Oscar

Bruce, similarly I have never heard or seen any incidents due to softening, but there isn't a huge margin of safety in extreme Australian sun conditions. One can use a standard domestic steam iron to 'smooth' thin epoxy composite skins (probably better not to ask how I know, but I was taught that trick by an aero-engineer who is well and truly up on composite construction..) A reasonably well-polished ( i.e. reflective) white skin shouldn't get above about 60C even on a stinker-hot day, but any dark area in the direct sunlight might cause local softening and if then stressed highly, could cause a localised high-stress point. Your Libelle and our Jabs. have the 'advantage' over lighter but stiffer c/f composite aircraft, of the glass matrix being 'over-strong' in order to achieve stiffness. The cost there is weight; one of the residual benefits is a great ability to absorb damage stresses gradually, with the matrix failing ultimately by a tearing action which dissipates energy as it happens. For those who cannot visualise the difference in failure mode between a 'stiff' and a 'strong' material (without getting into the Young's modulus area): try bending a high-carbon steel rod ( e.g. a Grade 12 bolt) vs a mild steel bolt of larger diameter. I don't have the required maths knowledge to suggest the exact equivalents, but if you get a piece of 'tool steel' rod of 1/4" diameter and a standard black steel bolt of say 1/2" diameter, I suspect that both will support the same weight applied on say a one-metre long bar without distorting. Then add weight to that bar until the tool steel rod breaks - which it will do dramatically ( wear eye protection..) Then repeat the experiment to the black steel bolt shank: it will bend and distort greatly, but it won't fail with the 'bang' and bits of metal being shot out across your workshop. THIS is what happens when a high-stressed c/f structure fails: and THIS is what happens when a low-tech composite (non-c/f) aircraft flies into trees following an EFATO: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=plane+crash+wedderburn&biw=1513&bih=722&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpxvD-lOfKAhVGVZQKHe8sB8gQ7AkIJQ&dpr=1.25#imgrc=SNqffmYa0dJhbM:

WOW - Fabulous stuff! Both ears AND the tail awarded to Mr. Marriott, by crowd acclamation.

As a side issue, the occupant safety of a c/f cockpit IF it fails under impact, is very bad. I have inspected one such ( the Goulburn Sting crash) and virtually all of the cockpit area back to the mainspar was shattered into small pieces. As M61A1 says, it is extremely brittle when designed for maximum stiffness for weight.

Some vinyl ester resins have softening temps up around 130C, maybe a bit more after autoclaving. I am absolutely not aware of any 'resins' with the sort of softening temps that Pearo suggests. lc3600 Araldite, as used by Jabiru, starts to soften at around 80C .

In my training to become a C of A inspector for gliders, we were taught to look very hard for the way in which forces applied at one part of the structure would be carried out to the rest of the structure. For example, in the case of damage to a wing l/e, almost the first place to inspect was the wing root attachments to the fuselage: quite small damage well out on the wing applies very considerable force to the wing attachment 'hard points' at the wing root/fuselage structure. NDT of carbon-fibre structural components for internal cracking in particular requires very high-tech equipment and a lot of operator training, and some of that is only possible in laboratory conditions. With complicated shapes of structural components, it is sometimes impossible to 'test' unless the design loads can be applied exactly as for the proof testing - and that may be impossible for a component that is now surrounded by other parts of the airframe. In 2009, Ducati introduced a form of 'chassis' ( of patented design) to its motoGP bikes, that had the c/f sub-frame bolted to the engine and incorporating the headstock and airbox passages. Ducati intended this to be the 'test' programme for a new production technique for its top-end road bikes - but did NOT use c/f as the material to be used in the road bikes, rather substituting aluminium. It is not difficult to imagine why: in the event of a crash, for product safety reasons, Ducati would have had to mandate at the minimum 'return to factory' of the subframe for testing. Ducati abandoned the c/f subframe idea completely in 2011.

I suspect that is a four-letter word for TP where Jabiru is concerned. CASA is a four-letter word for the rest of us..

Not good enough, Turbs. Numbers are required. You have staked your 'expertise' on your number-crunching.... at the moment, you are looking as flakey as a US Republican Presidential candidate. C'mon, tote out those numbers, flatten us all with your dazzling science.

So: how many of those were a result of Jabiru engine failure, Turbs? Neatest correct entry wins.

Hey, people, let's respect the idiots savant amongst our population. Turbs has at least achieved the first half of that description, and may, in time, climb above the bar.

Bully for you.

You have never before been very careful about jumping to conclusions about who was negligent, Turbs; indeed you have cleared high buildings in a single bound. How many of the trucks/buses/ whatever that you have sold have been implicated in fatal/serious accidents?

Andy, it is logically correct to say that it is a fallacy that the only fatalities likely were to participants. Any time that any aircraft flies over a populated area in a situation where it cannot glide clear of the 'population', there is a risk of engine failure causing the aircraft to descend and impact the 'population'. HOWEVER, the statistics of ultralight aviation in Australia demonstrates that the actual number of cases of fatality/injury to 'non-participants' since the introduction of 95.10 and forward - is zero. As a member of 'uninvolved joe public', by comparison to being killed by an ultralight crashing , you have a demonstrated greater likelihood of being killed as the result of a Police high-speed chase. Or a petrol-tanker crashing in your neighbourhood. Or being taken by a shark. Or Salmonella poisoning. Or walking down a street when a drunk, aggro moron decides he wants to take a swing at you. Pilots have been putting down following engine failures for ever, in populated areas. The golf course next to Bankstown has had quite a number of unintended arrivals. The closest we have come to a really serious mass 'uninvolved joe public' fatality from engine failure, AFAIK, was the Mig-15 out of Canberra. Yet Warbird (or quasi-Warbird) 'Jet Adventure' flights are still allowed out of major regional airports, over populated areas. The 'Soccer Field' incident you cite, is the Runcorn incident: which was caused by fuel starvation. I would accept that this is a demonstration of the greater risk that a Jabiru-engined aircraft poses WHEN - and ONLY WHEN - it can be proven that other brands of engines can continue to function without fuel. However, I have noted from the CASA 'data', that that incident was counted as an 'engine malfunction'. The restrictions generally imposed on RAA-class aircraft have worked very well to ensure that there have been NO fatals or injures to 'joe public' to date. For CASA to take a comparison between two brands of engine of which NEITHER have any history of causing fatality / injury to the general public and say one is 'more likely' than the other to cause such results, is completely unjustified.

Yep, fine, whatever. But if you had any realistic idea of how to deal with Federal legislators, you would NOT be burbling on about state governments, that's just a nonsense in the realpolitic world..

State governments do not have any control over aviation. Suggesting that one needs to consider State Ministers is an evident failure to understand the mechanics of aviation regulation. What happened at the Black Stump 1/4 mile Oval track is completely irrelevant.

That is because I don't wish to start a firefight regarding other makes, simply to draw attention to the fact that there are valid reasons why the restrictions on Jabirus are inconsistent with the old dictum of 'start with the worst of the problem and work your way back from there', and I particularly don't want to make 'capital' of Ross Millard's sad demise.

If you are thinking of the accident to ZNZ, that happened actually at around 400 feet on climb-out from a touch-and-go. The report is: atsb.gov.au/media/24318/aair200601688_001.pdf Also in that report - and germane to the Jabiru thread, is the following: The occurrence of two fatal Lancair accidents in densely populated areas within five days of each other prompted a review of the operation of amateur-built aircraft in Australia.

You have an evident failure to comprehend the written word. I did NOT say that, nor imply it, I stated that there were other aircraft with statistically far greater fatality rates/number of aircraft on the register(s) than Jabiru that should have been grounded by CASA before action was taken by CASA against Jabiru. The Lightwing fatality rate / number of aircraft on the register is 16 X greater than for Jabiru.

So - you would, it seems, more or less agree with my statements for months now that around 16-18 'in-flight failures' is a reasonable deduction?

25 years of statistics is not just a 'good luck' basis. If 'luck' is involved, then I assume that you would count all those aircraft marques listed in Jabiru's analysis with far, far more fatalities/aircraft numbers as 'bad luck'? Do you not have extremely personal experience of the toughness of Jabiru airframes, at least when flung into the ocean? That was not a matter of 'luck', it was a matter of the personal occupant safety characteristics of the Jabiru airframe mitigating the stupidity of the PIC. And it was also NOT a consequence of the failure of the CAE engine, that was healthily turning over as the aircraft was speared into the water... The balance, within the 'box' of the MTOW that applies to RAA/LSA aircraft, makes compromises between engine weight and airframe weight necessary. If 'ORN' had been a Sting, rather than a Jabiru, the occupants would have likely been severely injured at least. Jabiru airframes have a demonstrated occupant safety record that is second to none in the class. You are still here to make inane commentary as a result.

And also all the C172's in Australia.

Since Jabiru have NO recorded fatalities from forced landings, the statement that 'the next forced landing could have been a fatal' - while absolutely correct in logic - is extremely contradicted by statistics from 25 years of operation. That is one of the most fatuous comments regarding genuine aviation safety I have ever witnessed. If CASA had been genuinely looking at 'fatalities', as the highest level of concern as a safety issue, it would have grounded many other types of aircraft based on the statistical evidence before it even looked at Jabiru. For one, Ross Millard would still be alive.

Turbs, I have no doubt you are an excellent salesman of trucks and buses. But if you are considering a new career path in jurisprudence, , I seriously suggest you keep your day job.

Given that we have precedent ( i.e. a Judicial ruling) that engaging in Sport or Recreational Aviation is 'an inherently dangerous activity', drawing comparisons with other regimes of civil legislation is a complete nonsense. The CASA action is an Administrative fcuk-up of serious proportions and it is on those grounds that it will be fought - eventually. The 'Black Stump Council vs. Ma and Pa Kettle' comparison is out there with the Twin Towers conspiracy theories.

I made up this one using two small ball bearings and a cutting wheel from a tube cutter. Not flash, but as you can see, it works properly. ( sorry about the poor photo.)

Did he/she record which minute you were born on? One to avoid for the rest of us.