Another Jab bites the dust.

[facthunter]

Well, improvement IS needed. There's a lot of older stuff that used to be nearly bombproof that now is not what it was too. perhaps the level of usage of aircraft, and general knowledge of engines is different now. People are used to leaving the bonnet closed unless smoke/steam is coming out from under it. Nev

 

 

[eightyknots]

Additionally many owners or users of jab engines also don't want to admit to their own personal dramas with reliability, and instead side with the factory view that there is no problem ! ...

I can understand the motivation behind the owners' attitudes to the problem. It is probably twofold:

 

(a) by saying there is a problem, the owner is admitting they spent many dollars on a dud product; general consumer behaviour is that there is a reluctance to admit this: call it denial if you like;

 

(b) by saying there is a problem, your aeroplane fitted with this product is instantly devalued by many thousands. Many aeroplane owners eventually wish to upgrade or downgrade their planes at some stage in the future according to personal tastes, changes in their flying missions or as a result of budgetary constraints. In every case, admitting that the plane has a dud engine means having to take a big 'hit' on the resale value. This is very unpleasant and the best line of defence is denial.

 

 

[facthunter]

What you say is certainly correct 80k. The other side of the coin is that if the product is shown to work well they will have a good investment and a safe plane to fly. Flying isn't a digital experience, it is real. As the old aviators said "Fire and Ice"... Nev

 

 

[rankamateur]

Hank

 

You don't think that by denying the problem exists they might feel better about sitting in their investment until they eventually do upgrade/downgrade or what ever, It might be a form of "It can't happen to me".

 

Steve..

 

 

[eightyknots]

Denial often leads to life-threatening outcomes. It may do so in the case of Jab engine owners denying any (potential) problems exist.

 

 

[pudestcon]

I have a bias where I believe Rotax engines are better than Jabiru engines. But Rotax engines are not bullet proof.

 

Check out a Rotax engine issue here http://www.rotax-owner.com/forum/3-4-stroke-technical-questions/3470-poor-manufacture-quality#forumbottom

 

Pud

 

 

[eightyknots]

I have a bias where I believe Rotax engines are better than Jabiru engines. But Rotax engines are not bullet proof.Check out a Rotax engine issue here http://www.rotax-owner.com/forum/3-4-stroke-technical-questions/3470-poor-manufacture-quality#forumbottom

Pud

This is the complainant's conclusion:

 

I bought Rotax thinking it was the best possible engine,as I have small children and dont want to give up flying, but am now converting to a BMW motor - 120hp at 9l/hour burn, fuel injected in the hope I can fly more that scratch my head over the next problem.

 

 

[rick-p]

OMG!

 

 

[old man emu]

Many forumites, including self have put forth good, to excellent suggestion on solutions to problems over the past years, with both the 2200 and 3300 Jab engines. These constructive suggestions in most cases have been in response to continued inherent failures of certain engine components within the engines, which continue.

I agree

 

A lot of critism has also been directed at the manufacturers for

A. Not taking some of the suggestions on board and turning them into real engine improvements, and

 

B. generally continuing with the attitude that there is no reliability problem, and continuing to offer, what is in many eyes now, a faulty product.

I agree.

 

There are several users in the field who have instigated successfull aftermarket products, or improvements, into the engines, with great success in improving reliability, and general running overall.

These modifications may be OK for RAA registered aircraft, but without the necessary Engineering Orders submitted to CASA, they are unusable to those of us maintaining VH registered Jabirus. Also, we can't have non-certified parts for RAA planes in our stores when we also store parts manufactured/supplied by Jabiru. Our CASA inspector would have a conniption.

 

This site in fact had been a leader in both highlighting failures, discussing solutions, and generally allowing the free discussion (biased or not) on the problems. May this continue until a suitable solution is found. Maj...

Please don't attack the messenger. Feel free to attack the message, but be constructive about it.

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[facthunter]

80K you are going to try a 2 cylinder engine that is a comparative rarity in this country, for safety reasons? I would be worried about the smoothness of 2 cylinders v/s four or 6 . Thsi requires far more sophistication in the engine mounting and prop drive systems. If you really want reliability why not try a new or blueprinted low hours Cont 0-200.? . In any case NO internal combustion engine can really be trusted completely, and in an aircraft you do literally at times put your life on your engine.

 

In any case saying the Rotax engine is more reliable that a Jabiru is not bias. It is most likely a fact. If you base your statement on FACTS it is not evidence of bias. It's an ASSESSMENT based on available facts.

 

It'ws also reasonable to say there are cost, maintenance and other factors to consider.

 

You can say "What is your life worth" as an argument but there are NO absolutes. Nev

 

 

[rick-p]

Any and all engines will fail, some sooner than others whilst some for lesser reasons than others.

 

I always ask my self not if the engine fails but when is it going to fail because with my luck it will regardless of what type or make engine it is.

 

I had em all and up to 3 in one day and I wouldn't trust any of them and that's why I fly as best I can in any given position where I can get it back to mother earth without killing myself and a few others on the ground.

 

They all break!

 

An interesting observation that I have made over the years is that when Rotax break, possibly because of the high rev's they are doing, they really do stop suddenly and spectacularly!

 

If you look at the incidents involving all the motors used by RAA aircraft and whether the engine completely died or just lost power you might be suprised at the end result.

 

It's like comparing the old Gypsy Major 1 or Mk 10 motor and a Perkins (truck motor) with a Lycom. they are like chalk and cheese the first two could be just about falling apart and still get you there whilst the latter would just shit itself.

 

This comparison in my view could be made as between the Rotax motor (all models) and the Jabiru motor as on my recollection on the reading of probably all the incident reports since the time of the 1600 Jab motor and the then bomb proof 912 (80 hp UL) most Jab motor incidents involved a loss of power but not a complete engine failure whilst the 912's when troubled stopped completely and suddenly.

 

"another Jab bites the dust" only after the pilot had landed safely and turned off the motor did it stop.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Jab is more reliable than 912's what I'm saying is that when they do play up in the majority of cases they don't bite you as hard and at least give you a little time to act.

 

I am going to see if I can acquire all the relevant info over the past 10 years as to failures and fatalities, injuries etc and if nothing else, prove the point that not only is one more reliable than the other but also which is the most deadliest ie what motor has killed the most.

 

Rick-p

 

PS You don't hear anything of the 1600 Jab motors anymore but I understand that there are still a truck load still remaining in service and not having any problems or very rarely.

 

Also it would be interesting to know how many 912's in service in Australia and how many Jabiru motors!

 

 

[dazza 38]

Dream on, if you think that the failure rate is the same with Rotax 4 strokes and the Jabiru, you are seriously mistaken.

 

 

[rick-p]

Obviously you need to read something properly before you make comment.

 

I never said that the failure rates were the same or even that Rotax 912's failed more often than Jabiru motors.

 

I'm looking for and comparing statistics from financial costs to actual loss of life or injury.

 

A lot in these threads seem to harp on with if an engine fails we are all going to die attitude, yes it may be a little disconcerting when the engine stops which it will at some stage and if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself.

 

Be prepared and hope that it happens at a point in your flight where you have considered and planned for what if the fan stops turning.

 

It get up my nose when people who don't even fly an aircraft installed with a Jabiru motor start making comment that is adverse and biased as they haven't paid for the right to do so.

 

If the Jabiru owners wish to complain they have paid for the right to do so.

 

It may be appropriate or even a useful tool in dealing with the Jab motor problems if there was an actual Jabiru owners group (incorporated association) where problems could be logged and these raised by appointed spokeperson/s to liaise with the factory etc.

 

The difficulty is getting people with a direct financial interest and otherwise to come together to do this.

 

This I know through my attempts a few years ago to get the C of A for SkyFox when the factory closed down.

 

I had a lot of advise bet no assistance and it cost me a few thousand dollars and many hours of time but without help the cause was doomed to failure from the begining.

 

The only ones at the time really willing to help was CASA.

 

Maybe people with an interest in these motors will nowbe prepared to take it to the next level.

 

Rick-p

 

 

[RKW]

Nev makes a very relevant and sobering point..... "What is your life worth" .... Which brings me to my point. There is not one Jabiru owner who would not want a more reliable engine. Nevertheless, there are many Jabirus on the RA Aus register and there have been so few fatalities in Jabirus. The overwhelming number of these tragedies have occurred in aircraft other than Jabs. I would earnestly like to know why this is. Bob

 

 

[dazza 38]

Nope sorry Buddy, I had a failure in a 2.2.It was at the time, the "New" Jab engine to solve all the problems of the 1600.They failed even more often than the 2.2.This was back in 1997/1998. Not much has changed since then.The flying school I was involved in eventualy sold the aircraft.They only bought it because TW skyfoxes where at the stage that they couldnt be insured.Students crashed them learning to land (not all).They are a finicky a/c.Anyway their engine the 80HP Rotax was reliable as a axe.It didnt look good back then having a A/c on its third engine in 2 months.Then I went to southern skies aviation at Archerfield.They had a 1600 Jabby.It sh&t itself in a few weeks after I got there.They landed in a school yard. Nobody died luckily.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I will say this, Jabiru are very good at repairing aeroplanes.John and I took what was left of the airframe on a trailer up to Bundaberg.It looked written off.They had it looking like new in a 2 weeks.No wonder they repair their aircraft well. This was back in 1998.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I will go out on a limb.I know that in the past, things have been mentioned to CASA in regards to the JABIRU engine not being up to standard.The trouble is.Is that the engine is certified .The information fell on deaf ears.My personal opinion is that it is a face saving exercise.Doesnt look good at CASA if a certified engine fails alot and they approved it..Alot of aircraft engines spend alot of time of a test bed before they are certified. I have not seen the evidence that jabiru have done that.I would like to be proven otherwise. CASA will never accept that they may have made a mistake.I am sick of Pilots, schools and owners being the test bench.(I could be wrong though)

 

 

[skeptic36]

I am going to see if I can acquire all the relevant info over the past 10 years as to failures and fatalities, injuries etc and if nothing else, prove the point that not only is one more reliable than the other but also which is the most deadliest ie what motor has killed the most.

Rick-p

Hi Rick,

To gain any meaningful stats you would also need to categorize them by which type of airframe the motor was installed in. For instance I don't think anyone would dispute that the Jab airframe is one of the safest around and if you are comparing that to an open cockpit such as a drifter or a trike then the bloke in the open cockpit is in a bit more trouble than the Jab pilot.

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[facthunter]

RKW I am saying that they ALL fail and the "What is your life worth" argument sounds good but doesn't tell the whole story. If you really worried about your life that much perhaps you wouldn't fly behind any of them. The same applies to motorcycles I know you don't have much chance in traffic but I still ride them. ( Hate the traffic).

 

Don't like to see you boys confronting each other. I respect both of you. When the Rotax goes it usually goes BIG. It costs big too. The jab doesn't.

 

If safety was the total aim would we be having two engines so then we could roll them into a ball because they are harder to fly.

 

Handle your engine outs and look after the engine you have.

 

For reliability the Wankel has a lot going for it. They are used extensively in racing outboard situations. If it will start it will get you home. Silly little bits don't want to fly out from the insides all the time. I don't mean the Subaru . It's too big.Nev

 

 

[Powerin]

Also it would be interesting to know how many 912's in service in Australia and how many Jabiru motors!

In this thread I did a bit of a count through the RAA register. There are 755 Jabs registered (obviously with Jab engines). Counting the airframes that I was pretty certain came standard with a 4 stroke Rotax in them, I came up with 690 Rotaxes. Of course there are many more airframes that would have either of the engines. For instance, I assume most, but not all, Zenith CH601s would have Jabs, but most 701s probably have Rotax.

 

The register shows that there are far more Jab airframes than any other sort, but that there are *probably* a similar amount of Jab engines to 4 stroke Rotaxes in Australia. There is no direct evidence as the register doesn't show engine type. If you counted 2 stroke Rotaxes, Rotax engines would far outweigh Jabs in total number.

 

 

[turboplanner]

A lot in these threads seem to harp on with if an engine fails we are all going to die attitude, yes it may be a little disconcerting when the engine stops which it will at some stage and if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself.

Be prepared and hope that it happens at a point in your flight where you have considered and planned for what if the fan stops turning.

 

It get up my nose when people who don't even fly an aircraft installed with a Jabiru motor start making comment that is adverse and biased as they haven't paid for the right to do so.

 

If the Jabiru owners wish to complain they have paid for the right to do so.

 

Rick-p

This thread started with Motzartmerv reporting a successful forced landing with an instructor and student, and expressed frustration with the record of the engine.

 

In my thread #57 which covered a random 48 month period there were 28 forced landings due to Jab engine failures.

 

That is unacceptable from a safety point of view.

 

If the student had been solo, there may have been a less satisfactory result.

 

Rick, RAA history shows several people have died in incidents where an engine failed at height. In other words, where we would have expected a safe dead stick landing to be achieved.

 

In the succession of 28 Jab engine failures no one died and only one person was seriously injured, but statistics being statistics, inevitably someone is going to have an engine failure and either not be capable of landing, or have the bad luck to run into a ditch/stump/fence house etc. and then things are going to get interesting and affect every owner.

 

It is negligent to know there's a problem and not fix it.

 

This has nothing to do with Rotax engines and it's inappropriate to make comparisons. This thread is all about addressing multiple forced landings to try to stop a trend.

 

I agree with your first comment that people who don't fly aircraft with Jabiru motors shouldn't make adverse comments up to a point. Some of the comments are just plain disgusting given that we are talking about potential loss of life, but on the other hand this issue is turning people off recreational flying and all participants should have the right to comment and try to prevent the issue.

 

You suggest Jabiru owners have paid for the right to complain, but don't forget so have thousands of unsuspecting students who hire aircraft for training.

 

The thread has contained some suggestions about how to fix the engines, and while very interesting, that's not our job, it's the manufacturer's.

 

And the bottom line is that after several weeks of discussion we've come no closer to avoiding the potential from someone to have an engine failure and not be able to make it.

 

 

[Dieselten]

Turboplanner has made a very valid point. As a member of the "Jabiru Engine Failure club" I too need answers, and in spite of all the work the engine manufacturer has done, the problem refuses to go away.

 

If just one example of an engine fails, then the aircraft owner has a problem. If many engines of the same type fail for the same reason, then the engine-maker has a problem.

 

I will re-iterate a comment I made on another thread relating to through-bolts: if Jabiru offered a choice of Rotax or Jabiru engines they'd double the sales of their airframes overnight, and Rotax would have to open another factory to keep up with the demand for their engines.

 

When you buy a Boeing or an Airbus you get a choice of engines. Is it such a retrograde step for Jabiru to swallow their pride and do the same? Even losing perhaps 15Kg of load-carrying capacity would justify the reliability and performance gains, especially if in-flight adjustable propellers were offered as a further option.

 

Must we lose lives before something genuinely effective is done to address this persistent and disturbing trend?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

There is a history of the powers that be only moving after someone dies. Aviation is no different. At some point you have to ask yourself is it worth the risk?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

A lot of people have the misunderstanding that aviation's prime directive is 'safety'. While safety is obviously very important, it is NOT the most important thing as far as the industry is concerned. If it was, then aircraft would never fly, because for 100% garuntee a flight will be "safe" the aeroplane would never leave the ground. Thats the only way you could garuntee a safe outcome.

 

Risk is defined as " the potential of something occurring and the consequences if it does occur." We as pilots have a reasonable amount of control over both sides of the risk formula. First of all by minimizing the potential of something happening by keeping aircraft well maintained, keeping current on the type, having a good attitude and good airmanship etc. And the second part, the consequences can be reasonably well controlled by good training and 'further' learning post certificate issue, regular practice of emergency procedures etc.

 

I had a "pilot" come to me once for some nav training. we were enroute to somewhere one day and discussing engine failures etc and she made the statement "i would not back myself in an engine failure". So immediately the power came off and we spent the next hour and subsequent flights getting her to the point where she would back herself. We cant control all the factors, but we can control some. If you wouldn't 'back yourself' in a situation then you are expanding the "consequence" side of the risk equation.

 

Cheers

 

 

[planesmaker]

Hey, just an aside and to add a little lighthearted post, probably a little off topic, I had a mazda rotary one time that, due to a faulty radiator cap, did a water seal. Just for fun, a mate and I decided to get it going again and drive it till it stopped ,well we drove and drove and drove, ended up driving it back home, mind you is was not putting out much power and running real sick, but got us home. Where upon we decided to cool it down with the hose and I kid you not, it sizzled more than 10 minutes with the hose on it :-))) Surprised both of us that we could not kill it, we really tried hard!

 

Jabiru make great aeroplanes, affordable and strong, now if they can get their engines more bullet proof, it would make us all happy. It may mean the price for engines may have to rise, let them get the engineering right and fully tested on the test bench or factory test plane before making it available to the public, Time to rise to the occasion Jabiru!