engine files/JSL004-1 Engine Cooling.pdfAnd the engine installation manual http://www.jabiru.net.au/Manuals/Engine/JEM3302-4_Inst.pdf which says leave them out unless you want them in. If you leave them out then you need larger volumes of air flowing past the cylinders and have to ensure the right pressure differentials.

 

So in this case I was being unfair to J, their installation manual does reflect the AD.

 

Andy

Getting the right differential pressure is pretty important (and that's what KG is striving for). Ask any aero engineer what is generally the most tiresome aspect of performance testing for certification purposes and 'cooling' is usually right up there near/at the top of the list. It took something like a year (maybe more) of test, modify, test again to get the J2200 installation on that Motor-Falke working really properly (in combination with lots of inlet tract work to get temps even across all heads) but they persevered and as far as I know it's been a pretty successful installation in the end.

 

 

This is what all should be aiming for ...... ( CHT's bottom RHS ), and that's in degrees Fahrenheit . Admittedly on descent into Southport , but normal cruise temps only slightly higher . Engine No 2200A/2787 , around 2009 , fine finned heads , no head stud re torquing required since new , now around 350 hours . Bob[ATTACH=full]27021[/ATTACH]

Now THAT is the sort of Plastic Jesus I want on the dashboard of MY plane! I do believe the appropriate term is 'relaxed and comfortable'..

 

 

Its unreasonable to expect everyone to call Darren or for Darren to answer all those calls . So if you have some information that warrants a statement like this, why not put the information here for all to see.

Well, for those who want certainty in the answer, I'm afraid they'll probably not be satisfied until they have spoken to Darren, but you can certainly start with this: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014C00045/Html/Volume_1#_Toc377559067 - Part 33 is the start of the trail. However to get right down to it in regard to actual certification standards you'd probably need to wade through FAR and EASA stuff as well and get acquainted with the provisions for APMA approval. The current ( I believe) Jab 2200 TCDS is at: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/casadata/cota/download/ve501.pdf&ei=NxPjUoHIJYL-iAeh2IGgBA&usg=AFQjCNGIYTkY2lmhqQym2NvHC2ZkM8_ssQ&bvm=bv.59930103,d.aGc&cad=rja

 

I can't seem to locate a TCDS for the 3300 but there must be one.

 

Knowing just what applies in the CASRs is a job for experts, which is why Darren is the best go-to man. Perhaps someone should suggest he might write this up in his column in Sport Pilot if it's a burr under your saddle; I'm quite content with what he told me that the sky is NOT about to fall on my head as a Jab engine owner (little aerial joke there..).

 

 

Keep going Oscar, you are winning! Grind him down

I don't want to have to, and it'd be way, way more useful to everybody if we didn't have this gaping chasm between the 'Jab. legs bad, other legs good' brigade and those who are trying to keep the overall commentary in some sort of perspective. I have never taken the position that Jab engines are perfect, have no faults, have no QC issues etc.; if that were my belief, then I'd not have spent my money on the CAMit upgrades (and they'll need an EO before I can use my engine, but I'll be continuing in 55-reg so I do have that luxury). I would, for instance absolutely concur with Andy re his experience of the cross-hatching (and Keith Rule at Cessnock is absolutely a Jab engine guru, his opinion is gold-standard as far as I'm concerned.)

 

However this whole area is way too complex to just push individual cases into 'Box A' or 'Box B' as some sort of 'proof' of what happened. For just how complicated it gets, one could take the Sting crash at Goulburn as an example. If one takes the (very, very extensive) report on the engine ( http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2007/aair/aair200700054.aspx ) one could draw the conclusion that the crankshaft simply broke, and a 'Rotax knocker' group of the same temperament as some of the Jabernasties on this forum might take that plus the Rotax Emergency Safety Bulletin and trumpet that 'all Rotaxes have crap crankshafts.'

 

HOWEVER, if you also read the full Coroner's report ( http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.recreationalflying.com%2Fimages%2FSmith%2520and%2520Guthrie%2520Finding%2520-%2520Final.doc&ei=-9LiUrmcPITriAejjYHYDQ&usg=AFQjCNGM2DoUc4oFTxfiyw141_kLZuo3DA&bvm=bv.59930103,d.aGc ) you'll realise that there are additional factors that ought to be considered. There's additional unpublished information that adds to the picture very considerably that was discovered during the work on the subsequent court case that leaves at least the possibility of a prop strike before that aircraft was sold. All in all it's a very tangled story and just saying that 'the crankshaft failed catastrophically' - which is the summary of the engine inspection report - does in no way cover the gamut of possible causes of the ultimate effect. The same goes for any engine failure, it's just not good enough to take the final effect and use that to stuff that case into the box of one's own choosing without knowing the full circumstances.

 

Jabs are ubiquitous in Australian skies. If the engines were as tough as the airframes, they'd be (as some have said here) a bloody world-beater, and for those who accuse me of stuffing 'propaganda' down people's throats, I make absolutely no apology for holding that opinion. There is no objective measure of what is or is not a 'world-beater' by which I can 'prove' my argument, nor that it can be disproven. It's just an opinion.

 

Jabs, like all RAA aircraft, get operated in many different circumstances. There is a significantly lower amount of quality control on those circumstances than for GA, just for a start. Take fuel: if you operate from a GA-oriented field in a GA aircraft, you almost without exception use 100LL coming from a refuelling facility that has a reasonably high rate of fuel turnover so what gets put in your tank is very, very likely to be a) of known quality, and b) pretty fresh.

 

Now take the case of an RAA aircraft operated from a small field. If you don't use the aircraft all that much, and you use e.g. 98 RON MOGAS, the fuel you topped up your tank with when you last shut down might be weeks or even more old. Depending on which brew it was (and don't kid yourself you can be assured that what the 'label on the can' said is necessarily kosher, MOGAS deliveries are way more arbitrary than Avgas deliveries), that fuel may be well less than 98 RON as the aromatics evaporate. So you go out, do all your checks, take off and climb out just as you have done successfully many times before - but this time, you get detonation from that old fuel and the through-bolts give up the ghost. It's not really 'operator error' - but the effect on the engine is the same, it is operated out-of-limits (quite unintentionally on the part of the operator), and thus gets a hammering it can't handle.

 

So what's the 'cause' here? It's most certainly not wilful operator error, nor a history of out-of-limit operation. Equally, the engine itself can't tell you 'I'm being fed crap fuel', other than by CHT readings. A skilful operator watching the CHT readings (and needing to have ALL heads reporting, btw) can act to keep the engine within limits - pull back on power, lower the ROC and increase the cooling airflow etc. If you're climbing out of a somewhat marginal field on a hot day in a busy circuit area, that's a bit of an ask. From the engine's POV, it is operator error in that is was operated out-of-limits; from the operator's POV they did everything as usual, and that's usually been good engine management practice. All in all, it's a bit of a 'sh1t happens' moment in reality - and yes, it costs money to rectify. You can't really put the 'blame' in either box and those who want their box of choice stuffed further full of 'evidence' are allowing bias to override fact. Just grabbing onto the 'effect' end of the equation - broken through bolts in this hypothetical example -and trumpeting shrilly that 'here's another one that proves my case' does nobody any good in terms of providing useful information.

 

Obviously it would be preferable if Jab engines were more tolerant of the conditions of use, that is an area that CAMit are seriously working on. Jab engines are built to a weight and a price and you can buy more reliability at a cost of both. That's your choice; and it's fairly obvious that there are plenty of Jab owners and operators who have made that choice, accepted the need to operate and be vigilant about their engine management and are getting good results. It would really, really be useful for Jab owners and operators if these discussions provided more in the way of useful information for them regarding the causes or problems than just the tiresome few lines of condemnation and summary judgement that seem to pervade this forum.

 

As far as RAA/CASA 'doing something' goes - if you want to know what is in fact possible and realistic, ring Darren Barnefield at RAA and ask him. Get the information from the man with the knowledge and responsibility, don't take the drum-banging and dog-whistling on face value. Get the facts, they're all available, it's no great secret conspiracy.

 

 

How do you conclude that 1000+ Jab owners frequent this forum to engage as you refer. ( perhaps 30.....50.....perhaps )

Nope, that's not what I said. I'm saying that somewhere in the vicinity of 1,000 Jabiru owners do NOT contribute to this forum, hence we have a very few to represent the whole Jab owner population - as you suggest. Therefore, extrapolation of Jab experience from that small a number is really not likely to be a reliable indicator.

 

 

Bruce- your engine is very likely to run full TBO on those figures. You've evidently approached the issues calmly and intelligently and you're getting the rewards. Nice to hear about good results coming from intelligent tweaking and careful development of a decent engine operating environment. Your posts elsewhere re LiFEPo4 battery use has been damn good information and I'm enthusiastic about that possibility. This is the sort of stuff that makes visiting this site worthwhile.

 

 

Thanx for the informative response oscar, this poll was posted over a year ago, so perhaps an updated one would help with accurate figures.The engine report you quoted didnt tell the operator anything new, as they knew it went supernova over a few seconds. The operator has YET to receive an indication as to what caused the sudden over temp.

The 2200 engine operated by the same person had 4 channel monitoring of the CHT and EGT for its entire (post factory top end) which clearly showed no over heat event.

 

Further, that same operator that Jabiru (and you , seemingly) seem so quick to offer as a 'reason' maintains other Jabiru engines and rotax engines, with no reportable problems. Out of three Jab engines and 4 rotax engines maintained and operated over the same period by the same people, two engines, (one 2200 and one 3300) have suffered significant component failures. While the third Jab 2200 engine and all the rotax engines have had NO such failures.

 

For the thesis of "the operator and maintainer " being at fault to hold water, this anomaly needs explanation or the thesis can be disregarded.

 

Further to my promise to not offer my 'opinion' on these engines I provide the above as facts only.

Merv, you're more than welcome. I 'll do what I can to add value to any discussion of Jabirus.

 

Now, let me point out that an 'anomaly' by its very definition does not add to the evidence for or against a general thesis so the thesis stands until proven nonviable by actual statistical evidence. Anomalies are not statistical evidence.

 

Am I getting too academic here? - I apologise if I am, but nobody told me I had to leave my intelligence at the door to be a real aviator in the RAA scene. I have to admit that that suggestion has come as somewhat of a surprise to me, as plenty of the RAA people I know don't seem to have any such problems with people using intelligence or even polysyllabic vocabulary. I'll certainly try to leave my education behind if I venture north of the Qld north-south divide, even though I know people in Townsville who can count to ten without using their fingers, and who enjoy things such as Chamber Music festivals and philosophic conversation. If I need to, I'll take up chewing tobacco, spitting and using single-syllable words (or should I call it not using posh language?) if I venture back there. That's going to be a bit hard, even 'Mate' has more than one syllable, but in the interests of good communication, I'll try. My last memory of Townsville is being regarded suspiciously by a barman for trying to buy a bottle of red after 6.00 p.m. on a Saturday evening; I ended up being written about in the local newspaper for having intimidated the same barman.

 

However, having looked at the stats so far produced, it seems to me that somewhere around 34 Jab. owners have responded. That seems to suggest that somewhere more than 1,000 Jab owners are not sufficiently concerned about their engine life to contribute to this forum. My appreciation from contributing to this site is is that something like 20 or so forum members are vehemently opposed to Jabirus, and I frankly think I can be of more use providing what information I can to the other 1,000 plus than fighting with what may well be described as the 'rump' of Jabiru commentators. (see: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rump , definition 2).

 

So, good luck with your campaign to gather statistics. Possibly something useful will come of it - we'd all be the better for that.

 

 

Owned: Honda XL250, CB400/4 (the original rather manic one), VF250, still own a VFR750 '86 model, just a sweet machine. Also ridden extensively a CB1000/6 and a GSX850, and some (too little) time on a Duc Darmah and WAY too little time on a square-case bevel-drive 900ss. Thrown a leg over a few more that I can't think of right now, though looping an original XT500 in a carpark!! stands out as embarrassing..

 

 

Interesting numbers, though somewhat inconclusive for a couple of reasons.

 

Firstly, the total number of votes (including mine) represents about, or probably a bit less than, 3% of the number of Jab. engines currently flying out there. Since Jabiru have produced somethingg like 7,000 engines, of course it's a very small sample indeed. I'm no statistician but I suspect that's not likely to be a useful sample size from which to draw much that indicates a trend.

 

However, probably the more important point is that what is being sought are reports of 'effects': i.e. the ultimate result of a situation, not necessarily the cause. We know that running a Jab. engine too hot / with detonation happening will kill it stone dead very quickly. Consistently running with high CHTs has multiple possible effects leading to a failure, including head warping, valve guide /valve head problems. Detonation will kill the through bolts extremely quickly.

 

We also know that there is a pervasive belief that Jab. engines need to be 'run hard' (though Jabiru have released sufficient information about what is actually meant by 'running hard' i.e. keeping the revs up to around the 2800 rpm mark - NOT 'lugging' the thing at high-power / low speed conditions , to act as a guide to owners and operators about how to best utilise the characteristics of the engines).

 

We also know, from various threads over recent times, that some people have an innate tendency to experiment with fuel and oil - sometimes with considerable reported success, other times probably not. It may be that on average these tend to cancel themselves out: some people, such as Bruce, take a keen interest on 'doing the right thing' by their engine and reap the benefits.

 

We know that Jabiru have at times had QC issues with batches of components, and sometimes that has most certainly caught out some owners before the problem has been identified. Of course, that isn't restricted to Jab. engines, it happens to all manufacturers (witness the Emergency Recall on Rotax crankshafts last year, for example.) I personally think that Jabiru have somewhat more than their fair share of these QC issues and I am certainly not excusing them from that. However, in the main I believe that Jabiru does attempt to rectify these issues when they appear: the initial free replacement of through-bolts that lasted, I think, for nearly two years? is one such example.

 

What is most conspicuously missing from the survey (and I accept that it would make for a far more complicated form of response) is indication of the real causes of these failures. We have seen on the 'Bad Experience with Jabiru' thread an independent report prepared by a very reputable Insurance Assessor that showed clear evidence of very hot running. This was one of two Jab engines (a 3300 and a 2200) owned by one operator that had had problems. One might reasonably assume that there is an operator element in that; by comparison, we have on the same thread a report of multiple Jabs operated by the Murray Bridge club that consistently run 1,000 hours plus without problems. One can, I think, equally assume that those engines are operated within a regime that preserves their life rather than shortens it.

 

I am currently rebuilding an old Jab that had an EFATO (through-bolt failure at about 370 hours) leading to an overturn. This is a 3700+ hour machine that has almost exclusively been used for flying training, and the log books detail several engines that lasted very poorly. Now, in doing the rebuild I have almost completely stripped the entire aircraft chasing any problems so it will be as good as (and in some respects, better than) new; I don't intend to put it back in the air unless I am happy with every last damn detail.

 

In doing that work, I have found a significant number of details that shout 'poor maintenance' - and that maintenance was all, ostensibly at least, done by L2's - certainly signed-off by L2's as required for a training aircraft. I'd like to think that at least some of that work wasn't the fault of any L2 but done by cag-handed operators themselves. When one finds evidence of maintenance work that rivals stuff you might be more likely to see on a cockie's 1980 Hilux ute I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that not a lot of attention was in all likelihood paid to looking after the engine very carefully, either in terms of maintenance or operation.

 

I don't think that anyone argues that it would not be highly desirable if Jabiru engines were more robust, had a better tolerance to occasional 'hard use' when circumstances (short strip, hot weather, steep-climb out necessary etc.) requires it, nor that there were fewer QC issues. Anybody who does not recognise that Jab engines are a mix of compromises (as is ANY mechanical system) is kidding themselves. In the Jab. case, those compromises are initial cost, weight reduction to improve MTOW in (particularly) of a factory airframe that is extremely robust and simple to repair because it does not use 'exotic' composites, rather good economy figures.

 

Nothing comes for nothing, and the trade-off Jab owners need to consider is that they treat their engine decently. That in itself doesn't, obviously, guarantee against the failure of a poor component that is below par from a QC POV, but it's fairly obvious that expecting the Jab engine to simply take whatever is thrown at it is very poor engine management practice. I'm quite happy to accept that a Jab engine isn't as 'robust' as a Rotax 912/914, and for those who want that level of robustness, then I'd say go buy the Rotax. I'm personally confident that the CAMit improvements will ratch-up the reliability factor for Jab engines by quite a margin, but I'm not going to assume that just because I have them installed in my engine I can happily flog the thing mercilessly.

 

 

Im not asking you to name your friends or contacts. Just yourself. So thats not meeting half way is it?My airfield is close to Mittagong, feel free to call in anytime. Watch the tiger country between us though, not good jab country.

Ps, was that you that flew in with a young lady a few weeks ago? Took 3 landing attempts in calm air?

Ah, wish it were for the company of the young lady, but my 'dog' isn't in the air yet. I've made the offer, Merv, and that's all you get (though the coffee, lunch and conversation offer stands).

 

 

Waiting.......

Well, Merv, since my identity would open up instantly and recognisably a channel of dispute [moderated], I'll meet you halfway. I have no more freedom to disclose these people than you have to disclose your 'sources' at RAA, so I imagine you'll understand my position.

 

You're less than one hour drive away from me, and if that's your Rutan beastie in your avatar, you've flown over the top of my place on a number of occasions. PM me via the conversations module and we'll set up a meeting to discuss our issues, I'll pick you up at Mittagong airstrip if that's more convenient - it's 5 minutes away for me - give you coffee and lunch, and you can inspect my 'dog' (and be inspected by my dog).

 

 

Want to tell us who YOU are, Merv? I'm a private citizen, you are - apparently - someone who makes his income from the RAA sector. What do you have to hide from the punters, beyond the obvious obsessional dispute with anything Jabiru, Merv?

 

 

in my 30 years in the aircraft maintenance game, those with professional credentials are the ones to stay the thurthest away from, and are responsible for almost every major repair failure i have seen in airline and Military aviation, and steadfastly refuse to listen to the guys with 30 years experience on the actual airframe and toolsIsnt the development of air legislation the domain of the legal fraternity?

 

you hold the exact same quals as me, except mine is in military aviation and covers all from fast jet, to rotary wing and drones. having fun learning the new MRH at the moment. ohh, the "professionals" have come up with some doozies when it comes to idea and design failures. because they know everything of course without ever seeing a real life airframe! the overtime and rectification work my teams now need to do is making us a fortune!

 

i know whats going on behind the scenes also, and i know why nothing can be said in public domain at this point.. but as they say, the wheels are turning.

Well, I can't argue that 'professionals' have contributed to some monumental stuff-ups; one assumes that, for instance, it was 'professionals' that designed the C162.

 

However, in this particular case, I'd argue that Jabiru airframes have a pretty damn good reputation world-wide - can you provide evidence of any aerodynamic or structural failures? I ask because these people I rely on as 'professionals' were responsible for the aerodynamic and structural development of the whole Jabiru line.

 

You may not be aware of it, but the entire re-write of Part 103 of the CASR was undertaken by a CAR 35 engineer and George Markey, the ex-president of the AUF, operating when John Sharp was the responsible Minister. Sharp may not have been the smartest politician, but he understood aviation and bought in appropriate expertise to write the regulations.

 

Yes, I don't have the breadth of your expertise. But FWIW, the people I rely on have most certainly seen a real life airframe - they are builders of aircraft, not just computer-jockeys. One has held an aircraft welder's ticket, the other has operated as the factory builder of Jab airframes (amongst other things) and is generally considered as a world's expert on Boron patch repair work (F15's, Globemasters). They do the real work on aircraft: pull rivets, patch composites, get their hands dirty.

 

As far as 'knowing what's going on behind the scenes', perhaps you should refer to the RAA Technical Manager for an explanation of just what actual power RAA has to 'do' anything. This is fast becoming a matter of urban myth akin to the 'second gunman on the grassy knoll' or the WTC conspiracy theory. There's more fertiliser abounding here than you'd find in a Texas Rodeo bull paddock , mostly whipped-up by FNQ's answer to US TV Evangelists.

 

 

Any defect report submitted to RAA is passed on to CASA, one thing and this is not an attack on RAA ( I know they are busy with other issues) is a lack of feedback on defect report results etc.I have been reporting any defect however trivial and following up with the 'jabiru investigation report' for a while.

 

Recently I started saving RAA the paperwork hassle of receiving and passing on and now submit straight to CASA and provide details to the ACCC (at their request).

 

CASA are great at giving feedback on this issue and provide you with an estimate for completion and progress up dates.

My co-owner and I have also submitted a defect report to RAA fairly recently (about a Jabiru defect, lest anybody think I am not objective here!) and the RAA feedback and action was pretty reasonable, I thought. I think it is important to send the RAA any information that will help it assemble information; only that way will we start to get a corporate understanding of issues so that all members can get the benefit of RAA advice should they refer to RAA for information.

 

 

YOscar, its a pity those Industry experts dont work for jab, or we wouldn't even be having this enjoyable discussion would we.:)

On the contrary: they (respectively) were deeply involved in early Jab development from before Jab production number #0001, through their development to certification up to the J160 for Australian and overseas markets, did the test flying for certification, undertook the structural justification of the early Jabs for certification (including certification for overseas markets), undertook the factory assembly and repair of early Jabs, undertook the testing work for the J2200 engine TCDS, have built Jab engines from the start of Jab engine production. I can put my hands on the actual Jab wings that were modified (showing the modifications) to make the flaps work in the first place (one of them is currently exposed on a family member's property still evaluating UV deterioration over more than 20 years of controlled experiment); I can put my hands on a 1600 engine crankcase that was a test specimen prior to the 1600 entering production -it's in my own shed. One of those industry experts flew my own Jab. - production no 50 - as part of the J2200 engine development programme. They have the certification justification documentation in their personal files because they were the people who did the work that CASA approved for the issue of TC's/TCDS's.

 

Next question?

 

 

The conversation I had was in confidence, I wont divulge names until the inevitable happens. And you are right. You are very likely to be effected, as all Jab drivers are. Your safety should improve.:)How long did you think this failure rate would be tolerated?

Yep, and I know a bloke who has a cousin who knew a guy who met a man in a bar who was distantly related to someone actually on the grassy knoll when JFK was shot.

 

I have taken steps to alleviate the incidence of Jab. engine failures on my own aircraft, I am not arguing that Jab engines are a paradigm of excellence. However, I am arguing- on the basis of a knowledge of just what authority can actually 'take action'- that your contention that RAA are 'taking action' is a complete and utter fabrication, based on the legislative responsibility for the issue of a TCDS for an engine and communication with the person in RAA who knows the extent of RAA's authority. And the suggestion that 'the inevitable happens' is entirely one such fabrication. Once again, I challenge you to supply evidence that extends beyond assertion for your statements.

 

 

And so they bloody well should. And yes, sorry fellas, But the RAA is aware of the problem. And yes, the RAA is taking action behind the scenes. Or so i was told by senior level RAA persons, and asked for relevant documents to aid their cause. Watch this space lads..

How very interesting. Since the RAA is not the authority for the TCDS on Jabiru engines, unless Jabiru is producing engines that are not in compliance with the TCDS, RAA has no authority to 'take action behind the scenes' other than refer any information that it has on breaches of the TCDS to CASA. Any 'action' to be taken has to be taken by CASA. This can easily be confirmed by a discussion with the Tech. Manager who is entirely aware of the limitations on the possibility of RAA 'taking action' and the level of authority that the RAA has in regard to 'action'. CASA will no doubt operate on the basis of compliance with the regime required for the issue of a TCDS and any evidence of failure to comply with that TCDS.

 

I'm calling bovine excrement, Merv, on your and Maj. Millard's comments to the contrary. Support your contention with something more believable than an assertion that you have an unnamed 'source'.

 

 

I beg to differ. When i was going to buy a jab , i rang and spoke with the sales manager about this exact issue. His response is its due to the softening of glues and resins softening.

Interesting then that Jabiru haven't added anything similar to their 120 and 230D POH, yet they're the same resin.

 

 

. Hes not trying to speak as a board member

When a member of the Board of the RAA says: 'The RAA is aware of the need to do something in the interest of safety and the goodwill of their members.', that is a statement of an official position of the Board.

 

 

Generally speaking in most of Australia white surfaces will increase between 5C in winter to 14C in summer over ambient temps.So most jabs in most areas should be ok up to 36C ambient in anything but extreme UV. Anyone living in the higher UV southern areas may need to adjust for higher UV especially if parked at altitude in the heat.

Since Jabiru have used ambient cure lc3600 resin since they started producing aircraft and there have been no wing or fuselage in-flight structural failures as far as I am aware, I think it's a fairly safe bet that the lack of environmental limitations on flying in above 38C is not related to a structural issue.

 

 

I really dont think anyone could be accusing Maj of all people of being biased or shooting his mouth off.

More comedy gold!

 

Just because he has an opinion different to yours does not mean its wrong or ill thought out .

When someone denies a basic law of physics, then it's plain wrong.

 

 

Possibly. Maybe people, especially those who are on the RAA board, should check to see that the interconnect 'tween brain and mouth is intact,

Being a wee bit presumptive there, aren't you - or is it ironical? Your use of an obvious oxymoron is noted, but the wish is rather negated by the lack of essential equipment.