Jabiru limitations

[Oscar]

It is good for those that are located in Loxton. For me, Archerfield is 5 minutes away and I had it on line as a favour for a local flight school which meant that I covered my maintenance costs with a highly respected LAME. I now need to relocate over an hour away and need to find someone who will look after it, in addition to the loss of income to cover those costs.Now as long as Jabiru can stay in business to produce the parts you need to keep your aircraft going you will remain okay, but, I am not sure how many aircraft or parts sales Jabiru needs to stay in business given how few sales they will now make given the effect of the CASA restrictions and the fear and liability risk it creates.

01, have you considered DDSAA at Clifton? Private airfield, Trevor Bange who owns the strip is an L2; great atmosphere and fine place to fly from, bunkhouse accommodation on site, fuel on site - though a bit more than an hour away from Archerfield. The downside is that being black soil country, the strip becomes soggy after rain.

 

The second part of your post is the one that people should be worried about. There is an underlying sub-text from many of the strident Jabiru-knockers, that Jabiru has waxed fat on its sales at the expense of providing a good product and should be punished for that. That is just, simply, complete and utter bullsh1t. It gets by, on the same sort of margins as any average SME; you'll see more fancy cars and fancy premises at a Real Estate Agency than you see at Jabiru, or CAMit, for that matter.

 

Most SMEs operate in an environment where regulatory action doesn't just come in and cut the guts out of the enterprise, on highly dubious grounds, that leaves the SME with sod-all recourse to a defence - unless it has violated its statutory requirements for quality, service etc. In the current situation, how long can it reasonably be expected that Jabiru would exist with strangled sales opportunities?

 

Let's be realistic here. No company can continue indefinitely if its expenses exceed its income. A few cogent examples might jerk some people back to reality: in 2014 alone: Ford, Holden. Somewhat earlier, Chrysler Australia. Even earlier, Leyland Australia.

 

Let's just look at the aviation scene for a moment. Australian manufacturers of aircraft of decent (in varying qualities) products that are no longer in existence: Victa, CAC (the Nomad), Dean-Wilson (the Whitney Boomerang) various owners of the Skyfox Gazelle. Manufacturers who were Australian but are no longer Australian-owned: Gipps Aero, Seabird, Brumby.

 

Internationally, notable companies who have dipped a toe in the ultralight arena and withdrawn: Cessna, Piper, Bombadier (at somewhat arm's length with the Katana).

 

The question that people need to be asking is: for how long can Jabiru (and by default, CAMit) continue in the face of the inevitable results of this sort of bastard act?

 

 

[Camel]

Let's just look at the aviation scene for a moment. Australian manufacturers of aircraft of decent (in varying qualities) products that are no longer in existence: Victa, CAC (the Nomad), Dean-Wilson (the Whitney Boomerang) various owners of the Skyfox Gazelle. Manufacturers who were Australian but are no longer Australian-owned: Gipps Aero, Seabird, Brumby.

 

Then why don't we all lobby to get rid of the major cause, CASA, ? CASA has a track record of destroying aviation in this country. I think their use by date is here, we don't need them, the airlines might but I can't see their role in recreational aviation or manufacturing. CASA should be called WOFTAM.

 

 

[jetjr]

My concern is that Jabiru do have some options, despite being unattractive would allow them to comtinue

 

Say .... engineer 912/914 into aircraft and id suggest sales might increase sharply

 

Owners and businesses like CAE will bear the brunt as they have few options. It would appear the only one able to undo these restrictions on LSA are Jabiru. If they cannot, what then?

 

LSA can move to E or 19 but theres no benefit unless they fit CAE engine under current limitations.

 

 

[Oscar]

jj - the logical choice is the CAE engine. Bolts right up, miniscule W&B issues, standard installation arrangements fit on ( but - that said, a CAE engine with a CAE cooling package that's now under development, would be even better!)

 

And reasonably comparable price. Ian Boag is quoting from experience a $40k + cost and huge hassles to add a 'Used, at a a good price' - not a new - 912.

 

 

[Oscar]

Let's just look at the aviation scene for a moment. Australian manufacturers of aircraft of decent (in varying qualities) products that are no longer in existence: Victa, CAC (the Nomad), Dean-Wilson (the Whitney Boomerang) various owners of the Skyfox Gazelle. Manufacturers who were Australian but are no longer Australian-owned: Gipps Aero, Seabird, Brumby.Then why don't we all lobby to get rid of the major cause, CASA, ? CASA has a track record of destroying aviation in this country. I think their use by date is here, we don't need them, the airlines might but I can't see their role in recreational aviation or manufacturing. CASA should be called WOFTAM.

While CASA is the crowning t#rd in the toilet pipe (thank you, Blackadder) , it's economics that was the killer. To make a small fortune by being an aircraft manufacturer in Australia, you need to start with a large fortune.

 

Rod Stiff and Phil Ainsworth were not rich, bored people when they started Jabiru, but they did have some reasonable financial resources. I don't know any of the figures, but I strongly suspect that they could have put their money into other avenues for generating income and done a whole lot better than they did by developing Jabiru.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

01

 

I can appreciate your position.

 

I wonder how many others out there that are VH, that would be in the same boat?

 

As for being at Loxton. I travel extensively and getting to the Sunshine Coast is not in anyway an impossibility by obeying the new regs.

 

Phil

 

 

[Russ]

I paid mine a week ago with QBE Andy . No change from last year , but then again the renewal premium was probably formulated a month or more ago . Will be interesting to see what happens to renewals in the coming months .Bob

Got my renewal last week QBE.....was a tad less.

 

 

[01rmb]

01I can appreciate your position.

I wonder how many others out there that are VH, that would be in the same boat?

 

As for being at Loxton. I travel extensively and getting to the Sunshine Coast is not in anyway an impossibility by obeying the new regs.

 

Phil

Sorry Phil, Loxton was just an example of those not directly or immediately affected by being away from populated areas but will be indirectly affected from the flow on effects of Jabiru going to struggle to pull through this and the greater impact on aviation in general, RA-Aus, insurance (hull as well as liability), prices of aircraft, lack of development in Australia, accessibility to service facilities and travel through the more populated areas around the major towns etc.

 

And for future investment in aviation, who in their right mind would invest in this industry given the ease that the regulator can change the rules and put you under. If only I knew two years ago what would happen I would not have made the decisions and investments I did and I only bought an aircraft. And that is nothing to the millions invested by Jabiru, CAMit and all the other businesses in Bundaberg that are directly affected by this.

 

There will be quite a few affected as well as a number of the popular flight schools at Archerfield, Bankstown and Moorabbin that are RA-Aus. There is an exemption through the flight school for flights under their supervision in Class D which enabled a lot of RA-Aus training and ongoing flights, but even that was being reduced through changes from CASA. With a RPL you don't even need the exemption.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

How many CAMit engines are there flying today? Any numbers?

 

 

[jetjr]

Theres a whole thread on it

 

Not many in the big picture but seeing as they are a derivative of older solid lifter types this should lend to hours flown and tested.

 

This is an expensive option for people flying solid lifter types already.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but why do we think te camit engine is " an" answer? How do we know it's a better engine?

 

 

[ave8rr]

How many CAMit engines are there flying today? Any numbers?

About thirty 3300 and four 2200 CAE engines. Don't know how many Jab badged engine upgrades.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Oh...I see..

 

 

[dmech]

On a previous thread it became clear that very few CAMit engines exist FH. So few that I would classify them as trial units.One person suggested there were thousands, possibly inferring that since CAMit made Jabiru engines they were CAMit engines, in which case they would form part of the Limitation.

I'm of the opinion that while Jabiru's solution could be among the hundreds of armchair suggestions, there is always the possibility, based on my past experience that there is something inherent in the base engine causing the problem, and if that was the case then someone building the same engine but with detail improvements could well run into some of the same issues.

 

Random problems are an engine manufacturer's worst nightmare because there's no set time they occur - the problem can occur on startup on the production line, right out to almost full engine life.

 

Multiply this by the fact that problems only occur in a minority of engines, and you can't even run one to destruction on the dyno, because it's most likely to be a good one.

 

For these reasons you can't make claims based on a few good engines to date, and I've noted previously that CAMit themselves are not doing that, to their credit.

exactly correct, camit needs to be careful THEIR engine doesn't become a noose around THEIR neck 2000 engs . or so, down the track, sim to jab now. experimental or not.

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

I believe CAMit Aero Engines will run better for several reasons.

 

1. CAMit will advise 4/6 CHT and EGT sensors.

 

2. CAMit knows there are fundamental problems with the engine.

 

3. CAMit has addressed specific problems in a rational manner, making worthwhile improvements.

 

4. CAMit has not introduced new problems.

 

5. CAMit is selling to experts. Most buyers will have been part of the Jabiru Development Programme and know this engine.

 

6. CAMit listens to its customers.

 

7. CAMit learns.

 

8. CAMit will tell you the truth.

 

Of course the current CAE is not the complete or "right" answer, but it isn't, to quote theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, not even the wrong answer.

 

 

It isn't CASA that is the problem with Jabiru or Jabiru engines.

 

 

[jetjr]

Jabiru engines before introduction of hudraulic lifters were basically a good engine

 

I think even the ATSB data shows the problem of hydraulic lifter being introduced and reliability problems developing.

 

It fixed one small issue and brought in big ones. Still not sorted.

 

Solids werent without isues, overheating and consequences, fuel distribution and many ran old flywheel attachment setup. Most of these are better understood today

 

However a solid lifter engine with fine finned heads, even CAE, also privately so does Jabiru, says this is a good cobination unlikely to give problems. (I was talking to Ian about buying a new CAE and he said I didnt need it)

 

Camit have used this as their starting point and developed further

 

There are around 3000x solid lifter engines out there, all those in Aus limited by the instrument.

 

CASA are even limitimng engines with fixes implemented. They should have engaged in meaningful data collection process if they wanted to help.

 

 

[JimG]

However a solid lifter engine with fine finned heads, even CAE, also privately so does Jabiru, says this is a good cobination unlikely to give problems. (I was talking to Ian about buying a new CAE and he said I didnt need it)Camit have used this as their starting point and developed further

If this is an easily proven fact , then I believe a fair compromise would have been to exempt these engines from the Instrument by means of engine number identification (just like any AD ) .

 

Surely it is within the records of Jabiru engine numbers / sales to easily identify the range of engine number that apply.

 

JimG

 

 

[turboplanner]

That would be correct Jim, but first you need the proven facts rather than what someone is guessing on an internet forum.

 

 

[facthunter]

Just catching the whole lot regardless is a crude lazy way to go about it. It could only be formulated by people who have no real idea, or is a fix designed to window dress rather than address a problem, which is vaguely defined anyhow. Disaster!. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Let's look at specific, identified issues with Jab engines and what CAMit has done about it.

 

Through bolt failures:

 

The original 3/8" Jab through bolts were (just) adequate in strength for operation in 'perfect circumstances': scrupulous attention to assembly procedures necessitated by the case-joining sealant used, careful management of CHT at all times when the engine is in operation, and reliable appropriate fuel. However, in order to achieve the necessary clamping pressure they were torqued to within too small a margin of their ultimate strength and had no tolerance for any out-of-condition running. The Jabiru 7/16" upgrade provides greater margin of strength for the clamping pressure, but came out at around the same time as the reliability of mogas supplies went significantly downhill and ethanol started to be more widely used, and they did not take into account certain in-service condition issues for the bolt itself that have been identified and addressed by CAMit. Because of the limited space on the standard Jabiru barrels, the new 12-point nuts had to be hand-modified to ensure they made proper contact with the barrel flange and did not introduce bending to the thread area of the through-bolt.

 

The typical through-bolt failure mode is not a 'simple' failure of the through-bolt to withstand the forces directly applied to it in normal use ( i.e. a tensile failure from a load applied axially to the bolt as one would see in a proof-test situation), but a more complex set of physical circumstances. The major culprit is in fact the bending of the standard Jabiru cylinder base so that the flanges through which the through-bolts pass contact the engine case and apply a leverage factor to the load on the through-bolt. Reasons why that can happen include any over-temp operation and/or detonation. Any failure of the case sealant (usually a result of incorrect assembly technique - assembly of the cases plus cylinders MUST be done within a very narrow time-limit and ambient conditions, which requires a high level of experience to achieve), will cause the sealant to crack and allow the cases to fret, relaxing the clamping pressure on the bolts and thus introducing 'hammering' on the through-bolts that will cause fatigue failure.

 

CAMit engines use a different design of 7/16 through bolts and studs PLUS a thicker barrel base PLUS a case-joining sealant that is not assembly time critical PLUS a case-half location methodology that eliminates the standard Jabiru case-join dowels PLUS a different nut that does not require any modification to seat properly on the new barrel flanges (nor, by the way, does it require modification for older-style barrels). It took CAMit some time to find the right manufacturer for those nuts! There's another element to the CAMit through-bolts design that is the product of considerable research, analysis and design work, but (without wishing to sound as if it's 'Magic Ingredient XX-PLUS!), it's a bit of CAMit IP that rightfully remains in the purview of CAMit to reveal when and if it sees fit. Suffice it to say - it's no 'magic', it can be demonstrated using standard modern engineering diagnostic tools - but you wouldn't find it unless you went looking for it: CAMit did exactly that.

 

Valve failures:

 

Issues here are also complex, and include excessive guide wear, hydraulic lifter pump-up, and lead fouling. There MAY also be some instances of QA on the valves themselves, though that is rather speculative.

 

CAMit engines use solid lifters. They also use a revised rocker gear geometry that reduces the side-load on the valve stems by over 50% by comparison to the standard Jabiru rockers. The lubrication arrangements for the rocker arm bushes is also substantially improved. The valve clearance adjusters are a considerably improved design that utilises a hex-key head bolt with a 12-point nut - and is quicker and easier to adjust very precisely.

 

CAMit research has shown very high temps at the top of the barrels that adds to the heat load on the exhaust valve and improvements to the barrel cooling and the exhaust valve guide and seat materials has been conducted, and is (I believe) now being introduced.

 

Flywheel bolt failures:

 

The CAMit belt-driven alternator reduces the harmonics in the crankshaft that are a significant contributor to shear fatigue of the flywheel bolts.

 

Cylinder Head distortion:

 

CAMit uses a different and superior alloy to that used by Jabiru, that is considerably more tolerant to CHT temperatures in excess of the Jabiru limits.

 

Barrel rusting:

 

The CAMit engines have an inbuilt 'inhibitor' system that provides a fine spray of warm engine oil on shutdown.

 

Compression blow-by:

 

CAMit uses a different barrel honing pattern that provides both better sealing and better barrel lubrication characteristics.

 

 

[jetjr]

What about cylinder cracking mentioned in the instrument?

 

Anyone ever seen this

 

Most of these improvements are in the "short" engine they sell, still stuck with limitations

 

Has CASA even spoken to CAE?

 

 

[01rmb]

Are they talking about the attached - which seemed to be fin cracking as opposed to the heads and then only on engines that are well into their life

 

Jabiru Cylinder Head AN.pdf

 

Jabiru Cylinder Head AN.pdf

 

Jabiru Cylinder Head AN.pdf

[jetjr]

This is probably what they are talking about but it was analysed and dismissed pretty quickly.

 

Even quicker by some of those backyard dreamers here on the internet TP, your pretty quick to run down a fair bank of skill and experience. Not really sure why you visit these threads

 

All the same it would be pretty simple process to spend resources to attach engine build details to failures. 40 to 100 phonecalls would get a picture which version was giving problems.

 

Even engine numbers as Jim said would paint a rough picture and this should largely be in RAA data already

 

Never heard much from RAA on the head crack problem. Surely somthing important enough to be inspectd before next flight deserves a report on findings.

 

Funny to think we criticised Tech dept for jumping to action with few facts then, which he did, not even on the league as CASA

 

 

[dmech]

Jabiru engines before introduction of hudraulic lifters were basically a good engineI think even the ATSB data shows the problem of hydraulic lifter being introduced and reliability problems developing.

It fixed one small issue and brought in big ones. Still not sorted.

 

Solids werent without isues, overheating and consequences, fuel distribution and many ran old flywheel attachment setup. Most of these are better understood today

 

However a solid lifter engine with fine finned heads, even CAE, also privately so does Jabiru, says this is a good cobination unlikely to give problems. (I was talking to Ian about buying a new CAE and he said I didnt need it)

 

Camit have used this as their starting point and developed further

 

There are around 3000x solid lifter engines out there, all those in Aus limited by the instrument.

 

CASA are even limitimng engines with fixes implemented. They should have engaged in meaningful data collection process if they wanted to help.

Tell me, why are hydraulic lifters causing problems, we don't have problems with them , or valve issues in the jab engine,are they not being set up properly?. I' have set up thousands of lifter's over 40 yrs in auto engines ,when reconditioning . I've also seen plenty of problems with solid lifters over the time . there is a lot of auto engines that don't get the tlc that jab engines do .I went out to a ford truck on a farm [300 ford 6 cyl petrol hyd. lifter,] recently [ ignition problem] . This is an engine that I reconditioned , April 1979, still had the same paint that I painted the engine with on the oil filter! never changed , I don't think the oil had been changed either in that time , this truck is used on a daily basis , no valve issues , little bit of blue out the ex pipe though

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just catching the whole lot regardless is a crude lazy way to go about it. It could only be formulated by people who have no real idea, or is a fix designed to window dress rather than address a problem, which is vaguely defined anyhow. Disaster!. Nev

Oscar's post seems to answer your question FH. If the issues are across several versions of the engine, then that will show up in the failures.forced landings as statistics which CASA would be acting on. Sure it would remove all doubt if CASA listed all the engine variants, but Oscar's information may be correct.