Guest TOSGcentral Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 If there is actually any ‘massive expression of dislike’ regarding Jabs then it may be because there are so many people still who think that they personally are part of an ‘ultralighting movement’ and a Jabiru does not look like a traditional ultralight. I personally do not ‘like them’ but neither do I dislike them much – but it is all rather generic to my personal tastes. I have nor real reason to be either way swayed because I have no use for the aircraft so have no cause to fly them at all. I have far more antipathy to a C152/172/182 but really enjoy the C180/185s – but then I generally do not find nosewheel aircraft very satisfying at the best of times. Equally I loved the ride I was given in a Jab taildragger and was most impressed with it. To myself the Jabs are a bit too ‘toy-like’. The cockpit is a tad too small for me, the ergonomics are poor, but probably the bulk of bad press they got/get is the copious amounts of engine failures that they have had. I am anyway impatient with any aircraft that depends on the outside air temperature to remain within its certified compliance – that is just plan daft – or a very cynical piece of designing! A lot of the engine bit seems to be clearing up and I am quite happy flying (and recommending) the J2200 for Thrusters and Visions – nice motor in my book! Love ‘em or hate ‘em – they have sold a lot. They are an Aussie aviation success story and one that came from the ultralight world. So the breed has in fact done the movement proud overall. Just some views that doubtless many will not like! But hardly a ‘tall poppy syndrome’ session from someone who specialises in Thrusters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Nicely said Tony, I don't think we are Jab bashing here, and, if we are, so be it. The original post asked: 'what do you think is wrong with them' or 'why don't you like them' We are just answering with our individual opinions, and that's just all it is, an individual opinion that may be informative, or shed some light on the larger picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Thread headings which hang around like a bad smell forever, like: "What's wrong with the Jabiru" and "Why do lots of people dislike Jabirus" can be very distressing to a manufacturer who is out there trying to do the best for his customers. On this occasion it's Jabiru copping it in the neck, but these comments apply equally to any other product. What often happens is that the manufacurer reacts to minority criticism rather than calming down and considering the majority of satisfied customers and makes changes which destroy the product. For example, Jabiru might assume from these comments that it should change the product to compete with the Tecnam. The millions in development costs have to be allocated against the sale price, so the prices become the same. Now you have a SuperJab with more comfort, more speed, more range than the Tecnam at the same price, but the majority can't afford either of them, so the product fails, and the fallout is that training affordability takes a tumble. Pioneer200, I'm not suggesting you started this thread with the intent of anything other than curiosity, but it's a pity we are now repeating the trend of an earlier thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 People's opinions, or likes and dislikes are what makes this world interesting, imagine if we all only flew Jab's! there would be a pretty little talking point at fly-in's because I already know what your aircraft is like...!! It's up to the customer if he wants to purchase a certain thing, and the reason he purchased it was because it was what he wanted and could afford, or it appealed to him/her... not because it was forced apon him, and now he's got to put up with it!:big_grin: I had to smile one day, when showing another woodworker my pens that I make, he commented, saying, "you should make them like this, (showing his to me)".... I said well yeah, it looks good, but how many do you sell? "He said, well not a lot".... (and I felt like saying, Well yeah, that's because they look like the one's everyone else makes!) so it just depends on who's smiling the most to who sells the most, in that case....! So variety is no problem to me............:thumb_up: Ps. Sorry got a bit carried away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahlocks Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 .. imagine if we all only flew Jab's! ...the ones with the red pin stripe would be faster and the ones who had the blue pin stripe would be tossers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Nicely said Tony, Ditto. FWIW I'm ambivalent about the Jabiru airframe. At the right price, I wouldn't necessarily rule out a Rotax powered one. But with the 2200 engine - sorry but I just wouldn't want to own one. I had to laugh recently when I heard a Jabiru owner criticising another aircraft because it was powered by an "unreliable" 2-stroke ! Pot meet kettle :-) In addition to far too many engine failures is the issue of maintenance. When I hear comments about having to replace broken crankcase bolts, relap valves, use jump leads to start it etc etc I'm reminded of the (alleged) comment by someone in the British motorcycle industry when it was threatened by the emergent Japanese manufacturers - 'They'll never sell - what would bikers do at weekends if they didn't have to work on their engines". Flying is my passion and maintenance is something that is necessary to keep doing so. Up to a point I enjoy doing it but it's a means to an end not an end in itself. For a lot of people, maintenance is an equal (or maybe even greater) pleasure than flying. I'm delighted that they feel that way but, unless you are one of them, I can't see why you would choose the Jabiru 2200 engine. The Jabiru company took on a huge challenge (the last company I can think of who designed their own airframes and engines was de Havilland) and they have made an economic success of it. Fair dues to them - that is a huge accomplishment in a notoriously difficult industry. If, as Tony suggested, the latest engines have finally achieved an acceptable level of reliability that's fantastic but, IMO, the company owes a major debt of gratitude to all the folk who have used their own money to be the companies R&D engineers over the years. Regards to all (whatever you fly) John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brentc Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Don't think that lapping of valves, jumper leads and crank case / shaft problems are limited to Jabiru engines only, take a closer look at what happened when Rotax started pumping 100hp out of their 'bullet proof' 80 HP 912 (even though they increased it to 1.4 litres). Caught up with a relative recently who has had to replace a number of valves and other components in his 400 hour 912S, but rather than $45 a pop for valves they were more like $280 ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLA82 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 400 hour 912S, but rather than $45 a pop for valves they were more like $280 ! Fair point Brentc but at $280 every 400hrs worst case scenario sure is better than $45 every 20:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 sure is better than $45 every 20 Gee, what where doing to it to do that?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLA82 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Gee, what where doing to it to do that?! lol only engine run ups:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 So who is it that has to keep regrinding valves in a Jab 2.2, and how many members of this forum have had crankcase bolts which needed replacement? I would really like to know how much of the engine failures of Jab engines are fact and how much is urban legend. Surely those with the actual experience are not averse to telling us what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 For what it's worth I enjoy flying the jab. IT's a bit harder to fly than heavier aircraft (say a c172 etc) but in the ultralight class they are a dream. My only problem with them, which is the same problem I had in the Cessna, is the high wing. I think it does provide better performance however I find the high wing very limiting visually. It's hard to see the tail plane (if at all) and when you are at the holding point damn near impossible to see and traffic on final. The choice of yoke positioning takes a bit of getting used to also. Not sure if theres a technichal reason for the u thing in the middle but you eventually get used to it. Other than those two minor things it flies very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest watto Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Hey clouds, I have been landing at Redcliffe lately and average trip is around 2 hours from taxi to touch down. And for the guys at Rodds Bay I am back safe and sound. Not to bad I reckon Watto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brentc Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 So who is it that has to keep regrinding valves in a Jab 2.2, and how many members of this forum have had crankcase bolts which needed replacement?I would really like to know how much of the engine failures of Jab engines are fact and how much is urban legend. Surely those with the actual experience are not averse to telling us what happened. Unfortunately it's not an urban myth. 800+ hours is the 'danger zone.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cloudsuck Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 lol only engine run ups:laugh: Exactly right Bla, they were doing 'nothing' to cause valve failure. The main problem with the Jab valve train is the dude on the end of the spanner (or lack thereof). The Jab needs maintanence like most engines and the problem is that a lot of owners are not very mechanical or use the Rotax 'do nothing approach'. I used to do the valve clearances and cylinder head tensions every 25 hours and never had a problem (the book recommends 50). If you keep flying and doing nothing, you wll have a valve failure (burnt out exhaust usually) and then the Jab bashers come out and say, "yep they just keep failing, I wouldn't fly one of those things". For those who are slack with maintanence, not mechanically minded or don't want to pay some one to do it, the Jab is not for you. I used to like servicing my Jab. On a 6cyl, it would take no more than two hours to do all valves, heads, oil change, tension the prop and check the coil gaps etc etc. If your friend burnt out valves in the first 20 hours, It will be most likely that he did not tension the head every 5 hours for the first 25 hours as recommended. This causes the engine to run very lean and hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelorus32 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I'm normally banned from commenting on these sorts of threads...however. In my view - and that's all any of this thread is, but nevertheless valid - all power to Jabiru. It is an amazing thing to develop a line of aircraft and a line of engines and to successfully sell those in the numbers that they have. I suspect that in terms of raw numbers Jabiru may well have sold more airframes than Tecnam - reputedly the worlds' largest manufacturer in this class of aircraft. The other thing is that there are very few aircraft out there that are inherently "bad". That means that there are a very great number of "good" aircraft available. From that smorgasbord people will choose the aircraft that suits them. It might be that they choose solely on price because that's what they have to do. It may be that they choose on some other characteristic...the bottom line is that if you have 100 potential owners then each will arrive at their ownership decision by a different path. That path will be driven by their personal opinions and their decision making criteria. Anyone who suggests that decision making occurs without the input of emotion is just wrong. Emotion plays a big role in decision making whether we like it or not. I've flown Jabs a little bit and I don't like them. I don't like the cockpit and I just plain don't like the aeroplane. That has nothing to do with whether they are a good aircraft. It only has to do with whether I want one - I don't!! So back to the question "Why do lots of people dislike Jabs?" The answer is that it's an individual thing and there are more reasons than you can poke a stick at - but they are only important to the individual. If it weren't so then there would only be one make of car/watch/TV/aeroplane/boat...It's also true than in this country, instead of fighting over religion as half the rest of the world seems to, we enjoy disagreeing over things like cars and codes of football. It's nothing more than light hearted banter most of the time. So whilst I have huge respect for Jabiru's achievements I just don't want one. Regards Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Jabiru approval. The numbers sold indicate the acceptance. Not everybody would want one, as we are all different and expect different things from different aeroplanes during our lifetime. I don't want one, but I have recommended them to plenty of others who have different needs/wants to myself. There are downsides to them which include, bad visibility to side (on the ground).not isolated to Jabiru, nearly ALL high wing aeroplanes have the problem, but you alter your technique, the lack of toe brakes (differential) Fuel in the cabin, (Some models) and they have somewhat less control authority at low speed than I would like in an aircraft that is often flown by low hours pilots, so a little more skill is required by the pilot. I am not going to list all the good points, but They are Tough, well priced. you can fix them when they are bent. You can fly yourself across australia in one. and the bits are cheaper. IF you have to lift the heads every 400 hours, so what? That is a lot longer than what you would get out of a 2-stroke, and I doubt if a Gipsy Major will do much more. Get real. This thing works. The Jab bashing should be based on facts, not exaggerations., and I find it repetitious and pointless. I am happy to have a proper critique of any aircraft and it would be helpfull to the movement if that was done for all of our planes, but it might reduce the fun some think they get by rubbing something in. I feel that the JABIRU folks can be a little "precious' about their choice. It might be cool to ignore some things. Regards Nev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Cloudsuck, In regards to the "Rotax do nothing approach" comment. The rotax valves don't need to be fiddled with periodically, as they are 'hydrylic lifters', are self adjusting, and have been common on autos and other advanced engines now for years. Most of your GA type engines (Lycoming, Continental) as you probabily know, also have the same set ups.. Many of us now, are way past doing all that fiddly stuff, and much prefer to to jump in, turn the key and actually go flying. Flying is the name of the game, not fixing the bloody things !. Years ago in aviation, and motoring for that matter, yes if you didn't periodically adjust those damn valves (especially on VWs) you suffered the circumstances. The exhaust valves particulary, because they gets hot and hammered, stretch in length, and lose thier gap. Then the valve doesn't contact fully on the seat for the right length of time, doesn't transfer heat from the valve, and burns. Not rocket science. I always describe the 912 to people as the modern day VW engine, without the bugs. IE: They removed the three things on the VW engine that used to cause the most trouble and maintenance. 1. Periodic and necessary valve adjustments (hyd lifters). 2. The need to adjust points (CDI ignition) 3. Cooling problems and thermal shock caused by air/oil cooling only (water/air cooled cylinder heads). Yes many of us enjoy the 'do nothing approach' as we've certainly done our time in the past playing with the 'old' tecnology. As Facthunter and pelourus 32 and others have said in this thread, it's all about choice, and we are judged by the choices we make... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harthy Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 It all works on percentages. If for example if 5% of Jabiru's fail, and Jabiru sell 10 x more aircraft then any other aircraft in the country, then there are 10 x more known failures for people to criticise and read about. So on reports where aircraft failures are listed there will be naturally more Jabiru's. Years ago I was a Jabiru critic, and now I own one. They have changed and improved. (as they should if they want to succeed) There would not be an aircraft owner and Jabiru critic out there that can say there aircraft has not or will not have problems. As mentioned earlier it comes down to personal choice. Look at the biggest on going mud slinging match in Australia, Holden verse Ford. You will never convince either side that one is better then the other or that they don't have problems. The maintenance part of aircraft is also a very important point. I have a mechanical trade, and I have been with machinery long enough to know that if it is man made it will fail, no matter how good you think it is. How well it is maintained will determine how long it will go before it needs major attention. After reading some of the posts on this sight over the years and noting the lack of mechanical understanding of some the members. It frightens me to think that these people are or are trying to maintain ther own aircraft. This on it's own can increase the risk of aircraft failure whether it is a Jabiru or something else. I love my Jabiru. I know it is not perfect, but nothing is. It might fail tomorrow. But can you tell me yours wont!! Happy Flying Harthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Why do lots of people dislike jabirus probably for the same reasons i do... there Ugly, High Wing not the best flying aircraft compared to say, um, a tecnam.. can be uncomfortable build quality is average. not waterproof. especially with the glass panels. (the reason big GA schools got rid of their fleets, dont like being left in the rain) but would i own one.? Yes. why? Value for money. Very high crash survivability strength. ease and cheapness of maintenance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cloudsuck Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Cloudsuck, In regards to the "Rotax do nothing approach" comment. The rotax valves don't need to be fiddled with periodically, as they are 'hydrylic lifters', are self adjusting, and have been common on autos and other advanced engines now for years. Most of your GA type engines (Lycoming, Continental) as you probabily know, also have the same set ups..... No arguement here Maj, I love the Rotax 912 product as well (I own one) for all of the reasons you state and as far as maintanence goes, they are way more idiot proof than most. I think that they are a mighty little engine. I was just making the point that many of the valve problems associated with the Jab engine are due to lack of correct maintanence. I have a mechanical trade backgrond and have worked on and rebuilt many different kinds of engines. I have an interest in all engines, some require more maintanence to keep them going than others. Solid lifter, hydraulic lifter, doesn't really matter to me, you just have to do what is required when it is required. Unfortunately people don't and problems occur and of course then the engine is to blame. Personally I think that the jab crank and bottom end is one of the best I have ever seen for that class of engine. I can't ever recall a bottom end failure on a Jab engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest watto Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Well it sounds to me as if there is a large amount of support for Jabiru even though they do not suit everyone! and as it was said,"Great effort to develop, build, market and sell an all aussie product from scratch and have sold so many in a relatively short period of time" this shows great spirit and belief in what you want to do for a living and I am sure did not come together without a degree of heartache and a lot of perserverence so I take my hat off to them. I am also sure the same can be said for all the other manufacturers whom have put the hard yards in to produce a product for this end of the market so that average blokes and ladies can participate. Watto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Well said Watto and I agree with you. It just seems to me that there have been longterm, on-going, engine related problems with the Jab engines, and it just doesn't sit right with me that any responsable engine manufacturer hasn't put in the effort to fix them by now. We are talking at least 15 years folks, thats a fair amount of time to get things sorted wouldn't you think ?. If they can't muster the right expertise themselves, then they should hire it, to get the problems solved.. We are talking an aircraft engine here after all, and it can, and has cost people their lives. As Watto says, there will always be problems with any engine. Aviation seems to attract people who insist on messing or adjusing things, just for the sake of doing so. They are usually the type who have no idea in the first place, and probabily cause as many problems as they fix. I've even noticed this with 912s. Somebody with a bad case of "Tinkeritis" insists on pulling the cowl three times a week, playing unneccessarly with adjustments etc. Any engine is capable of being set up properly in the initial installation, and used for several hundred hours before anything other than schedualed maintenance, and a good look over is required..................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 It is a well known fact that the most likely time for an engine to fail is immediately after service, hence it is not a good idea to take off into the wide blue after maintenance without a short testing flight. I find the oil filter hard to get at to tighten and at my last oil change I ran it for a minute then checked for leaks and there was one from the base of the filter block. Quick to fix, but it could have been aproblem if not seen. This was the first leak in about 8 changes. As far as tappets go I usually find a very slight tightening of 1 exhaust valve at each 25 hour check, usually No1 or 3. Head torques don't need tightening and inlet valves are usually OK. I still havn't seen any response from someone who has had a failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLA82 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 it just doesn't sit right with me that any responsable engine manufacturer hasn't put in the effort to fix them by now. We are talking at least 15 years folks, thats a fair amount of time to get things sorted wouldn't you think ?. If they can't muster the right expertise themselves, then they should hire it, to get the problems solved.. We are talking an aircraft engine here after all, As I couldn't agree more, as I have said I personally havent been in a Jab but as Maj said 15yrs and still not right. I honestly believe that they need to put alot more effort and R&D into this as it is just not good enough. Keeping the cost down is one thing but if for a slight increase you end up with a more reliable engine it is all worth it. As cloudsuck mentioned he had no issue as he did regular maint which shows that if they are well looked after but the problem is alot of people either don't have the knowledge or time to spend as much time doing that and if you compare them with a more user friendly engine they will continue to have a bad stigma. If you look through these posts you will see that more people have an issue with the jab engine not so much the airframe so maybe Mr Jabiru needs to look at this and listen to the potential buyers more. I even noticed a recent add for aerochute asking for peoples opinions on how their product could be improved-good idea I feel. Yes they are a great Aussie sucsess story and trumps to them, but so was Holden once untill the like of Huyundai come out offering reliability at a better price and the sales went down. Just a thought 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