DrZoos Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Especially when buy and fly is such a prevailing and growing desire. Putting a safety margin in is good. But putting so much in that its clearly innacurate may make some disregard other items in the poh as well. It does strike me as very odd that the 160 and 170 could be listed so similar, when there is a massively visual difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 a Boeing 747 and 767 have very similar numbers also concerning speeds and distances, yet are both very different aircraft. How do Jabiru come up with the numbers? do they flight test their aircraft with test pilots and collect the data, just as all GA aircraft manufacturers do? or are they relying on the numbers from the original aircraft tested decades ago? and not just jabiru, what about the other kit manufactures? i know the Savannah numbers are generic an hence, different built aircraft will vary significantly from book numbers. same goes with Vans RV aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keenaviator Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Yea jetr. I often giggle at those figures as im lifting off in the 170 in about half the distance the 160 takes. We often take off in company aswel so a direct comparison is easily made. Jabs figures are all over the place im afraid. Have you tried this comparison at MTOW for both the 160 and 170 to 50'? Laurie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Most U/L's don't have an accurate enough ASI due installation etc. There are other variations in build and rigging too. If you just jump into any plane and expect it to fly to the sort of figures a Cessna 172 will for example , you are going to get a shock one day. Some static vents (or lack of) will give very inaccurate speed indications. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 while researching RV10 aircraft ownership and building, some owners during their 25 hrs flyy off restricted area flying, do nothing but performance testing to get the data for their POH's. As they all should - no surprises here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Most U/L's don't have an accurate enough ASI due installation etc. There are other variations in build and rigging too. If you just jump into any plane and expect it to fly to the sort of figures a Cessna 172 will for example , you are going to get a shock one day. Some static vents (or lack of) will give very inaccurate speed indications. Nev I agree, and that's why I'm recommending staying right away from marginal strips. The low inertia and much greater possibility of the lighter aircraft being more severely affected by things like crosswinds and gusts is another reason to stay away. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 The j160 is Casa certified, while the 170 is LSA. I'm not surprised that jab actually tested the 160 to Casa requirements and didn't with the LSA models. We often do in company takeoffs at it close to mtow with a 160 and 17. I can tell you with aboaolute certainty that the 170 is at 50ft in almost half the Time the 160 is. Just have a close look at the stalling figures for both aircraft and see the innacuacies printed there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 All this talk about marginal strips and short field take-offs.........I'm sorry but I just don't know what you mean..........(Joking) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Not impressed.. Headwinds dont count. do it in NIL wind, then ill be impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Not impressed.. Headwinds dont count. do it in NIL wind, then ill be impressed. Spoilsport........LOL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 s Not impressed.. Headwinds dont count. do it in NIL wind, then ill be impressed. Ok another 20 to 30 meter run in nil wind, Jab would still be gasping for breath while this thing would be at 500 ft by the time the Jab got off the deck. They climb like a motherless goats and get off the deck real quick just like your Savannahs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 yes, and have the wing loading of a butterfly. No offence to any owner, but it would have to be one of the worst aircraft ive flown.(the Foxbat) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 yes, and have the wing loading of a butterfly. No offence to any owner, but it would have to be one of the worst aircraft ive flown.(the Foxbat) Don't own one Andy but don't mind them, couple of mates have them 1 L & 1 LS and I thought they fly quiet well, certainly not like my Tecnam in turbulence though. Only thing I really don't like is the throttle positions. Alf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Only thing I really don't like is the throttle positions.Alf Don't find any problem with yokes and centre throttle (between the seats). Very comfortable to just rest your hand on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 I dont like a few things. The seating position, almost laying down The wing loading is far too low, its like a leaf on a breeze The ailerons grabbing in the stall Never worked so hard in turbulence to keep it upright during landing. I dont like the exposed control cables etc Its like a sunbox!!!! Just mu opinions on the aeroplane. Please dont flame me if you own one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggles Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Things to look out for number 101:When your plane has a new slippery looking livery.... Roger , Your pictures are all very nice , but in helping people understand the source of the leak and maybe preventing a similar occurrence , they tell us little and are therefore virtually worthless . In post #6 I posed a question and still await your reply . Here it is again for your information ......... " Mmmm , thanks for that report Roger but.... " dripping heavily onto the bottom cowling of the oil cooler " . Do you mean dripping from the cooler ? . "Lame spies a blown cylinder bolt on No.1 " Tough little engine the Jab 2200's to operate with that , and apparently no indications . Bob " Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keenaviator Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 The j160 is Casa certified, while the 170 is LSA. I'm not surprised that jab actually tested the 160 to Casa requirements and didn't with the LSA models.We often do in company takeoffs at it close to mtow with a 160 and 17. I can tell you with aboaolute certainty that the 170 is at 50ft in almost half the Time the 160 is. Just have a close look at the stalling figures for both aircraft and see the innacuacies printed there. My UL 450 should get off the deck pretty well then considering it has the same wing span/area as the 170 and mtow of 450kg. Laurie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rrogerramjet Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share Posted January 21, 2014 Hi Biggles, sorry been busy flying :) answer: no. onto the cowling from the piston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rrogerramjet Posted May 7, 2014 Author Share Posted May 7, 2014 Update for anyone interested: Went for a spin the other week and took the 120 up with a brand new motor (recon, I assume) fitted after it failed again, but on different head bolts, less than 12hrs after my incident and repair. Lucky for them they were only in circuits. TT=844hrs before 2nd failure. Hopefully this new reco won't suffer the same fate.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Update for anyone interested:Went for a spin the other week and took the 120 up with a brand new motor (recon, I assume) fitted after it failed again, but on different head bolts, less than 12hrs after my incident and repair. Lucky for them they were only in circuits. TT=844hrs before 2nd failure. Hopefully this new reco won't suffer the same fate.... Really? 12hrs? Was it another bolt failure? I try not to be a Jab knocker....perhaps more a Jab sceptic. But I have to say I'd be somewhat upset if that happened to my lawnmower, let alone a $15K aircraft engine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Could we PLEASE have the bloody FACTS on the engine that was the original subject of this stupid thread? In clear, plain English? 1. What was it that actually failed? Was it a through-bolt or was it a head bolt? 2. If it was a through bolt, which version was it? 3. How many hours did it have on the bolt that actually failed? 4. When was the torque last checked on the bolt concerned? Those questions at least should be able to be answered from the engine log book. There are a lot of other questions that would only be answered from a bulk strip. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rrogerramjet Posted May 8, 2014 Author Share Posted May 8, 2014 Hi Dafydd, 1,2,3,4 - not sure, I'm not the owner or the LAME. Nor do I thoroughly check the logbook, it's not my plane. I provided an estimate of engine hours, that's all I know. I'm not sure it's worth anyone's time or effort to attempt a forensic analysis of this incident via a forum. My post was to inform the aviation community in a more general sense. I can only refer you to the RA-Aus incident report register... 9 Jan: "...Subsequently discovered that the engine through bolt on cylinders 3 and 4 had failed...." Engine TT: 826.7 9 March: "...inspection revealed a fractured through bolt on No1 cylinder.the reporting pilot advised this was the second through bolt failure in the previous 5 hours of operation, engine repair work had been previously conducted by factory...." cheers R ps. Calm down, it's insulting to both you and me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 Thanks; that's some of what I wanted to see. Probably all that can be mentioned on this forum. It wasn't clear to me from what was on this thread prior to this. The problem is that the moment something like this is mentioned on this forum, people go off into all sorts of speculative comments, which completely obscure the actual facts of the matter. That's what annoys me; I'd like to know what the REAL underlying causes were. There would seem to be cause to question the Jabiru factory repair work; but it may not be that simple. Of course, it is neither possible nor appropriate to attempt at a forensic analysis on a forum such as this - but that does not stop people from leaping to conclusions. The incident occurred on Jan 9; three months have passed - that's ample time for a proper forensic analysis to have been done; so the answers must certainly exist. Who has them? If they are in the public domain, surely it would be appropriate to add them to this thread? I believe Ian Bent has the answer to this problem, and it has multiple facets, all of which have to be got right. Ian's answer can't be applied to any of the LSA Jabirus without Jabiru's permission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 And of course, until CAMit has a formal CASA approval, if Jabiru were to allow the mod., that would presumably make them legally responsible for it. So whilst we're waiting for that formal CASA approval, which should relieve Jabiru from vicarious liability for CAMit's modification, just don't fly over tiger country. There are at least two gliding clubs that run courses in alpine soaring; and that has to be on the basis that you keep sufficient height to glide clear. The applies whether you're over the alps or over the Pillega Scrub or over Bass Straight - just takes more height over the alps. That height is not available to RAA aircraft - so plain airmanship says: Don't go there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 Ok another 20 to 30 meter run in nil wind, Jab would still be gasping for breath while this thing would be at 500 ft by the time the Jab got off the deck. They climb like a motherless goats and get off the deck real quick just like your Savannahs. Phhht, if the Jab had a Camit engine it would be as close to VTOL as you could get. I heard Chuck Norris designed them. 2 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