HeadInTheClouds Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Jabirus probably have lower running costs too at a guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 So true plenty of popped cyl heads and cracked cases on a lot of continentals that i worked on. Lycs seemed to fair a little better but they seemed to fall short on the ancillaries. As with all things the man is the biggest problem. We don't see too many cracked blocks, departed cylinders etc on Jabirus. Lots of horror stories out there for Conti/lycosaurus over the last 70 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 In only have very limited experience so far but in the 8hrs I recently done in aircraft with 0-200 engines I had to swap planes after the first flight due to the oil slick all over the side of the fuse when we landed (leaking through bolt). Faults can occur with any engine, even an o-200. They just happen to be one of the most reliable aircraft engines ever made surviving at the abuse of the typical training application in which they are installed. They have a TBO of 2,000 hrs and regularly do more than that past 2,200 hours 'on condition', not too many aero engines can boast that. Most if not all the 0-200 problems relate to shoddy repairs, shoddy rebuilds and shoddy installations, a rebuild properly done (not to a price) will easily do the rated TBO and a brand new one will almost always exceed it. They are probably one of the most high hours engines in the world in terms of numbers and numbers of training aircraft in which they are installed. Their record is proven and there for all to see. There are not to many engines out there that you could put your complete trust in with reasonable confidence. However I did my rec ab initio in a J160 which went more than 800hrs before rebuild which was done prior to a sale rather than after a failure. I would suggest that 800 hours is disgraceful but not all that uncommon for the Jab engine especially since it is supposed to also have a TBO of 2,000 hours now. So sure a Jab is cheaper to run, but if you are up for a rebuild every 800 hours, how cheap is it really?The difference here is that brand new Jab engines have exhibited a range of problems, failed valves, broken through bolts, failed lifters etc etc. New 0-200s don't have any of these inherent problems, virtually all 0-200 problems originate from shoddy refurbished (read second hand) parts and repairs. Most of the 0-200s out there have gone through several rebuild cycles these days. But you can still buy them new. As to the dinosaur type comments about Continentals and Lycomings, how is a Jab or Rotax or Subaru motor any different ... all horizontally opposed piston engines are dinosaurs, they all use push rods and hydraulic lifters (now), they are all World War II designs. We haven't advanced much or been able to improve it much apart from putting sophisticated fault tolerant electrics on the same old dinosaur blocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 It would be good to get some solid stats on all engines. In the meantime http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/airplane/LSA-Engine-Safety.html is an interesting read. Cheers Col Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Read the RAA magazine every month, or go through your stockpile and count the forced landings on both the popular RA engines and compare those numbers against what you find for Continental and Lycoming, then take away the shoddy rebuilds David is talking about, and you'll have a much more sober view of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Engine issues aside, I reckon both Jabiru and the 162 fuse is good - obviously both are rather different to each other, one being fiberglass, and one aluminium. Never flown a 162, but from what I've heard they fly and handle very well. As do most Cessna aircraft. You wouldn't go touring in a 162 unless you were a of the stick figure look and weigh nothing. They would probably be the only LSA type aircraft that has a decent flight manual, but you do pay for it as we can see. Jabiru are great fun, a little challenging to fly which is what I prefer. But I reckon they both have their place in the training area. To me comparing the two is like comparing the 172 to a J230... they are similar but totally different eggs. It would be nice to see a 162 with tailwheel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 For this comparison to be anything but a chewing gum session the price disparity has to be addressed. If you accept the 0-200 engine will achieve 2000 hrs, and the Jab 1000 hrs the position starts to look more competitive, but that makes the Skycatcher's market high volumne flying schools and someone who can afford to fly 100 hours per year for 20 years. Has anyone pulled the figures for a new Jab with one engine rebuild vs a new 162? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 The Jab engine to rebuild,is really cheap especially if you do it yourself. I don't believe that many RAAus pilots should do it however unless you are a competent and thorough mechanic and peruse ALL the jab material, and do their course. ( Why not)? Regarding the 0-200's. If you talk to engine rebuilders they regard them as VERY reliable BUT most examples are 50 years old and have been rebuilt 3 times. They should have been chucked away. A low hours motor rebuilt properly, or a more recent model, has to be your basis for comparison. In a commercial situation the engine has to be stripped and inspected every 10 years regardless of hours. "TOP" overhauls may be required on any engine if it doesn't have good compression. This can be as a result of not being used much, as well as being used hard (as in para drops, glider towing). (shock cooling). If a Jab needed a "top" at 400 or so hours I wouldn't regard that as the end of the world. The maker has no control over the way the motor is used. If a normal 100 hourly is done you would check the valve guide wear. This can be done without removing the heads if you know what you are doing and it's an important factor in valve heads popping off. Some aircraft engines get as much attention as the household lawnmower. Your life depends on the aero engine. nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 The Skycatcher comes with a new Continental O 200D engine, so let's work on that for the comparison. Let's work on a price quoted by a professional for the Jab rebuild. Then we'll have a real world comparison exercise, otherwise I prefer a Citation over a Jab. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 A bit old but numbers from Jabiru themselves for 6 cyl engine last year Total Overhaul $5500 plus estimate parts - $2700 (depending whats required) Could be done much cheaper if all old heads and barrells retained/repaired Long delays as they are constantly busy Complete overhauled (zero timed?) exchange, new heads, all other parts replaced of near new spec most ancillaries new, all upgrades done ~ $10K New 3300 $19K My last engine did ~ 800hrs with few problems, probably had some more to go but was close to leakdown limits on two cylinders, decided at these prices to replace with updated reco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 What is the price of 162 here in oz taxes paid? And which Jab do we compare? They were doing a school spec thats certified for $60k brand new J160 with steam gauges and a 22oo 4 cylinder. So $70k with a zero timed engine at 1000hrs and change left over. (cheaper to rebuild than 6) Any figures for 162? Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Have to be around 150K. Just going on the figures I had in the past. I don't have current accurate figures. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RKW Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I have a quote from Aeromil Pacific for the new Skycatcher. They can do one for US$111,500 ex GST. Also add approx US$27,000 for shipping and certification of airwothiness. Delivery is expected in 2012. Obviously someone got an earlier delivery! Should also mention from quote, *please note prices are indicitave only. Final pricing and optional equipment choices will be confirmed in a puchase agreement. All up, approx US$149650. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RKW Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I also have a quote for a new J160 with a few extras such as Dynon D10a and strobe, adjustable rudder pedals etc. Not much change out of $80,000 inc GST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushpilot Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 One thing I like about the Jabs over some other LSAs is the way they stand up to general wear and tear.. Whilst all 4 of our Jabs are relatively young, one has done over 1,000 hours and near 4,000 landings and a student the other day thought it was new. We do look after them and present them right, but the interiors and exterior keep on looking good with minimal work.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushpilot Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 And, I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but two of our students are in the market for new a/c.. I asked each of them if they had considered Skycatcher - and they both said they had, but they didnt like the look of them.. I have to agree that the very upright screen and cabin shape looks far from streamlined, let alone sexy... But only u can decide that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 If I was comparing trucks, where the primary need is to make a profit, this is the sort of spreadsheet I would start with. What looks a prohibitive cost, is not so prohibitive after you sell it, because the resale usually reflects a percentage of the up front price. If the product has a substantially lower maintenance cost, it's not usual for it to be ahead at the end of the cycle. Assuming sale of the aircraft with a reasonable number of hours in the engine for the buyer (about 4 years worth in this case) the financial model is interesting. Assuming a 1000 hour engine life for the Jab, it's cost advantage to a flying school may be offset by the downtime for the engine rebuild making the Skycatcher a better buy. With an 800 hour engine life the Skycatcher is ahead for both flying schools and private buyers. Disclaimer: Don't go out and buy a Skycatcher on these figures alone; I've just shown you the basic principles. It may be that the sell price percentage is different for each aircraft, and it may be that there are other unscheduled maintenance issues, or a difference in scheduled maintenance The full spreadsheet would include a lot more data than this. However, what surprised me was that the Skycatcher is not out of the question financially, and it would also be worth doing this type of exercise for the Carbon Cub. If I was selling the Skycatcher, I would be totally focused on this spreadsheet comparison, backed up with provable figures, and I'd be selling quite a few. If I was selling the Jab, I would totally focus the Company on through bolts and valves to produce a financial advantage Cessna couldn't touch. A key factor in all of this is why the Skycatcher is more expensive with Chinese production, and what the quality/maintenance/life costs are going to be. (Sorry, called it a Skylark on the spreadsheet.) EXX21.pdf EXX21.pdf EXX21.pdf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Look the Jab is the more discount aircraft. I think a more fair comparison should be between say a tecnam, texan orf lightwing or whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Also didn't the skycather have a lot of issues with spins in their design process. I'm sure their all fixed now but still, wouldn't mind waiting it out to make sure all is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Also didn't the skycather have a lot of issues with spins in their design process. I'm sure their all fixed now but still, wouldn't mind waiting it out to make sure all is good. Yes they did, and their spin testing is so thorough that they wrote off two aircraft in the process (one because the ballistic chute failed to open when deployed and the second because the ballistic chute failed to release when the aircraft landed and the wind dragged the aircraft back 150 metres and wrote it off). This resulted in the issues being rectified, although I note the 162 is NOT spin certified, which surprises me somewhat given the ubiquitous 150/152 were and some schools still do spin training. Probably a strength versus weight issue. Cessna would not release the 162 for sale if it wasn't rectified, they are very aware of the power of US litigation, they have been on the receiving end of that before. The Cirrus aircraft carries a ballistic chute as standard equipment because of spin issues. It is very unlikely there will be design 'flaws' in the 162 with its pedigree, there may however, be some component failures as in any aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RKW Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Turbo, regarding your engine replacement costs, we recently put a factory recon zero timed engine in our J 170 and it was less than $7k. The original motor had done around 1000hrs trouble free, and to replace it, it was not much more expensive than a top end overhaul and had a 3 month waranty. For a few extra thou, it was money well spent, the new engine having all the latest modification. Regards, Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Bob did you include about $130.00 per hour for the labour? I was working on outside costs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RKW Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Bob did you include about $130.00 per hour for the labour? I was working on outside costs Hi Turbo, It took about four hours to change the engine, and I thought it was included in the price. Nonetheless we can add on about $500 for labour. It was a most viable option to having the top end overhauled, and we had the plane back the same day. Regards, Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 The skycatcher would look better as a Taildragger...(Just did a quick photoshop job of a Taildragger version... looks much nicer) It would be lighter too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Turbo: you left out the interest costs/revenues on your planes. assuming you lease or pay cash and earn it from the bank if you fly a Jabiru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now