Jabiru 2210 engine

[turboplanner]

I really wasn't trying to pick out Jab specifically; it's as you say.

 

However the physics stands up.

 

 

[pylon500]

To tell the truth Joe, I thought Vans did a good job designing the -12 around the Rotax 912s, if you want more power than that, there's always the 914, or you could look at the Italian super charger kit mod.

 

Expensive?, well I guess you only get what you pay for...

 

If you like the look of Jabiru because it reminds you of ancient big iron (Lycosaurus), then you could look at the Lyco 233, but be prepared to fit your own ignition system (see elsewhere on site).

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

1 egg cup full to 65L of fuel...Yep your right it will change the mixture....my calculator suggests that 50ml as to 65L is 0.000769 or 0.0769% of course whether that leaning of the mixture is materiel when compared to the real disparity from cylinder to cylinder is an interesting question....hell what are the chances that the really high tech bing carb is capable of maintaining mixture to a constant where that percentage becomes relevant?

 

Normal 2 stroke is like 40:1 so for 65Litres you'd have 1.6ish Litres of oil, or 1625mls as comparison against the 50mls........

 

There are things to worry about with Jabs....and that 0.08% isn't one of them imbo.

 

Disclaimer:- That is my personal view, not an RAAus board view about my 19 registered experimental Aircraft.

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

I've got the seized pistons, split cylinders and rods through the side to suggest you think about flow velocity rather than a thimble full of this and a cup full of that, but by all means carry on; it's your money.

 

 

[jetjr]

None of those symptoms have been prevalent with Jabirus TP

 

Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

 

[jetjr]

From Joe D

 

"Both Companies believe they solved the problems with the thru bolt, valve geometry and the flywheel bolts."

 

Yes but only one has actually done anything much

 

Jabiru still run same flywheel setup, same valve geometery, and just thicker throughbolts. The real causes havent even been identified.

 

The nickel coating is only to allow alloy cylinders I think, not convinced it will fix much. Similar for roller followers, an aparrantly good thing, but not sure its addressing any problem

 

Flycut pistons may prevent a instant disaster but the problems is still there.

 

The issue isnt just valves closing, but maybe pump up of lifters, seat release, and most commonly stuck valve in guides. All remain.

 

More recently theres some problem with cracking of valves themselves being linked to valve problems I hear.

 

Theres some new issues with the new cylinders to look at including far longer throughbolts and problems this might lend to existing problem

 

 

[turboplanner]

None of those symptoms have been prevalent with Jabirus TPWhere do you come up with this stuff?

Sometimes I think you'd say anything.

I haven't come up with anything, it's from extensive experience and very useful to someone who wants to protect his engine.

 

 

[facthunter]

The alloy nikasil cylinders COULD be a good idea. Steel doesn't conduct heat too well and uneven heating is distortion, and overheated spots are a lubrication issue.. Your piston to cylinder running fits can be smaller too as the piston and cylinder materials have more similar expansion rates. If we are going to get answers we need to stop loyalties and stick to real facts.

 

The existing flywheel coupling is marginal, and always has been. Having the flywheel at the front is a good way of getting around some of THAT problem. CAMit's motor has that on the more developed version.

 

Let's get the emotive exaggerations out of this argument. Its' been a constant enemy of progress. Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

Dont disagree Nev,

 

Camit now have new flywheel attachment method and have lightened flywheel a lot. Wih belt drive Alt aparantly it helps dampen things down.

 

Thought is two flywheels, one at each end, one being prop, could be a problem

 

These new heads from Jab and CAE new engine are both in the future. Lots of teating needed yet

 

 

[SDQDI]

Lots of teating needed yet

I've heard of babying an engine Jet but teating() them seems a bit much:wink:

 

 

[facthunter]

Having two flywheels, one at each end of a crankshaft is a potential problem. Some kind of frictional harmonic balancer might be required. Hitting a starter into the current arrangement must test it somewhat. Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

Yes something to do with number of starts and failures rings a bell too.

 

One "flywheel" is the prop and one is the flywheel, easy to see even a tiny imbalance would hurt, let alone harmonics

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't know about a "balance" but at times the energy of one will act against the other. Keeping it all with the prop would seem to be the go. Certainly give the prop less of a hiding. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Don't know about a "balance" but at times the energy of one will act against the other. Keeping it all with the prop would seem to be the go. Certainly give the prop less of a hiding. Nev

I fitted a ruddy great spinner with the idea it would add to the prop's flywheel effect and help damp engine pulses. Some have predicted problems, but Ian Bent didn't seem too concerned about it.

 

 

[facthunter]

If it's already the "dominant " flywheel it MAY/ SHOULD improve things, but nobody could be sure till it's tried. Small modifications alter things a lot sometimes. Exhaust system resonance for example.

 

Normal engine balancing (which is something I've been involved with for many years) is generally only achieved optimally by try and test. You can start with a figure calculated to say, minimise main bearing loads or a figure that has worked in similar situations. and then experiment with small changes..How the engine is mounted can have a large effect also.

 

Flat and in line aero engines don't fully counterbalance their crankshafts. ( Radials DO) as it would greatly increase the weight and maybe induce torsional harmonics that wouldn't have been encountered in the rev range before having them. The engine is still balanced in toto, so feels smooth enough but internal bearing loads are higher and you can get bearing "rumble" at some load/ RPM combinations, sometimes. Nev

 

 

[gandalph]

Would be interesting to get Dafydd Llewellyn's input as well. I understand he also has much experience in that field. Shame we can't seem to coax him back to the fold.

 

 

[Geoff13]

I am curious. Not being a mechanical engineer, why do we have 2 flywheels. If the fan is that good as a flywheel why not dispense with the one at the other end altogether.

 

 

[JoeDallas]

QUOTE="facthunter, post: 493670, member: 134"]. If we are going to get answers we need to stop loyalties and stick to real facts.

 

Let's get the emotive exaggerations out of this argument. Its' been a constant enemy of progress. Nev

 

I agree.

 

The two companions attacking each other is not a good thing.

 

Sounds alot like how the politicians talk ( Only telling what the other is doing wrong )

 

I sure that both companies want to solve their problems.

 

I would like to see how each company address each problem.

 

This is now hurting both companies.

 

Buying a engine from either company at this time may not be wise.

 

I am now considering the UL and D-motor and the 0200D Engines in case Jabiru don't get the 3310 in production and test It.

 

I will also look at the Camit engine if they can show that the new version of their engine ( it would be nice if they would give a new identity ) has solved all the problems I'm not sure the spay of oil in the cylinders at shutdown with a hand pump is the best solution to the rust problem.

 

My View

 

Joe D

 

 

[JoeDallas]

To tell the truth Joe, I thought Vans did a good job designing the -12 around the Rotax 912s, if you want more power than that, there's always the 914, or you could look at the Italian super charger kit mod.Expensive?, well I guess you only get what you pay for...

If you like the look of Jabiru because it reminds you of ancient big iron (Lycosaurus), then you could look at the Lyco 233, but be prepared to fit your own ignition system (see elsewhere on site).

I think van did a good job with the design of all their Aircraft.

 

I have a engineering background and get pleasure designing and building.

 

Let's face the fact that as a builder you will spend a lot more time building then flying in most cases.

 

My 12 is a EAB Aircraft for a reason ( I don't want a cookie cutter aircraft )

 

And let me assure you it has nothing to do with money.

 

My aircraft has flush rivets, electric flaps , electric canopy lock and lift, parking breaks, all Garmin panel, fuel tanks in the wings, heated pitot with AOA, two side rear windows, rudder trim, additional seat adjustments, different rudder pedals, removable cross member at seat back, different tail cone door, battery in tail cone and a 100HP +Engine to be named later.

 

As a designer I don't Like A engine with a Gear Box.

 

I don't want to start a debit about this, the vibration between a 4 cylinder and a 6 cylinder is clear and 5 minutes of 100 HP is not enough.

 

My aircraft will weigh about 30 lbs more + or -

 

I need the HP

 

Thanks

 

Joe D

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

I'm not sure the spay of oil in the cylinders at shutdown with a hand pump is the best solution to the rust problem.

I must say the system actually looked quite elegantly engineered to me, more so than how you imply. Whilst perhaps a somewhat minor feature the level of detail and neatness of design in this alone impressed me and suggested the same effort was likely being applied across the whole engine. I wonder if you have gotten info direct from CAMit yet or are you just relying on comments here Joe? If you are not in such a rush then perhaps Osh Kosh would be a good place to inspect all these engines in detail.

 

 

[JoeDallas]

I must say the system actually looked quite elegantly engineered to me, more so than how you imply. Whilst perhaps a somewhat minor feature the level of detail and neatness of design in this alone impressed me and suggested the same effort was likely being applied across the whole engine. I wonder if you have gotten info direct from CAMit yet or are you just relying on comments here Joe? If you are not in such a rush then perhaps Osh Kosh would be a good place to inspect all these engines in detail.

 

I never said the system is not the best answer to the problem of rust.

 

I said: I'm not sure the spay of oil in the cylinders at shutdown with a hand pump is the best solution to the rust problem. ( It maybe )

 

The system may look quite elegantly engineered.

 

Is spraying oil every time really the best thing to do to a engine

 

If notches in the top of the pistons is a bandage.

 

Then maybe this is the same for the rusting problem ( maybe not )

 

As I said I will talk to Camit before I make my final choice

 

I have to say I am liking what I see with the D-motor

 

Joe D

 

 

[jetjr]

Oil inhibiting is pretty common process, just its not often done being such a pain. Id have thought most aero engines have it in their operational guidelines. Like Jabiru do. Even for short non use periods.

 

The concept is that if its easy it will be done and work well. The volume of oil os tiny. Apprantly it doesnt even smoke during or upon restart

 

Theres pictures on the website

 

Re flywheel, dont forget its used to start the engine too, so some type of ring gear is needed. Moving it to other end means moving starter etc too.

 

 

[Russ]

Would be interesting to get Dafydd Llewellyn's input as well. I understand he also has much experience in that field. Shame we can't seem to coax him back to the fold.

A huge loss, a genuine wealth of knowledge, that was shared to us here. Read his departing comments, and ask yourself...has the "bias" changed.

 

Lure him back........hell will freeze over before that.

 

One or 2 here can take blame for his departure, they know who they are, regrettably, they don't give a toss.

 

Email the guy, and others, that have departed this site, taking with them, their expertise, I know for a fact they will answer any aero questions you may have.

 

 

[facthunter]

Joe, sixes are much smoother than fours (as you state) Usually easier on props too. The Jabiru six is the only one available in your HP range and it isn't heavy.

 

I wouldn't get fixated on the spray of oil. There are other more complex ways but nobody does it,

 

Many good engines have a hand primer so it's not much different.

 

I have heard No complaints with the UL motors, Fairly conventional a looks well made

 

The 0-200D has dropped off the radar a bit . I like the basic engine.

 

The "L" head "D" motor is compact (narrow) otherwise a sidevalve engine doesn't appeal a lot to me. It's hard to get fuel economy out of them and there are localised heat problems, in the area of the exhaust valve

 

Being injected and liquid cooled those faults may have been covered, but all things being equal the OHV configuration is more efficient..

 

Depending on your use , have you considered a turbocharged Rotary (wankel). Has to have a reduction gear Usually a sun and planetary from an auto trans. they appear good in racing outboards and don't throw bits out the side. Nev

 

 

[gandalph]

I will also look at the Camit engine if they can show that the new version of their engine ( it would be nice if they would give a new identity )

They have Joe, its called a CAE engine.

 

CAMit builds (most of) the component parts for Jabiru engines. (Can't comment if that's still the case for the 2210) Ian also designs builds, assembles and dyno tests CAE engines. They look similar to Jabiru engines because they have a common genetic heritage but they are diverging fast. The Australian regulator CASA has recognised that difference by acknowledging that CAE engines are NOT covered by the flight restrictions they recently imposed on Jabiru engined aircraft.

 

Hope Oshkosh helps solve your engine choice dilemma. Wish I was going again.