SDQDI Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 I guess also that just mandating a shorter examination/overhaul period isn't really making jab look at the problems and finding a solution whereas the instrument which affects most jab owners and has a threat of being continued/extended and really forces their hand (in a good or bad way we won't know for a year or two) Maybe we need a nice wealthy individual/conglomerate to come in and buy both jab and CAMit and run it as one business, but that is daydreaming and probably doesn't show true decency to the hardworking of those individuals to get where they are today.
dsam Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Maybe we need a nice wealthy individual/conglomerate to come in and buy both jab and CAMit and run it as one business, but that is daydreaming and probably doesn't show true decency to the hardworking of those individuals to get where they are today. Perhaps Dick Smith to the rescue...? 1 1
gandalph Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Maybe we need a nice wealthy individual/conglomerate to come in and buy both jab and CAMit and run it as one business, but that is daydreaming and probably doesn't show true decency to the hardworking of those individuals to get where they are today. A more realistic (but still unlikely) option would be for Jabiru to concentrate on producing airframes and CAMit to produce CAE engines, but that still requires the extensive (and expensive) test program to be undertaken. Crowd funding anyone?
turboplanner Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Probably the most productive thing said in 18 pages. This might be the most productive action for an owner to take and could also be used as evidence (although I don't know how successful that would be) of an effort at duty of care in the case to a lawsuit after a crash.However, if CASA prescribe a change to 500 hours etc, then they are taking over the liability for their actions, it is likely to be argued that they implied that would prevent failures/forced landings. So I'm not surprised that they would steer away from a prescriptive decision. What they have done is thrown liability on the manufacturer and operators, but incorporated some prescriptive instructions to minimise injuries/fatalities, which would be hard to argue against. Taking this stance, the onus is not on CASA to solve the problem and take liability. 1
David Isaac Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 I agree Tubz, There is no way that CASA will prescribe a 'Top overhaul' hours and neither should they. It is clearly the manufacturers responsibility to specify the need and frequency of specific overhaul items in order for any engine to reach its stated TBO. Even the humble 0-200 and 0-320/360 and most others have a requirement that stated TBOs cannot be achieved unless a 'Top' is carried out between certain hrs. Even the humble 1930s designed Gipsy Major (still flying today) requires a 'Top' at around 400 hrs and a TBO of only 1500 hrs (the longest TBO in its day). People have unrealistic expectations on Aero engines and these unreasonable expectations seem to be dominant in the RAA fraternity. It is entirely appropriate for an engine manufacturer to require certain specific checks and maintenance at stated hrs in order for an engine to get anywhere near its stated TBO. Why would anyone in their right mind fly an aircraft when an engine has a soft pull through on one or two cylinders (without further checks) knowing a particular engine has a weakness in that area e.g. Jabiru, they are just inviting a stoppage airborne. I speculate that if pilots were better engine educated we would have less Jabiru engine failures and that most issues would be picked up with appropriate maintenance and preflights. 3 2
facthunter Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Pilots, like the rest of society are not as engine aware as they used to be. That is the way it is. When you build one of the lightest aero engines in it's class (Jabiru) and aircool it, it needs inspection, rather than just assurance or hope to be reliable. Any faults that may develop have to be picked up early. Larger radial engine equipped aircraft, like a Convair 240 with only two engines would often see an engineer locating himself near an engine exhaust before it is shut down to listen for signs of a faulty valve. They got checked on every turn around and signed off. That's what makes the operation reliable. Know YOUR engine (and every part of your plane). Even 1,000 hours without strip down is many years for most people. When planes are with flying schools they fly most days. Longer trips are usually more easy on them. Most wear happens in the first few minutes after start. Most thermal stress is on the first takeoff from cold. Nev 2 5 1 1
Oscar Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 The Jab. service letter ( JSL 014-1) issued on 7 December last year, presents a decent start to identifying the more 'at risk' engines. It's been hammered and hammered, that proper recording and analysis of engine performance with at least full cht and egt recording, is practically a minimum sensible requirement to gauge what's been happening, particularly on 'line operation' aircraft. It is entirely possible to cook a head between starting up and starting the T/O roll if attention isn't paid to things like holding time in a bad position (not pointed well into wind). I believe that much more could be done in comparing the overall operational environment in FTF's that have good service records with those that have a history of problems, because I believe some patterns would emerge that would further refine the 'picture' that Jabiru has tried to develop. People don't go out of their way to treat their engines badly, I am sure - but 'innocent' abuse is still abuse from the engine's POV. Aero engines are not - and should not be expected to be - 'consumer goods'. We seem to accept readily that DI's are an essential part of flying safely but in general, engines get very scant attention. 1 3
David Isaac Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Pilots, like the rest of society are not as engine aware as they used to be. That is the way it is. ....... Nev So true Nev. My old CFI used to say there was a real lack of education and practical operational knowledge on engines demonstrated by FTFs and pilots. He used to say to me that I was an exception because of my background with building boat racing engines and my child hood growing up with a very knowledgeable father who was a motor mechanic most of his life. I have often wondered why engine operational education is so poorly managed by FTFs (GA and RAA), but perhaps not all FTFs. Trevor Bange's mob seem to have a good run with Jabs up in Qld, so perhaps there is a good educational and operational regime. Then again Motz who is a respected CFI has had major problems. How many of us have seen pilots who wouldn't even know what a 'soft pull through' was or pilots who have flooded a C172 ... really one of the most basic engines out there ... and yet sit there grinding the starter until the battery is flat. Or Pilots on injected engines who cant follow simple starting instructions and again flatten batteries because of it. Or pilots who have no clue on how to clear plugs on a mag check, or manage mixtures badly and foul plugs or exceed EGTs by over leaning, or don't alter speed and climb angle when the temps rise, or don't allow an engine the proper warm up time, or rev the guts out of stone cold engine, or do run ups NOT facing into wind ... and on and on I could go. So my question to FIs is ... What engine principles and operational training is part of the training syllabus and how well is it implemented. It seems to me that Rotax have spoiled many operators because the 912 has been designed and built to be almost 'foolproof'; which is fine if you can afford one. 2 4
dazza 38 Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 The modern 20 or 30 something year old are used to super reliable cars which work as advertised. All they want to do is get their vehicle serviced every 10 000 Klm or what every the service schedule is. The don't want to gin around every five minutes checking valves for this or doing a leak down test for that. They also want to fly aircraft with engines the same as the modern vehicle. There isn't many aircraft engine manufacturers out there that seems to be able to provide that product. 1 4 1
David Isaac Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 ... There isn't many aircraft engine manufacturers out there that seems to be able to provide that product. There isn't any that any un-aviation educated person can treat like a modern car. If they are not prepared to accept that and educate themselves then they should stay out of the skies before they kill someone. I have ZERO tolerance for that kind of ignorant arrogance when there is ample opportunity to educate themselves. If you want to fly then bloody well learn about what you are flying. An aeroplane is NOT a car that you can just run into the ground ... and some 20 - 30 year old don't even get their cars serviced. 1 2 1
facthunter Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 If you feel like that try an electric one but watch out for the batteries. Motor cars are not a valid comparison. They are hardly ever working above 40% of their output and you can pull off the road when it starts to knock. Rolls Royce built the Continental t0-200 under licence and didn't appreciably improve it. Bugatti engines are about the worst aero engines in the world (but that's going back awhile) Porsche who arguably build the best aircooled car engines ( But they are NOT aircooled anymore) tried and failed. It's a low volume specialist market. If you can't be bothered to check your engine you probably won't check the control cables/rods, seat frame or wheel bearings or tyres for creep either .. When a modern car stops or plays up you often fix it by replacing engine management bits till it runs ok. Intermittent faults are terribly hard to trace. The actual engine mechanically still needs to be assessed. if it sits a lot especially.. Hands up who has EVER inhibited a motor to protect it when out of service for a period. Drained fuel out that is probably too old..Nev 1 3
gandalph Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 snip... There isn't many aircraft engine manufacturers out there that seems to be able to provide that product. Hmmmm . The grammar seems vaguely familiar. Could it be that Dazza is really Deb in disguise? 2
David Isaac Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Hmmmm . The grammar seems vaguely familiar. Could it be that Dazza is really Deb in disguise? Nope ... Deb is prettier ... ROFLMAO
dazza 38 Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 If you feel like that try an electric one but watch out for the batteries.Motor cars are not a valid comparison. They are hardly ever working above 40% of their output and you can pull off the road when it starts to knock. Rolls Royce built the Continental t0-200 under licence and didn't appreciably improve it. Bugatti engines are about the worst aero engines in the world (but that's going back awhile) Porsche who arguably build the best aircooled car engines ( But they are NOT aircooled anymore) tried and failed. It's a low volume specialist market. If you can't be bothered to check your engine you probably won't check the control cables/rods, seat frame or wheel bearings or tyres for creep either .. When a modern car stops or plays up you often fix it by replacing engine management bits till it runs ok. Intermittent faults are terribly hard to trace. The actual engine mechanically still needs to be assessed. if it sits a lot especially.. Hands up who has EVER inhibited a motor to protect it when out of service for a period. Drained fuel out that is probably too old..Nev Hang on, where exactly did I say I felt that way? I SAID 20 to 30 something year olds. I'm 45 in April
David Isaac Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 45 ... Holy Sh!t, getting up their ol' son ... ROFLMAO
facthunter Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 You were making a case.... I have said what I have in response. When "You" is said it often means anyone in such a situation or who identifies with it . 45 soon You are lucky to be so young. I rarely seek to discount peoples abilities on the basis of age, but the society changes with different emphasis on skills. When NZ didn't import many cars the NZ people became very resourceful mechanics as a consequence of having to keep the old stuff running. Today people expect to have long warrantees that make the cars dearer for everyone. Many Councils don't service their cars /utes, because they still get the same trade ins on them. The next owner suffers the effect of the neglect. Attitudes change depending on the situation they exist in. Nev 2
dazza 38 Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 There isn't any that any un-aviation educated person can treat like a modern car. If they are not prepared to accept that and educate themselves then they should stay out of the skies before they kill someone. I have ZERO tolerance for that kind of ignorant arrogance when there is ample opportunity to educate themselves. If you want to fly then bloody well learn about what you are flying.An aeroplane is NOT a car that you can just run into the ground ... and some 20 - 30 year old don't even get their cars serviced. Jesus David, do you have to be so melodramatic ? I am sure that Rotax isnt the only engine manufacturer in the world who can expect their engines to go from one maintenance schedule to the next. As is 100 hours with a 50 oil and plug change in the middle. I reckon just about any decent motorcycle manufacturer could make one. I never said a engine could keep going forever. But a well designed modern engine should get from one scheduled service to the next without need a valve grind or leak down test. I dont buy the old argument of a aircraft engine needs to be ran at full power at the start and run at 75 % in cruise and other non aviation engines cant do that. 1
David Isaac Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Jesus David, do you have to be so melodramatic ?I am sure that Rotax isnt the only engine manufacturer in the world who can expect their engines to go from one maintenance schedule to the next. As is 100 hours with a 50 oil and plug change in the middle. I reckon just about any decent motorcycle manufacturer could make one. I never said a engine could keep going forever. But a well designed modern engine should get from one scheduled service to the next without need a valve grind or leak down test. I dont buy the old argument of a aircraft engine needs to be ran at full power at the start and run at 75 % in cruise and other non aviation engines cant do that. Dazz ... I never said you did, I wasn't even having a go at what you said, I was in fact agreeing with you and saying that what you were talking about is a problem. Why are you being so sensitive buddy.
Bruce Tuncks Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 This comparison with Rotax is very unfair and the sort of thing that my daughter, who never understood about getting her car serviced, would have done. The Jabiru engine has a much lower parts count, is aircooled and about half the price. The fact that a powerful CASA bureaucrat made this comparison led me to wonder about his engineering qualifications or lack thereof, but I soon found out that this enquiry was considered unfair... now we can't have anything unfair, can we? 2
Oscar Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Trevor Bange is certainly one who instills an appreciation of engine management, but there are other sites as well that have had very satisfactory runs from Jabs. and I believe that they could provide much needed wisdom. I would suspect that those who do have good records will be less than overjoyed with the 'new' requirements although - and I think this is worth noting - Jabiru have made it fairly obvious that 'history' provides at the least a sign-post towards identification of 'good' and 'bad' potential situations. How much, I wonder, does the specific situation of the training airfield and possibly specific elements of training emphasis affect engine management? Take - since it has been mentioned - the situation at Clifton. It's a small airfield with decent open spaces around, where (while Trevor makes sure you are keeping the climb airspeed numbers in the right place), there is plenty of option to vary the climb out to be sympathetic to the engine. No RPT traffic, very little need to hold for any excessive time on the ground beyond what's needed to do your checks and ensure the circuit is clear. No fixed taxiways forcing you to hold in an unfavourable position relative to the wind. Close enough to a major town and well-used airfield so that supply of reasonably fresh Mogas and Avgas is likely. Sufficient numbers of aircraft flying from it to keep the fuel use reasonable so it isn't sitting for too long in the tanks. Far enough from the local population centre to allow some 'creativity' in choosing the circuit points to adjust to what is good for the engine, allowing the introduction of engine management awareness to the rest of 'aviating' - not just clicking off speed, height and position in the circuit. How many students have it drummed into them to 'fly by the numbers' - or learn in situations where high climb gradients and tight circuits have to be the norm, and therefore probably fly in that mode for the rest of their life? Ambient temps vary; fuel quality varies; 'the numbers' need to include more than just AGL and ASI figures. While there is no reasonable argument that Rotax 912's ( but NOT, I believe, 914's) have a highly-desirable level of tolerance to user management, that does come at a price: not just $$ purchase, running and rebuild, but also a weight penalty that has flow-on effects to other parts of the total aircraft package, including usable weight and occupant safety. Everything in an aircraft design is a compromise. The argument (if there is indeed one that is worthy of consideration) that users should not have to have due regard to engine management beyond that expected of the average motor-vehicle user - which appears to be 'if it starts when you turn the key, then it's good to go and nothing else needs to be considered' - is clearly bullsh#t, since the engine management for GA engines is absolutely NOT 'set and forget'. Even LSA aircraft have to be treated as something well beyond toys. 3 5 1
facthunter Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 It should be automatic if you see the temps rising to increase airspeed on a Jabiru or any aircraft for that matter. Usually an increase of 8 knots or so will still give an acceptable climb rate. If you are heavy you should be using a faster climb speed anyhow. IF you have to climb over some near obstacle this is not available as the GRADIENT must be achieved. Years ago a lot of pilots were climbing with less than take-off power (thinking they were saving their engines) actually caused a lot of failures as the mixtures were going away from the over rich take off power settings which keep the engine cooler (where it matters) and power still being at way above 75% caused real problems With PISTON engines. Dazza.. Cars will run for years with loose fuming motors that wouldn't last a couple of take offs in an aeroplane. The wear limits on an aero motor are quite restrictive and much more close to new than a car engine. You also strip them more often for inspection as one does a race engine to avoid blow ups and maintain reliability. One of the best Mercedes race engines prewar had a design life of around 3,000 kms. Horses for courses. Nev 2 2
Oscar Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 I dont buy the old argument of a aircraft engine needs to be ran at full power at the start and run at 75 % in cruise and other non aviation engines cant do that. Then you don't understand the basis of engine certification / certifying. The performance figures for aircraft are based (mostly) on that exact premise: full power for take-off, cruise power for steady level flight. What car regularly - if EVER - runs at full throttle for 5 minutes as soon as the engine is up to operating temperature? Or runs at a constant 75% power for the full duration of a multi-hour journey? Get real. 2
dazza 38 Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Then you don't understand the basis of engine certification / certifying. The performance figures for aircraft are based (mostly) on that exact premise: full power for take-off, cruise power for steady level flight. What car regularly - if EVER - runs at full throttle for 5 minutes as soon as the engine is up to operating temperature? Or runs at a constant 75% power for the full duration of a multi-hour journey?Get real. What ever mate, motorcycle engines can runs for hours at 75 % power. So can modern 4 stroke engine out boards on boats.
Keenaviator Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 If I ran my motorbike engine for more than a few seconds at 75% there would be someone behind me at 100% and party lights. BAP. 1 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now