REastwood Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 What happened to your Jabiru engine which caused it to fail?Alan. I was first told it was a big end failure but the aircraft was sent back to Bundaberg for repair before I could look at it. They would not comment on what went wrong and when asked to send the engine back for independent analysis (they would not cover it under warranty) they quickly changed their mind and put in a new engine. Of course no engine is 100% reliable, but from talking to a lot of people who have spent many thousands of hours in Cessna 172's the engine very rarely just stops, things might break, can lose a lot of oil, run rough as guts but you usually have enough time to get it on the ground safely. I remember one story where the engine started running on three cylinders, the pilot diverted to the nearest strip (5 min away) but mucked up the approach, was able to do a go-round and land safely. Turned out that one of the pistons had seized separating the piston head from the skirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Thanks for your response REastwood I had heard about what happened but did not want to comment on this forum although the hearsay was reliable, I just wanted to see if you would be prepared to make it public knowledge on this forum. I, like others are happy that your emergency landing was successful, it could have been worse. I am sure that you, like some of us, would like to know what failed in that engine. Regards, Alan Marriette. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 It should be remembered in all this that most of the RAAus planes are relatively young. What I have seen of most of the available offerings would make me doubt whether they would last anything like as long as the GA planes we are discussing. I have made it my business to have a good look at quite a lot of them and that is also the view of plenty of people who know a lot more than me. I would give the Jabiru airframe, a bit of a tick here for strength and possible reasonable life, but most of the available choices, are not corrosion proofed significantly and are built very lightly ( of necessity).. I can't see most of them being much good after 3,ooo + hours and some would want extensive inspection well before that. Nev 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68volksy Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 That's a very good point Nev. Factoring in the depreciation of the aircraft would be a major consideration in any RA v GA investigation and I don't seem to hear many people talking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Hi Pete, I started in RAA but after an engine failure after only 280 hours in a brand new aircraft I decided to go to GA. I recently bought a Cessna 172M in excellent condition, it took a bit of looking and traveling to find but it was worth it. The engine is the o320-e2d with an STC for MOGAS, and are well known for their reliability. The aircraft is a joy to fly, we mainly go touring and it is perfectly suited to that role. As for the "dreaded annual" costing "many thousands of dollars" this does not have to be the case, do your homework, find the right LAME (even if you have to fly a few hours to get to a good one) and learn about your aircraft and what you can do yourself. I now have an aircraft I am confident in, I can put two fold up bikes in the back, I can fly into a city airport if I wish all for very little more than the cost of running a J230. My last three annuals have cost me less than $1500 each and the Lycoming 0-320 is probably the most reliable aircraft engine going and going and still going. And I can fly into Kingsford Smith if I want to (and I've had a Tatts win). kaz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reggie Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 So what I should have said is " an aircraft that old could have a bit of corrosion in it " . Make sure you check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I guess a big part of the cost difference would be fuel? Offset by payload I guess... Anyone got any figures? 18 litres of premium per hour very roughly for the typical Ra-Aus two seater? So I guess you could say 9 litres per hour per seat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 A man was seriously injured Friday, and another man was lightly hurt when an ultralight aircraft crashed into the backyard of a Nes Tziona home. Magen David Adom emergency crews arrived at the scene of the accident and evacuated the two victims to Assaf Harofeh Hospital in Rishon Letzion. The inhabitants of the house were unharmed. Nes Tziona mayor Yossi Shvo said that a fire erupted inside the house as a result of the crash. The rescue services said the accident appeared to have been caused by a technical malfunction. Ultralight aircraft typically weigh several hundred kilograms, fly at slow speeds and can carry at most one passenger in addition to the pilot. Only a few days ago, the Civil Aviation Authority issued a new directive which will effectively ground more than half of the country's 175 ultralight planes, including all the newer models. Ran Bag, the head of sport aviation at the authority, ordered all planes weighing more than 454 kilograms to be grounded. Israeli Ultralight Sport Aviation Association head Avraham Kimchi said the Civil Aviation Authority was taking precautions after an ultralight plane ran out of fuel in Rishon Letzion, but said that the directive addresses only one of many issues raised in the investigation. This happened in Israel................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I can't see what Israel has got to do with it. Maybe as the birthplace of terrorism there is a lesson here somewhere. Back to the original trend I wonder how many hours per year GA recreational pilots do and how it compares with RAAus pilots. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Hi everyone, I am tossing up if I should change from Raa to Ga, as I can't see the advantage in Raa. The price of Raa aircraft seem to be to high for me, icould get a Cessna 150 or Piper Tomahawk for half to price of a Jabiru or the like. Can some of you more experienced pilots give me some advice please.Pete[/quote}\] Hi Have a look at www.goflyaviation.com.au Cheers. Sean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
av8vfr Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Hi Pete, I average about 20 hrs GA per year but have made a new year resolution to do at least 40 hrs this year RA-Aus... At about half the cost, surely I can double the flying??? Unfortunately with weather, January for me was less than 3hrs so now I have to catch up... I have some upcoming flights into CTA so I am considering flying GA for the ease, not just the cost savings... but the fully appointed panel... The Texan I fly doesn't even have a AH for reference if it gets hazy... This is where I find the a limited panel very concerning for cross country flight... AH should be in all touring A/C IMO given how cheap some items are... More ammunition to buy my own A/C I see.... PS: Check out GoFly as Sean has offered... I have heard nothing but good reports... (Edited for clarity) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 ... This is where I find the a limited panel very dangerous for any flight... AH should be mandatory IMO..even VFR... ... my aeroplane doesn't even have a slip ball so I guess you consider that extremely dangerous? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 ... my aeroplane doesn't even have a slip ball so I guess you consider that extremely dangerous? I guess it depends on what you are doing in the aeroplane, DJP. I know what you do! This demonstrates the finer points of Austering... I do have a bat and a ball. And that was all that many a fine aeroplane had to take its occupants cloud flying back in those magnificent days. But it seems to me that if I should get to the stage I need an AH I will probably have been doing something where it won't save me from my stupidity anyway. kaz 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davidh10 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Post of the year material that!I have a new lawn mower, perhaps I should only be looking at new aircraft! Not a FlyMow I suppose ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davidh10 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 ... The Texan I fly doesn't even have a AH for reference if it gets hazy... This is where I find the a limited panel very dangerous for any flight... AH should be mandatory IMO..even VFR..... Why do you think lack of an AH is dangerous? I've flown conditions down to VFR minima, where there is no defined horizon, on a number of occasions. Haze, mist, rain, low cloud. I've never felt the need of an AH. "Partial panel" is fine to check that your eyes aren't being deceived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Pilots were, and still are taught to fly the plane at certain defined attitudes with reference mainly to the horizon. The AH (Artificial Horizon) simply replaces the "normal" horizon so the transitioning from visual flight to instrument flight is simplified. The AH is a gyro instrument and older versions could topple if the limits of their gymbal mountings were reached. There would be limit in both pitch and roll. Flight on "limited" panel doesn't include the AH but can include another gyro instrument the RATE turn needle. (MY emphasis). You basically fly on it with a "skid or slip" ball , an altimeter , magnetic compass, and an ASI. ( and your power indications). None of these directly provide you with any idea of the aircraft's ATTITUDE. You have to deduce this from a combination of the other inputs, and that is certainly a giant step in degree of difficulty. We used to be taught recovery from unusual attitudes under the hood with no gyros. I would regard the AH as the prime instrument in enabling most normal I/F manoeuvering, because you place the plane in the correct attitude first. It has to be backed up by proper scanning of the other "performance" instruments, like IVSI, Altimeter , ASI you heading indication, power settings, track and slope guidance. If you have an AH I can't see any point in denying youself the use of it. The heading gyro compass takes much of the guesswork out of flying around the circuit laying off drift quickly etc, but you should never lose the skill of looking back at the runway , to confirm how you are tracking on crosswind etc.Nev 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