Motif

In reply to Bexrbetter's comments above. Thank you for your concern but I don't think you are entitled to assume that every Western company having a business relationship with the Chinese is going to end in tragedy. That's simply a prejudiced and biased attitude. There are two key reasons for thinking that this arrangement will be a success. The first is that this agreement did not arise out of thin air. Brumby staff have been involved with the AVIC people for almost two years now. Many lengthy trips to China were undertaken by Brumby staff and many trips to Australia were undertaken by AVIC staff. The technical agreement has been hammered out over a lengthy period in minute detail. It has been checked over by some top Sydney legal minds and ditto on the Chinese side. The contract is sound and equitable to both parties. But possibly more importantly than even the formal contract, is that during the last two years a number of members of the Brumby team and the AVIC team have developed close personal relationships to the extent that invitations have been mutually extended to stay at each others houses or apartments when visiting each others country. Gifts are exchanged and emails exchanged on topics that bear no relation to work matters. These are personal friendships at the highest levels of both organisations that go way beyond purely a business acquaintanceship. The CFO and AVIC board member remarked to me while driving to the airport one day that had AVIC staff not bonded as well as they did with Brumby staff, AVIC would never had entered into this arrangement. This personal friendship aspect was even mentioned in a Prime TV interview where the project leader referred to the importance of the genuine friendship that had developed between the two groups. Sure all the cynics out there will decry all this mushy stuff and say that personal friendships can go South really easily. In which case you drag the contract out of the bottom draw, blow the dust off and see how you agreed to fix the problem in the first place. But, I have spent a life time in large corporations and small to medium business and can testify to the value of a friendship in which you can both sit down in a spirit of goodwill and friendly cooperation to rationally discuss and solve a problem. And that method cannot be beaten as a solution. This is a big deal for Brumby Aircraft, and the little town of Cowra. Phil and Paul Goard have worked their backsides off to make this deal happen. So to all the members of this forum, how's about wishing them well instead of labeling them with all the gloom and doom you can think of even before the inks dry on the contract. Ross

Sydney, July 31st, 2014 Light Sport Aircraft manufacturer, Brumby Aircraft Australia based in the Central West town of Cowra in N.S.W., signed a joint venture agreement with the giant Chinese civilian and military aircraft manufacturer AVIC (Aviation Industry Corporation of China) for the purpose of manufacturing and sale of Brumby designed aircraft in China. AVIC are a little know entity outside China however, with annual revenue in excess of AU$27 billion, they are ranked number 330 on the international Fortune 500 companies index. AVIC also manufactures components for such well-known names as Boeing, Airbus, General Electric, Honeywell, Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce. Forbs magazine in an article in 2011, described AVIC as: “China’s 800-pound gorilla of all things commercial aviation, from manufacturing and R&D to procurement and investment.” The president of Boeing, Jim Albaugh, summed up AVIC’s importance in the global aviation supply chain saying that “There is not a plane we build that doesn’t have parts from China in it.” The CEO of Brumby Aircraft, Paul Goard said “I am thrilled that this massive Chinese aviation corporation with such strong links to the world’s commercial and military aircraft industry has chosen Brumby Aircraft to partner with them in their first venture into the realm of Light Sport Aircraft manufacture”. Ross McRae, Director of Marketing for Brumby Aircraft said: “It’s a testament to the design qualities and inherent strength of Brumby aircraft that a company who builds military attack helicopters, fighter jets and large passenger carrying commercial aircraft would so enthusiastically enter into such a commercially significant joint venture agreement with a small Australian regional aircraft builder like Brumby.” Ultimately, AVIC will produce finished aircraft for the Chinese market and build airframes only for shipment to Brumby’s Cowra factory. Instruments and engines will be installed by local Cowra staff. It is expected the Brumby factory in Cowra will double in size with a commensurate increase in its staffing levels and stockpile of finished product. Brumby Cowra will initially supply aircraft for the Australian and New Zealand markets but will later extend its reach to the US and European markets. Another project to be brought to the fore by this agreement is the final development of Brumby’s AirCruiser, a FAR23 certified, four place, general aviation aircraft to which Brumby Aircraft owns the intellectual property. A brand new research and development department will be established in Cowra to modify the basic design of the AirCruiser in order to equip the aircraft with three different engine configurations:- a lower powered piston engine for use in the flight training area, a high powered piston engine for higher speed cross-country operations, and a gas turbine prop-jet configuration. AVIC selected Brumby Aircraft after having scoured the world for a product with sufficiently high aerodynamic and build quality to conform to AVIC’s standard of excellence. In sum, this agreement will put Brumby Aircraft on the world map in terms of leading edge aircraft design. Examples of AVIC designed and manufactured aircraft photos below:

May be a bit late with my input here but the Brumby is a really strongly built aircraft. Can I suggest you check out this YouTube video as it goes into how the Brumby's are built:-

Hi Jeff, I didn't mention this in my earlier post but I've been flying since '85 and have lost the "spark" so as a result I have probably the best equipped LSA in Australia for sale (although it's not yet advertised extensively). Anyway, it's the Brumby 600 low wing; it's a 2010 model with a Rotax 914 turbo engine which gives sea level performance right up to 15,000 feet (and that makes a big difference if you want to cruise in the higher altitudes up to 10,000 feet). It also comes equipped with a GRS ballistic parachute, an auto pilot, a top-of-the-line Dynon SkyView EFIS and a whole bunch of high end ancillary gear including a radar altimeter, the larger 600 tyres for rough field landings and a very loud air horn to scare the hell out of roos, birds, cattle and anybody else on the air field. The aircraft has only done about 150 hours. As an example of what you get for your money, the 914 turbo engine is about $16,000 more than the standard 912 engine and the chute itself cost $9,000 and that doesn't include the huge number of hours they spent to install it. It has a Sensenich 3 blade prop and the whole aircraft performs like a dream. Also with the larger tyres, and the wide heavy duty under-carriage it's harder to mess up a landing. It cruises in the 110 knot + range but would go a few knots faster with smaller tyres fitted. Brumby 7322 really is a serious cross-country, touring LSA. 7322 is based in Cowra and has always been maintained by Brumby. I am asking $135,000 for 7322 which is a steal given what the aircraft it is, and how much it cost originally. However, as I said in my first post, if you want a really nice, very useful, very comfortable first aircraft with impeccable manners talk to Paul about a new 610 high wing. If you want a aerial sports car see Paul about a new low wing 600. But if you want one straight away, mine is available at the moment so you can PM me or talk to Paul about it as he knows 7322 intimately. Ross

Hi Jeff, As a first aircraft I think the Brumby 610 high wing is probably your best shot. The main reasons are that it's an unbelievably easy aircraft to fly, it is exceptionally docile in flight and its stall characteristics are really a non event - in other words the aircraft more mushes rather than traditionally stalls. Check out the stall video on the Brumby YouTube channel and you are working hard to see the actual stall itself (actually themselves, there are 3 of them). The first time I flew the high wing I managed a really nice landing from the right hand seat. So if I can slicker in a landing in a brand new aircraft it says a lot for the aeroplane. Some of the other things about the Brumby high wing is that has a huge cockpit, and 140 ltrs of fuel so if you need to stay up longer for some reason such as weather, you can do so for 6 hours or so. It's also pretty fast as it cruises about 105 knots. However if you are after more of a 'sports car' the Brumby 600 low wing might be a better bet for you. While both the 600 and the 610 are built to very high standards - more like light general aviation aircraft than LSA's, the 600 low wing is particularly bullet proof, it handles turbulence really well and is more resistant to stronger winds on finals and landing. The view from the cockpit of the 600 is also excellent. I guess the question is maybe what do you eventually want to use the aircraft for. Both the high and the low wing Brumby's are predictable and easy aircraft to fly so you won't go wrong with either of them. I suggest you give Paul a ring at Brumby in Cowra and he can give you the details on both aircraft. I hope this helps. Ross

Yes Phil Goard of PG Aviation (Brumby Aircraft) has designed the firewall forward kit for the Jab. It lets you use either the Rotax or the Lycoming power plants up front. In talking to Phil the other day he has been quite surprised by the amount of interest shown by Jabiru owners. Ross

Planedriver, I agree, and I think that the Rotex guys have gone a large part of the way to solving a hard problem. And you are right about that niggling thought in the back of you head - is this going to be the day. A doctor friend of mind with a Jabiru who has had an engine failure now wears a parachute. My first Brumby had a Jab 3300 engine and I loved the sound and the performance of that engine, but my wife was learning to fly and so I spend the money and had the Brumby guys change to engine to a Rotax 912s. I slept more comfortably then. Please don't think I am dumping on Hyundai. I love Hyundai cars and engines, they are great. If I could justify one I would buy an i30. OK here's all the sexist stuff now. There is a very high percentage of young women driving Hyundai Excel's. An engine failure in an Excel would be no big deal for her, but that same chick (as a new solo student) would be in a pile of strife if her engine suddenly stopped at a critical point on take-off. Hell, how many of us would climb out unscathed from a total engine failure at 250 ft AGL? So that was my only point in respect to Hyundai.

Col, I agree that in an ideal world it would be great to be able to do an objective comparison between the Jab and Rotax engine, however in the real world, we can only use what we have got. And in this case, the most objective tool I had was the incident reports in the RAAus magazine. The other alternative was to accept at face value, the massive amount of negative comments from the "general" recreational aviation users and buyers. Let me give you a quick run down on my introduction to Jabiru engines. Coming from G.A. and ignorant about all things recreational (aircraft I mean) I thought it would be good get back to basics and so I bought an X-Air with a low time Jab 2200 engine. It looked like fun and the X-Air was fun. As a result of the X-Air, I met the RAAus fraternity in the form of three CFI's (who subsequently became friends) and all of whom warned my about the Jab engine. One CFI flatly refused to fly the X-Air. My instructor (CFI / friend) explained why the Jab engine was going to be a problem in the long term. I kept fighting him / them by saying that the reason for all the bad publicity is that there are simply twice as many Jabiru's out there so obviously engine problems are going to show up more frequently. Now those days are long gone and I've been flying high performance LSA's with Rotax engines ever since. But I've also had the chance to speak with heaps more of RAA type people including people with first hand experience of engine failures on the Jab, but even accepting the population difference I think I have only heard of one personal account of a Rotax failure, and even that was second hand. I would love to report that all the bad publicity you hear about Jab engines was baseless as I'm a strong supporter of Australian products - and the "Australian built" aspect was part of the reason I purchased a Brumby aircraft. The problem is that, in respect to the Jabiru engine, if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, you've probably got yourself a duck. If I were running Jabiru, years ago I would have thrown whatever resources were necessary to make sure the engine as bullet proof as I could possibly make it. Rotex in Melbourne have manufactured some apparently excellent water cooled heads for the big Jab engine and I think some other stuff as well. The issue is then back to the problem that started this thread, and that is if you modify their engine and Jabiru don't certify that mod, you have to take the aircraft out of 24 and put it into 19. It will be good to see you one Sunday and I'll see if we can get Paul to show you the new high wing Brumby as well. Ross

Col, In response to your post, you will note that I said that in essence, the only way I could reasonably get a handle on whether the critics of Jab engines had a point or not, was to go back through the RAAus magazines. It may be that had my sample size been larger it could have shown a smaller number of Jabiru engine incidents or maybe a larger number. The only people with a really accurate 'feel' would be Jabiru themselves. I don't want to go all pedantic here, but engines like to be used. I would much prefer to buy a county car with more kilometres from long drives, than a city car that has a few less k's but has only ever been driven down the shop and to church on Sunday. Why, because engines that get used more, don't get clogged up with crap that cause them to under-perform when used. Most of the wear on the engine occurs in the first few minutes of starting and continues until the components and the oil heats up to normal operating temperatures. I was making two points in respect to my earlier post, the first was that if the engine on a Hyundai Excel conks out on an 18 years old drive, she / he can pull over and call the NRMA. If that same driver, now being a new solo pilot, has an engine failure at 250 feet AGL, the consequences of that engine stopping can be catastrophic. The second point is that there are an awful lot of recreational training aircraft also running Rotax engines. And the fact that some Foxbats and Lightwings are rarely used would probably mean they are more likely to end up in the 'Pilot's Notes' section than those Rotax engines that are used every day. Any LAME's reading this are more than welcome to add your input here.

Thanks djpacro, It looks like you are technically right. It's a bit grim though if you install a vertical card compass 'cause it's easier to see than your alcohol compass and you have to go back to the factory for an OK. It was probably easier for CASA to put a blanket prohibition on any mod rather than specify what constitutes a minor, non-critical and therefore non-reportable mod. I suspect the rule book goes out the window thousands of times a year as new radios, strobes, landing light globes and transponders are installed in LSA's.

When I started this thread, I had no idea it would touch such a raw nerve. With over 4,400 views and rising and 6 pages of comments, the debate has been both wide ranging and vigorous. My original post consisted of essentially 2 issues and I would like to expand on those issues here. The first is that P.G. Aviation in Cowra, NSW has developed a firewall forward kit to suit most Jabiru aircraft and targeted at those owners who are concerned about the inherent reliability of the Jabiru designed and built engines. The second and apparently quite controversial point was that this conversion meant that under the RAAus banner, category 24 registered LSA aircraft would need to be re-classified as a category 19 aircraft. Jabiru Engine Reliability (perception or reality)? Jabiru engines should be a great alternative to the 4 stroke Rotax and Lycoming engines. The Jab 3300 engine for instance is light, powerful, economical to run, and relatively inexpensive. The problem is that within the aviation community, there is quite a pervasive perception that the Jab engine is potentially unreliable. Hyundai Excel engines can afford to be unreliable, aircraft engines cannot. Jabiru aircraft are used extensively in the Australian training fleet. Inexperienced new solo student pilots are ill equipped to handle a fully-blown engine failure on take-off at 250’ AGL. But do the critics of Jab engines have a point? To get some sort of feel for the answer, I thought, rather than base an opinion on general hearsay or even personal accounts of Jab engines from a couple of pilots friends, I would let the numbers speak for themselves. In the absence of any other easy way to test the water, I randomly selected 15 past RAAus magazines which mainly consisted of the more recent Sport Pilot version. The section headed “Pilot Notes” contains the accidents and incidents report for the month. In the 15 issues I checked, there were 19 engine related incidents reported on the Jabiru 2200 or 3300 engine; there were 4 on the Rotax 912's; 1 on the Hirth and 1 on a Mosler. (I ignored the Rotax 2 stroke engines although surprisingly there were very few of them listed anyway. I also ignored any Jabiru engine issue caused by external incidents like water in the fuel or residue in the carb’s due to a fuel tank problem). To be fair, Jabiru has about 50% of the Australian market for recreational aircraft (I believe) so you would expect to see a much higher Jabiru representation generally in the Pilot Notes section. However, much of the rest of the fleet consists of a version of the Rotax 912, so in respect to 4 stroke aircraft engines, it’s probably close to, but not quite, a 50/50 split. Conversion from Category 24 to 19. LSA aircraft are certified by the original manufacturer to comply with the 2004, US developed, ASTM specifications. That means that all the important bits that comprise the aircraft i.e. the airframe, the propeller and the engine, must have been certified by their respective manufacturers. You can’t modify an LSA aircraft and keep it in category 24 without the consent and certification of those mods by the original LSA manufacturer. (I understand that you can install small items such as radios, transponders etc. without getting factory approval). For an example of a modification requiring a category change, I purchased an LSA aircraft with a non-certified constant speed propeller. I spoke with Lee Ungerman (now with CASA) and he advised me that if the prop was not manufactured under some certification, my currently category 24 registered aircraft would have to be re-registered in the 19 category. In respect then to P.G. Aviation’s firewall forward kit for LSA Jabiru aircraft - the Jabiru airframe is certified LSA and the engine (say the Rotax 912s) is also certified under ASTM specifications. However, what would need to happen in order to permit the aircraft as a whole to remain as a category 24 aircraft, Jabiru would need to certify that the P.G. Aviation firewall forward kit with the Rotax or Lycoming engine attached, was an acceptable (and therefore LSA certifiable) modification to the LSA Jabiru. Ross

Fatman, Under ASTM specifications (i.e. the standard under which LSA aircraft are certified) engine and propeller manufacturers need to also attest that their product was certified under ASTM specifications to the original aircraft manufacturer. In respect to the topic at hand i.e. engine mods to Jabiru airframes, if Jabiru themselves were to certify that the firewall forward kit supplied by P.G. Aviation together with the Rotax / Lycoming engine was acceptable to them, then the registration could stay in 24. In this case however, it's hard to imagine Jabiru agreeing to these mods. In respect to any 24 registered LSA (apropos your first sentence), if you put say an un-certified constant speed unit propeller on, you legally should move the registration to 19 irrespective of how much you (or the original manufacturer) wants to keep it in 24.

I rang Phil this morning and he said he would get back to me on prices. He tells me that he has already had a few callers who are interested so he may be on a winner with this one.

Absolutely right Kaz. And Dazza you have quoted the factory perfectly. Ross

I stand corrected Arthur. Sorry about that. I guess the point I was trying to make was that Brumby Aircraft will equip their new off the production line aeroplanes with a Lycoming O-233 as a matter of course. Try to get a new, off the production line Jabiru with an O-233 engine. You might be interested to know that P.G. Aviation is now offering a firewall forward kit to Jabiru owners who want to fit either the Rotax or Lycoming engines in their Jabirus.