Geoff13 Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 The difference as I see it is that Ian is more than willing to show you his setup, explain the reasons behind his changes, explain how he has made them, exactly what they are and how and why he expects that they will improve things. 1
frank marriott Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 The difference as I see it is that Ian is more than willing to show you his setup, explain the reasons behind his changes, explain how he has made them, exactly what they are and how and why he expects that they will improve things. Just wondering if you have personally experienced this Geoff? It's just the only reference to difficulties in discussing anything with the manufacturer are here - can only take a company as you find them and that's been my experience, surely me (and the other 15 owners I personally know) are not all exceptions.
gandalph Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Just wondering if you have personally experienced this Geoff? It's just the only reference to difficulties in discussing anything with the manufacturer are here - can only take a company as you find them and that's been my experience, surely me (and the other 15 owners I personally know) are not all exceptions. Frank, I can't answer for Geoff but I certainly support his comments about Ian Bent's positive attitude towards visitors. When I was up there the year before last I was blown away by not only his willingness to explain the thinking behind the changes he's made but his eagerness to come onto the workshop floor and set up tooling for us and demonstrate the correct technique. He's got my vote!
frank marriott Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Frank, I can't answer for Geoff but I certainly support his comments about Ian Bent's positive attitude towards visitors. When I was up there the year before last I was blown away by not only his willingness to explain the thinking behind the changes he's made but his eagerness to come onto the workshop floor and set up tooling for us and demonstrate the correct technique. He's got my vote! No arguement from me, just a question - nothing more intended. I have no issue with either company but some have and my query was only if it was based on personal experience or hearsay - many here over time have expressed strong opinions but actually have NO direct experiences to base such opinions on (and personal agenda - one locally a prime example).
jetjr Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 I have direct experience with both Jab seem to say every new development hasfixed the problems, i kept spending money there, like $15K and latest rebuild has not lasted long My experience says engine from 1995 infact better than current rebuilds Ian will happily outline his problems and remaining issues and is far more open and cooperative 2
Geoff13 Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Frank When I was trying to decide to buy my X-Air and if I did buy it which engine to go with I had several long conversations with Ian at Camit over the space of several weeks. I had the need to go to Bundaberg for work just before Christmas last year. At very short notice on the day that the factory stopped production and were into there Christmas cleanup Ian took several hours out of his day to personally take me around the complete factory and show me everything there was possible to see on his engines including the oil injection system on shutdown which was still being worked on. He explained all his changes, the reasoning behind them and also the likely effect of not incorporating some of them. (At that stage I was unsure if there would be room for the external alternator in my setup). I was taken into the assembly room and although no engines were being assembled at the time he took great pains to show me how both engines are assembled (remember the still assemble under licence to Jabiru using the Jabiru methods) as well as assembling their own engines. I was also taken into the test room and shown an engine running under test. Ian's commitment to his company and products and his willingness to explain the why's and how's I found to be exceptional. As was his ability to bring it to my level of understanding. In my approaches to Jabiru on the other hand were to put it quite simply uninspiring and unhelpful. On three occasions I failed to get past the basic salesman level and as far as technical responses they were non existent. So yes my experience is in fact first hand and in my opinion to put it quite simply Camit are a mile in front when it comes to customer service. As for the engines themselves I am not a mechanic but I do have a history of working in high tech maintenance in the electronic industry. I also trust my internal bullsh*t meter. The alarms certainly never went off when talking to Camit. I understand that it is not yet a proven product. The Jabiru motor is not a proven product either (it may have been once but with the sheer number of changes to it recently it no longer is) so on that level they are even and are both still under test. So for proven reliability I would say neither have a clear lead. But if it comes to openness well then it is a whole new ball game and one shines over the other. As for cost well as at Mid January this year the cost difference was 10%. I know where I would have put my money had these two been the only choices in my selection process. Many times along the way I have regretted not going with the Camit. Non more so than Saturday, but that is another story. So Frank the short answer to your question would have been my comments are based on personal experience. 1 2 2
Oscar Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 I would like to echo, at least in part, Geoff's comments. I am doing a major rebuild and upgrade on one of the aircraft that has a small place in Jabiru history, following serious overturn damage following an EFATO: the first Jabiru to achieve full VH registration, in fact. It was used as a development mule for the 2200 engine in the factory before being turned over to almost full-time training use, with all of the attendant hard life of several thousands of hours of student use and a quite obvious history of maintenance in some areas that was so far below 'good' that it beggars belief. I have experienced both sides of Rod Stiff: as an interested, helpful and generous supporter of the project. Also, as an annoyed patriarch of the Jabiru company when I found some things on the aircraft that I believed required a defect report: Rod disagreed and expressed his disagreement in quite unambiguous terms. Many people have found Rod to be an unholy terror in defence of his products. It is not a pleasant experience to be on the receiving end of Rod's displeasure, I would be the first to acknowledge that. HOWEVER, I also believe that without the single-minded drive and self-belief to continue with the development of Jabiru that Rod has always had, it would have NOT achieved what it has. It needs to be added, that without Phil Ainsworth's management and people-skills savvy, it would not have succeeded to be one of the premier ultralight aviation companies in the world. It also needs to be added, that Rod and Phil had the understanding to employ two of the best aero-engineers around to assist with the aerodynamic and structural development of Jabiru airframes, which continue to be at the absolute top for the combination of excellent and benign handling, good performance in all respects and exceptional occupant safety - in an aircraft that is highly price-competitive in the world market. For the work I have had to do on my aircraft, I have had many dealings with Jabiru for parts and advice. I have without exception found that a respectful approach to Jabiru has been returned with service and assistance that I could not fault - and (with a few exceptions), a price for bits that is very reasonable. When it came to the question of the engine rebuild, I went to CAMit. Ian Bent most generously allowed me to do that, in his engine assembly room, with the assistance and advice of the entire factory available to me (provided I didn't become a blasted nuisance, which I tried to not do and probably succeeded at least some of the time..) . I saw both Jabiru and CEA engines being assembled, and everybody in the entire factory was happy to explain everything to me; Ian personally taught me how the do certain machining processes (such as for the installation of the oil inhibitor tubes, which required Ian to make a specific drilling jig as I was using first-iteration heads, drilling the crankcases for the new CAE through bolts, chamfering the exhaust ports to allow second-generation exhaust tubes to be fitted - which required a special tool to be made, which Ian again did himself for me even though his time was more than fully occupied with far more important stuff.) Ian took the time to explain every mod he was doing to the CAE engines; quite often taking me to his office and dragging up the CAD drawings and even the FEA analysis stuff to show me not just what, but why and what effect it had, for each mod. Machine operators would proudly stop the things just to show me aspects of the processes parts go through in production. My engine went through the CAMit laser-measurement process for all the critical measurements alongside brand-new engines, thus measured to a tolerance - including the specified temperature for measurement - that all new engines coming out of CAMit have to meet. The guys in the assembly shop explained, mentored, and in some cases taught by example how to do each process for assembly, and I had complete access to all of the specialist tools in the assembly shop. Ian personally checked drawings on his CAD files to ensure that CAE parts - e.g. the nuts for the through-bolts - would not just fit the old-model barrels I was using (NOS, for reasons not important to this discussion) but would perform properly and not introduce new problems. You might think: hey, either the nuts fit on, or they don't - but you can't actually see the degree of interference/clearance between the nut and the base radius of the barrel without reference to the drawings, to be sure that the nut isn't introducing a bending load on the through-bolts and is distributing the intended load properly into the barrel flange and therefore ensuring that the designed pre-load on the through bolts from assembly torque is being achieved - which is critical to more than just holding the barrels on, it is critical for the crankcase join integrity and therefore crankcase fretting. As has been stated here many times, an engine works as a system, with the interaction of the parts requiring far more thought than 'just throw an 'XXX' at it, that'll fix it'. Ian Bent lives, eats and breathes his engines and when you talk to him he will explain how it all fits together. By way of example, the flywheel clamping issue: some people think that by simply using different grade bolts and increasing the torque, the issue will be fixed. Ian can explain to you why that will bring the stresses in the crankshaft end up to unacceptable levels and what effect that will have - which is why he has developed an entirely different approach that transfers the clamping load more effectively (and safely) and generates something like 40% greater clamping pressure. That, in turn, requires extra machining to the crankshaft - adding cost, but actually achieving the desired end result without introducing a potential NEW problem. It is this attention to detail that convinces me that CAE engines have significant advantages and Ian will explain to the interested potential customer what, why and how it works - as I said and I think Geoff also found. 4 3 1 4 1 1
Geoff13 Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Oscar I could not agree more. You obviously have the ability to explain the technical side better than me but like you I found that Ian wants people to understand why things are done, not just what is done.
gandalph Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 ......... Ian wants people to understand why things are done, not just what is done. Exactly! And it's that quality that gives me confidence in his developments. When you understand the "why" it's that much easier to make a judgement about the product. 2
dazza 38 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I don't know Ian Bent at all, but after reading various posts from various members here, he sounds like a top bloke who is prepared to help everybody. I wish him well in his endevours and I really hope his business grows and prospers. We need guys like him in aviation. Best of luck to him. 8
Guest Andys@coffs Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 .......I am however extremely perplexed as to why Jabiru would block release of the data. Perhaps, as a guess, because releasing that raw data might then provide the necessary factual details to allow some owners and their counsel to then more accurately consider if they should undertake a civil action claiming that the specific failed engine they own is clearly not fit for purpose and / or the individual treatment of the owner by Jabiru was perhaps unconscionable conduct? I would have thought that action by the regulator would have shifted the liability exposure for a number of parties. Personal opinion only, nothing above is claimed by this author as fact Andy
jetjr Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Possibly got refused because request came on CASA letterhead
gandalph Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Andy & Jabba-who, I'm more perplexed that the FOI decision maker at CASA elected to give Jabiru the option to review CASA's decision to release the information. CASA's FOI decision maker cited s27 of the FOI act as justification for referrng the matter back to Jabiru for consultation as to whether the data should be released. My reading of S27 and 27A suggests to me that CASA drew a very long bow in deciding that s27/27A was appropriate in this instance: I would have thought that S11B - Public interest would have been more applicable. See below for relevant extracts of the FOI act 1982. However it would seem that the time allowed under the act for Jabiru to comment has expired and Camel could reasonably expect a response to his FOI request soon. If CASA is swayed by Jabiru not to release the data Camel can seek a review of that decision by the information Commissioner and if still not satisfied he could take the matter to the AAT. 27 Consultation—business documents Scope (1) This section applies if: (a) a request is made to an agency or Minister for access to a document containing information ( business information ) covered by subsection (2) in respect of a person, organisation or undertaking; and (b) it appears to the agency or Minister that the person, organisation or proprietor of the undertaking (the person or organisation concerned ) might reasonably wish to make a contention (the exemption contention ) that: (i) the document is exempt under section 47 (trade secrets etc.); or (ii) the document is conditionally exempt under section 47G (business information) and access to the document would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest for the purposes of subsection 11A(5). 27A Consultation—documents affecting personal privacy Scope (1) This section applies if: (a) a request is made to an agency or Minister for access to a document containing personal information about a person (including a person who has died); and (b) it appears to the agency or Minister that the person or the person’s legal personal representative (the person concerned ) might reasonably wish to make a contention (the exemption contention ) that: (i) the document is conditionally exempt under section 47F; and (ii) access to the document would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest for the purposes of subsection 11A(5). 11B Public interest exemptions—factors Scope (1) This section applies for the purposes of working out whether access to a conditionally exempt document would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest under subsection 11A(5). (2) This section does not limit subsection 11A(5). Factors favouring access (3) Factors favouring access to the document in the public interest include whether access to the document would do any of the following: (a) promote the objects of this Act (including all the matters set out in sections 3 and 3A); (b) inform debate on a matter of public importance; © promote effective oversight of public expenditure; (d) allow a person to access his or her own personal information. 1
gandalph Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Turbs, re: post 1010, you are becoming predictable.
turboplanner Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Turbs, re: post 1010, you are becoming predictable. What? I didn't write #1010 - one too many sherries?
gandalph Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Ahh! Trying to be too clever there Turbs? I was referring to you response to post #1010. (as if you didn't already understand that.....) You are many things Turbs, but ingenuous? I think not. BTW. Sherry is not my tipple. You would know that it dulls the senses.
turboplanner Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Ah, sorry, see what you mean. I must have had one too many. Deleted it. I did give you an agree in #1015
Jaba-who Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 The difference as I see it is that Ian is more than willing to show you his setup, explain the reasons behind his changes, explain how he has made them, exactly what they are and how and why he expects that they will improve things. So is jabiru. Been there several times. Got shown around, Rod Stiff himself told all about their upgrades why they had made them and even showed me prototypes where they had trialled various changes. 1
Oscar Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 So - may I suggest - that approaching Rod for information and advice, produces a far more positive result than charging in with a 'Stiff, you are a bastard' initial approach? Jeez, who would have thought that? Quite obviously, not every one of the people who post on here... 1 2
Old Koreelah Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I've been underwhelmed by one or two dodgy Australian aircraft dealers, so it's nice to report that I've always received good service when phoning the Jab factory. Ian Bent has also given me mobs more time than he should have. A bit of courtesy goes a long way. 2 2 1
Geoff13 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 So is jabiru. Been there several times. Got shown around, Rod Stiff himself told all about their upgrades why they had made them and even showed me prototypes where they had trialled various changes. I am glad you did, I certainly could not get past the basic sales pitch and at no stage was I able to get to speak to Rod. It was a pity really because I would have loved to have gotten the same type of info from Jabiru but I got the impression that I was either to small or to unknown to care about. After all I was just inquiring about a Jab engine (not an aircraft) and I didn't even own an aircraft yet. As I say I am only speaking for my own experience not from hearsay or for anybody else.
jetjr Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Rod has always had time for me, can be very helpful. Cant say he is very open to discussing problems or others ideas. Confidence in your product is not a bad thing. You do need to be careful believing your own sales pitch sometimes. I am tiring of trying to get help with technical issues on engines, ending up they dont know whats wrong, or cant seem to help. They try and sometimes send some parts but seem to accept ahort lives and frequent repairs. Even returning aircraft at my cost resulted in no result. Other stuff fixed no charge though They are good people but they are fighting difficult problems, some without simple solutions 1
Kaywoman68 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Found the new instrument for those interested. CASA 102/15 - Conditions and direction concerning certain aircraft fitted with engines manufactured by Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd - F2015L00974 This instrument prescribes operating limitations on aircraft fitted with engines manufactured by, or under licence from or under a contract with, Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd (Jabiru-powered aircraft), to manage risks arising from a high incidence of engine loss-of-power events and other reliability issues. The instrument is, therefore, an urgent safety measure designed to mitigate immediate risks to persons flying in Jabiru-powered aircraft. Administered by: Infrastructure and Regional Development https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015L00974 Made: 29 Jun 2015 Registered: 29 Jun 2015 Commencement: 01 July 2015 Date of Ceasing: To be ceased 30 Jun 2016 Reason for Ceasing: Self Ceasing
Geoff13 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 12 months this time, looks like they are not expecting a quick solution.
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