motzartmerv Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Yea big nuts kev. very dissapointed to find one broken on our jab. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigglesworth Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Just to clear up a small matter in this thread. The statistics don't show the full story. When most engines fail its for a simple and understandable fault. I.e. ignition fail for faulty part, valve snap at 3000 hours worn out etc. In my experience with Jab its been random failures which can't be fixed because maybe thats how it should be. You try finding out how much crankcase venting is normal, or what the max cylinder barrel temp can be. Or air pressure difference for certified cooling. This is what frustrates mechanics and why people complain so much. A 'minor' fault can ground a plane for months/years because no one knows how to fix it and Jabiru doesn't help at all. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus) met with Jabiru and CASA today (14 November 2014) in relation to the recent proposed actions by CASA that would affect owners and operators of Jabiru aircraft and Jabiru powered aircraft.RA-Aus maintains its stance that the available data suggests that Jabiru engines are more likely to fail than a comparable 4 stroke Rotax engine but insists that our operators should be free to exercise their informed judgement and assess the risks for themselves. We also question whether the CASA proposed remedies are the best action to take given the risks posed. RA-Aus feels that the meeting was constructive and has outlined a way for Jabiru and CASA to address the risks highlighted by CASA in a manner that will minimise the imposition on aircraft operations. Jabiru and CASA have committed to working together to arrive at a solution. In the meantime RA-Aus once again encourages all affected stakeholders to contact CASA with their views on the proposed restrictions and to engage with other appropriate parties to escalate their concerns if they wish to. Reported data for 2014 year to date (January through October) Jabiru Rotax All (includes other engine types) Hours flown 41834 71626 131227 Landings 92735 145638 260383 Engine failures (full or partial) 28 16 51 This is the email I received from RA-Aus today, minus the contact details for Truss, et al. Cheers Interesting data. I would have expected the Jab hrs/cycles to be similar given the engine count and the numbers of Jabs in Schools. I hope someone is going to be a bit forensic on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I think the onus is now on Jabiru to prove their engines are reliable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Are you sure of your facts? There was a forced landing on a beach in NSW recently involving a Brumby B610 fitted with a Lycoming 0-233, (not the 0-235 as used in many GA types), using Champion electronic ignition - which was the probable cause of the engine stoppage. Yes about as sure as I can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabiruken Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Oops sorry about that. Posted in through bolts not as new thread. From where I sit with all the consumer complaints aside,, is Casa targeting just jabiru or is it Raaus? Is public safety at risk because of my jab engine? I think not.. If aircraft are flowen accordingly no risk to public should occur. I strongly feel that our flying privileges are at serious risk here as Most are aware that 19 Cateroy aircraft can be powered from any propollsion unit. Safety issues with certified power plant I can understand. So why is lee ungerman bundling up as one hopeless case? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 A lycojab 230 ran out of go juice and crashedIn WA Partly true as I understand it, it was fuel starvation, but there was significant fuel left in the wing tank to continue the intended flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Whacko!! Some worthwhile stats out of RAA, finally - not based on hours admittedly, but movements - but much more sensible than stats based on engine counts or just raw data. (is a movement 5 minutes or 5 hours?)Will RAA produce similar stats about all other engine types in the fleet eg subies, mercs, conties, rotax, lycoming, gypsy major etc... I would be interested in the number of deaths and injuries associated with different engine types. (After all, isn't that what this is all about?) From what I have seen, Jabiru-powered aircraft might turn out to be the safest. Why? Perhaps Jab pilots are a bit more cautious. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01rmb Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 If you treat any engine badly (poor maintenance or handling) it will bite you but if you use and maintain it within the design limitations you should be rewarded with good service - as evidenced by some getting long service life. Some engines are able to handle abuse better than others but with more money, development effort and good performance/failure information it is possible to improve the outcome. I expect that with Jabiru and CAMit working to improve the engine with better data from those failures that are experienced we will see some improvements on offer. It won't silence the critics but will provide a more reliable/safer aircraft. Now - why are people dying in other aircraft... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Unreported failires are on all makes, i know of major Rotax failure never repored. The owner regulalrly talks how great the 912 is, and he would never fly behind Jabiru yet the redrive failed whilst whilst trackning back for next take off. LAME serviced (and and a good one too) etcetcetcetc. As said other make are perhaps less sensitive to problems BUT if the conditions are right they can fail 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Don't mistake me to be saying that their inferior....just that by the manufacturers declaration of TBO they themselves believe they don't have the legs as compared to their 4 strokers......I flew behind a 582 for years and loved every bit of it...except the time I had the sieze..... Guy agree, but ability to maintain and read should be the same across both owner groups shouldn't it? so if it adversely affects the J numbers wouldn't it do the same to the Rotax and all others numbers? If not then perhaps that tells something too Good Morning Andy As Guy S quotes maintenance and care. I was wondering, just thinking seeing that the Jab is the less expensive engine would more of these people who have these Jabs, they would not be so diligent with their engine care. You know there are people out there ho can break an anvil with their barehands, what hope has an engine? As you know Andy -- heat management is one of the most important issues with the Jab engine. To get a better understanding for the engine problems would be good if we knew what was the prior maintenance and use ---with regard to the affordability this engine could end up in a lot of different hands. Regards KP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 the solution bought up at the meeting yestearday does not involve Camit Thanks, Deb - that's the piece of information I've been waiting for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenns Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 the solution bought up at the meeting yestearday does not involve Camit ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Keith Your right, they are good questions, but realistically what hope of ever getting them answered? We cant get people to report things now......And I have to ask, if you owned a jab right at the moment, and today went flying and had an engine failure would you be inclined to report, legal requirements notwithstanding? As a basic premise if a certain percentage of our fleet owners don't report will they be more, or less or the same percentages between the different engine owners.......I don't know how to answer that and don't know how you could get the question answered, its like asking what don't you know? We are trying very hard to get the message out that RAAus can only provide data that it receives from its members If you (collectively) choose not to give us that info then don't bleat if you then perceive (and it can only be perceive not fact because you don't have better info than RAAus does) the data is not representative. My personal concerns are that people oversimplify "Some people cant maintain a pair of scissors", there are many things as an L1 I can and should do myself to constrain my costs, but there are things equally that I should not do, the skill in being an L1 is to understand exactly for each of us where that line is and don't cross it! To use your example the anvil breaker might have no issues fixing a flat tyre, changing the oil and adjusting the tappets IAW the manual.... but he should never consider lifting the head off a pot to see why a valve is leaking, as an example. Another L1 might be exactly the same...but tappets are a step to far for him.... I also agree your point cooling, my aircraft has EGT and CHT for all cylinders, and that is scary to see the splits from cylinder to cylinder....but if you cant see EGT/CHT how can you know if you are operating at the right temps....if it was the case that all cylinders operated the same then sure instrumenting the back 2 is probably as good as anything to test your flying style against that required but 2 at the back is never going to pick up #2 cylinder operating way outside allowable ranges..... The same restrictions obviously apply to L2's know your L2 and know his strengths and his weaknesses don't use rely on hope, hope is not a strategy, its more than likely the start of failure! Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Why haven't my through-bolts failed? The engine is 14 years old and they are smaller than the later ones. Here's what I reckon: The bolts fail due to detonation, and avoiding this means careful operation and maintenance. If you are not prepared to do this, then get a different engined plane. If you have to hire it out, then you need an engine monitoring system to report on how it was operated. Who said fools should be able to operate an aeroplane ? All of these issues have been around for 15 years. Personally, I'd buy another one tomorrow but I don't need to because my old one is running just fine. 2 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Andy I like " Some people can't maintain a pair of scissors" that is a special quote. Now the worry ---- some of those maintainers think they are gods gift to maintainers and can not be told. Education how can we do that. Regards KP. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bruce Knowles Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Ive been flying for over a 40 year period. My first valve replacement was at 100 hrs from new and the Jabiru accredited maintenance engineer who repaired and serviced my engine made the comment that this is just the start. From then on my engine has been on one hell of a interesting journey. No body has been able to tell me procedurally or maintenance wise how I am doing it wrong. Any maintenance on my aircraft has been done with and under the supervision of qualified engineers. Since 2008 what I have experienced learned and observed about the Jabiru engine is far more than I should have needed too. Having to force land due to engine failure in Crocodile country Northern Queensland I could have done without. Problem being a broken through bolt (new) and a cracked barrel. I accept there are those out there who have had a good run with their Jabs but don't knock the one that are having issues. The stories are numerous and varied. Much has been done to remedy problems and to be honest even people who are loyal and defensive of JABIRU have in many cases tweaked the engine. I am now pleased under CASA direction and with JABIRU co-operation and open mindedness this festering dilemma can be resolved. I along with many others just want to fly a Jab with a reasonable amount confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Could Rotec LCH be the remedy? Any first hand knowledge out there? Not firsthand knowledge, but a pointer to some I understand that Keith Rule at Cessnock NSW has had exposure as a L4 to some LCH modified Jabs and like most things in life the answer is not straightforward despite whatever advertising may say.....Also if considering then there is the usual issue that only a small % of engines in the fleet that are not LSA can be modified. Rod Stiff has made it very clear his thoughts on LCH. If not sure what I'm on about, give his jabachat latest musings a read for his views... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vk3awa Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Theoretical Scenario Lets say that if there was a problem in the inherent design of some hydraulic engines that caused through bolt failures due to mechanical valve timing not being the optimum. This poor valve timing could cause detonation, then crankcase halves fretting then through bolt failure. The poor valve timing could also allow valve overlap where combustion gases are allowed into the inlet port causing build up on the valve stems, eventually build up on valve stem causes valve to jam in guide, piston hits valve......catastrophic engine failure. (Not with the latest pistons with valve relief) I'm not saying this is what's happening, its just a theoretical scenario that points out that no matter how well an engine is maintained, if there is an underlying design fault, the best maintenance practices may not prevent failure caused by the design fault. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vk3awa Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Could Rotec LCH be the remedy? Any first hand knowledge out there? The cooling of the fine finned heads is not normally an issue. If the engine has the old style broad finned heads then why not upgrade to Jab fine finned heads rather than Liquid Cooled Heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnm Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Bruce Knowles raises a point to remember ........... owners shouldn't be suggesting jab owners are the cause of engine problems because of the way they do things .......... no one can make that generalisation (some owners might do the wrong thing - but not all - as with all aircaft / mechanics) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVOCET Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I've posted before on the virtues of LCH on my personal installation , They do keep the temps in check , I have a turret mounted 3300 . sizing the radiator and associated plumbing ads more complexity , I changed a couple of over flow pipes the other day and must have got some air in the system , and found i boiled the engine at 115 deg C , Messy but not catastrophic to the engine . Mine is a pusher and i didnt think an air cooled jab would be suitable . I know several instalations in j230 and these folk do far more hours than im doing at the moment , They are happy as larry with there engines . My beef is the fuel , mogas , that ,like rotax engines dont use avgas ! I've posted on this subject as well . Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kununurra Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I know that this is a very serious situation and there is a number of people who have been affected by the result from CASA in relation to the Jabiru powered aircraft. The thing is there has been so much discussion on here about the problems with the Jabiru engine that there has to be some support for the action that CASA has taken. Albeit not appreciated by all and will certainly have a huge impact on RAA schools in Australia. The facts are something had to be done like it or not. Ultralights said:- "Ultralights, post: 458928, member: 8"]settle down everyone, its still in draft form, not law, maybe this is the incentive jabiru needs to act before it does become law... Let's hope that it is short term pain for long term gain. In the mean time why not think up an acronym for CASA and see who comes up with the best Controlling Agency Smashing Aviation Please stay shallow this is designed to be fun and take away some of the anger towards CASA and aviation Stay safe 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 ??? Firstly, see post # 139 on this thread. Secondly, Ian Bent (proprietor of CAMit) has been doing research and development testing on the various aspects that are identified (and some that are not generally identified) as being the causes of such problems in Jabiru engines as resulted in the CASA draft Instrument that is the subject of this thread. To implement those modifications CAMit has been doing "core rebuilds" of Jabiru engines, and also building CAE (Camit Aero Engines) engines from scratch, incorporating those modifications. Because the CAMit mods are not yet formally approved, those engines are suitable for only experimental aircraft (which includes RAA -19 registered aircraft). However, experience has been showing that the modifications are effective. Therefore, one of the obvious ways to "fix" the Jabiru engine issues, is seen as being to implement the CAMit modifications. That was the reason for the comment. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 is 'camit' .......... a jabiru engine ? Is a "Cosworth" a Ford engine ? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts