SDQDI Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 I am not sure if you have it down south but we have the "UNITY" branded in selected garages up here now selling 100 octane Mogas Is that without ethanol? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 isn't that just 98 octane with ethanol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolf Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 I know this is not the information you seek, merely the opinion of a pilot who would never buy another Jabiru, but gives credit where credit is due. Just trying to put things into perspective I believe a far fetched claim " safest fuselage in the world" should be backed up by real facts. I believe other manufacturers are not sleeping in the safety department either like flight design that has a purpose built "safety box". Or the FK9 with its tubular steal safety cage. The rather deck chair seating of the Jabiru did never give me much confidence for protection against spinal injury in case of a crash. But anyway not much feedback providing facts why the Jabiru fuselage is the safest in the world. So just another urban myth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Just trying to put things into perspective I believe a far fetched claim " safest fuselage in the world" should be backed up by real facts. I believe other manufacturers are not sleeping in the safety department either like flight design that has a purpose built "safety box". Or the FK9 with its tubular steal safety cage.The rather deck chair seating of the Jabiru did never give me much confidence for protection against spinal injury in case of a crash. But anyway not much feedback providing facts why the Jabiru fuselage is the safest in the world. So just another urban myth? The general consensus, even amongst those who are the most critical of Jabiru, is that the airframe is strong and has a good record of protecting its occupants. Perhaps, if you want proof, or counter proof, you could undertake the research for yourself rather than ask others to do it for you. As a starting point, there was an article quoted earlier (I think it was in this thread) that appeared to back up the assertion that Jabs were up there among the safest. That may assist. As a relatively new member of this site you may not yet have become aware that posters here are sometimes over enthusiastic with their language. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolf Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 On this page for a couple of years and well aware not to take everything to serious(In particular toenails:). I am not questioning that the Jabiru has a good airframe but world's best? I think everyone in particular the senior people in this forum have a responsibility to stay with the facts so the unexperienced people can benefit from unbiased information. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camel Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Just trying to put things into perspective I believe a far fetched claim " safest fuselage in the world" should be backed up by real facts. I believe other manufacturers are not sleeping in the safety department either like flight design that has a purpose built "safety box". Or the FK9 with its tubular steal safety cage.The rather deck chair seating of the Jabiru did never give me much confidence for protection against spinal injury in case of a crash. But anyway not much feedback providing facts why the Jabiru fuselage is the safest in the world. So just another urban myth? See this page and go to test high lights http://jabiru.net.au/why-jabiru. http://www.jabirucrash.com/jabiru-crash-site-images.html. http://www.jabirucrash.com Google jabiru crash images Also photo, a few Jabiru amongst them , google jabiru crash in trees. May not be what you want, but I am convinced the airframe structure is strong and the engine is riddled with design flaws. Rod Stiff is a strange man, designed something with great possibilities but won't fix the problems and lives in Denial and that is not the Nile in Egypt. I hope he gives in and fixes the problems, the latest service letter shows to me he won't change. Head may go deeper in sand in De Nile. 3 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 On this page for a couple of years and well aware not to take everything to serious(In particular toenails:).I am not questioning that the Jabiru has a good airframe but world's best? I think everyone in particular the senior people in this forum have a responsibility to stay with the facts so the unexperienced people can benefit from unbiased information. " Stay with the facts" Good luck with that Rolf! Easier by far to try herding cats. Yep I see now that you've been a member for a few years so you would've picked that facts are few and far between while opinions come at you thick and fast. The trick is sifting the 1.2 grams of gold bearing information from the tonne of overburden. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGL Fox Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 " Stay with the facts" Good luck with that Rolf! Easier by far to try herding cats. Yep I see now that you've been a member for a few years so you would've picked that facts are few and far between while opinions come at you thick and fast. The trick is sifting the 1.2 grams of gold bearing information from the tonne of overburden. Same as any other forum on the internet gandalph...you first sift through all the crap and finally you get to the gold left on the bottom of your pan and that's never guaranteed. David 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 I am not questioning that the Jabiru has a good airframe but world's best? . It works both ways; You have placed the onus on yourself to prove what's better. So tell us what's better and why ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Rolf: have a look at: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fflightdesign.com%2Ffiles%2FMedia%2FThe%2520Aviation%2520Consumer%2520-%2520LSA%2520Accidents.pdf&ei=Sw2NVJrSK4XRmwWF-oH4CQ&usg=AFQjCNGbNVJyj_byvBwqwrQ1HVpBgsPnHw&sig2=-Z0p_lSuu0IVwWN_lENYZA&bvm=bv.81828268,d.dGY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 To be fair to Rolf, I don't think he was asserting that Jabiru wasn't the safest or that others were, he was asking for some facts to back up claims made they they were "the safest fuselage in the world" I believe one of the safest fuselages in the world is probably the one sitting on the ground at Canberra Airport that gets used for rescue training..... Kinda depends on the definition of Safe (and fuselage) dunnit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornis Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 The onus is on the person who makes the claim to prove it, always. The question Rolf asks is perfectly valid but is it important? To whom? A pilot who chooses an aircraft with a view to crashing it? Seriously, does it matter if it's the safest, second safest or third safest? The point is it's got a strong undercarriage which will take a fair pounding before collapsing - and that's a good start. If you go in head first nothing will save you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolf Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 I am not an aircraft engineer and do not have the experience to compare or make claims what is thye best aircraft in the world, someone else did. I just asked a valid question. ' Thanks Oscar that is valid information. Just to explain were I am coming from. After 2 engine failures during my training that almost put me off flying. I feel it is important that student pilots are well informed what the risk of particular aircraft are so they can make an informed decision which flying school to choose. I understand there are multiple reasons why people choose to fly a particular aircraft. But if an unexperienced pilot asks a valid question I would expect that he is not put back in his box an experienced members would give their unbiased advise leaving their ego aside and trying to be helpful rather than judgemental. Thank you and safe flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 No, it DOES matter, if you take risk into consideration. Look at the 'fatals' rate for RV6's or Lancair 320/340/360, or Cirrus, for that matter. In 25 years of operation in Australia, Jabiru's have precisely ZERO fatals other than the two in one that had a CFIT, and very few really serious injuries. Engines - any engines- can stop in mid-air. Your chance of survival - and in decent shape - is statistically better from a mid-air engine failure in a Jabiru than in just about anything else -and they have (regrettably, I agree) the numbers to make that claim statistically reliable. If you are prepared to trade-off the reduced possibility of the engine stopping for safety in the event it does stop - then you won't buy a Jabiru. I have seen the results of a forced landing of a Rotax-powered aircraft from engine failure that by design traded off secondary safety for performance - the Goulburn Sting crash - and I will never, ever, leave the ground in one of them. I examined the crash site, and I am prepared to state that a Jab., or Cessna/Piper/Beechcraft/ Mooney et al would have withstood the crash with injuries but almost certainly not fatal. You would be safer being dropped from fifty feet in a crate full of broken glass bottles than in a Sting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 The fact is no aircraft can really be designed fully for a high impact with the ground. Of course you could try, but it would be so heavy it would never leave the ground. Aircraft structural design involves many compromises. Crash worthiness is one thing that should be designed in but it is not always possible, and often compromises have to be made in those areas to save the all important weight. Riveted structurers have a good history over the years for their energy absorption qualities, as do steel frame and some wood structurers. Even if the structure largely survives, the occupants within absorb so much impact force that they'll die anyway, especially in a high speed crash. It is the speed and the stopping energy that kills the more fragile and vulnurable occupants. Often occupants will survive post impact only to be consumed by post impact fire before they can leave or be removed from the crashed fuselage. This is one area that requires special design attention as post- crash fire takes too many lives each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornis Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 There are two entirely separate issues, the engine, and the fuselage - which it what we started talking about. My comment was not to suggest safety is not important, merely to suggest that the categorisation of very good, good, poor or very poor is all that is required, not a test-based ranking. I repeat, it doesn't matter if it's the first, second or third best - it's very good, in my opinion, for what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Rolf: two engine failures in training would make anybody wary - fair comment. Glider pilots (mostly!) don't have an engine to worry about. I've had winch cable breaks at 400 feet, 600 feet; had to outland a number of times when the day died under me... once you're going down, you're going down and that's all there is to deal with. Gliders have enhanced landing capability over powered aircraft: with airbrakes and strong rudder control allowing huge amounts of steep sideslip, you can put them down in a very, very short run indeed. On the flip-side - they have bugger-all occupant safety characteristics, you're at the pointy end of an arrow. You learn to deal with the potential of a 'forced' landing from very early in your training. I believe that anybody who assumes that the noise-source will continue to provide adequate propulsion in all situations - other than perhaps quad-engined heavies - is hopeful. Therefore, an intelligent risk-analysis will factor in the possibility of engine failure vs the potential of a 'safe' outcome if it happens. Statistics say that in a Jab, you are more likely to have an engine failure than in a Rotax-powered aircraft, but you are more likely to end up in one relatively undamaged piece if that happens. In terms of survivability: in a Jab., you have (statistically) a damn good chance of walking away with little more than bruises from any engine-out event. An engine-out event may be less likely for other engines - but if one happens to you, that may be scant comfort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 + the fatal J230 near Mildura not long ago. Eh - Reference, please? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 I believe so...They use it in drag cars and other speedway and modified street cars... My boss at my other work has a restored HK premier ute with a 440cu inch in it and he uses the fuel...he hates ethanol so I gather it has not got any but will ask him tomorrow...he will know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxFat Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 One issue I have on Mogas is at shutdown, it sometimes, just as it's about to stop, it reverse runs for a couple of prop revolutions. Why ??Trialling different shutdown methods to stop this. Despite the number of experienced Jab operators on here (and I am NOT among them) nobody seems to have answered this question, which is odd. Or maybe I missed it ? When learning in Jabs I was told that the spring set up between the carbies and the two throttles meant that the right hand side throttle, on being brought to idle, resulted in lower revs than the pilot side one. Simply leaning over and pulling the right side throttle back to the stops prevented the inelegant shutdown of which you speak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camel Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Despite the number of experienced Jab operators on here (and I am NOT among them) nobody seems to have answered this question, which is odd. Or maybe I missed it ? When learning in Jabs I was told that the spring set up between the carbies and the two throttles meant that the right hand side throttle, on being brought to idle, resulted in lower revs than the pilot side one. Simply leaning over and pulling the right side throttle back to the stops prevented the inelegant shutdown of which you speak Jabs have one carb, the linkage you talk about is a fact, the right throttle does not have a internal stop. The run-on usually occurs due to hot spots, carbon or lead build up, if an engine was suffering detonation this would also occur. A lot of high performance cars use to do this because of very high compression. See this link for a better explanation. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieseling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Rolf, I hope you don't think I was being judgemental when I referred to your relative newness here. That was not my intention and if you read it that way then I apologise unreservedly. My suggestion that you do the research yourself rather than rely on the opinions of others here was based on the great polarisation of views expressed here. The article that Oscar linked was the one I referred to - thanks for that Oscar. I could have ferreted it out for you but I was under pressure from the minister for war and finance to do something other than sit at the computer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornis Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-01-04/pilot-killed-in-light-plane-crash/1894418 http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/mildura-fatal-accident.21802/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolf Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Hi Gandalph No offence taken. As I said before there are many different aircraft types that suit different purposes. I think we all know that there is no worlds best aircraft that fits all. I am sure there are many Jabiru owners that had many enjoyable flights in their aircraft and so did I. I personally enjoyed my flights in a Tecnam P92 and the slow flying characteristic's and short landing capabilities of the Savage Cub. Of course not the right aircraft to go fast from A to B. So let's be tolerant of each other and enjoy and learn from our different experiences and not feel personally attacked when someone else enjoys a different type of experience or has a different assessment what risks are safe for the skills You have. Coming back to the topic of this thread. When it comes to training aircraft it is a totally different ballgame. I believe that a training organisation should asses very carefully what aircraft is safe for a student pilot. Most of the training is conducted doing circuit training. I hope we all agree that an engine failure after take-off or on short final carries a very high risk not just for low hour pilots. As a business owner myself despite the safety risk for the students I would be very worried about the legal liabilities for the business, operating an aircraft with the known issues. After my own experience I personally support CASA's recommendations in respect to the training operation of Jabiru powered aircraft. Time will tell. I would probably try to cut my losses and asses other options. FK9 with ECofly engine 8l/h at 75% cruise 2500h tbo., good safety record in Europe, $20,000/y less fuel for a training organisation. Worth a thought ? I personally would like to try one, even the red handle above the head would give me personally a lot of comfort in the NT. As I said just my personal perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 A lot of things to look through and balance up when reviewing european imports. Like real cost, robustness and support There are some beautiful light aircraft around but not sure id like to own many of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts