j230 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Hi Ive been flying Jabs for 750 hrs now and yes i have to say the only problem ive had is a couple of noisy camfollowers and when i picked up the new 230 two years ago i had to camp under the wing at Bourke as i ran out of daylight.The next morning it refused to start but there was a quarter of an inch of ice all over the plane. once i drilled out the chocke jet to 1.2ml in the bottom of the fuel bowl ive never had another problem. Some people seem to have more trouble than others and it is iether they are just unlucky or the way they treat them. Saying they are only good for paper weights is a bit rought as Rotaxs have problems to and all other makes none are perfect its just the one you choos and you hope you have a good run out of it. Regards Ray 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAJ Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 HiIve been flying Jabs for 750 hrs now and yes i have to say the only problem ive had is a couple of noisy camfollowers and when i picked up the new 230 two years ago i had to camp under the wing at Bourke as i ran out of daylight.The next morning it refused to start but there was a quarter of an inch of ice all over the plane. once i drilled out the chocke jet to 1.2ml in the bottom of the fuel bowl ive never had another problem. Some people seem to have more trouble than others and it is iether they are just unlucky or the way they treat them. Saying they are only good for paper weights is a bit rought as Rotaxs have problems to and all other makes none are perfect its just the one you choos and you hope you have a good run out of it. Regards Ray Right on j230 SAJ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Point taken Arron, however those 210s still do fly in even with those five pots cracked !...............................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Nobody here likes the problems with Jabiru engines (or the perceived problems that some people like to say ).All I wish for, is for people who spend alot of their hard earned cash on a australian product.To be happy. I am for one thing, sick of hearing the same old excuses from Jabiru saying "there is nothing wrong with our engines, it is the lack of maintenance or maintenance being performed incorrectly. WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP. How the F&^%K can they blame a pilot for a engine shiTTing itself in under 25 hours.How can they blame Mozt's mechanic for F&%^king up. Not likely. This Sh*& happen to me when the first "reliable" 2.2 litre came out after the 1.6 litre boat anchor.Back in 1997 0r 1998. Until a certain person and his daughter pulls their heads in and stop blaming everybody else for his bad design.Nothing will change.Arrogance gets people killed.Hasnt happened yet but it will sooner or later. BTW- out sourcing the engine manufacturing to some other F%$Ked company doesnt fix things. There are alot of guys here on this site who know how to fix and/or make these engines more reliable.Jabiru just have to listen to them.(they wont but, because they think it is the operators fault.) Peeps who try and compare the reliability of the 912 against the Jabiru by using numbers.Will not work. You will find that Rotax has over 40 000 engines out there with a lot higher MTBF. Just sayin Like I said.I wish that the Jabby engines where just as reliable as the Rotax 912 and more so.That is not the case.I wish it was. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petetheprinta Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Nobody here likes the problems with Jabiru engines (or the perceived problems that some people like to say ).All I wish for, is for people who spend alot of their hard earned cash on a australian product.To be happy.I am for one thing, sick of hearing the same old excuses from Jabiru saying "there is nothing wrong with our engines, it is the lack of maintenance or maintenance being performed incorrectly. WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP. How the F&^%K can they blame a pilot for a engine shiTTing itself in under 25 hours.How can they blame Mozt's mechanic for F&%^king up. Not likely. This Sh*& happen to me when the first "reliable" 2.2 litre came out after the 1.6 litre boat anchor.Back in 1997 0r 1998. Until a certain person and his daughter pulls their heads in and stop blaming everybody else for his bad design.Nothing will change.Arrogance gets people killed.Hasnt happened yet but it will sooner or later. BTW- out sourcing the engine manufacturing to some other F%$Ked company doesnt fix things. There are alot of guys here on this site who know how to fix and/or make these engines more reliable.Jabiru just have to listen to them.(they wont but, because they think it is the operators fault.) Peeps who try and compare the reliability of the 912 against the Jabiru by using numbers.Will not work. You will find that Rotax has over 40 000 engines out there with a lot higher MTBF. Just sayin Like I said.I wish that the Jabby engines where just as reliable as the Rotax 912 and more so.That is not the case.I wish it was. So....can we take it you don't like Jab engines?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 So....can we take it you don't like Jab engines?? I cannot give a straight yes or no answer. I would like Jabiru or any other company for that matter, whether in aviation or any other business, to support their customers. When I hear of yet another customer, who after spending tens of thousands of their hard earned money on a product.Then unfortunately not having that product live up to expectation, and they then start asking questions. Then the poor old customer then gets the run around from the manufacture. They send their engine back to the factory (or a instrument or whatever the case maybe) and rightfully ask after pull down,what went wrong? Doesnt look good when a manufacturer does not give a answer back.Also the last thing a customer wants to hear is things like."Its your fault, you didnt operate it right or maintain it correctly "etc I am sure that some engines have failed due to poor maintenance and/or running to hot CHT's or abuse etc etc. But when operators who have operated and maintained engines for years without a issue, then vitually get accused for not doing such, all of a sudden when a engine fails. I think that it is a bit rich. Customers/aircraft owners would be already under a fair bit of stress when their pride and joy lets them down.The last thing they want is a manufactuer not bending over backwards to support them. Especially when a aircraft is on line and needs to make money. I have seen and heard of european aircraft grounded for months waiting for parts to arrive in Australia.In that situation it realy cripples a business.Firstly , they loose out on the income generated by the aircraft, they still have to pay the payments or lease on that aircraft.Then they have to x hire another aircraft to see them through until their aircraft or engine etc is fixed.Normally at a lower per hour profit margin. This is of course not directed at any particular company whether it is a aircraft or engine manufacture. This is directed at all companies/manufacturers /businesses .Quickest way to go broke, is by not looking after the consumer.It takes many many years for a company to build up a great reputation.It can take a very short time for the same company to get a bad ruputation.In the modern world of media and internet etc.Word travels fast. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petetheprinta Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Thank you for the well presented and thought out answer. So much nicer than the usual diatribe against Jabiru. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Most of the older (210) fitted engines crack heads because they are run too hot or get thermal shocked . They will usually keep running when cracked. Most have cowl flaps to control engine temps. Some of the hardest engines to look after are in the Chieftain. A lot of pilots these days are not used to thinking about what goes on in an engine. They want something that you "fit" and "Forget". and tend to accept things like you have to run a Jab hard. Not if you overheat it in doing that, though. The South African ones that operate at high altitudes last better so that ends that argument. Glazed bores are like witchcraft. I bet hardly anyone here knows what one is REALLY is and what the effects are. I reckon it's a good thing to have out there to blame things on that are happening anyhow. Jabiru bores are soft and also have very fine hone pattern and will polish no matter how you operate the engine. It could be argued that changing the oil and looking after the aircleaner helps to polish the bores. It DOES seem that a lot of engines that fail haven't had things done to them that they should have had done. Also the variations of installation are significant and the fuel quality could be suss sometimes. I have quite a few views on the motor but I will not post recommendations here as to mods for obvious reasons. I do suggest that the engine be pulled through before flight and top overhauled every 300 hours or so, and always increase your climb speed when OAT's are high provided climb performance is met. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle1 Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 bore glazing is a well understood phenomena, that diesels and air cooled aircraft engines are prone to. An excellent explanation can be found here. http://coxengineering.sharepoint.com/Pages/Boreglazing.aspx Engines that are lightly loaded do not develop enough Brake Mean Effective pressure to expand the rings and seal against the bore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Ah, BMEP coming into the conversation, someone knows a bit about engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 A possible issue here is customer expectations. Sometimes these develop themselves sometimes pushed by the company. Not sure regarding Jabiru on this one, they are pretty light on self promotion. When something appears on the market cheap and reasonably well made its adopted wholeheartedly. Some owners forget it was half the price when things go wrong. For some reason it is then compared to the unit costing much more. Rotax most likely deliberately destroyed more engines in development than Jabiru have ever made, hence they are dearer and largely seen as more reliable. An added problem in this case is the 912 is an exceptionally good engine to compare against and any engine manufacturer would like its reputation. Not all Rotax's can share this however. Jabiru engines are good value but need extra monitoring and management and more frequent service and bits replacing. Sure not a fit and forget engine. Life costs are possibly similar however theres scope to be lower if you manage them right or have a good run. If you demand higher reliability, be prepared to pay, use other engine types or even use mainstream certified aircraft engines. Thats why GA ownership and costs are where they are. If your seriously adverse to risk dont fly aeroplanes at all especially not Ultralights and self maintained ones. Also consider the engine is only part of the package, a great engine in a poorly supported and backed up air frame could have similar costs and problems associated 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 That's a good commonsense contribution jetjr. The jabiru motor is not dear to repair/ service. It's a simple design. I believe the airflow should be directed over the cylinders better. ( baffles like all other engines). The evenness of the mixture distribution is a problem. Your leanest cylinder should not be too lean. Some people get quite a satisfactory run and some don't. Planes left for weeks without being used need special attention. Don't ever run your engine for a short time and then sit it away for weeks. It takes about 40 minutes to warm up fully. Learn how to retension the heads properly, and get to know what good compressions feel like. Nev 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I happened to be looking over a J230 this arvo that a fella I know is building and It occurred to me the the 233 Lycoming would be a ripper engine for the airframe, it actually has the rated HP (115) rather than the Jab figure that is attainable (3300 engine) and although wider I recon it could be fitted with a minimum of cowl mods. I'm not sure on the weight of the Jabriu six but the Lycoming Is just under100 kg dry, I know the certified stuff is problematic but on a home built it would be a good fix ,the airframe seems pretty good ,just a dodgy engine. I like this idea of using a Lyc in the Jab 230. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 It's a new lighter version of a proven engine. There is no comparison between a six cylinder and a four cylinder for smoothness, and the 233 is quite wide so the cowl won't be pretty if it's fitted to a jabiru. It probably runs a bigger diameter prop so ground clearance may be a limiting factor. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pylon500 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 cowl won't be pretty if it's fitted to a jabiru I guess that depends on how you look at it, I think it's still only a Jab..... Arthur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Pity it's got an old 20's style undercarriage. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne T Mathews Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Pity it's got an old 20's style undercarriage. You tryin' to pick a fight, Turbz? Huh? Huh? You tryin' to pick a fight? Stand back everyone, this could get messy... Old 20s style indeed!!! I'll give you old style, you,,, you,,, you HIPPY... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne T Mathews Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I guess that depends on how you look at it, I think it's still only a Jab..... Arthur. I've always liked the look of those tail dragger Jabs. They look like a serious airplane when they've got a tailwheel. There's nothing sissy about them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 You tryin' to pick a fight, Turbz? Huh? Huh? You tryin' to pick a fight? Stand back everyone, this could get messy... Old 20s style indeed!!! I'll give you old style, you,,, you,,, you HIPPY... OK, but I have to adjust my Kaftan first! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 I like the look and functionality of the tail dragger Jab. Needs a serious 3 blade prop, longer snout that feeds off heavy fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Well the bottom line really is any taildragger looks good !!!!!......................................................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirsty Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Agreed, my next aircraft will be a tail dragger methinks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbleboy Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Pity it's got an old 20's style undercarriage. Now THIS is a 1920's undercarriage! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 That's a real undercarrage !!.....and way more capable than it looks !!...................................................Maj.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne T Mathews Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Now THIS is a 1920's undercarriage![ATTACH=full]18442[/ATTACH] Yee bloody har, We'd all learn to land like a cat peeing on glass if'n we had to land with that gear, by crikey... 1 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