Jabby Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I own a J160 and I have just flown almost around Australia in the past three weeks 7200 mls in fact We went from Cessnock To Darwin down the west coast to Perth along the South coast and back to Cessnock What a wonderful trip. apart from using a few litres of oil and a lot of Fuel it never missed a beat all through the trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drizzt1978 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 In reference to the engineering comment. Something my flight instructor once told me. If EVERYBODY flew, instead of driving the advancement in airplanes would be amazing. Look at a New car today versus 60 years ago. Then look at a new plane today single engine type that we all fly, Cessna, Jab, Texan whatever you want to compare it to and they are not much further evolved than the old 50's plane. Analog gauges, aluminum, (or composite being the one obvious advancement) But they still are the basic layout and control surfaces. Look at a car today, My lexus has so much stuff it is ridiculous, and it is so safe its amazing. Copmapre that to a 1960s car and the advancement is amazing. Disc brakes, anti looking, fuel efficency, safety, ride, handling, all factors are improved. Compared a new airplane today vs old one of, the growth is no where near the same. Its practically 15 year advancement in comparisson. WHY?? Becasue most people dont fly! So all those who can do better, go and design a plane and then mass produce one. Im in mass production, and i can assure you its a hard game to be in. My grandfater employed 30 my mum 15 and me 7. Hard times for anybody trying to mass produce. Phew, got that off my chest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I think the push for further development of Jabiru engines may be what has given them some of the recent problems The move to hydraulic lifers has been openly discussed as a mistake however once made had to be sorted out. Only recently I believe has the cam been updated and problems should be largely solved. Mine has solids and Im happy adjusting them. The constant push for cheaper running costs led to the economy kit and the run of burnt valves etc, by keeping up with information and forums like this many problems like this can be avoided or caught early. Anyone still running this kit simply hasnt been listening, 2 x service bulletins, A section in the newsletter and discussions here all should have alerted the owners to upgrade carb and the dangers of not doing it. Jabiru's engine support and help over the phone is excellent and they happily discuss problems and fixes and I think the costs i overhaul are fairly reasonable. There seems to be a feeling by supporting Jabiru people are running down Rotax and vice versa. This isnt the case. Jabiru owners know they have the better engine and are content with it, Rotax owners seem not to be able to admit the truth and move on. JR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skydog Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Rotax v jab engines Have a look at this month RA magazine. The incident reports show both Rotax & Jab engines failing. It would interesting if there was a study on certified standard aircraft engine failures such as Lycoming, continental etc vs new other such as Jab, Rotax others. By ratio of course. Maybe the CASA site / mag has some data. My few years tells me standard engines would be in front per capita and they are old technology compared to modern car engines! Look how long it took for fuel injection to become accepted in air engines. Not withstanding any facts, new engines & ideas must and should be undertaken. Shame that diesel aero engine lost support, theilert was it? Looked like a good economical engine. Good on Jab for their entreprenurial efforts and investment of lots of money. We will look back in 10 years time and be even more proud of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanzahero Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 For a long time, aero engine technology out stripped any other engine techs. Going from two valve rotary to single valve rotary, then to radial with valves and without (sleeve valve engines and inline and the Vee engines. In the early thirties, they had multi-valve, twin overhead bevel driven cam engines with alloy pistons (e.g. Kestral and Merlin V12s). It wasn't till jets became more common that piston engined aircraft started to slow in their advancement. Cars (Ford as an example have only just introduced their first twin cam Falcon) were very slow to take in the new technology. Ford Introducing over head valve V8s in the 50's and 60's - old tech for Damlier, BMW, Rolls Royse, etc. The reason that EFI systems were/are not popular with aero engines is because of the alititude changes. It is harder to measure air volume at higher altitudes and to get the perfect 14.7 to 1 ration for air to fuel weight - hense the mixture switches that allow for it. Even in South Africa (because of the ground altitude) you could still buy carburettored vehicles well into the '90s. Regardless of the 120 year old design of the piston engine, anyone who could build one as a reliable, commercially viable product is a genius. And I'd also be willing to bet that not all Lycoming and Continental models are perfect. Stanzahero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangocharlie123 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Copmapre that to a 1960s car and the advancement is amazing. Disc brakes, anti looking, fuel efficency, safety, ride, handling, all factors are improved. . Now thats a one Eyed View Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drizzt1978 Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Now thats a one Eyed View Don't really get it??? Only military aircraft advance faster than private aircraft... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Lifters. Since I was nearly killed by a failed hydraulic lifter many years ago, (in a Cont 0-300)I am a little suspect. about them. They are just another thing to go wrong. With a manually adjusted tappet you get a good idea how things are going with the valve, (As brent c says.) There is an adjustment to be checked for the hydraulic set-up and it is usually specified as a minimum, (probably about 3 mm) You have to get all of the oil out of the lifter. The lifter will do the job till it bottoms out, and then you run out of clearance, and the valve will deteriorate. The other risk is that it will not pump up, due to foreign matter, and the lash becomes excessive and the push rod may get bent, as it bounces around. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 A lot of problems with hydralic lifters come from poor quality or cheap oil, older engines that have accumilated a lot of sludge in the lifter body. My old 250 Falcon got a bit rattely in the top end if i let the oil change go longer than it should have or the level got a bit low. had a oil pressure sender go and dumped all the oil and the engine virtually stopped when the lifters ran dry and leaked down and it probably saved the engine I've had both types of lifters give me trouble over the years of owning various cars. they both have their good and bad points. good thing about hyd ones is that it makes tune ups faster. adjustable tappetts take a while to do and have to be done hot and are a bit fiddely. if i am dealing with stock type engines i preferred to have hydralic lifters. hydralic lifters can usally take any adverse loads like over reving and help stop the pushrods from becoming pretzels. better yet toss the lot and go OHC then all you have to winge about is belts breaking or chain adjusters failing. it's 6 of 1 or 1/2 dozen of the other as pop used to say Ozzie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Setting valve clearances. I have set them with engines running, but oil goes everywhere and there is usually a cold setting figure available. Aero engines are set cold. Why would you want overhead camshafts when the engine is going at less than 5,000 rpm. Push rod equipped engines can be designed with better airflow around the heads than OHC and are more compact and generally lighter. it would be a very rare aero engine that had a lot of sludge in it, especially if it is used regularly, runs a high enough oil temp (around 85 plus) and has the oil changed at the commonly specified intervals.. The best thing is solid roller lifters. Complexity is the enemy of reliability. You can't just pullover and park on a cloud and fix it when you are up there. Nev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I was just generally referring to auto engines that i have had over the years. i bought a few just because they were the cheapest runners in the trading post cause that was all i could afford as an apprentice. killed a couple untill i learnt the tricks of keeping old engines running. A friend built up a supercharged ford V8 and imported a pair of double overhead cam heads for it from the States. was looking great untill he tried to stuff it into the fairlane and found it was to wide for the engine bay. it ended up howling down the Hawksbury in the Bridge to Bridge race. flat engines as in aero engines, a overhead cam is a waste of space and weight.you need two plus pulleys belts ect. i'd still use hydralics as there is less work come maintainence time so the pocket benifits. less chance of the lock nuts for solids unlocking in flight. the only time i checked clearances on continentals was on cyl replacements. i think from memory the only other times was at 500 hr intervals but i think i may be wrong there time has past to much to pull it off the top of the head. anyway haveing not flown a jabba i can't comment on them except that they are nice and quiet when they fly overhead of the house. much better than that bloody 185 jumpship from rutherford with that 3 blade prop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Graham Lea Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 How long did it take as a matter of interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Simple versus complex design? Complexity is the enemy of reliability. Wayyy off topic...this comment seems to be a common sentiment in recreational aviation, but I often wonder if it is really correct. In terms of probability of failure, modern, complex, computer controlled car engines are far more reliable than the simple car engines of 50 years ago aren't they? Simpler devices that need maintenance more often (such as solid lifters) introduce extra points of failure such as incorrect maintenance. A simple sleeve bearing with one moving part will fail very quickly if you forget to grease it every day. A tapered wheel bearing with 50 precision moving parts only needs re-greasing once a year or less, but will probably last for several more years if neglected. Is simple design really more reliable? i_dunno Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Really. Of course it is , by definition. Nev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Howlong How long did it take as a matter of interest? Did long did what take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 i think the greatest gains contributing towards reliability over the last 20 years is the advancements in oils, followed by greater control of making metals and better computer controlled machining. ozzie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Greater reliability in the last 20 years? I wonder if that is the case. Are the best of the modern Piston engines any more reliable than the Wright J5 Whirlwind or the P&W R-1830? Most engine failures are pretty catastrophic ie. major component failure, cylinders coming off and crankshafts breaking etc. I (as much as I am very interested in them) don't consider ANY piston engine as much more than a self-destructing object that needs very specific inspection, monitoring and maintenance to perform its job satisfactorily. Probably handles a flock of birds better than a Fanjet though. You have to understand the motor and live with it whatever make it is. No aero engine lasts for ever and they have to be in almost-new condition all the time. If anything is not working to almost full capacity it will fail in a short time, unlike a car engine which will continue to run in surprisingly awfull condition because it is not working hard. Shove a car engine on a concrete mixer and it doesn't last long. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 just by co incidence onthe radio this morning they were talking about how many k' modern engine reliability and asked if anyone had aengine that had made a million k's one toyota small van courior made 800,000 before it died several other makes taxi's ect where all up around those figures. one Volvo prime mover owner made 6 million klms yep six million from a diesel. all said it came down to regular by the book serviceing. as for all these round engines hw many times have they been remanufactured again and again. fatigue is getting to them. i never saw one of air whitsundays beavers get to TBO without blowing something off. Have a look at the engine capacity of these old opposed aircraft engines and compare the rated HP per LTR at there operating RPM. they are detuned to give them the life and reliability. I am a huge fan of P&W PT6 turbines. once you have driven one or a pair you won't want to go bck to piston engines. As for modern jet engines non stop sydney to london check the oil and send it back again. bloody brilliant. if the RAAus came into the 21st century and allowed turbines i'd put a pair of the Olympus RC model turbines on m lazair. hang the fuel consumption. give me reliability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanzahero Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 if the RAAus came into the 21st century and allowed turbines i'd put a pair of the Olympus RC model turbines on m lazair mmmm RA-AUS with jet / turbine endorsements.... See if CASA would pass that one... Stanzahero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Difficulty. Jets are easier to fly than props. (Don't tell anybody, it's supposed to be a secret). Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pioneer200 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 This is getting so far OFF SUBJECT!!! I think its fair to say Jabirus are excellent aircraft,an aussie success,if anyone has a problem with them its usually engine related right?? But if properly maintained they seem to last the distance!??? Unless this gets back to subject I have heard enough to suggest 80% of you have one or wish you had one. The other 20 % have not had the pleasure of flying one or are just happy enough with the wings they have If Jabiru were to send a J120 over to NZ I would be happy to fly it around the country and show it off to all. I don't know of any marketing getting done here re Jabiru aircraft. Looking on the NZ aircraft register I think there are only about 10 Jabirus in NZ GO THE JABIRU:big_grin::big_grin::big_grin::big_grin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Good Genes. The Jabiru's in NZ are the stronger ones. that have survived the trip over the pond. They make better breeding material. Now we're back on topic.( Sheepish grin). Nev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Off topic again. We can use any engine we want. No ban on turbines, but the weight of fuel could be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 had a quick browse thru the regs (again) says one engine one propellor no turbines no rotor craft. does this mean no ducted fans. any pitt st lawers here i've given up with deciphering the mysteries of op regs nowadays gives me brain freeze. back to topic (again) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skydog Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Ozzie You may be able to do it by rebuilding the plane under SAAA experimental and adding the turbines There is an experimental jet built & flying . Uses 200 litres an hour and flys at about 200kts. See SAAA website, Cowra 2008 fly in images. Cheers. 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