Dafydd Llewellyn

I forgot to mention, that they keep the gate locked, so if you have someone come to pick you up, you'll need to walk to the gate, which is a bit of a distance from the field.

Thanks, again. Do you by any chance know the owner's name?

 

 

Dafydd:The strip is not closed, but it is a private field. I have flown in and out of there often and my trike instructor is based there. The owner of the field charges landing fees, so if you're heading there, take some cash with you.

Thanks for that

 

 

You've said that a few dozen times Ozzie, just a one liner with no explanation.How about explaining what the impediments are to building/buying a Drifter/Thruster type aircraft today?

Ask Rob Thompson - he purchased the strut-braced Drifter back from China after they purchased it from Jim Fenton (Austflight), and found they did not have a market for it. To Rob's chagrin, it simply did not sell. A Drifter looks simple, but in reality it has around nine times the parts count of a Jabiru; this makes it more costly to build than it looks. And it's a more costly airframe to maintain. Nobody is going to manufacture the things as an act of charity; if they aren't a marketable proposition, nobody will market them. It's that simple.

One of the things RAA people constantly overlook is that the manufacturer has to make a dollar in order to exist. He has to keep on making a dollar, to continue to exist so you can buy spares from him when you need them. Therefore, buying the cheapest import you can find is not necessarily a smart move.

 

 

The log has to be retained and the time element is mentioned i.e. at the logged time the position is logged. Regs go on to talk about retention of the log so two thoughts- if your log is your moving map then you need to be able to regurgitate time history of position - if you need a log

- you need a log to determine position of the aircraft "at any time" - doing, for example, circuits at home airfield it is hard to get lost so nil log is required, is it not?

 

The CASA guide quotes the ref for the regs .. but there is no requirement to log fuel - definitely a good idea if you need fuel to get to where you are going.

Ta - but not quite what I meant. CAR 78 requires one to keep a navigation log so the pilot always knows where he is. If you are flying in VMC and map-reading, whether from paper maps or from a GPS moving map, then you always know where you are - so in effect it should be an alternative means of compliance.

 

 

CAR 234 says:

 

234 Fuel requirements

 

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a flight within Australian territory, or to or from Australian

 

territory, if he or she has not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft carries sufficient fuel and oil to enable the

 

proposed flight to be undertaken in safety.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(2) An operator of an aircraft must take reasonable steps to ensure that an aircraft does not commence a flight as part of the

 

operator’s operations if the aircraft is not carrying sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in

 

safety.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(3) For the purposes of these regulations, in determining whether fuel and oil carried on an aircraft in respect of a particular

 

flight was sufficient within the meaning of subregulations (1) and (2), a court must, in addition to any other matters, take into

 

account the following matters:

 

(a) the distance to be travelled by the aircraft on the flight to reach the proposed destination;

 

(b) the meteorological conditions in which the aircraft is, or may be required, to fly;

 

© the possibility of:

 

(i) a forced diversion to an alternative aerodrome; and

 

(ii) a delay pending landing clearance; and

 

(iii) air traffic control re-routing the flight after commencement of the flight; and

 

(iv) a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft; and

 

(v) where the aircraft is a multi-engined aircraft — an engine failure;

 

(d) any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA for the purposes of this regulation.

 

(4) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.

 

Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

 

Obviously, one should plan a normal cross-country flight so you have sufficient fuel to get there, taking into account forecast winds etc. You would do that anyway, in a touring motorglider; the availability of lift along the way should result in using less fuel that you planned. However, I think the thing that would make a nonsense of a fuel usage log in a motor glider is that like any glider, it is designed to be capable of "outlanding". There's a reference in the regulations to this, that makes an outlanding in a glider not a reportable incident - i.e. it's normal practice.

 

 

Haven't got a clue, Dafydd, but maybe we have become a "nanny state". Were sailpanes ever required to have a flight plan? What happened to "just going for a fly"?

Mostly, they operate within 50 NM of the club site, so the question does not arise. And with pure sailplanes, of course, there isn't any fuel. However, the "touring motorglider" category can be used to travel - they'll mostly manage about 85 to 90 kts TAS - so it could be argued (by some of the twits we have currently enforcing rules) that a rule to keep a log of fuel usage might apply to them - so I'd like to find whether such a rule exists; I assume it must or the requirement would not be there in the ramp check. However, logging fuel usage seems pretty pointless in something that likely spends at least half its time with the engine turned off. I want to be ready when some silly bugger asks me that question.

 

 

Hmmm. Can anybody tell me whether following a moving map in VMC would satisfy CAR 78? A formal record on a standard flight plan form, of where you were on your planned track, at what time, is no great hassle for a point-to-point flight in a conventional aircraft; but it doesn't make much sense for a touring motor-glider, which wanders from the straight-line track according to the available lift. Nothing about fuel logs here; anybody know where that is, in the regs? It doesn't make much sense for a touring motor-glider, either.

 

78 Navigation logs

 

 

 

(1)The pilot in command of an aircraft shall keep a log of such navigational data as is required to enable him or her to determine the geographical position of the aircraft at any time while the aircraft is in flight.

 

 

 

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

 

 

 

(1A) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

 

 

 

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

 

 

 

(2)The log shall be kept in chronological order . . .

 

 

Russ, generally the aviation scene doesn't get into this stuff. If you add an oil to the fuel it must not lower the octane rating for one thing. Ordinary engine oil will so if you had an engine consuming a lot of oil even if only on one cylinder it could cause it to fail through preignition/detonation effects.IF I was running a Jabiru engine I would add a very small amount of a good additive that won't make the fuel go stale quicker or affect the octane rating. (about an egg cup to each tank of racing outboard). But you didn't hear it from me. It mixes well with avgas or mogas and gives a bit of assistance in preventing cylinder corrosion. Nev

One thing people tend to overlook, is that adding oil to your fuel alters (increases) its viscosity - which makes it go a little slower through the carbie jet, needle etc - which thus has a leaning effect on the mixture. So if you're planning to try this, make sure you have a full set of EGT probes and watch the before and after effect carefully, or you might just do more harm than good.

 

 

Neil McDonald, who used to ferry Transavia Airtruks all over the World - and who demonstrated one at the Paris Air Show - once remarked to me that if he ever actually experienced a tail wind, he was afraid he'd catch a chill . . .

 

 

All excellent stuff Dafydd, but can you imagine this government being seen to add yet another authority to the bureaucracy?

It does not have to be a public service authority; in fact it had better not be, because one of the problems CASA has is that a public service officer cannot be dismissed due to incompetence. The Program Advisory Panel set up by Sharpe for the Review of regulations 1996, was a mixture of industry people, with the CASA CEO (then Leroy Keith) - who had in fact initiated the review - as a member with power of veto - which he almost never used. None of the industry members were paid. It does not need to sit around all the time; it's more like a Senate standing committee, I imagine - it meets when it feels it needs to. It had a total of ten members; and with peripheral working parties, that sufficed to get CASR Parts 21 thru 35 plus the transitional and miscellaneous arrangements (CASR Parts 201 & 202) into law. The process costs money, but the steering organisation costs are relatively trivial.

I do not see any way to turn the current CASA mess around; and it won't stop there - there are parties within CASA now who are pretty much making up the rules as they go along, on the basis that no industry player can afford to successfully challenge them. That has to stop.

 

 

I hadn't noticed anyone asking for de-regulation - they'd be nuts if they did.A parallel to some of the deregulation we are stuck with today is another branch of the same Department - the road transport industry where negative aspects of the deregulation which occurred were not fixed by going back to prescriptive regulation, but by making additional laws and penalties which are confusing most of the participants, so you have maybe 40% of new trucks going into the market in an illegal condition primed to provide a perfect case is something goes wrong.

Right at the start of this thread, that's exactly what was being asked.

The nub of the problem is that neither the Pollies nor the CASA management recognise that what aviation in this country needs, is the recognition that the functions set out in S9 of the Civil Aviation Act,

 

9 CASA’s functions

 

(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:

 

(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;

 

(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;

 

(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges; by means that include the following:

 

© developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;

 

(d) developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards;

 

(da) administering Part IV (about drug and alcohol management plans and testing);

 

(e) issuing certificates, licences, registrations and permits;

 

(f) conducting comprehensive aviation industry surveillance, including assessment of safety-related decisions taken by industry management

 

at all levels for their impact on aviation safety;

 

(g) conducting regular reviews of the system of civil aviation safety in order to monitor the safety performance of the aviation industry, to identify safety — related trends and risk factors and to promote the development and improvement of the system;

 

(h) conducting regular and timely assessment of international safety developments.

 

are not all suitable to be performed by the one organisation, especially when that organisation has to consider its liability at every breath. Function 9©, 9(g) and 9(h) fall under the heading of "adjusting the governor spring tension"; whereas the rest of it is essentially what a police force does.

 

 

 

So in MHO, these three aspects need to be removed from CASA and put under a separate body whose function is clearly recognised and set out in its charter, to be to make whatever adjustments are needed from time to time to keep the aviation industry running safely and efficiently. Then CASA's job is simply to see to it that the industry follows those rules.

 

 

My turn . . .

 

1. The most fundamental problem we have in aviation is Section 8.2 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1988 :

 

(2) CASA:

 

(a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession;

 

(b) shall have a seal; and

 

© may sue and be sued in its corporate name.

 

CASA is the sole example - so far as I am aware - of a regulatory body that has to organise everything it does or is responsible for, with a view to minimising its liability.

 

This problem was exemplified in a paper presented to the Australian Aviation Law Association, by Chris Gee, QC, 1n 1985. His theme was: "who is worth the powder and shot?" - i.e. when a lawyer has an aviation case to pursue, who has the deep pockets? His answer then was "The CAA". The CAA became CASA in 1988; and guess what? It was set up by the Keating government, to be a milch cow for the legal industry. The reason at the time was that there was considerable media stirring over the CAA not having prevented a couple of nasty accidents; the CAA was seen as needing to be exposed to being sued, in order to make it lift its game.

 

Understandable, but not the right way; almost all of the changes we have seen in the way CASA goes about its business, can be seen to have a basis on minimising its corporate liability.

 

The FAA cannot be sued; it is protected by the U.S. Tort Claims Act. Therefore, it can actually regulate the U.S. aviation industry in accordance with whatever its fundamental policy may be from time to time. Whether it does a good job of that or not, is a moot point. But at least it can look at other priorities than "how much does this affect our liability?". I very much doubt one could successfully sue EASA. The strength or weakness of government bodies with that sort of immunity depends on the quality of their management and the maturity of the political system. We seem to be sadly lacking in both. However, for all that, I have been involved in the Type Certification of eight aircraft types in Australia, under DCA, and CASA; and in that specific area, though the job is a large on and takes considerable time, the performance of our regulatory authority has, overall, improved. There is much more devolution to industry now, than ever before.

 

2. We NEED CASA. Do not imagine for an instant that deregulation would improve the situation. What it would do, is completely destroy whatever aircraft manufacturing industry we have. A de-regulated industry is analogous to an internal combustion engine whose governing control has just broken; it will either increse in speed until it destroys itself, or it will stall. The current RAA registration debacle is an example of exactly this; the RAA was an ineffective regulator, so the importers ran amok. Now we have a considerable degree of chaos. Anybody who is familiar with control-loop theory will be well aware that to be effective, the control-loop must respond with the least possible phase lag. An example of this is a cruise control in your car, that takes 30 seconds to wake up to the fact that the speed has altered. So it then applies full throttle, and 30 seconds later the car is going flat out; so it shuts the throttle completely. In engineering terms, a governor (in the sense of a Watt governor, for example) that is "sticky" in its action, leads to the engine "hunting". If the response lag is too great, the flywheel will burst or the engine will throw a rod. The tension on the governor spring is the most critical adjustment on any engine-driven piece of machinery.

 

The aircraft manufacture industry works the same way; the problem with so-called "free market regulation" is that it acts with far too much time-lag. By contrast, aircraft type certification is one of the very few forms of control that acts before the event - so it is extremely effective. When CAO 101.55 was introduced, we saw a period of stable growth, with Jabiru, Skyfox, etc all manufacturing and selling adequately safe aeroplanes so the whole recreational aviation scene blossomed. CASA was in there, with the type certification process, for all of them, after the somewhat dubious start of CAO 95.25. That was fine, until the importers got into the act with sub-standard products which they managed to market at fraudulent weights. The governor spring was allowed to slack off - and for a while this looked like accelerating the growth rate - but

 

eventually something breaks, so we have aircraft grounded all over the place.

 

3. Aviation is international. Australia is a signatory to the ICAO convention. The aircraft design standards enforced by CASA are INTERNATIONAL standards. The methods required to show compliance are also INTERNATIONAL. CASA actually does this part of its function better than many other national airworthiness authorities. People who have no working experience in this side of the industry, would do us all a service by shutting up - or learning how it all really operates.

 

4. Yes, there are big problems with CASA's day to day interaction with the aviation industry, in the areas of surveillance of maintenance organisations and small airline operators - and its handling of the CAR 35 / CASR 21.M situation. It is trying to apply EASA style regulatory practices to an industry that is too small and too dispersed for that to work. A lot of the problems here are the direct result of the findings of the Morris enquiry ("Plane Safe'), in which Morris stated that CASA's function is that of a policeman. OK, maybe we do need a body that performas that function in aviation - but it should NOT also be the body that writes the rules. The Police do NOT write the law of the land. Neither should CASA write the Aviation regulations. There needs to be an independant body to do that, that does not give a damn about CASA's liability, but looks at what is necessary to make the machine that is the aviation industry, work as efficiently as possible, in the interests of all Australians. We got a bit of a taste of that, under John Sharpe, with the Review of Regulations 1996; and as a result we got Parts 21 thru 35 of the CASRs - and that in turn led to a truly bilateral airworthiness agreement between Australia and the U.S.A. - it got Australia into the world aviation market. This has resulted in a substantial growth of parts manufacturing in Australia. It is one of the reasons why GippsAero managed to sell Airvans outside Australia. This is starting slowly, but it is growing. It can do so only because the world-wide aviation market is sufficiently regulated to be fairly stable.

 

However, certain people hijacked the review of regulations around 1999 / 2000, and it has pretty much gone sour since. CASA is currently doing damage that is, unfortunately, irreversible. We will not see another CAR 35 system; we'll see something different. Almost certainly, more expensive. So the wheel turns - or perhaps more appositely, the propeller turns; it never goes through the same piece of air again. Progress is more like a spiral staircase - we go round and round, but each time is a bit different to the last. What is very apparant now, is that the people in charge do not understand the broader picture.

 

CASA is a boiling pot of factions - there are the unions, the lawyers, the airworthiness surveyors, the FOIs, all pursuing agendas of their own. Empire-builders all over the place; corporate management people who know nothing whatever about what makes aviation tick And, in the back room, a few professional engineers trying to do their job without being assassinated by the other factions before they can make use of their superannuation. Well did Morris state that CASA, in about 1990, was in a state of civil war. DCA was the employer of choice, in the 1960s and 70s; it was a real point of achievement to be able to get a job there. Trouble was, about 12,000 people had maged to do so - more than one public servant for every aircraft on the Civil Register. It was cut way back, to under 1000 people, in the early '80s; and there were too many ex-RAAF officers who simply used it as a means of extending their service retirement benefits. So it stopped being a centre of excellence, and as a result it became a political football. The morale went through the floor; and it had reached critical temperature by the time of the Morris enquiry.

 

It needs to be re-cast as a centre of excellence. At the moment, it's anything but; and our politicians are the ones at fault.

 

 

I'd say 450 M at 3200 ft is way too short for any Jabiru - you could get in, but you'd be trucking it out. C 180 is OK on my 400 M strip at 2000 ft, but not with much to spare. You're into carbon cub territory I suspect.

 

 

Gee Dafydd, I don't doubt the formula you list, but far too involved for me if I want to know DH before take off.What is wrong with the common 30ft/mb and 120ft/ degree variance from ISA? At least that can be done in your head, or even easier put it on your prayer wheel. (or in many cases these days, read it off the EFIS) or have I missed something in your explanation?

Yes, no doubt there are simpler rules of thumb. What I've given there is the exact density algorithm, as used in take-off chart calculations. I gave up trying to do those sort of calcs in my head long ago, I have them programmed into my calculator. If you are using an Ipad, no doubt you can download something that will do this.

 

 

Looking at airstrip on pretty hilly farmHeight would be 3200 0ft

Length runway is what I'm trying to work out for J200 or maybe C172/180.

 

Jabiru spec says need 645m which seems excessive.

 

Best I can get is around 450 m of strip. is it enough?

 

Next q is about hanger floor, how to do it cheaper than cement.

 

Will I need council ( or neighbour) approval for the shed or strip?

I have about 400 M @ 2000 ft AMSL. Very rough rules of thumb:

 

Take-off distance is proportional to 1/2.7th power of density ratio. (Density ratio is the ratio of the air density at the pressure altitude and temperature, to standard sea-level density.) See attached.

 

The ground roll is roughly half the tak-off distance.

 

wind and slope (especially slope) are critical.

 

Density altitude.doc

 

Density altitude.doc

 

Density altitude.doc

Who says you can't expect anyone to know what they havn't been tought. I thought that was what human factors was all about.I certainly have done things that I havn't been trained to do, just by thinking them through.

we should be our brothers keeper, but often brother doesn't want to be kept, so just keep trying to bring some influence on him.

Everybody can progress their knowledge by study and thought. However, we don't live long enough to use only that means; therefore it is necessary to accelerate the process by directed instruction. I've just spent about eight hours trying to find the control surface out-of-balance limits for the Blanik. I don't want to be an unnecessary nuisance by being too lazy to go look it up; but I've done that and can't find it. So I've referred the question up the line. If one has to deal with a piece of complex machinery, it's a vast help to have a well-designed course of instruction. But bear in mind, that an ETPS graduate (which I am not) gets told to climb into an unknown jet, fly it, and write an appraisal report on it, with only basic info on its design limits. I had the privilage to know Tom Berry, an aero engineering graduate who was an ETPS graduate. He was called on to collect the first Avon Sabre from CAC, ferry it to Williamtown, and then write the RAAF pilot's notes on it. There are some people of that stature out there, and when they say something, you had better listen. So Yenn is right, in principle, but it's generally less risky to get whatever instruction is available. One learns to discern between good instruction and instruction by rote - and there's too much of the latter about, for my money. When one of the latter starts getting heavy, I'm not interested - tho I'm continually picking up points to think about, from all sorts of people. The old WW2 pilots were marvellous in getting their point quietly across. But people like Tom Berry or Sean or Nardia Roberts are always worth listening to. They tend to be pretty quiet, generally, and there are not enough of them.

 

 

Training is a lot of it. You can't expect to know something you have not been taught. Your attitude and confidence is next to come into play, as part of the total picture..Regarding the brother's keeper thing. I think we SHOULD be. If someone ever came a gutser in aviation where I should have passed on information or checked something and didn't, I would find that very hard to excuse myself for, and have always been that way. Hard on oneself. Yes., but we know aviation is very unforgiving of mistakes or errors. Adrenalin junkies? They are out there, but you wouldn't want one up the front of your passenger jet.

Self assessment of performance? Takes a bit of practice and a LOT OF HONESTY. There wjll hardly be a trip where SOMETHING couldn't have been done better, and if you review your own performance effectively you will continue to get something out of the process.. IF you think you are pretty good you won't get a lot better. Nev

Who doesn't re-run each flight mentally, and see where he should have done it better? I thought that was a given, but maybe not . . . certification flight testing certainly teaches you to do this - "Did I really hit the test-point correctly - oh, damn, I missed" . . ., etc. Flying a tail-dragger tends to make one self-critical, especially in cross-wind landings . . . One of the things one learns is "Plan the flight and fly the plan" - do not do unnecessary things on the spur of the moment. I've experienced enough really professional aviators to know I'll never be one; but there's a balance to be struck in this, between over-confidence and insecurity; it's a bit like walking a plank between the wharf and a boat. If you are confident, it's not a problem. If you feel insecure, you'll likely end up in the water. False confidence comes from ignorance, as far as I can see.

 

 

When the **** hits the fan you are on your own so you should have the self confidence in your training and presence of mind to carry it through. Over confidence is BS. but lack of it portends disaster. If you don't accept the buck stops with you don't fly. There are NO excuses. There is a REALITY with lifting off the ground, and getting it safely back there after the mission is done . No one knows what is really happening up the pointy end, unless they have been there. Nev

Oh, dead right. But that comes with depth of knowledge of the aircraft; there is NO substitute for competence and experience. I've had my share of real emergencies; enough to learn that I don't freak out; and that's an important part of self-confidence. Without a simulator, how can people learn that without high risk? Proper spin training is without a shadow of doubt, a substantial step along the way; so is unusual attitude training - but this needs to be taught in conjunction with a thorough understanding of what the aircraft's flight envelope means; and teaching people to fly with feet and throttle alone is another, and making it a habit to do one's landing without power. Cable-break training in gliders is another. Landing without use of elevator may seem a bit extreme, but if you know you can do it, this can help in a real emergency. One progresses from "freezing" to thinking (for a few critical seconds) in "superconductor mode" - everything happens in slow motion, so you can deal with it. I do not know to what extent everybody has this ability, but I suspect most people do, but are never trained to use it. It involves a few frights - my first was a loose fuel-tank cap banging on the side of my Auster (the amount of noise this can make is astounding); the odd door-unlatch in a Bonanza also helps to develop this facility. As a result, I was able to handle a disconnected elevator later on; I might not have without those early lessons in controlling one's adrenalin flow.

Those people who are "adrenalin addicts" and use extreme sports for that purpose should, I think, be regarded with suspicion in this regard. That's most definitely the wrong reason to go flying. I recall a motoring journalist who categorised cars as either transport or adrenalin pumps; I definitely prefer vehicles (including aircraft) that cover the ground with low adrenalin consumption. There's a medical aspect here, I suspect. People who go in for things like body-jumping may, one wonders, in fact suffer from some sort of adrenalin-deficiency?

 

I chose a PA28-140 in preference to a C 172, decades ago, because the Cherokee had an undercarriage designed for ab-initio training, that would allow it to land in a paddock without much risk; also one could get out of it if it happened to overturn. Such aspects are a useful contribution to peace of mind when flying cross-country, and I had occasion to put it into a paddock once due to weather, and numerous times in the course of doing a job. That does not seem to be a priority considered by most recreational aircraft designers, or by the majority of purchasers. I daresay doing glider outlanding retrieves as a tug pilot sharpened my appreciation of this capability in an aircraft.

 

I think our training methods have a long way to go. Basic training merely supplies a licence to learn - but there is no "organised" follow-on, at least for basic GA and recreational pilots; you're lucky if you manage to learn these things by yourself. I note there are a few "advanced" training courses around; however I do not know to what extent they really cover what is needed.

 

 

Hmmm. I'd probably count as one of the "non-social loners". However, the same can be said of almost any private GA aircraft owner, or GFA "independent motorglider" operator. One never stops learning, and we all start the learning process by being a member of an aero club, or a gliding club, or whatever, and the learning curve is very steep for quite a while. Peer group overview is very valuable in the period after one first finishes formal training; I did about 600 hours of glider towing, as well as being a member of a gliding club instructor panel, which served that purpose for me.

 

But with increasing experience and knowledge, the rate at which one comes across new things to learn flattens off (tho CASA certainly seem to be doing their bit to maintain it, with continual changes to procedures, airspace, frequencies etc; and there are new gadgets like ipad/Ozrunways coming along all the time). In the '80s, I used to regularly use my Cherokee 140 to do business trips in conjunction with my CAR 35 activity; and that was not subject to peer group overview. So I think the question arises, at what point does one become sufficiently competent / knowledgable to go and do your own thing, in your own aircraft? And to what extent is it valid that "old pilots are more dangerous"?

 

I've seen the attitude problem of people who are, au fond, afraid of flying, but find it psychologically necessary to confront that fear by constantly pushing their limits, or by exhibitionism. I suspect they are more prevalent than is generally realised. I'll give you an analogy: At one stage, in Sydney, we lived on a five acre block well out of town. Next door was a teenager, who had a Torana - which he flogged mercilessly through its gears every morning, from a cold start, to valve bounce in every gear. I cannot stand the sound of machinery in pain, so I could not understand why - until it occurred to me that he had no in-depth understanding of the thing - he'd never worked on a bomb as a kid, or had to nurse it along to keep it going - so he was a bit scared of it, and he was in effect showing it who was boss. Eventually, of course, it expired.

 

There are pilots like that. They are the ones who do not become "old, bold" pilots. There are also pilots who have a great depth of knowledge of their aircraft, who do not have a devil riding on their shoulders; and as a result are relaxed in the air, but alert to the condition of their machine - and quick to respond to its needs. I've now been flying for 50 years - tho not as often as I'd have liked to. I maintain my own aircraft (legally). I've done my share of scud-running, and have no desire or need to do any more of it. I still have things to learn about using OzRunways and the ipad to stay out of controlled airspace. I've done my share of instructing, too. I learn a bit at each biennial. Yes, I did the "human factors" thing when RAA was running it; can't say it really taught me much, but it did put it in new words, and you had to remember the words to pass.

 

When I find I don't know the answer - and that's not uncommon - I go ask. But if somebody tries to appoint himself as my keeper, he'd better be able to justify it.

 

 

The principle of equalising forces (in this case sideloads ) on the cylinders has been around for ages. It used to be done by offsetting the cylinder axis ( called De Saxxe principle). This is not practical in a horizontally disposed cylinders where some (if not all) of the cylinder hold down studs are common with the main bearing alignment.It's come and gone and then returned again, but regardless it is a small issue in the big scheme of things.

The offset piston gudgeon pin centre is there to TILT the piston as there is more Area on one side of the piston than the other. ( Consider it wanting to rotate around the gudgeon axis).

 

Short connecting rods are a bigger factor than what we are talking about here. They are more likely to be employed to make the engine width less. than for torque increase reasons. Side load is inevitable when power is delivered and as the piston travels about TDC it transfers from one side to the other. Piston rock is a cause of barrel facing of rings which makes them seal less effectively. Nev

You're right about short connecting rods. It's a common factor in all horizontally-opposed engines of my experience; the designers ALL push the ratio of crankpin radius to conrod length as far as they dare, because it has a substantial effect on engine mass. People have come to assume that aero engines MUST be horizontally opposed, blind to this aspect. This is certainly not peculiar to the Jabiru engines. It's a case of compromise, again - all design is compromise. The flat layout minimises the secondary inertial unbalance, but at the cost of higher piston side loads.

 

 

Kgwilson"The run the Jabiru engine hard " was direct from Jabiru and they say operate at 2850 rpm and do not baby it. This is not BS but fact. You say complete ignorance, is very harsh having owned two J 230's am a motor mechanic, L2 and not deaf and was told by Rod Stif and Don at Jabiru. I have been very interested in Jabiru engines for a long time and have a keen interest in them. I am supportive of Camit upgrading the engine the concept of the engine is good but Jabiru have refused to listen to good advice and practices. If Jabiru had taken notice of recommendation from such things as below their product may be without knockers. I believe Camit with do well as long as Jabiru don't make the decisions.

http://nvsr.com.au/articles/article10.html

 

Jabiru Ultralight Aircraft - Oops!

 

Jabiru produce a range of Ultralight and Light Sports aircraft right here in Australia. They're popular with enthusiasts and flying schools alike because they are easy to handle and fairly robust - with one exception. The dummies have installed the pistons backwards! The offset pistons used were designed for clockwise rotation whereas the Jabiru rotates anticlockwise.

 

A quick lesson in 4 stroke engine operation

 

1. Induction Stroke

 

With the exhaust valve closed and the inlet valve open the piston is pulled down drawing air & fuel into the combustion chamber.

 

2. Compression Stroke

 

Both valves are closed and the piston is pushed up to compress the air and fuel to a fraction of its original size.

 

3. Ignition Stroke

 

The excitement starts on the third stroke when the sparkplug fires causing the fuel and air mixture to explode! The rapidly expanding gases push the piston back down again.

 

4. Exhaust Stroke

 

The fourth and final stroke completes the cycle by moving upwards pushing the exhaust gas out via the now open exhaust valve.

 

My late father, an Aeronautical Engineer with the Royal Australian Navy for 35 years, simplified this process by referring to it as "Suck Squeeze Bang Blow". That term pretty well sums up the 4 Stroke engine!

 

The amount of force exerted on pistons as they travel up and down is enormous, and like any "up and down" motion there has to be a “Top and Bottom”! By that I mean the piston must stop at the top before it can travel to the bottom and visa versa. Pistons with a 90 mm stroke at 3000 RPM travel at 9 meters (29 feet) per second and have to come to a dead-stop in an instant at the top and bottom of the stroke. This stopping and starting causes a hammering affect and creates stress on gudgeon pins, con-rods, big-ends, and more. The hammering is particularly horrific during the Ignition Stroke when the explosive force of the burning fuel literally "blows" the piston down.

 

Easing the strain

 

Traditionally pistons were connected to con-rods right in the middle but to ease the strain when the piston stops and comes back down they are offset in the direction of engine rotation, the connection between con-rod and piston is off centre. The crown of each piston is marked with an arrow indicating which direction the piston should be installed. By offsetting in this way you are giving the piston a bit of a headstart on its journey.

 

Engines with offset pistons run better! They're more durable, reliable and quieter but ONLY if you've put them in the right way.

 

Jabiru have it wrong

 

For some reason, as yet unexplained logically, Jabiru have chosen to put their pistons in reverse. They were made for General Motors motor vehicles, all of which run clockwise, which is correct based on the offset, but Jabiru engines rotate anticlockwise meaning they are all installed wrong. Any mechanical engineer will tell you what happens when you don't install your offset pistons correctly - you get problems, you shorten the life of your engine, it makes more noise, and they just become crappy in general.

 

One of the symptoms, and it is common to all Jabiru engines, is that when you shut-down there is a distinctive clunk-clunk before it stops completely. This clunk-clunk is caused by the engine trying to run itself in reverse as a result of the offset pistons.

 

By installing pistons in accordance with the Jabiru manual the offset is working against the flow and actually creating durability issues and potentially safety problems. Interestingly, a number of people have chosen to install their pistons in the opposite direction and claim their engines perform better and are significantly quieter.

 

Who knows about this

 

The Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) were advised by various Jabiru owners and maintenance staff, but both organisations have chosen to do nothing. The engines were certified to fly and deemed appropriate for the aircraft type. I've been informed that engines are tested at idle and cruise RPM only! They did not test them through the full rev range, which was a mistake that should be rectified.

 

Jabiru have been made aware of this issue on multiple occasions and have cleverly devised a cover story “The pistons are installed in reverse due to the forces applied by the Prop”. What a load of cods-wallop. Every engineer I've spoken to about this issue has given me multiple reasons why these pistons should be turned around. My late father was very interested in discovering why Jabiru believe that an opposite offset could be beneficial. With 35 years of experience behind him working with various aircraft engines he could find no reason why Jabiru would pursue the opposite of what, from an engineering point of view, seems to be ridiculous.

 

Safety

 

The definition of a good pilot is “One whom has the same number of take-offs as they have landings” and most people when they go flying want to make certain they land in one piece. The secret to keeping yourself alive when flying light aircraft is more than just your own skills! Maintenance of your aircraft is vital to safe flying and going up in an aircraft that has such a design floor, in my mind, is madness.

 

How many accidents have occurred as a result of the offset issue. Just last week a good friend of mine was flying a Jabiru when a thru-bolt broke and he had to land with a faulty engine. It could have been much worse, the engine could have failed completely. These bolts are known to fail in Jabiru aircraft and in my mind this is a direct result of excessive stress placed on them by the ridiculous offset issue.

 

Certification

 

Jabiru are popular with flying schools because they offer easy shared access to controls via a v-shaped stick between the left and right seat. When an aircraft is used for training purposes it is considered "Certified" which means that under no circumstances can the aircraft be modified from manufacturer specifications. So even if they wanted to turn their pistons around to improve reliability and reduce maintenance costs they cannot by law. Private owners that rent their aircraft to flying schools are in the same boat. Owners that do not rent their aircraft are free to do whatever they like and some have already turned their pistons in the opposite direction with amazing results. Despite these results Jabiru continue to maintain that their manual is correct.

 

What should happen now

 

CASA should ground every Jabiru airplane! It's that simple. The ATSB needs to review any previous accident reports involving Jabiru, particularly when engine failure was considered a possible cause.

 

Jabiru should look carefully at their engines and if necessary swallow their pride and turn the pistons in right direction. They would probably find that maintenance costs would fall, performance would rise, and their customers would be very happy.

 

On a more personal note

 

I have spoken with a number of Jabiru owners whom tell me it's rare for an engine to go more than 250 hours before it requires serious and expensive repairs. I've seen evidence of excessive wear on cylinder walls and pistons. I've seen first hand the damage done to big-end shells as a result of excessive belting when the piston is trying to go in the opposite direction to engine rotation. Jabiru are unlikely to accept responsibility because they would then be liable for fixing the problem – that could be expensive!

 

Published 5 June 2013

 

Read a review of the Jabiru 160 on Aviator: Click Here.

This is another example of picking one point without considering the context, and assuming it's the whole answer. The argument ignores an important piece of context - i.e. the piston/cylinder clearance. With the sort of clearance one finds in a Lycoming, the above argument is valid. However the Jab. engine has a much smaller clearance, and this means the piston slap effect of the change in side load on the firing stroke is not large enough to be the major effect it's made out to be - and it also alters the timing of that occurrence relative to the peak gas pressure. You have to look at issues like this holistically, not in isolation, or you come up with the wrong answer.

 

I'm not saying that Jabiru is necessarily correct - or incorrect - in either its piston orientation or its piston clearance - I do not have sufficient data to answer that. I do know that Jabiru did NOT blindly put the things in "the wrong way around" - they thought about it and decided there was a good reason for doing it that way, in their engine. That's more than the pundits who are pushing this wheelbarrow have done. And yes, the propeller IS the flywheel, so get the argument right way around, too.

 

More conventional practice would be to use a larger piston clearance - and it then becomes advisable to turn the pistons the other way around. Where the best compromise lies, I do not know. We may learn this from CAMit's accumulating experience. Now put the damn wheelbarrow away, and learn something by watching the CAMit engines.

 

 

Cut the waffle - supply some facts. In effect, put up or shut up.

 

 

You're assuming that the prevalence of engine failures has no impact on RAA activities.

No, just that it's a separate subject to this thread. This thread, I say again, is about CAMit's initiatives. It's NOT about "Wot should RAA do about (putative) Jabiru engine problems." The first post on it was a question to the effect that if CAMit have addressed major weaknesses in the engines they are building under their own name, why can't Jabiru do likewise. That's a rhetorical question, firstly because whilst there's been a lot of scuttlebut about Jabiru engines, none of its perpetrators seem able to produce valid engineering proof of any "major weaknesses"; and secondly because, if & when a proven weakness can be demonstrated, only Jabiru could answer the question.

So the real purpose of the post was to draw people's attention to the existence of CAMit's engine, which is at this stage only suitable for fitment to -19 registered RAA aircraft, and homebuilt VH-registered aircraft, but which we all hope will prove to be somewhat more durable, in the hands of the type of usage meted out by RAA members, than the Jabiru engines are, fairly or not, reputed to be.

 

A lot of disinformation and mis-direction has been directed at the thread; but I hope most of its readers by now have a reasonable understanding of what it's about.

 

Yes, accidents - whether or not due to the design of the engine, the manufacture of the engine, the operation of the engine, fuel mis-management, fuel exhaustion, carbie icing, or any of perhaps a dozen other causes of "engine failure" that have nothing to do with the quality of the engine itself - do have an impact on RAA activities.

 

What are RAA's options? The Jabiru 2200 has a Type Certificate issued by CASA. That means, the onus of proof would be on the RAA to show that the engine either does not comply with its certification basis (i.e. that CASA wrongly issued the TC); or to demonstrate to CASA that there is a fault or faults that require CASA to issue an AD. The RAA is, quite candidly, completely incapable of doing either of these things. RAA cannot, under the terms of CAO 95.55, refuse to register Jabiru aircraft that have a TC and conform to their Type Design (or which have proper approval of any modifications), so RAA is free of liability in that regard.

 

So, why are you raising this as an issue in this thread? What do you imagine anybody can do about it in this Forum? If you want to pursue that, FFS start another thread.

 

 

I've heard of it building up on the valve seats on liquid cooled motors, ( and then a small part comes loose and causes compression loss and seat damager sometimes. They would be running much cooler than the aircooled motors (even Yours) run. Nev

Interestingly, there was a published paper in which comparison was made between exhaust valve seat temperatures on air-cooled Vs liquid-cooled engines, by the RAE I think, back in the 1930s; if I recall correctly, the author was Roxbee-Cox. Both types had Stellite seats, i.e. very much current conventional practice. The result was that there was no practical difference in the seat temperature between the two. I've not come across any more recent research - what there is, is no doubt not in the public domain. However, it showed that one should not make assumptions on this sort of thing. I can only suppose the result was due to the very poor thermal conductivity of Stellite, but it's an area that I'd like to know more about.

 

Re cylinder glazing, this is a well-known problem in engines that have nitrided steel bores (as do almost all Lycomings and Continentals etc). However Lycoming at one stage supplied plain steel barrels for some models of their 0-320 - I had one such, in a PA28-140; they were mainly for flying school aircraft that got constant use. My engine ran its full life with full compression; not the slightest evidence of glazing - but I made a point of doing a couple of circuits in it at least once a week. It had to work hard in the Cherokee 140, all climbing had to be done at full throttle or it simply would not climb fast enough to get the high-power phase out of the way quickly. It ran at about 150 C below peak EGT when full rich, at full throttle, as I recall (by comparing the climb EGT at full rich, with the peak EGT at cruise power - NEVER try to find peak EGT at above 75% power!) However I did a lot of cross-country flights - Sydney-Tamworth, Sydney - Tocumwal etc and I always cruised at 60% power (around 2300 RPM) and leaned to 50C rich of peak EGT, so the climb phase was only about 10% of total flight time. I had no problems from lead fouling, tho the plugs were definitely due for cleaning at each 100-hourly. This was all on 100 LL, of course. So it was the case for that engine that there's nothing wrong with climbing at full throttle, provided you avoid doing so at minimum airspeed; keep the speed up so it gets better cooling, and get the climbing bit over as soon as possible. Having reached you cruise height, pull the power back until the engine is purring, instead of pounding - this is quite possible to "feel" in most aircraft I've flown - to about 65% to 70% power (many modern EMS gauges will show the % power).

 

One cannot check whether the engine is running on the rich or the lean side of peak EGT, with no manual mixture control; and as both the Jabiru and the Rotax 912 have CD carbies, they lack manual mixture control (the mis-use of which is a major cause of engine damage, in engines that have it) however the spark plugs will tell you. The difference is crucial; on the rich side of peak EGT, the exhaust gas has no free oxygen, but does have some carbon monoxide. The reverse is true, on the lean side of peak EGT. Carbon monoxide is lethal to humans, but kind to hot metal; it prevents oxidation of the metal (it's the basis for the blast furnace). Ask any welder what happens if he tries to weld something using oxy-acetylene, with the oxygen set too high. So check your spark plugs and NEVER let your engine run on the lean side of peak EGT if you can avoid this.

 

 

Oscar, all this has got me excited, especially"...an inhibiting set-up that allows you to (very easily) squirt a shot of hot engine oil into each cylinder after shut-down, better than twice the alternator capacity..."

Can you tell me more about this oil squirt system, as I was about to bodgy up some way to squirt lube down the carby throat before stopping the engine.

 

Regarding CAMit's alternator, why would it be needed if the recent Jabiru winding modification worked?

Why not get it from the horse? The link is in the first post in this thread: [email protected]

I don't know about Jabiru's alternator winding modification; however CAMit's belt-driven alternator is, firstly, a field-current regulated device (same as a car alternator), which should in principle produce less electrical noise than the permanent-magnet type; and secondly, it - in conjunction with its belt drive - acts as a dynamic damper for the crankshaft.