jetjr

Not replacement with same type. SIMILAR type

An EFIS upgrade would require nothing but a email Id expect, No inspection or nothing. Id suggest its a good idea to make sure installed correctly. New replacement engine same or similar would also require a email, L2 wasnt needed. Replacing a part same as original would quite sensibly require an L2 or at least another maintainer as you have fiddled with control cables

I agree, regulators cant be trusted with good intentions. Their creeping action of choking free thought and behaviour is constant and relentless. To slow it down IS the better of the situations. CASA and many in RAA were of the understanding that only builders could modify 19 aircraft and this was always the case. I have a list of heated emails arguing this with board members and TM. Its why 19 were left out of MARAP process originally. There was real chance CASA was going to rewrite regs to make this clearer. Your comment that this reasoning "is rubbish" defies logic and indicated we have options or some kind of negotiating position with whatever SSAO decides will be the action of the day. The current position is far better. At the least we are able to discuss/modify and approve within RAA. Many are now able to modify and upgrade due to this new system which MARAP is a part of. CASA have every intention of regulating RAA experimental back to GA standards. They arent even comfortable with the situation there. This has put brakes on this for the time being.

Glad to hear your issue with ID numbers has been sorted, I would have thought to your satisfaction. What compulsory inspections? Having someone else check your work is a pretty basic caution when doing critical tasks even outside aviation. Unfortunately there has always been differentiation between builders and subsequent owners, one can train in it one cant. In VH experimental one can maintain and modify, one cant. Unless theres something new this is the same as proposed some time ago after MARAP outlined. Having just been through the process, for something minor, it was simple and fast. Its a check and balance to stop people doing dumb modifications, damaging themselves and RAA overall. The other option as I heard it was a complete stop to modifications and the need for engineering proposals via CASA standard process (kinda the same as stopping it) CASA have taken a big step allowing RAA to self manage this mod process and (in their eyes) placed a big responsibility with TM. Its the far lesser of two evils. If its a minor mod, theres nothing to do but update documents and get approval from TM, more major he may require test flight time, W&B, and a eyes on check from L2. What I would like to see is a pathway via training, to achieve "builder" status for an aircraft you own. For some reason builders are rated higher than L2 or LAME on that type of similar aircraft, despite having no experience much or training. A 51% builder may not have skills beyond a 10 year owner and maintainer. The option to avoid much of this and satisfy CASA's overall dislike of self maintenance, was to allow annual L2 inspections on ALL aircraft. Personally I dont have a major issue with that if it removes other regulation messes.

Rv's will possibly be one of the few winners from any MTOW increase assuming they can stall under 45kts at the new MTOW.

Many would believe the eureka proposal should have been brought to RAA at least for discussion by the member before lending their name to it

As was I indicating These discussions took place nearly 18 months ago, nothing public since then. Both Tech guys and board members involved

If you dont get it Jim, I cant help you. The use of their position title would depend if commenting personally or on behalf of the electorate In this case RAA didnt even know about it so was clearly a personal view. Are you indicating RAA board memebers equal to Members of parliament?

I recall discussion on this when Marap was first released 19 were excluded i thought Upon enquiry the issue of mods on 19 was an issue with CASA and they may move to clarify regs. Its illogical to not be able to fix, upgrade or modify homebuilts, first owner or otherwise as there is no record or method for determining original status These aircraft are already restricted to 2 pax, weight, no cta, Quite recently engines have been substituted in 19 reg and all that was required was notification to tech team. Thats on Darrens advice. Did RAA know this was coming at all? The more CASA add and fiddle with regs the more people will ignore them

Yep RAA board member is a role or position. It isnt a title to be used as some think to add value to their name

In respect to crown inspection, i now have borescope which can look at crow and valves Got good images but aside from deposits not sure whats good or bad

Good info ........but Ive used both dynon and CAE probes, see similar egt results, swapping a few probes around shows results remain with cylinder. We are seeing 15-20% spread, so whilst 5% is significant, the spread is real and significant To back this further cylinders running lean or rich show spark plug evidence as expected

Yes ....... misuse Previously, its thought a highly damaging report was sent from an RAA board member using his title to add effect to the complaint. Subsequently fierce denials it occurred. The effects are still being felt today with millions of dollars damage. I assume at the least, the board was advised of the seriousness of this issue at the time. I have no interest dragging it up again.

Difficult to believe the issue of misus of "RAA board member" title was overlooked. There was a strong debate over another submission to CASA with similar problem.

I believe there is a slow swirl to air coming into carb Its severity changes with airspeed/rpm/load You often see two cylinders with quite high and the other quite low egt One is getting fuel charge planned for the other This spread difference can even move aroundand swap cylinders at different rpm. Unless this egt spread is evened out you cannot jet the carb correctly and are constantly having too cool and too hot egt at th same time. Yes a centre updraft would be better with mor even runners but hard to make this work on Jabiru, cowls, sump, cooler and exhaust all there.

Got to agree with Oscar, i dont like this idea. Too much chance a straw will come loose or melt and block or jam carb Theres some honeycomb panel you could try instead, but anything in intake has significant risk it can come loose and twist, blocking hose or worse the carb The cross vanes i tried are made in fibreglass and flocced to airbox and the hose adapter infront of carb, cant come loose., also very thin and low restriction Try the safe easy options first, remove airfeed scat, maybe even an air pod direct on carb

Not sure the Jab would cope

Yes an approved one would be 1950 materials technology and much more expensive

Its interesting to note that even if you edit responses the original is emailed out to everyone. Yes its moulded in 45deg, no kink. I think its 100mm x 100mm and for this it will need 70mm cut of one end and maybe 30 off the other

good point but being 45mm ID? and just 100mm long. Its also around 7-8mm thick, Id think very unlikely to pinch enough. Id squash SCAT easier than this stuff. Im more concerned its too stiff as its now the joint between engine and firewall. Pretty sure Ian says he has seen one installed with good results. The hot air in most Jab setups doesnt bypass filter?, a good feature but I can see if element sucked in it would stop the noise. I disagree with the bit you deleted,

Ive found , yet to fit, a silicon hose with 45 deg bend. Upon sample fit its perfect to replace scat and cobra head. I will loose the cross vane in the cobra head but one at airbox exit will still be there Im told silicon hose wont burn and is a good choice. Bit thick and heavy. Can get them in really bright colours which would no doubt help too. Im told the airflow through Bing is up at limits on 3300 engine and this contributes to problem too. Im keen on the info regarding Hacman style leaning and thats its working LOP.

Jabiru usa have a couple of good resources This is one, the other is on cooling duct tuning Interested in your experience sucking air from inside cowls, do you run like this full time now? How did you block naca duct off I saw one where the naca was covered and changed to just a round hole. Seemed to help a lot

I got a rev P, service has been pretty good, had an older model, all upgraded and sent back Microair are one of the few to do dual channel monitoring and be able to tune to tune to wider range of freq for awis etc Not perfect but ok value

Re raa weigh increase, if the min stall speed isnt changed, very little will change

Well said and the broad approach taken is better than previously seen. BUT Today, as we stand, we DO have the CASA you imdicate. Approaching them with talk of medical harmonisation and discussing problems with self maintenence, many cant predict the outcome. Maybe after theres some changes this might be a less risky option. Get RAA members on board first. Not ask for review of issues that are core to its existance.