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

great name for this Hybrid Ian Boag

 

......... rotax powered jabiru - a 'Rotaru'

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He has many friends with jabs. They had a bit of warm weather (not hot ) and from his mates, 3 jabs had complete engine failures in flight in one week.

Hey Zooy,

 

 

 

You may well be right and your little fairytale may well be true, but how about sticking with proven facts and leave this anecdotal stuff alone unless you can prove it.

 

 

 

Unless you can, this is juvenile.

 

 

 

Everyone knows someone who's brother knows 3 guys who have a sister who met a guy on holidays at some airport somewhere, flying something, who told him that she is aware of an uncle that knows a guy in a pub who is aware of something else that is exciting and supports the story that you want to spread around.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oooh .....bit touchy there Captain ??...........Maj....024_cool.gif.7a88a3168ebd868f5549631161e2b369.gif

Not really Ross,

 

 

 

I sold my 230 some time ago and as mentioned on page 2 of this thread my personal view is that there is an issue there, however I also know owners that have had 100% reliability.

 

 

 

But I do object to such serious accusations as 3 jabs in one little group having "complete engine failures in flight in one week" being made without substantiation, particularly after the Zoo tried to connect the "inappropriate decision makers" in the 200 on the beach in NZ with some Jab failure conspiracy .............. so the Zoo has form in jumping the gun.

 

 

 

This is a very serious issue being discussed here and if it is proven, then Jabiru deserve what they get, but all I ask is that facts be used before an Aussie firm is pilloried.

 

 

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you buy an aircraft either used or new, you are really buying the engine first, that's the important bit that keeps you in the air ultimately ....................Maj....014_spot_on.gif.1f3bdf64e5eb969e67a583c9d350cd1f.gif

Geez Ross, not sure if Sully and his crew & passengers, the people on board the Gimli Glider or the crew of the BA 747 that flew through the Indonesian volcanic ash cloud would necessarily agree with your amazing pronouncement.

 

Me? I'd rather have the donk fail than some other bits (wings, tail, lift struts for example,) but that's just my humble opinion. Me not being very experienced or anything...........

 

Plus you've got me worried now about my couple of hundred hours in sailplanes. I never realized what a risk I was taking.

 

Thanks mate!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly. Maybe people, especially those who are on the RAA board, should check to see that the interconnect 'tween brain and mouth is intact, lest they continue to sprout nonsense both here and in the boardroom. And before you fire up Kyle, that isn't directed at you but at all the others who seem to have a barrow to push in these fora, but not the brains to foresee the consequences of their slander.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...a LD of 10 to 1 I would think...

Does anyone know the power-off glide rate of a Jab? I have heard in the vicinity of 1:12. That could be pretty important to know if the engine quits...just trying to extract something useful from this discussion.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My UL 450 has an L/D of 17:1 and a pretty low sink rate according to the manual and an English flight review.

 

"The performance is bordering on that of a motor glider and soaring flights should be a real possibility, both thermal and wave soaring."

 

http://www.bmaa.org/files/jabiru_ul.pdf

 

What is the L/D of the Savannah Kyle? Although it shouldn't matter since 912's never ever fail for any reason ever.

 

Regards, Laurie

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone know the power-off glide rate of a Jab? I have heard in the vicinity of 1:12. That could be pretty important to know if the engine quits...just trying to extract something useful from this discussion.

Jabiru website says 10:1 for 120, 160, 170 & 230.

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captian I appreciate where your coming from, but, its a sad state of affairs if people are so over sensitive to discussion that others cant post what they where told. It would be a very boring forum if we all stuck to facts that can be proven in court . Personally i dont have a problem quoting someone on what they said. I believe the end reader can for themselves chose whether they wish to use that info and for what purpose.

 

I dont think we should be trying to censor each other just because its not written somewhere.

 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

may be the thread should be retitled "bad experience with Jabiru Engine" The actual aircraft seem to be great...

 

 

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone agrees with that. But he probably meant Jabiru the company

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My UL 450 has an L/D of 17:1 and a pretty low sink rate according to the manual and an English flight review.

"The performance is bordering on that of a motor glider and soaring flights should be a real possibility, both thermal and wave soaring."

 

http://www.bmaa.org/files/jabiru_ul.pdf

 

What is the L/D of the Savannah Kyle? Although it shouldn't matter since 912's never ever fail for any reason ever.

 

Regards, Laurie

Funny enough, I had a UL450 here in New Zealand (ZK-LEI)

 

They glide really rawly well, sometime bit too good if trying forced landings, if you are just a wee bit hot, she just keeps floating down the strip.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'The RAA is aware of the need to do something in the interest of safety and the goodwill of their members.', .

And so they bloody well should. And yes, sorry fellas, But the RAA is aware of the problem. And yes, the RAA is taking action behind the scenes. Or so i was told by senior level RAA persons, and asked for relevant documents to aid their cause. Watch this space lads..

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It frustrates me that fellow pilots get stung with these ridiculous costs and the inherent danger ...... Sure some do it by choice but many fimd out too late, after they purchase.

I really cant see much changing till some people on the bad end of the stick actually take action. Since RAA and CASA seem to be ignoring it the ACCC or your dept of fair trading may well pursue it, especially for low hour failures.

 

When we where at heck field a few months ago we spoke with a rural owner of a sting. He has many friends with jabs. They had a bit of warm weather (not hot ) and from his mates, 3 jabs had complete engine failures in flight in one week. I dont know this guys name, but im sure someone in here does. It was a sting with fancy spray painted artwork on it.

 

It will take someone like deadstick to start chasing these up and document the dates and details before anyone will be compelled to act. Hearsay is not going to do it. And a limited number of well documented cases wont do it either. Im sure if someone goes to casa or raa with a list of 30 or more premature failures, they would be forced to recognise a "trend".

 

Given theres been two in the news already this year and several last year i wouldnt think it would take long.

Hi Zoos

 

3 Jabs had complete engine failure in a week, as I read the story I wonder what are the common factors where I am heading what urban myths regarding engine care exist, sounds like they know each other, a good starting point e.g. oils, exhaust systems (extractors cause big bothers), fuels, carby settings there are a few to think about. When we over hear some hanger chats there are some very interesting equations come forth, any poor engine will struggle to stay alive.

 

Would be good to investigate the three engines, see if there are common factors.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jabiru website says 10:1 for 120, 160, 170 & 230.

That looks more likely. Interesting. The British article quotes 21:1 for the UL450, and some amazing STOL figures.

 

10:1 is a nice, simple ratio to remember when things go quiet.

 

(Just trying to get some info while ducking the shots passing back and forth!)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And so they bloody well should. And yes, sorry fellas, But the RAA is aware of the problem. And yes, the RAA is taking action behind the scenes. Or so i was told by senior level RAA persons, and asked for relevant documents to aid their cause. Watch this space lads..

How very interesting. Since the RAA is not the authority for the TCDS on Jabiru engines, unless Jabiru is producing engines that are not in compliance with the TCDS, RAA has no authority to 'take action behind the scenes' other than refer any information that it has on breaches of the TCDS to CASA. Any 'action' to be taken has to be taken by CASA. This can easily be confirmed by a discussion with the Tech. Manager who is entirely aware of the limitations on the possibility of RAA 'taking action' and the level of authority that the RAA has in regard to 'action'. CASA will no doubt operate on the basis of compliance with the regime required for the issue of a TCDS and any evidence of failure to comply with that TCDS.

 

I'm calling bovine excrement, Merv, on your and Maj. Millard's comments to the contrary. Support your contention with something more believable than an assertion that you have an unnamed 'source'.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conversation I had was in confidence, I wont divulge names until the inevitable happens. And you are right. You are very likely to be effected, as all Jab drivers are. Your safety should improve.:)

 

How long did you think this failure rate would be tolerated?

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The conversation I had was in confidence, I wont divulge names until the inevitable happens. And you are right. You are very likely to be effected, as all Jab drivers are. Your safety should improve.:)How long did you think this failure rate would be tolerated?

Yep, and I know a bloke who has a cousin who knew a guy who met a man in a bar who was distantly related to someone actually on the grassy knoll when JFK was shot.

 

I have taken steps to alleviate the incidence of Jab. engine failures on my own aircraft, I am not arguing that Jab engines are a paradigm of excellence. However, I am arguing- on the basis of a knowledge of just what authority can actually 'take action'- that your contention that RAA are 'taking action' is a complete and utter fabrication, based on the legislative responsibility for the issue of a TCDS for an engine and communication with the person in RAA who knows the extent of RAA's authority. And the suggestion that 'the inevitable happens' is entirely one such fabrication. Once again, I challenge you to supply evidence that extends beyond assertion for your statements.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How very interesting. Since the RAA is not the authority for the TCDS on Jabiru engines, unless Jabiru is producing engines that are not in compliance with the TCDS, RAA has no authority to 'take action behind the scenes' other than refer any information that it has on breaches of the TCDS to CASA. Any 'action' to be taken has to be taken by CASA. This can easily be confirmed by a discussion with the Tech. Manager who is entirely aware of the limitations on the possibility of RAA 'taking action' and the level of authority that the RAA has in regard to 'action'. CASA will no doubt operate on the basis of compliance with the regime required for the issue of a TCDS and any evidence of failure to comply with that TCDS.

I'm calling bovine excrement, Merv, on your and Maj. Millard's comments to the contrary. Support your contention with something more believable than an assertion that you have an unnamed 'source'.

Sending info to CASA is taking action. Doh.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is Winsor . And when complaints to CASA are met with the inevitable " where are the reports" so they can actually take action, its up to the RAA to start providing CASA with those reports. More detailed defect reports, submitted EVRYTIME there is a problem etc. reports by third party investigators (see other threads) on engine component failures. Itemised systematic reporting on ALL failures has been going on for some time. The 'word" got around a little while ago that in order to get things changed, we the operators were going to have to get proactive. And that doesn't mean call Jabiru when you have a problem. It means, fill in the defect report, send it to the RAA and CASA, and then call jab about the problem. That way when it comes time, and it will, the RAA will have numbers to work with.

 

This is a paradigm shift that has, and still is, occurring, and I encourage ALL jabiru operators to submit quality reports.

 

Oscar, its a pity those Industry experts dont work for jab, or we wouldn't even be having this enjoyable discussion would we.:)

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Y

Oscar, its a pity those Industry experts dont work for jab, or we wouldn't even be having this enjoyable discussion would we.:)

On the contrary: they (respectively) were deeply involved in early Jab development from before Jab production number #0001, through their development to certification up to the J160 for Australian and overseas markets, did the test flying for certification, undertook the structural justification of the early Jabs for certification (including certification for overseas markets), undertook the factory assembly and repair of early Jabs, undertook the testing work for the J2200 engine TCDS, have built Jab engines from the start of Jab engine production. I can put my hands on the actual Jab wings that were modified (showing the modifications) to make the flaps work in the first place (one of them is currently exposed on a family member's property still evaluating UV deterioration over more than 20 years of controlled experiment); I can put my hands on a 1600 engine crankcase that was a test specimen prior to the 1600 entering production -it's in my own shed. One of those industry experts flew my own Jab. - production no 50 - as part of the J2200 engine development programme. They have the certification justification documentation in their personal files because they were the people who did the work that CASA approved for the issue of TC's/TCDS's.

 

Next question?

 

 

  • Informative 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
people with actual professional credentials

in my 30 years in the aircraft maintenance game, those with professional credentials are the ones to stay the thurthest away from, and are responsible for almost every major repair failure i have seen in airline and Military aviation, and steadfastly refuse to listen to the guys with 30 years experience on the actual airframe and tools

Isnt the development of air legislation the domain of the legal fraternity?

 

and a personally-held DoT Airworthiness Authority for repairs and issue of Cs of A for metal and FRP aircraft

you hold the exact same quals as me, except mine is in military aviation and covers all from fast jet, to rotary wing and drones. having fun learning the new MRH at the moment. ohh, the "professionals" have come up with some doozies when it comes to idea and design failures. because they know everything of course without ever seeing a real life airframe! the overtime and rectification work my teams now need to do is making us a fortune!

 

i know whats going on behind the scenes also, and i know why nothing can be said in public domain at this point.. but as they say, the wheels are turning.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All. I'm fairly new to the RAA scene (doing my training out at Murray Bridge, SA). Loving it so far and have found this site to be very valuable, especially when it comes to researching different types of aircraft. I'm still about 2 years from buying, mainly because I think it will take me that long to work out what I really need/want.

 

I'm doing my training in a Jab and have obviously taken an interest in the heated debate that seems to pop up on this site pretty frequently. As someone without an agenda on the issue, it seems that there are a lot of black and white opinions. Shouldn't we all just agree to call a spade a spade?

 

The reality is that the Jab engine isn't going to win any awards for reliability, and that should enter into the risk assessment you do for every flight. It's no different to assessing the weather. Just because it's legal, doesn't make it smart or safe. In my situation, I'm happy with my decision to train in a Jab because our airfield is surrounded by flat paddocks. Would I fly one over hostile terrain? Absolutely not. I know some others would, and that's their decision, but based on the research I have done, my mechanical knowledge of the engine (low), etc, It's outside of my limits.

 

As a side note, I know that there are plenty of stories of jabs with 2000+ hours on them. I know our school is one such example. I have also spoken to some local folks who swear by the Jab engine for one (valid) reason or another. The difference between all those people and me is that they are all aircraft mechanics!

 

There are plenty of other examples of where aircraft characteristics may not fit someones risk profile. I wouldn't fly in a single engine turboprop or a aircraft with very high wing loading like a Lancair. I always assume the engine is going to fail and there is simply too much that is beyond my control if that were to unfold in one of those types of aircraft. Obviously, there is nothing illegal about flying a Lancair, and there are plenty of safe pilots who make the decision to fly one, being fully aware of all of the variables.

 

The problem of course is that not all pilots are smart or safe, and because there is the chance that their decisions will impact others, we are left in a situation where we try and regulate against stupidity.

 

So...

 

If you you really think that the Jab engine is as reliable as anything else and that all of these engine failures are just unsubstantiated urban legends, for your own sake, wake up and smell the coffee. Or at least make sure you don't fly with any passengers that are relying on your judgement to keep them alive

 

If you continually preach that Jabiru engines should be banished, at least accept that there are situations where they can be operated safely

 

If you're a new student, make sure that the characteristics of what you're strapping yourself into play into your risk assessment. Don't rely on anyone else to do that for you. That includes RAA, CASA and your flight instructor. It's your arse on the line, so act accordingly.

 

For the moment, I'm happy flying the Jab in the environment I am. Personally, I wouldn't buy one because of the uncertainty around the engine, but there seems to be a lot of chatter about improvements, so maybe things will be different a couple of years from now.

 

Anyway...just my 2 cents as someone with less history behind me. Now I'm going back to the couch to watch the rest of the fight from a safe distance!

 

Cheers

 

Nick

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Winner 9

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...