Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
deadstick

Bad Experience with Jabiru

Recommended Posts

Ladies and gents, I would like to share my experience thus far with this product and the factory that makes them.

 

I own 2 Jabirus, a 230-D and a 160-C both aircraft have been an absolute nightmare when it comes to reliability.

 

The J230 suffered its first engine failure at 225 hours requiring a complete Top end, subsequently it suffered multiple component failures up until its final demise at 700 hrs with Jabiru admitting it was the failed thru bolt design that destroyed the bottom end and not once did they offer any support even after requests.

 

The J160 suffered an in flight engine failure under 200 hours since the factory performed a top end overhaul( thru bolt failure)! since I have owned it three heads have failed due cracking and valve seat movement multiple other component failures and the nail in the coffin for this engine was a valve seat falling out at idle on the first pre-flight run up of the day all within 300 hrs of the Top end overhaul.

 

The factory have not once offered to help, never shown the slightest empathy or a desire to support a customer, and display a complete disregard for factual evidence when providing an excuse why a component failed.

 

I have been bullied, ignored and treated like a fool.

 

Not one Jabiru engine in my local area has made the 1000 hr TBO and not one owner would purchase another Jabiru.

 

The business manager has treated me with arrogance of the highest order and display's what I can only describe as an extremely deceptive nature.

 

The business manager flat out refuses to return my property, and will not listen to any reason or evidentiary facts stating that they must return it.

 

One investigation conducted by the company as to why a cylinder dropped a valve seat and had cracking, had three different conclusions over multiple days.

 

I regret the day that I purchased both of these aircraft, they have cost me a small fortune to keep running and I warn others to do their home work thoroughly before spending your money with them.

 

 

  • Agree 3
  • Helpful 2
  • Informative 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another satisfied customer of the jabiru engines…..sorry for the sarcasm but it really is a never ending story of failures in this product…….The airframe is good it needs a better engine thats the problem

 

 

  • Agree 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dead stick, I believe you would do better holding CASA and RAA to account, Camit who build Jabiru engines recognise there are major weaknesses ( http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/major-weaknesses-addressed.110861/ ). If in the interest of safety if this is not recognized by the authorities then they are responsible. I would like the authorities to force Jabiru to accept Camit modifications to prevent engine failures and the possibility of lose of life of an aviator that RAA and CASA are supposed to watch out for.

 

Once the Camit engine is certified and proves reliable you can bet that I will be pushing to have this recognised by the authorities and be using it in my J230.

 

If reported as a defect and I have heard there has been then someone has failed their duty of care, I would like to see Jabiru do something positive instead of BS, as long as RAA receives sponsorship for NatFly they are unlikely to upset Jabiru.

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Section-4.3-Defect-reporting-and-airworthiness-notices2.pdf.

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Section-2.1-Technical-Managers-Duty-Statement.pdf.

 

I have dealt with Jabiru and can define them as lacking any customer service.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't say things like this on the forum, you will get called a jab basher!

 

"if it is backed up by facts and not emotion, no problem. Jabs are like any other aircraft. A sensible discussion without abuse and emotion works. Its the emotive cr..p and the unproved comments that are a problem. Mod"

 

 

  • Agree 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as long as RAA receives sponsorship for NatFly they are unlikely to upset Jabiru.

Now you are getting onto something that the rest have overlooked, not a good look for RAA sleeping at the wheel and taking the money.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dead stick, I believe you would do better holding CASA and RAA to account, Camit who build Jabiru engines recognise there are major weaknesses ( http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/major-weaknesses-addressed.110861/ ). If in the interest of safety if this is not recognized by the authorities then they are responsible. I would like the authorities to force Jabiru to accept Camit modifications to prevent engine failures and the possibility of lose of life of an aviator that RAA and CASA are supposed to watch out for.Once the Camit engine is certified and proves reliable you can bet that I will be pushing to have this recognised by the authorities and be using it in my J230.

 

If reported as a defect and I have heard there has been then someone has failed their duty of care, I would like to see Jabiru do something positive instead of BS, as long as RAA receives sponsorship for NatFly they are unlikely to upset Jabiru.

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Section-4.3-Defect-reporting-and-airworthiness-notices2.pdf.

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Section-2.1-Technical-Managers-Duty-Statement.pdf.

 

I have dealt with Jabiru and can define them as lacking any customer service.

Camel, Your quote above caught my eye...."If in the interest of safety if this is not recognised by the authorities then they are responsible "....not entirely my good friend.

 

What about all the owners who experienced many problems for years, without admitting there was a problem, and speaking out against the factory's shortcomings ??....or filing appropriate incident/defect reports. .?.....All our friend 'deadstick' has done is highlight that the problem is still the same as its always been, that the factory has not fixed or improved anything, in the years now that they have had time to do so.

 

It was only when the likes of myself, and others, started to highlight the obvious ongoing problems, ( then called 'Jab bashers' by those with their heads in the sand), that the factory has attempted to rectify, or even admit to the problems.

 

Of course the authorities (CASA) are to share the blame, by having certified the engine without any in-house longevity testing having been carried out, as would be the requirement if an engine were to be certified for say the GA market. Wher is CASAs requirements for certifying an aircraft engine ??.......

 

The real blame must go squarely back to the people who sold the product, and continue in their failure to correct its shortcomings, and they must be laughing all the way to the bank........................

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A worrying pattern here. Jabiru can do far better. Perhaps they need a more consistent approach to their customers.

 

I have always had cordial and efficient service from the factory. Admittedly I haven't presented them with major engine failures, but I have found that courteous phone calls always get good results.

 

 

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dead stick, I believe you would do better holding CASA and RAA to account, Camit who build Jabiru engines recognise there are major weaknesses ( http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/major-weaknesses-addressed.110861/ ). If in the interest of safety if this is not recognized by the authorities then they are responsible. I would like the authorities to force Jabiru to accept Camit modifications to prevent engine failures and the possibility of lose of life of an aviator that RAA and CASA are supposed to watch out for.Once the Camit engine is certified and proves reliable you can bet that I will be pushing to have this recognised by the authorities and be using it in my J230.

 

If reported as a defect and I have heard there has been then someone has failed their duty of care, I would like to see Jabiru do something positive instead of BS, as long as RAA receives sponsorship for NatFly they are unlikely to upset Jabiru.

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Section-4.3-Defect-reporting-and-airworthiness-notices2.pdf.

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Section-2.1-Technical-Managers-Duty-Statement.pdf.

 

I have dealt with Jabiru and can define them as lacking any customer service.

Dead stick, I believe you would do better holding CASA and RAA to account, Camit who build Jabiru engines recognise there are major weaknesses ( http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/major-weaknesses-addressed.110861/ ). If in the interest of safety if this is not recognized by the authorities then they are responsible. I would like the authorities to force Jabiru to accept Camit modifications to prevent engine failures and the possibility of lose of life of an aviator that RAA and CASA are supposed to watch out for.Once the Camit engine is certified and proves reliable you can bet that I will be pushing to have this recognised by the authorities and be using it in my J230.

 

If reported as a defect and I have heard there has been then someone has failed their duty of care, I would like to see Jabiru do something positive instead of BS, as long as RAA receives sponsorship for NatFly they are unlikely to upset Jabiru.

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Section-4.3-Defect-reporting-and-airworthiness-notices2.pdf.

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Section-2.1-Technical-Managers-Duty-Statement.pdf.

 

I have dealt with Jabiru and can define them as lacking any customer service.

 

Hi Camel,

 

CASA are aware as I lodged a defect report.

 

Camit are also aware as I sent them the pics and history (they were very thankful as Jab hadn't provided any defect reports for over a year) also they are a great company to deal with!

 

I have personally sent many defect reports to RAA, I know they are busy but you never get any feedback or update on trends, CASA on the other hand, the section head of the defect investigation, emailed me with a copy of the defect report and an estimated time of completion. (think they might be looking into it). Further he said that they generally don't investigate RAA failures unless there is a large trend developing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An STC to fit a rotax into these would be a real winner, even the UL engines seem to be doing alright ,although they're a bit expensive. Someone on this sight was doing a rotax conversion ,haven't heard how it turned out though, the cost would be a bit up there with certification but I reckon once sorted the customers would be beating a path to your door

 

Matty

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is rotax powered jabiru here at YCAB it goes very well all but it is quite nose heavy. There needs to be other mods done to the aircraft to help that along to do a proper re-engine for the aircraft. Evn though it lands faster the people who fly it like it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maj, Jabiru need a kick up the arse to get things done ,Camit are doing something but you can't use it in factory built aircraft ! And reality is they are the original manufacturer in a sense. The tech manager duties statement section 2.1 part 2a seems to cover it or at least should recognise it and make recommendations.

 

Other than highlight through forums like this what can you do ? As a board member and a person with an aviation mechanical background and aware of jabiru engine problems, what would, could or prepared to do or have you done ? In fairness to you other than submit a defect report there probably isn't much, obviously it is Jabirus problem which in turn becomes jabiru owner problems like Deadstick and what I would like to see is using upgraded parts, oils and modification as done by some, with approval from RAA and Casa . Waiting for Jabiru could be a long time if ever as the Chinese engine is coming and they can put their head back in the sand. If Camit are sticking with it I sure it is potentially a good engine,

 

If I was Jabiru I would pat Camit on the back and say thanks and approve the modifications...... SO SIMPLE.

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fir info here is a third party report into the final failure of my 3300 engine in my 230, the top end 1 cylinder #4) suffered an over temp in climb explaining the damage noted on the CHT monitoring system. The rest is what you can expect if you follow Jabiru's maintenance regime and advice to the letter. Sorry for the cut and paste but the report file size was too large to attach.

 

15th March 2013

 

Australian Aviation Assessors Pty Ltd

 

33 Ventura Rd,

 

NORTHMEAD, NSW 2152

 

Jabiru 3300A Engine - Inspection Report

 

 

 

Your Reference: AAA-0506

 

Our Reference: 100572

 

Insured: ME

 

 

 

Introduction:

 

 

We refer to your instructions dated 8th March 2013 and confirm on Tuesday 12th March

 

2013 the writer attended the premises of Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd, Bundaberg Airport,

 

Queensland and conducted a survey of the subject Jabiru 3300A engine, serial no. 33A-

 

1795.

 

The engine had previously been dismantled in the Jabiru engine shop and the major

 

component items were laid out on a bench for ease of viewing. The components had not

 

been cleaned and were therefore in a “dirty” state so as not to destroy the visual

 

evidence and dismantled condition of the components.

 

We did not have the opportunity to view the engine logbooks as they were not present

 

with the engine. However, we were advised by the Jabiru Engineer who performed the

 

teardown, Mr Mark Jonas that the engine was in its first life and had accumulated

 

approximately 730 hours in service since new.

 

Damage:

 

 

Overall examination of the engine components confirmed that the “Top End” of the

 

engine had been subjected to significant overheating and this was evidenced by burnt oil

 

residue on all six (6) alloy cylinder head external cooling fins and also on the cooling

 

fins on the upper part of the six (6) steel cylinder barrels (refer photographs).

 

Compression Gas blow by was also apparent where the cylinder heads mate with the

 

Ellis Aviation – Jabiru J230D 24-5331 - 3300A Engine (100572) 2

 

cylinder barrels and also at cylinder head exhaust ports and thus indicative of an

 

overheat event.

 

The “Bottom End” components of the engine were also examined which did not reveal

 

any evidence of overheating.

 

Cylinder Heads (Photographs No.2 & 3)

 

 

Examination of all the cylinder heads revealed that the valve inserts were still intact and

 

had not started to creep out from their recess in the head.

 

Jabiru advised that the valve seats start to move out of their recess when the temperature

 

exceeds 250°C. It is therefore apparent that the overheat condition on the subject flight

 

was less than 250°C. Nevertheless, it is understood from information supplied to Jabiru

 

by the Owner that the temperature on the occasion reached 180°C or more and thus

 

Jabiru consider the heads and valves to be scrap.

 

Cylinder Barrels (Photographs No.4 & 5)

 

 

Examination of all six (6) Cylinder Barrels revealed that they had significant vertical

 

score marks on the inner circumference or walls of the Barrels and this is believed to

 

have been caused by normal piston/ring movement within Barrels. Whilst the scoring is

 

significant it is believed to be the result of wear and tear.

 

Pistons (photograph No. 6 & 7)

 

 

The six (6) Pistons were examined and they likewise displayed evidence of burnt oil

 

residue in the region of the upper ring lands and skirts confirming that they had been

 

operating in a high temperature environment. However, the two (2) piston compression

 

rings and one (1) oil control ring on each piston were free to move and were not stuck in

 

their grooves as often is the case if the burnt oil residue is significant.

 

Camshaft & Cam Followers (Photographs No. 8 - 11)

 

 

The Camshaft Lobes were all displaying signs of fretting at the apex of the Lobe.

 

Similarly, the mating Cam Followers were also displaying evidence of fretting at the

 

surface where it mates with the matching Lobe . The damage to the Camshaft and Cam

 

Followers is consistent with wear and tear and unrelated to the overheat event.

 

Crankshaft, Crankcase & Bearings (Photographs No.12 - 16)

 

 

Examination of the Crankshaft and two alloy Crankcase halves and the matching main

 

bearing shells contained within the crankcase halves revealed unusual wear to the

 

crankshaft bearing journal surfaces in the nature of a significant score mark at the centre

 

of each journal. This score mark matched the centre oil grove in the mating bearing

 

shells. There was also evidence of fretting on the mating surfaces of the crankcase

 

halves.

 

Jabiru has suggested that the adverse wear to the Crankshaft journals has been caused

 

by an initial loss of torque on the through bolts resulting in fretting of the Case halves

 

and a loss of material. Hence when the through bolts were subsequently replaced with

 

modified bolts in accordance with a Jabiru Service Bulletin the increased torque setting

 

Ellis Aviation – Jabiru J230D 24-5331 - 3300A Engine (100572) 3

 

on the bolts caused a reduction in main bearing clearance. The preferred bearing

 

clearance is 0.05 mm. The minimum clearance is 0.04 mm. The measured clearance at

 

disassembly was found to be less than 0.04 mm and that this has resulted in excessive

 

bearing preload and wear to the crankshaft journals. The writer tends to agree with

 

this scenario. The damage occasioned to the crankshaft, bearings and crankcase is

 

therefore unrelated to the engine over temperature event.

 

Repair Cost Estimate:

 

 

Jabiru Aircraft has supplied us with a Quotation and breakdown of the parts required

 

(attached) to undertake a full repair and overhaul of the engine in the sum of $18,081.00

 

(GST inclusive). This compares with an earlier quotation for a new replacement engine

 

at $18,590.00 (GST inclusive).

 

Recommendations:

 

 

As a result of our examination of the subject engine and components we recommend

 

that the damage resulting from the engine overheat event is limited to the following:

 

 Cylinder Head assemblies, including valves, guides and spark plugs

 

 Cylinder Barrels, upper regions, but because of significant wear & tear scoring of

 

cylinder walls allow 50% of replacement costs.

 

 Piston assemblies and Ring sets.

 

We have reviewed the Jabiru repair quotation and have identified those items we

 

believe would be related to the overheat event, which we have marked with a tick. In

 

addition we suggest allow 50% of the cost of the Cylinder barrels plus 50% of the

 

Labour charges to perform the repair and rebuild of the engine.

 

These adjustments give an amount of $9,704.36 (GST inclusive) as being the cost to

 

reinstate the components/damage resulting from the overheat condition. If the GST

 

component is deducted the net amount is $8,822.15.

 

Remarks:

 

 

We submit this report for your consideration and await your further instructions.

 

Michael Ellis

 

Manager, Australasia-Pacific

 

Attachment(s): Photographs

 

 

 

Jabiru Aircraft Quotation

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps they need a more consistent approach to their customers.

Some get a new engine off the shelf bolted on the firewall and some get fobbed off, I think you are right.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not one Jabiru engine in my local area has made the 1000 hr TBO and not one owner would purchase another Jabiru.

They certainly don't like to get too hot (the top end can't hack this) & urgently need to be redesigned to be more robust in this area IMO. But I know several Jab engines that have gotten to 1000 hours with no problem and with happy owners so this is not a universal situation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anything sold in Australia is done so under the TPA of 1974, you have rights.

TPA was superseded 3 years ago.... Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sched 1 is where the action is. Same rights though:thumb up:

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes me wonder if you were dragging the aircraft up in a steep climb at low air speeds allowing insufficient cooling of the motor instead of climbing the 230 at around 90 to 100 knots, which results in best cooling. Also I'd be asking the question, did you religiously change the oil and oil filter every 25 hours of use?

 

Regards, Daniel.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maj, Jabiru need a kick up the **** to get things done ,Camit are doing something but you can't use it in factory built aircraft ! And reality is they are the original manufacturer in a sense. The tech manager duties statement section 2.1 part 2a seems to cover it or at least should recognise it and make recommendations.Other than highlight through forums like this what can you do ? As a board member and a person with an aviation mechanical background and aware of jabiru engine problems, what would, could or prepared to do or have you done ? In fairness to you other than submit a defect report there probably isn't much, obviously it is Jabirus problem which in turn becomes jabiru owner problems like Deadstick and what I would like to see is using upgraded parts, oils and modification as done by some, with approval from RAA and Casa . Waiting for Jabiru could be a long time if ever as the Chinese engine is coming and they can put their head back in the sand. If Camit are sticking with it I sure it is potentially a good engine,

 

If I was Jabiru I would pat Camit on the back and say thanks and approve the modifications...... SO SIMPLE.

camel, What have I done ??..........well for one I've been highlighting the many problems for years now, and for that I get the title 'Jab basher'...really , I'm a the point where I really don't care if people buy them and fly them, it's the innocent passengers who don't know better, that I am concerned with.... I could of course jump in and get my hands dirty trying to fix the damn things, but I'd just end up chasing the cat around the table like everybody else, and I'm just a bit smarter than that !....Maj....

 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep up the good work Maj, don't chase the cat, who knows what happens if you catch the pussy. Problem is I like the 230 fiberglass airframe, light, strong, 120knt, baggage space, lots of fuel and power. The engine has bad design and cooling issues, Jabiru is not addressing problems and Camit is, which I'm thankful for. If CASA or RAA forced Jabiru to fix or accept mods for reliable operation I would be flying an impressive aircraft. Jab bashers have to realize there is no other that compares to a 230 and if there was I would buy it, there definitely is room for serious improvements. Jab bashers can go for it as it helps get action, but I want to be part of a solution as there will be better aircraft for us all.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received the following email from a jab flyer in the UK, apparently the business manager had never seen or heard about the cracking to my heads and couldn't explain it, seems it's a known problem in the UK.

 

"Chad, sorry to hear you have had a bad time with the Jabs. My experience has been a good one as is another 10 owners i know, 3 of which are at 1500 hrs. I have 600 hrs on mine, have changed 2 valve guides and valves due to a 60/80 leak down, other than typical servicing parts no issues. I have noticed 2 heads with a hair line crack that spans from the exhaust outlet to the middle through hole in-between the valve area, but as this is the exhaust side and no seepage i just monitor it as gasses are going out of the exhaust port anyway. If it were the inlet then i would be concerned. I think this is a common fault on gen 2 heads on many jabs, assume this is what you suffered. Cheers Gary"

 

So it appears the gen 2 heads have a known cracking issue in the UK.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

I am a new RAA pilot and I will be looking for a new plane in the future. I really do like the 230s however, not just this forum but some other sources also have concerns with the engines. There seems to be inconsistencies with reliability which usually points to quality control. I really do hope the issues get fixed as I think the 230 is a great little aeroplane and would love to get one of these however, not at the cost of a possible engine issues.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with all engines if you overheat them you do damage the higher the temp the more damage the overheating problems need to be addressed in some cases a lip at the bottom of the engine cowl may be the answer but don't keep flying it and ignoring high temps valve seats are fitted by heating the head they can come out the same way

 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Guys,

I am a new RAA pilot and I will be looking for a new plane in the future. I really do like the 230s however, not just this forum but some other sources also have concerns with the engines. There seems to be inconsistencies with reliability which usually points to quality control. I really do hope the issues get fixed as I think the 230 is a great little aeroplane and would love to get one of these however, not at the cost of a possible engine issues.

Why buy a 230 when you can rent them easy enough?

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...