Bigglesworth

On the note of fuel: I've had a couple of times when my Cheetah has sat for a few months and I've gone for a fly and it's had really noticeable vibration at full power after a few minutes (just after take-off, was really worrying first time). Throttled back and landed, then filled tank with new 98 and all was good. Basically what I'm saying is when fuel is an issue, it seems to be pretty noticeable and still didn't hurt the engine. I woudn't blame everything on fuel.

As regards value for money, for the price of a 2200 I could just about buy a brand new Hyundai excel with 88hp. Run on any fuel in any heat with neglecting service intervals and have a pretty damn good run out of the motor. And have the rest of the vehicle thrown in for free. Nope, for $15000 I want to bolt it in and turn the key.

"Tweak the cooling", heard that one before from Jab getting out of the factory setup being not good enough. Apparently you need full temp monitoring and then cardboard and sticky tape. And then your plane is no longer certified. Not saying this wouldn't work, but its not the right answer from a certified supplier. Andy (motz) is right; there is no way to baby through bolts. Especially when Jab says that their motors like running at full power. (Especially at run in)

People who think Jabiru treats customers with respect have obviously never sent 5 emails reminding them that they said on the phone that they would work out a fix for a fault with a 2200. This was over about 6 months and all of them were ignored. I later found out they were received. After I finally got to someone, the fix was an obvious bandaid, and when I told them that they got out of it by requesting irrelevant data I didn't have and couldn't get without fitting a full EFIS just for trouble shooting. As for non reports: 'A friend of mine' doesn't like to give reports, especially with Jabiru, because there might not be a factory certified 'fix' and sometimes it's easier to bend the rule and fix it properly. Also every time an L1 did some work on a 24x it wouldn't be reported, and I imagine that happens often enough. Even in small things. If we reported every time a Jab didn't start on a cold morning and someone had to take the battery out to charge it, RAA would get innundated in winter and a lot of 24 aircraft would not be certified anymore.

Just to clear up a small matter in this thread. The statistics don't show the full story. When most engines fail its for a simple and understandable fault. I.e. ignition fail for faulty part, valve snap at 3000 hours worn out etc. In my experience with Jab its been random failures which can't be fixed because maybe thats how it should be. You try finding out how much crankcase venting is normal, or what the max cylinder barrel temp can be. Or air pressure difference for certified cooling. This is what frustrates mechanics and why people complain so much. A 'minor' fault can ground a plane for months/years because no one knows how to fix it and Jabiru doesn't help at all.

I own 2 Jabiru powered planes. 1 of them has given a lot of engine trouble. Jabiru has treated me with no help or responsibility for their barely passable product. So, no sympathy to Jabiru. BUT while they have caused a lot of grief (and money) to Jab owners, I don't believe they pose a significantly higher danger to pilots than other items that can possibly fail. Especially on homebuilds. I'm hoping the draft proposal is simply a big stick to wallop the Jabiru factory until they decide to help the customer. Approving Camit and Rotec parts would be a start. But mainly I'm wondering how it is reasonable for my Bantam with a 2200 and a BRS is now deemed to be less safe than a Bantam with a Rotax 2-stroke and no BRS.

My Bantam did that to me, but not as bad as you describe. It was a heat thing. Really cold day it loosened and when it warmed up it was fine.

I just bought a B22J (awesome plane) and it needs a 100 hourly. Only problem is that I have misplaced the handbook with the service list. Would anyone out there happen to own a Bantam and be able to help me out be emailing me a a scan/photo of the relevant page? My mechanic needs it to sign off on the 100 hourly. The motor is no problem but the airframe needs the factory list. I've been trying to get hold of the factory (Micro aviation) but no success. They haven't been responding to enquiries through their website and my mobile doesn't want to connect to the number on their website. Does anyone know anything about this? And could they PLEASE help me with the 100 hour check thanks in advance

Just re-read Slarti's post. So it confirms that the nuts can loosen by themselves, whether due to silicone of just being too weak it intuitive felt to me when I did the rebuild. As for all this sh*t about torque setting, I have had inexpensive motors to play with for a long time and work out some rules on torque setting. For starters the through bolts are designed for multiple torquings, so they are old school, low tech. In 99% of cases that actual torque setting is not too relevant (and often wrong. I have had rules of thumb to prevent gasket failure that gave a lot better life) but that they are torqued evenly and not incorrectly stressed. Once the nut has touched the next bit of tension will compress out all gaps and excess sealant (hopefully) after that it can only stretch the bolt, or compress the material. If both are of high standard, upping the torque by, say 20%, normally only results in 1/8 a turn of a nut. If properly designed, a motor will have a large difference between the force needed for an effective seal, and the force at which things distort. And the average lawnmower can be this forgiving. Remember, these are engineered to be cheap, lightweight, and reliablilty is not crucial. An aero-engine is meant to be reliable, reliable, reliable, and light secondary. And cheap for 3rd. There are 6 bolts in the head to cylinder, and metal to metal. There are no failures here. Surprise, surprise.

I've only just noticed this thread, and spent a lot of time reading. I come from a background of repairing small engines (lawnmowers, chainsaws, stationary engines etc), and I've seen a LOT of interesting failures. I also have done a full strip and rebuild on a jab 2200 which is in my Cheetah. I have had the opportunity to see machines where the components are too weak and learn the symptoms. They seal around the bolt area but not in between. A LOT of Jabiru that I have seen (including mine) exhibit this at the cylinder base. The whole sleeve is weak, but the base is ridiculous. Also can't anyone else recognise that the cylinder in the picture has been loose for a few hours before the snap? Look at the wear pattern around the nut area. If it was a clean break you'd get in indentation matching the nut, and maybe cracks/chips around it. If it was a loose bolt under little tension/movement you get the 'blackening' that I'm sure you've all seen in loose spinner/cowling bolts. That looks to me like places where something has been loose and experiencing high force for a reasonably short period of time (my guess would be a few hours) If a through-bolt was loose, the force on the base of the barrel become uneven and invloves a bending moment, this could lead to the crack as an over stress crack. Once that happened the uneven force on the bolt would snap the head off, and also the uneven force (because of the con rod) would make the other 'top' bolt the next to go. Once they snapped the cylinder was still 'working' but less compression/less force, and the bottom ones held in to stop the cylinder snapping off and releasing hell in a handbasket. I will be contacting the Chad/Andrew to see if there was evidence of wear on the other side cylinder. I see it that my life might hang on working out how to stop this happening to mine. Oh, and after the rebuild I have once had an issue with old fuel (98 premium) causing the engine to 'knock' on full power on climbout after take-off. I immediately backed off the power and no further issue. Once above the airfield I put the plane back in that scenario to see if it would happen again, which it did. I actually cleaned out the carby and a lot of other stuff before accepting it was just fuel being old. Keep the fuel new and haven't had a problem since. So if through bolts snap because of detonation, I should have hit it then. I blame the weak bases, bad engineering tolerances in the crankcase, IIRC there are no dowels in the cylinder to crankcase join (your chainsaw might even have them) and the bolts are loose enough. Add in the silicone seal. Big time asking for trouble, The o-ring is sufficient. I have seen gaskets fail and loosen joins before.

All valid, and if I myself was doing an inspection, I would certainly give someone a rap over the knuckles for it.Its bad and potentially unsafe practises. But what I'm saying is: the prelim report (especially when the media got hold of it) painted a picture of: An illegally licensed pilot flying a dodgily registered plane that was full of defects and likely to fall out of the sky anyway I'm not going to critisise the ATSB (not now, anyway) but the 2 issues are separate. And I still maintain that while Garry should NOT have done any of the issues, it was not directly dangerous. The joystick was tig welded (localised heat) and there was a healthy margin of undisturbed metal on the sides of the tube. It should definately NOT have been done, but I one could stress test that, and my money is on it standing up to a more then healthy level. A design philosophy in Garry's planes is to over-engineer to allow kit builders to make mistakes like that. Bad practises, get your act together, Garry, and properly finish a job, BUT its not the fault, or the issue. The email he sent out points out that he wasn't grounded for manufactuing defects, BUT FOR THE CHANGING OF A CATEGORY. After he invested time and money in the design, it wasn't allowed to used as designed. That's the screw over.

Just a few points. I built an early Cheetah and have pretty much nothing but praise for it, from a design point of view. I was really suprised to see the defects in the Sierra, however: The diverging rivet line: Not being an engineer, but having built one and being a carpenter with an eye for forces, I would say that in that case it was simply more important/desireable to have a straight line than to maximise strength of something that already had more than enough strength in it. The brake lines: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the brake lines were nylon coming through aluminium, which would wear the aluminium before the brake line. If nothing else, it would be picked up in time in a service, or even a daily should keep an eye on brake lines. Cable ties on the fuel lines: I'll admit that I did this as well. I used to be a small engines (lawnmowers etc) mechanic, and when I found out this trick from Garry, I thought it a really good idea. Mainly because if you go have a look at what is doing reliable service on you lawnmower for years with more vibration and more exposure to UV, then you'll see why I thought cable ties would work. And I have pulled the cable tied lines off, and its almost as hard as pipe clamps (had to cut the tie). I used metal between the tank and the switch, and in the engine bay, but as someone earlier pointed out, you see hoses with nothing but the barb to rely on. Running the power to the fuel pump with the fuel line is also something that isn't a good idea, but I did it as well (the layout makes it too tempting) The holes in the joystick suprised me. BUT take a closer look: there is no way this will fail. That's Chrome-Molly, the redundancy in strength there is ridiculous. Considering that there's never that much force on the stick. Now, don't get me wrong. I would have expected a bit better quality, since I know Garry can do better, but what I'm saying: None of those faults were dangerous. Not to the point of "If you are the kind of person to do this, you shouldn't be allowed to build wheelbarrows, let alone aircraft". Neither was the fact that the rego was a typo Neither was the pilot in any more error than I (and I think most pilots) see and/or do regularly enough. (I was recently a passenger when we tried to land downwind 5 mins after t/o and tried twice before we realised wind had swung 180 degrees, but we just changed and called ourselves idiots) Even the ferris wheel was not in a good spot but SHOULD have been avoided. So to me, there's more bad luck than anything else, and I hate scapegoats. I still whole-heartedly support the Morgan brand; the only thing worrying me when I fly is the motor. Waiting for the full report for full judgement, but I'd like to see a bit of banding together to give Garry and family moral support and let the RAA and CASA know that if they want to f*ck someone over, RAA is already based in Fyshwick (red light area of Canberra).

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, I'll continue this where it should be (ferris wheel thread). I haven't been keeping up with gossip, but obviously I want to help out Garry as much as I can. And I don't really have any other reason to than the fact that his planes are affordable and strong and as such have provided me with a lot of good times. See you in the Ferris thread

I got an email from Garry Morgan (Morgan Aeroworks) yesterday where he was alerting the world to a major problem he's facing. Now, I don't quite understand all the ramifications of the standards, orders and regulations mentioned, so I want to know if anyone else has got the email and could illuminate me and the rest of the world as to what's going on. As far as I can tell, he was authorised to develop an aircraft to fit into a flying school category, and now CASA and RAA seem to have pulled the carpet out from under him, leaving him with a huge development bill, and no way to recover it. I reserve opinion until I know exactly what's going on.

Sweet, its only 20 mins, but it another type to add to the list, and I honestly learned a heck of a lot about gliders. I mean, it was meant to be a scenic flight until the thunderclouds covered the mountain so we couldn't see them and just spent the time playing with the plane.