M61A1

Jab may need top end overhaul early - so what, parts are cheap, easy to work on. Im told not many Lycoming or Conti go throught to TBO without some heads or cylinder being worked on.When adjusting valve clearances (or tensioning lower head bolt) look closely for exhaust burn in the rocker chamber, monitor ALL EGT and CHT, re jet if needed, do regular leakdowns.

Some choose to do top end every 300hrs. Still cheaper than Rotax alternative depends how much effort and time you can spend on it.

 

What is the maintenance framework in RSA? Having so many more around means LAME are more experienced spotting problems and maybe do more than standard on services.

 

Im not sure the 2200 is a big seller there though.

 

RSA engines come off same production line as ours as far as I know. There are some guys doing upgrades and improvements over there even on new engines. EFI is being developed.

 

I feel the EGT/fuel distribution problem is a core problem, cylinders can severely lean under different throttle settings and different altitudes (To some extent this might be what Rod S is eluding to) This has been an issue since the first of these engines was developed. Until EFI, even most automotive engines had the similar issues, only water cooling masked the problems. Every engine has differences which needs adjustments and tuning. Rigidly sticking to the book isnt good enough, you have to trawl through websites and forums to learn much of how to make them run well and reliably. With this in mind Jabiru do need to more to enable certified use of the engine.

 

They arent Lycoming or Rotax but a small volume engine maker with problems and benefits that brings, but they are good value and generally perform well but not always.

 

I have one cylinder which goes lean at wide open throttle whilst rest of engine cools as it is supposed to. Punching out repeated circuits with this problem would definitely see it fail. In cruise it all settles out OK.

 

Without EGT monitor would have no idea there was an issue. Ive been doing 25hr leakdowns expecting to see a problem and yep it finally reached limits, had the head sent away, back in five days with new valves, guides tested and head lapped, all I paid was freight.

 

It is annoying to see those on here refusing to fly a Jabiru because of these problems, many with little experience in them. There are many thousands of Jab engines out there and only a few problems. Flying RAA or experimental aircraft is one of the highest risk activities you can choose to do. Id say engine failure isnt the top of the most likely things to go wrong. By far the greatest risk is the pilot, their capabilities and decisions they make.

This sort of information is gold to me Piston aviation engines will never be as reliable as automotive engines, as they are built lighter and have higher demands. They continually evolve (hopefully), and a good maintenance tech will quickly learn to interpret what the machine is telling them. You cannot ignore the signs and then say you weren't warned. It may be that, because this particular engine type is used for recreational aviation that the evolution has been slower, due to the the lack of research. Research & development that would occur much faster if the engine was used for business purposes (ie:passenger/freight).

It would appear that those that get the best results from these engines, understand and listen to what these egines are telling them, and then do something to sort it, regardless of what the factory has to say about it.

 

So I guess what that means is, if want to get the less expensive engine, you best be prepared to spend a bit of extra time on your maintenance, and be very familiar with your engine failure procedures. (all aircrew should be familiar with their engine out drill, regardless)

 

 

deadstickI am happy to hear what you say from personal and informed opinion. More then happy - INTERRESTED.

Direct knowledge [especially informed knowledge] is great and one of the reasons I regularly visit site.

 

What I get sick of uninformed crap from anyone with a particular bias. I own a Jab 3000 engine but I am not promoting it, and interrested with all problems that arrise. Just I am sick of reading anty Jab rubbish fr0m the uninformed that contribute nothing to a suggested problem.

 

FrankM

I would be more concerned if a forum such as this ( which is here for the purpose of discussing these types of event), limited the discussion to only those who have personally experienced the event themselves.

I have not seen any post which suggests that rotax engines do not fail, just (and justified) concerns over why there are apparent reliability issues with Jabiru in particular (being pretty much the topic of the thread).

 

Even if one does not own or fly a Jabiru engined aircraft, you only need to look at the 'Pilot Notes' section of any RAAus magazine to notice almost without fail, there is one or more incidents involving a Jabiru engine making bad noises and losing power or stopping. While I agree that some thing could have been better put, it is still an open discussion, and all are entitled to an opinion.

 

 

I'm the second owner of this aircraft, but I have the original Austflight SB construction manual. A quick check of the parts diagram calls this an AN4-62A. Seems like it's about 11"/27 cm long!

The 4 part means it's 4 16ths in diameter (or 1/4"), the -62 means, 62 16ths grip length (the shank). the 'A', if I remember correctly mean that it has a split pin hole in the threaded area. Given that a drifter boom is 5" diameter it would have to be around a -84.

A visual inspection should suffice, look for detectable wear on the shank, bent/ distortion, corrosion, thread damage, etc. I would be more concerned about looking at the hole that it goes in, any damage or corrosion around there is bad news.

 

 

Firstly, "Well done", to the instructor, now I have a few questions.

 

Why, if the opinion of Jabiru engines is so low, do people use them for training at all? I do recall a conversation with one of my earlier instructors, where he told me how when he was working with a school using Jabirus. He would never send a student solo in one before being competent with enine failures in all phases of flight, because the engine failure rate was high. He went on to say that he did actually have a student that experienced an engine failure on their first solo, and it was handled correctly with no further incident.

 

I will say now that I am a low hour pilot, and that my training was spread out over significant time. In that time my training was also spread out over various schools and instructors. Some (very few) taught me to stay close enough to be able to reach the strip (in case of engine failure) at all times during the circuit. While to me this seems like common sense, some instructors I've had, despite having excellent handling skills, do not consider this prudent. I fix aircraft for a living and I know that any mechanical device can let you down, and usually at the worst possible moment.

 

Is there a reason for not teaching student to stay within reach of the strip during the circuit?

 

Why is it difficult to insure two stroke trainers? I'm quite sure that I read recently in an RAA mag, about how they have a greater number of two stroke powered aircraft on the register, yet more engine failures have been occurring in four stroke engines. Is this Jabiru inflating the figures, or are rotax two strokes just reliable?

 

 

*I consider flying 33-1/2 hours non-stop in an aircraft with no front window to be risky piloting.

 

Personally, I would have thought having a single engined aircraft over a large expanse of water,in the dark, would have been the risky bit.

 

 

Crikey, Good to see we all come from all walks of life.Here's my story. I joined the army at 17 did my trade as an avionics technician working on blackhawks and then on to MRH90's where i was lucky enough to be on the first of class flight trials where we developed ships helo operating limits for the type.

When i got out of the army i went into agricultural electronics, calibrating grain moisture meters and the like. After that i got into selling grain dryers and aeration.

 

Up til monday when i go back to working on the MRH90's

 

YAY

 

cheers

 

Toally

I might see you around there....I work for the competition over on BlackHawk and Kiowa.

 

 

Any combination of chart, map, compass, time piece (x4), GPS (OK I admit it), ILS, VOR, ADF, pen, thumb, forefinger and whizz wheel (CR5). Oh and not forgetting good old fashioned local knowledge! PS: Why are people who are out for a bit of recreational flying be it GA, or RAA, getting around with 2, 3 and even 4 GPS's? I just don't get it.

They'll be the same people that can't find their way to work every day without their navman lighting up the dash in the car.

 

 

Love it, what perfect little ultralight to build and play in............just oozes Drifter doesn't it . Just like the Affordaplane and Airbike , but it think this one looks a little 'cooler'JimG

I thought it looked like a naked chinook.

 

 

Good choice on the fuel Alan.Most of the dirt bike fellas that I talk to say steer clear of Shell 98( Vortex?) as it is the worst, and BP Ultimate is the best. All the rest are in between.

Motorbikes seem to be the best judge of fuel quality, I guess because of the power to weight ratio. If the fuel is bad, you really know about it!

Where possible I've always run Caltex 98(vortex) in my bikes, the Shell V-power 98 runs great in the car as it has electronic engine management, but does not do well in my bikes. My bikes never seemd to run their best on BP (any kind), but that could just be my local supplier.

 

 

Evening everyone,

 

I'm new to this site, but have been an RAAus member since about 1998. As a low hr pilot , most of my time is in Drifters, and am currently attempting to build ( as finance permits), a 95:10 aircraft similar to an "Airbike".

 

During the day (and sometimes night), I fix helicopters for a living as a mech and structures person.

 

Mick