Major weaknesses addressed

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Wonder who owns the patents....could get interesting... If apple sued samsung for round corners .......You would think with all the costs so far Jab would have this well patented.

Wot patents? You think there's anything still patentable about a four-stroke, poppet-valve, spark ignition engine?

 

 

[Oscar]

CAMit are neither commercially nor legally naive, FFS. They're not setting them selves up for any future problems vis-a-viz Jabiru and IP rights, nor for any owner IP rights problems with their engines. If you had the expertise to develop a multi-million $$ engine manufacturing business that's lasted for 25 years or so, do you think for a moment that IP rights issues would have escaped your focus? Give successful people some credit for intelligence before you spout off.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Those heads look mighty similar. As you say would jab be stupid enough not to patent it. Those heads are what got my attention ...

 

Im no ip expert but those heads could present a problem.

 

 

[Oscar]

Those heads look mighty similar. As you say would jab be stupid enough not to patent it. Those heads are what got my attention ...IP rights have escaped the thoughts of many far bigger businesses then these guys

You fairly obviously do not understand the basis of patent protection. May I politely suggest that before you try to dig yourself out of the hole, you put aside the shovel and seek knowledge of that of which you pontificate.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Actually i have a reasonable knowledge of some aspects with 40+ training manuals published, several websites and regular infringements upon my rights. We own several trademarks and we have licence to use many more. So perhaps you should step of your all knowing high horse just for a moment. And accept that someone can have a differing opinion. Even trained lawyers would have differing opinions.

 

 

[Hongie]

I sincerely hope that we will have a viable Australian built motor available :) and I'm a jab '"hater" so called!

 

 

[sain]

good to see everybody playing nice and friendly..

 

Question for Oscar, who seems to know about these engines... you said 40Watt alternator in an earlier post? Isn't that a trifle on the small side? A transmitting radio is going to draw something on the order of 41Watts. Once you start adding up the fancy electronic flight instruments, the blinking lights (strobe, nav, landing), any electronic gyros, flap motors, well, a 40 Watt alternator isn't going to cut it...

 

 

[DrZoos]

In fact if jabiru could successfully argue that they used that head shape to make the engine identifiable as a jabiru then they would almost have a home run on that basis alone.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

good to see everybody playing nice and friendly..Question for Oscar, who seems to know about these engines... you said 40Watt alternator in an earlier post? Isn't that a trifle on the small side? A transmitting radio is going to draw something on the order of 41Watts. Once you start adding up the fancy electronic flight instruments, the blinking lights (strobe, nav, landing), any electronic gyros, flap motors, well, a 40 Watt alternator isn't going to cut it...

Well, watt's the output of the alternator on a 912? Or a standard jab 2200? They all seem to be able to operate radios and transponders. The answer, of course, is that the transmitter isn't transmitting all the time; but the alternator is there to charge the battery all the time. Go look at http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c38.pdf Anyway, it's a 40 amp alternator, not a 40 watt alternator.

 

 

[jetjr]

Think they are talking 40 amp not watt altenator

 

 

[coljones]

good to see everybody playing nice and friendly..Question for Oscar, who seems to know about these engines... you said 40Watt alternator in an earlier post? Isn't that a trifle on the small side? A transmitting radio is going to draw something on the order of 41Watts. Once you start adding up the fancy electronic flight instruments, the blinking lights (strobe, nav, landing), any electronic gyros, flap motors, well, a 40 Watt alternator isn't going to cut it...

A 41 watt radio won't be transmitting all the time. A Tx burst may only be a few seconds or less than a minute with only a few transmissions an hour. If we assume a 10% duty cycle a 40 watt transmitter will only consume 4 watts or less in the long term.

The battery serves up power to the radio and other electrics and it gets topped up by the alternator on a continuous basis.

 

It is all a matter of working out your power budgets and choosing an alternator and battery combination to supply that budget plus a contingency.

 

 

[biggles]

Oh dear , so much mis information . Both 6 and 4 cyl.Jabiru engines have the same 17 Amp alternator , and this has been the case for around 10 years to my knowledge . The starter motor draws around 1.5 kw and is supplied from the battery , the same set-up as the family car . The alternator replenishes that expended energy over time . Camit have always made engines for Jabiru and appear to be offering some options to the standard Jabiru engines . I have no idea what the agreement/arrangement is between Camit and Jabiru . There is a wealth of good information on the Jabiru website regarding all aspects of their engines and airframes .

 

Bob

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I have no idea what the agreement/arrangement is between Camit and Jabiru .

 

Bob

 

Well, that's their business, isn't it? I am sure CAMit would not be putting out their version of a Jabiru engine if there were a legal impediment. Superior Air Parts in the USA built a clone of the Lycoming 0-360, based on their own PMA parts; and in due course, certificated it. If you want to study the regulatory side of this, look up the APMA system in the CASRs, or the PMA system in the FARs. At this stage, CAMit are not claiming APMA status for their engine; they are simply saying they are building a non-certificated engine that is very similar to a Jabiru engine. Jabiru's commercial protection is its Type Certificate.

 

 

[Oscar]

good to see everybody playing nice and friendly..Question for Oscar, who seems to know about these engines... you said 40Watt alternator in an earlier post? Isn't that a trifle on the small side? A transmitting radio is going to draw something on the order of 41Watts. Once you start adding up the fancy electronic flight instruments, the blinking lights (strobe, nav, landing), any electronic gyros, flap motors, well, a 40 Watt alternator isn't going to cut it...

Yes, electrics has never been my strong point.. I run on coffee. By way of abject mitigation - I was concentrating on the beneficial aspect of the alternator drive system providing some additional harmonic balancing to reduce the flywheel bolt shear tendency (though the steel flywheel 'spider' is also a significant improvement on all later Jab. motors vs. the earliest ones) than the output.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

.......We own several trademarks and we have licence to use many more. So perhaps you should step of your all knowing high horse just for a moment.......In fact if jabiru could successfully argue that they used that head shape to make the engine identifiable as a jabiru then they would almost have a home run on that basis alone.

You are confusing Design Registration with Letters Patent and either way home runs would be virtually impossible on the matter of head shape for identifiability since anyone else would reasonably argue that the shape is a factor of required form to fit the package. To have any chance of securing a Grant of Patent for any feature of or on a basic aero engine there would have to be a very strong case mounted on all of the first four requirements and I don't think it would pass scrutiny on any of them.

 

Firstly, the shape is unlikely to be seen as Patentable Subject Matter which is the first requirement i.e. is the external shape of the cylinder heads typical of the purpose for which the Patent System exists? Not as I see it.

 

Second, does the shape constitute Novelty and does it satisfy the requirements for it? I don't think it would even satisfy Innovation let alone Novelty.

 

Third, in what way does the shape provide Utility that would not be satisfied by other shapes? None that I can think of.

 

Fourth, I would not say that the shape could be described as Non-Obvious, since that general shape is adopted by most aero engine manufacturers to fit the package into the majority of cowling shapes.

 

Additionally the cost of the Specification, Application and Examinations in sufficient countries to make the exercise worthwhile would run well into six figures and I doubt Jabiru would be likely to entertain that.

 

A Design Registration could be attained but would be useless. An Innovation Patent could be claimed without Examination but probably wouldn't stand up to Examination in the event they wanted to sue for infringement, so why bother? Additionally the Innovation Patent either isn't recognised or isn't valid in most countries where the Jab engine is marketed.

 

Experience with Trade Marks isn't relevant. I have successfully registered several of them too, and have also had several patent specifications examined, and have even been granted a couple of them. There is no similarity in the IP process, between Trade Marks and Patents.

 

 

[jetboy]

I'm told the heads on Camit engines are not the same as the Chinese made engines which Jabiru has now switched to: rather they are more similar to the earlier thick finned heads. UL power make a similar engine - wait - thats a clone of the Jab too....

 

The certification aspect has always interested me. Before I bought my 2200 I checked what cert. it held compared to others. Their Type certificate has been updated only once in 2008 to include the change to hydraulic lifters. Ironically it should have been cancelled as a result of the introduction of them, if reliability has anything to do with the validity of a Type Certificate. I've had a fairly good run with my 2003 engine, but would not want to replace it with the later designs.

 

The Camit option seems more sensible, and I dont need any certification for my application, fortunately.

 

Jabiru engines were Certified to JAR 22-H (now called EASA CS-22 subpart H) standards for JAR-VLA category aircraft.

 

This test requires an engine to complete a 50 hour endurance test with 25 hrs being at max continuous power. It doesnt seem much needs to be done once the initial paperwork is filed. The ASTM F2339-04 is even simpler to achieve.

 

Most other engines are Certified to JAR-E or FAR-33, which require 150 hrs running - not a lot really - but FAR 33 includes vibration tests with propeller at worst vibration case with the worst cylinder not firing for 10 million reversals.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I'm told the heads on Camit engines are not the same as the Chinese made engines which Jabiru has now switched to: rather they are more similar to the earlier thick finned heads. UL power make a similar engine - wait - thats a clone of the Jab too....The certification aspect has always interested me. Before I bought my 2200 I checked what cert. it held compared to others. Their Type certificate has been updated only once in 2008 to include the change to hydraulic lifters. Ironically it should have been cancelled as a result of the introduction of them, if reliability has anything to do with the validity of a Type Certificate. I've had a fairly good run with my 2003 engine, but would not want to replace it with the later designs.

 

The Camit option seems more sensible, and I dont need any certification for my application, fortunately.

 

Jabiru engines were Certified to JAR 22-H (now called EASA CS-22 subpart H) standards for JAR-VLA category aircraft.

 

This test requires an engine to complete a 50 hour endurance test with 25 hrs being at max continuous power. It doesnt seem much needs to be done once the initial paperwork is filed. The ASTM F2339-04 is even simpler to achieve.

 

Most other engines are Certified to JAR-E or FAR-33, which require 150 hrs running - not a lot really - but FAR 33 includes vibration tests with propeller at worst vibration case with the worst cylinder not firing for 10 million reversals.

Your last comment is not quite correct, at least in the version of FAR Part 33 that I have ; the vibration test requirement actually says:

top

 

(a) Each engine must undergo a vibration survey to establish the torsional and bending vibration characteristics of the crankshaft and the propeller shaft or other output shaft, over the range of crankshaft speed and engine power, under steady state and transient conditions, from idling speed to either 110 percent of the desired maximum continuous speed rating or 103 percent of the maximum desired takeoff speed rating, whichever is higher. The survey must be conducted using, for airplane engines, the same configuration of the propeller type which is used for the endurance test, and using, for other engines, the same configuration of the loading device type which is used for the endurance test.

 

 

 

(b) The torsional and bending vibration stresses of the crankshaft and the propeller shaft or other output shaft may not exceed the endurance limit stress of the material from which the shaft is made. If the maximum stress in the shaft cannot be shown to be below the endurance limit by measurement, the vibration frequency and amplitude must be measured. The peak amplitude must be shown to produce a stress below the endurance limit; if not, the engine must be run at the condition producing the peak amplitude until, for steel shafts, 10 million stress reversals have been sustained without fatigue failure and, for other shafts, until it is shown that fatigue will not occur within the endurance limit stress of the material.

 

 

 

© Each accessory drive and mounting attachment must be loaded, with the loads imposed by each accessory used only for an aircraft service being the limit load specified by the applicant for the drive or attachment point.

 

 

 

(d) The vibration survey described in paragraph (a) of this section must be repeated with that cylinder not firing which has the most adverse vibration effect, in order to establish the conditions under which the engine can be operated safely in that abnormal state. However, for this vibration survey, the engine speed range need only extend from idle to the maximum desired takeoff speed, and compliance with paragraph (b) of this section need not be shown.

 

 

 

[Amdt. 33–6, 39 FR 35465, Oct. 1, 1974, as amended by Amdt. 33–10, 49 FR 6851, Feb. 23, 1984]

 

 

The bit you missed (unless it has been deleted in later amentments) is in para (d). Also, when certificating an engine, the maximum allowable temperatures are based on the temperature that was maintained for at least half of the endurance test running. That aspect has so far been the most difficult part of the engine certification exercises of my knowledge to-date.

 

 

[Oscar]

I'm told the heads on Camit engines are not the same as the Chinese made engines which Jabiru has now switched to: rather they are more similar to the earlier thick finned heads. UL power make a similar engine - wait - thats a clone of the Jab too....

Nope, CAMit are still making the current Jab. heads -the thin-finned ones. Externally, the CAMit heads are pretty much identical with the exception of the CAMit-branded rocker covers; however there are some differences under the skin, including new improved rocker arms, new rocker bushes (which really look the business - you can see them on CAMit's web-site, in the flesh they're even better-looking when you understand how the new oil-delivery grooves work: http://camitaeroengines.myshopify.com/collections/engine-components/products/rocker-bush Hopefully CAMit will add pictures of their new rocker arms to their site soon as well, they're a real work of art that changes the geometry to reduce the side loading on the valve stem. There are a few other 'tricks' being tested that will - when CAMit are completely satisfied about their performance - be introduced.

 

However, you are correct that Jabiru have been looking to change their heads on 'the Chinese engine' - but that's not yet been introduced as far as I know, I think they're still a work in progress.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So is Camit's motivation for building these engines primarily because Jabiru has started using Chinese parts?

 

 

[turboplanner]

You fairly obviously do not understand the basis of patent protection.

He might not be too bad on Registered Designs and Copyright though.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Thanks Turbo. Im not professing to be an expert in this at all , but im no dummy either and there are several alarm bells that ring to me when i see that engine. Im not trying to discredit CAMIT in anyway, im sure they are more then competent. I think its great, i love Aussie innovation. But i just wanted to throw that in their that i had a concern. I will leave it at that.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

So is Camit's motivation for building these engines primarily because Jabiru has started using Chinese parts?

I think that may have hastened the process; however there's been a genuine desire to produce a better product, for a long time - together with a thorough understanding that the way to do so requires a great depth of understanding of the causes of problems. Also, a need to sift through the perceived issues and try to make sense of them, in order to get to the root causes - which are often far from obvious. Most importantly, CAMit's principal, Ian Bent, is au fond an aviation enthusiast, with a strong blend of perfectionist as well. It's a rare combination, particularly when you add painstaking deep research. Factors such as the obtaining of a CASA Production Certificate also take time; CAMIT produced - and as far as I am aware, still produce - Jabiru engines under Jabiru's PC, and therefore totally under Jabiru's control; however, now they have their own PC, so they have the QA system in place, BEFORE they started building their own engines. Ian personally flies all his engine developments on his J230, until he's satisfied with them. The CAMit engine has been brewing for quite a while.

 

 

[jetjr]

maybe the IP issues would be clearer if the origins of the design were known. I believe Camit were heavily involved in development of the originals so would "own" some of the IP anyway at some level.

 

Yes the new Jab engines will be possibly made elsewhere and incorporate plenty of changes too no doubt. Could go either way, either re-engineer and fix issues or create new ones. Similar could be said for Camit however I do trust the skills of Ian and Aust experience in the field. Most changes he is making are incremental improvements. Keep in mind both these companies are tiny and R&D money, expertise and time is hard to come by.

 

Id imagine Camit was restricted to NOT sell engines whilst providing to Jabiru or restrained simply by capacity, so the move by Jab may be freeing Camit up rather than a total loss.

 

Either way we, the AC owner, end up with 2 new Australian controlled versions of what most agree should be a solid reliable performer.

 

Id buy a new Camit engine before I sat behind a fully redesigned Jabiru.

 

 

[Powerin]

A look through patents at Auspat shows no patents held by Jabiru that I can see. Remember patents only last 20 years. In any case, as has been said before, what is there to patent? A conventional aircraft with a conventional engine, probably both copied (legally) from previously designs (Jabiru even claim to have copied Cessna). You cannot patent something which is obvious or based on prior art:

 

From IP Australia:

The invention claimed in a standard patent must be new (novel), involve an inventive step and be able to be made or used in an industry.

 

An inventive step means that the invention is not an obvious thing to do for someone with knowledge and experience in the technological field of the invention.

 

Your invention must differ in some way from existing technology, but the difference must have resulted from something more than the simple application of published information and/or standard background knowledge.

[Oscar]

maybe the IP issues would be clearer if the origins of the design were known. I believe Camit were heavily involved in development of the originals so would "own" some of the IP anyway at some level.

It's no coincidence that CAMit and Jabiru are co-located at Bundaberg. When Rod Stiff and Phil Ainsworth set out to manufacture aircraft, they established a company that has (I believe, I am entirely happy to be proven incorrect) achieved aircraft sales in numbers never seen in this country. They did this using not just their own design and production management skills but by also calling in expert assistance - and selecting that wisely. The Jab airframes have a pretty unblemished reputation for decent performance, reliability, forgiving handling and toughness. Look at the numbers for an original LSA55 vs. Cessna's 162, and (remembering the LSA55 was designed to meet a more restrictive MTOW limit), the 20+ year-old LSA55 stacks up pretty damn well. The modern incarnation of that, the J120, is a fine little aircraft - at 1/3rd the purchase cost of the C162 before it was canned by Cessna (and remember, the C162 was being made in China, so you can extrapolate the excellence of Jabiru's production methodology in the light of Australia's so-called 'manufacturing disadvantages' (aka 'wages') against the global benchmark for cheap production: China).

 

 

 

When Jabiru were forced to produce an engine for their aircraft, they found CAMit on their doorstep. Can anyone show me a more successful aero-engine manufacturing plant worldwide, (after Rotax of course), for engines in this class? Rod and Phil were in no way any less savvy in their choice of engine design and manufacturing capability than they were for establishing the airframe manufacturing design and capability. More than 5,000 Jabiru engines have been produced, I believe.

 

Yes the new Jab engines will be possibly made elsewhere and incorporate plenty of changes too no doubt. Could go either way, either re-engineer and fix issues or create new ones.

 

The 'Chinese' engine seems to have been a long time in gestation. One could deduce either: Jabiru have been working overtime to make sure it addresses all of the evident problems, OR one could postulate that more work is required before they are ready to release it. Jabiru surely knows the answer to this; for the rest of us, well, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

Similar could be said for Camit however I do trust the skills of Ian and Aust experience in the field. Most changes he is making are incremental improvements. Keep in mind both these companies are tiny and R&D money, expertise and time is hard to come by.

 

Well said.

 

Id imagine Camit was restricted to NOT sell engines whilst providing to Jabiru or restrained simply by capacity, so the move by Jab may be freeing Camit up rather than a total loss.

 

Either way we, the AC owner, end up with 2 new Australian controlled versions of what most agree should be a solid reliable performer.

 

Again, spot-on. We can only be the beneficiaries of diversified lines of development. I know that I would rather have the option of one of two candidate 'screw-in' upgrades to my Jaburi rather than committing to a really complex engine swap that if found to be of no advantage, would again cost mega-dollars to remediate.

 

Id buy a new Camit engine before I sat behind a fully redesigned Jabiru.

That's where we've put our money! - with the full knowledge of what and why the changes we were incorporating in our engine were worth it- down to the last damn nut and bolt we used . But that recommendation is second-hand, and it's just my opinion. If you are in/likely to be in the market for a new/rebuild Jab. engine, you could do a heap worse than go to Bundaberg and visit both Jabiru and CAMit. Look at things for yourself, talk to the people. The Jabiru and CAMit facilities are a 5-minute drive apart. You can see every damn part, handle it, and in the case of CAMit, see it being made, from base material through to installation and dyno-testing. You can do that for a hell of a lot less investment than making a wrong decision on your next engine and having to replace it in 350 hours rather than 1000...

 

 

 

Stay overnight at least in Bundaberg, in a place you can do your own cooking (I can recommend one, within a long walking distance to the airport). Go down to the local fisherman's co-op (again, I can provide an address) and buy a couple of kilos of local-catch banana prawns and cook yourself garlic prawns with Caesar salad on the side. You'll end up making your next engine move decision with all the information you need - and you'll write-off the cost of the trip to Bundy against the dinner, I guarantee that (if you can cook, that is).