Dieselten

Jabiru seats are very basic and far from comfortable for any lengthy period of time.This is in keeping with the entire design and construction philosophy; keep it basic and spare no expense to keep the cost (and weight) down. The best fix is a custom set of seat-cushions from Oregon Air in the US. However, these are not cheap. Simpler fixes involve trying various shapes and sizes of cushions (making them yourself, borrowing them etc) until you find the size and shape that works for you. When you do, a lambswool covering works well for both summer and winter. Purists and pragmatists will add the weight of the additional cushions to the aircraft's weight for load calculations.

The LSA 55 is a real "stick and rudder" aircraft, and you will learn to use the rudder for just about everything. After flying it, any other Jabiru will feel a great deal better co-ordinated, and any other aircraft will just feel like more of a good thing. But the little LSA 55 is a tough little bird, just about "un-killable" and it has trained generations of Jabiru pilots who subsequently went on to bigger and better things - and were better pilots for the time they spent in the little Jab.

I'm using a battered old Seiko Pilot's Watch from 1987, purchased duty-free during my previous career. It's on its last legs (no O-rings are available to seal it now) and when it dies I already have its replacement - another Seiko chronograph, the serial number of which happens to exactly match the last six digits of my mobile phone number!

I despair of Garmin portable aviation GPS products. (That is a statement of fact...what follows below is merely personal opinion). The 495/496 family were superb...so they promptly discontinued them in favour of a re-worked automotive GPS, (the entire Aera family), yet still continue churning out the moderately capable (and monochrome) GPS196. If you want a cheap aviation portable GPS with a colour display, you're better off with a GPS 96C. The Aera in any incarnation will not be installed in any aircraft I own. Too small, has a voice-coil speaker that will pull a magnetic compass off-course if mounted too close, user-hostile menu system, touch-screen not all that impressive due to the small size of the screen. IMO a genuine sheep in wolf's clothing. You don't make a good aviation GPS by re-working and re-packaging an automotive one. Clearly, Garmin are intent on forcing aviation users into the 695-series and their more expensive (and capable) higher-end derivatives. It's hard not to conclude they have the lion's share of the market and they fully intend to manipulate their market by removing their best-sellers and introducing larger and more expensive units to replace them.

Mine exhibited precisely those symptoms when the alternator was failing. A steel cap from one of the 4 lighting-coils had come off and was slowly grinding the stator-magnets into dust. Grey dust was slowly emerging from the alternator vent-hole. I ended up rebuilding the engine due to the high hours it had done. Problem solved.

Trikes on floats..........go to Canada, they work over there, they don't work here. Pretty much every trike I have heard of on floats in Australia has ended up sinking. Doesn't matter what powerplant they use, they just roll over and sink. The really good thing about an 503 Rotax on a float-trike is it keeps the replacement cost of the trike down.

Gentlemen, check your through-bolt nuts and the "Torque-Seal" lacquer (on factory-built or re-built engines) carefully! At 818 hrs TTIS (with a full factory rebuild at 675 hrs) my 220 engine showed signs of black oil emerging at the upper base area of no. 4 cylinder. The "Torque-Seal" lacquer had vanished from the rear upper through-bolt nut on the same cylinder. Being of a suspicious nature, I took this to indicate the nut was loosening on the through-bolt, in spite of being "securely" glued in place with Loctite 620. So, taking my two "Snap-On" 12-point adapters (as recommended in the Jabiru engine overhaul manual) and my trusty torque-wrench, and calculating the reduction in torque required for the added length due to the adapter, I had the offending nut torque-checked...and it moved about 15-degrees of angular movement before the torque-wrench clicked off. That nut was working loose! Conclusions: i) any sign of black oil at the base of any 220 Jab engine should be taken as indicating a developing through-bolt tension issue which needs URGENT attention, ii) the Loctite 620 recommended by Jabiru is not going to hold the nuts on the bolts, and iii) the use of "Torque-Seal" as a first-line-of-defence indicator of a developing tension issue has merit. At the next 100-hourly I'll get the L2 or LAME to torque-check all the through-bolt nuts...and if we see any sign of black oil seeping from a cylinder base in the interim then we'll whip all the heads off and do the whole lot right there and then. You are forever putting the spanners to the 2200 Jab engine. I just hope I have nipped another engine-failure in the bud.

However much we may feel we could have prevented this accident, the fact remains that ultimately the pilot-in-command made the decision to undertake the flight. Perhaps some people did advise him not to do so. The investigators may discover if this occurred. Perhaps he chose to ignore that advice - if it was given. His passenger, also an experienced pilot, may have also suggested the flight not take place due to impending loss of light. We will never know. But the PIC made the decision to fly, and events then took their turn. There are always lessons to be learned from fatalities. On this occasion I think it hammers home the critical importance of the Human Factors which we deal with on a daily basis as aviators. We may look askance at Human Factors during our training and grudgingly pass the RAA Human Factors exam, but they are an inescapable part of every flight we undertake. Clearly, decision-making is involved in this accident and, sadly, that rests solely with the PIC. I understand the frustration, bewilderment and anger expressed by a number of posters on this thread. Instructors especially take these events very hard because they do their utmost to impart to pilots a good set of values and to instil good and prudent judgement. But the reality is an instructor just gives the student two things; a set of skills with which to handle the aircraft (and themselves) and confidence. Once a pilot proceeds beyond the status of student they shoulder responsibility for their own safety. They can, if they so choose, ask for an instructor's advice - and no instructor will think any the less of any pilot of any experience level who does so. But once committed to a flight, the PIC is solely responsible for the outcome. His judgement and his alone determines the success or otherwise of the flight. On this occasion the price for making a poor decision has been very harsh indeed.

As one who knew both the individuals involved I am very saddened and shocked by this news. I offer my sincerest condolences to their families, friends and relatives. Our little community of weight-shift aviators has suffered a grievous and wounding loss. RIP my friends.

The Streak, in any of its incarnations, comes down like a load of sand out of a tip-truck when you pull the bar in. I flew a few hundred hours on a Streak 1 (almost all solo flying) and it did 48KIAS on a 582, burning about 16L/hr. This was with the trimmer wound right off. Have flown the Streak 2, 2b, 3 and the Cruze. All the Streaks on a 2-stroke trike feel about the same to me. On the 912 trikes I find the Cruze is a delightful wing with an honest 50KIAS trim-speed and I really don't feel tempted to move to a Streak 3 or the SST wing. Keep in mind trikes are not for going fast. Trikes are for loitering, sightseeing and having fun. If you must fly at 100KIAS, buy a Jabiru J120 - they're a lot cheaper than a new 912-powered trike.

Don't use full flap for a go-around! Half-flap is plenty. If you are doing touch-and-goes, either use half-flap for approach and landing or get the flaps back to half before the aircraft unsticks on the next takeoff. Practice flapless landings too, especially if you have electric flaps - flap motors have been known to fail.

Andrew, you and your staff did all you could with what resources you had available, and no-one could have done more. My condolences to the families and friends of the deceased, and my deepest admiration for your courage in the face of overwhelming adversity.

60042RS is a standard NSK bearing number, many thanks, I can source these locally in some quantity. Will probably find Timken and SKF equivalents as well. Thanks to all who replied.

I wouldn't mind knowing the actual NSK, Timken or SKF catalogue number for the J160 wheel-bearings. We've got lots of industrial suppliers here and I wouldn't mind having a couple of spares on hand. Does anyone have their respective cat. nos?

Garmin SL40 and GTX327 get my vote.

The MU-2 is a propeller-driven aircraft with near-jet performance - and that includes the glide-angle of a jet with the engine out as well. These guys were very, very lucky.

My understanding is the gearbox does share the engine-oil, which is why a friction-modified oil MUST NOT be used. Aeroshell Sport Plus 4 is developed by Shell in conjunction with Rotax specifically for this engine family because of this requirement. It follows that combustion residues will be distributed into the gearbox. If Rotax specify a 600-hour inspection (note the word is inspection, not overhaul), then unbutton it at 600 hours and send it away for inspection. When it arrives back, bolt it back on and re-set the "gearbox-clock".

Still more personal opinion, with a fact or two thrown in:- The reason Jabiru designed and built their own engine was simply because no other suitable engines of the required size and horsepower were available when the Italian KFM engine ceased production. As Jabiru have pointed out, the aircraft was designed around the engine, so a new engine had to be made to fit the existing aeroplane. That aircraft evolved into the little, narrow-nosed LSA55. However, this reason no longer exists - the whole raison d'etre for the Jabiru engine no longer exists. At least one extremely reliable, well-engineered and proven alternative engine exists. Would it not be in the company's the company's best interests to at least offer the choice as factory-approved powerplants on both factory-built and kit aircraft? This would broaden the appeal of the aircraft, not narrow it down. Does Jabiru wish to sell more aircraft, or does it think its market is too big already and should be downsized? You buy a Boeing or an Airbus and you get a choice of powerplants. Where's the big problem for Jabiru to do the same? Realistically, the only alternative powerplant (available right now) is the Rotax 912-family of engines. They have the track-record, with no R&D required for the engine itself - it's all been done. Their through-bolts don't break, their cylinder-heads don't overheat, their valves don't burn out. They don't leak oil, or coolant-fluid either. Their resistance to carby-icing is far superior and their fuel-economy is as good with the advantage they are designed to run on mogas without any lead at all, leading to less cylinder wear and longer oil-life. You have to go with what is proven, not what merely fits under the cowlings. But - and this is a big but - even if Jabiru were to offer the Rotax as an alternative, it is ultimately just a temporary "fix". I'll state it once again, unequivocally. The future for piston aircraft-engines lies with compression-ignition. By necessity this type of engine will have much more robust, well-engineered design. I'd cheerfully carry another 5Kg or even 10Kg of engine weight if it gave me 1000 hours of reliability. Any engine-manufacturer who wishes to remain in the aircraft piston-engine business needs to be looking in this direction - that includes Jabiru.

Dip your tanks. Get your fuel-gauges calibrated. Check when it was last re-fuelled, how much went in, how much has it flown since then. If in doubt, put some in - enough for your planned flight plus a half-hour reserve. Don't trust fuel-gauges. Track your fuel usage during the flight. That skinny little bowser holds an incredible amount of fuel - don't be afraid to buy some. There are no negative numbers in fuel-calculations (U. S. Navy aviator's saying.) Buy fuel by weight, not volume - a fixed weight of fuel contains a fixed amount of megajoules. Weight varies by volume according to density.

Much as I greatly enjoy flying to YYWG, I wasn't actually planning a flight there any time between the 6th and 20th of Feb anyway. Not going to worry too much about this one. When next I do "dangle the Dunlops" and alight gently on the refurbished runway, I'll certainly appreciate the extra width - especially in the microlight!

More personal opinion:- First, I am with the good Maj Millard on Rotax 2-strokes; the Rotax 503/582 engines are remarkably reliable if they are operated and maintained correctly. I have over 1100 hours being hauled around by them in the past. My first Rotax 582 outlasted my first Jabiru 2.2L engine! Speaking of Jabiru, they gave me all the factory warranty backup they were required to do. They met their obligations fully. They couldn't solve one problem because they were unable to reproduce the symptoms on their test-stand. To reproduce the symptoms they would have needed to mount the engine on an airframe and actually fly it, but they were unable to do so - or they chose not to because it was impractical for them. In either event it does not matter. The problem (rough-running at high RPM and heavy load) has since been resolved. Sorting out problems with their existing engines is one thing, but the company needs to be looking well into the future, and the future does not lie with gasoline-powered aircraft-engines. If Jabiru are going to spend R&D money trying to iron out the issues with their current engines, and a partial re-design is their answer, then why not go the whole hog and design a 4-cylinder 4-stroke compression-ignition aircraft engine? Avgas is a finite and limited resource due to a number of pressures. Mogas is likewise. Aviation kerosene is a less hazardous material to transport and store. Like it or not, it is the aviation fuel of the future. It can be synthesised, and will be a lot cheaper per unit of energy than batteries, and lighter too. Any company that can design and manufacture a reliable, economical compression-ignition aircraft engine in large numbers and get it out there hauling thousands of aeroplanes around is definitely a company with a bright future. I question the wisdom in spending time and money on re-designing an existing powerplant when the entire sport, light and GA markets are still waiting for the Holy Grail; a diesel-cycle aircraft engine that actually works. Thielert showed how to make a good engine hamstrung with all sorts of unrealistically short overhaul times - and went broke in the process. Zoche has shown us a vapourware aero-diesel - there isn't a single Zoche-powered aeroplane anywhere in the known universe, and there never will be. Wilksch in the UK have a few engines of surpassing ugliness (and drag, with the intercooler) out there. Diesel Air in the UK? SMA in Europe? Both conspicuous by their absence on any flying aircraft in anything but prototype form. We are still waiting for the Lycoming aero-diesel...don't hold your breath! Manufacturers announce their aero-diesels with loud fanfare - and all we hear is a thundering clap of silence. I wouldn't put it past Rotax to be quietly developing such an an engine in the Rotax version of the "Skunk Works" right now. That company is deadly serious about making good engines, and it has a track record which other makers must envy. When Rotax sell an aero-diesel, it will work.The R&D will have been done, the test-flying likewise. I believe it's just a matter of time. If Jabiru are serious about being in the engine making business, then by all means try to sort out the issues with current powerplants, but long-term the engine-of-choice will be the compression-ignition unit. Start working on that, and make sure it is a viable, reliable, maintainable unit before hanging it on the front of an aeroplane, let alone selling it. The short-term alternative is to offer a choice of current gasoline-powered engines; theirs or the Rotax. I still maintain that if they did this they wouldn't be able to build airframes fast enough to keep up with the demand. They build tough, durable airframes. Great airframes for training aircraft. Their Achilles Heel is the powerplants. Maybe it's time for their next generation of engines to be revolutionary instead of merely evolutionary.

Just my personal opinion:- Changing the material of the cylinders to aluminium and using longer through-bolts will have most likely cause major changes in the resonances and vibrational nodes in the engine, from the crankcase right through to the heads, valves and everything in the chain. This effectively makes the engine a totally new engine and I just hope it is put through a complete re-testing and re-certification programme before it is unleashed on an unsuspecting public. A case could be argued that the R&D dollars invested by Jabiru in this effort might have been better-spent doing the firewall-forward re-design for one of the Rotax 912/914 family of engines. At what point does a company cut its losses and go with a powerplant with a proven track-record instead of pouring precious man-hours and dollars into the unknown? Efforts such as this resulted in the bankrupting of Rolls Royce (the "Hyfil" fan-blades for the RB211 engine) and the British government had to bail the company out. Jabiru doesn't have pockets as deep as Rolls Royce had, and no Australian government is going to bail out a little company that sends itself broke. Nobody wants to see Jabiru go to the wall or be taken over. None of us who own their products want to see our aircraft become orphans, bereft of spare-parts and technical support. We want Jabiru to be successful and stay around for a long time. But sooner or later someone in the company has to make the decision about whether it is appropriate to make the entire aircraft "in-house" or concentrate on the airframes and associated systems, leaving the engine to manufacturers whose track-record speaks for itself. At the very least the factory might make a concession to reality and offer a choice of either their own engine, or the Rotax unit with a total firewall-forward package. Leaving third-parties to develop approved replacement conversions is just abrogating the responsibility of the manufacturer to produce the best product they can. It should not be necessary.

Evans NPG+ waterless coolant is specified for the Rotax 912/914 family. Rotax like it if you use no other.

Jetjr:- Jabiru's valves at 500hrs were showing pitting and gas-cutting so I replaced them. Conclusion: Jabiru valves won't make 1000hrs. They will make 500. CHT 220-250F max. No EGT monitoring is fitted to this engine. General comment:- One thing which hasn't been mentioned is when Jabiru changed from solid-lifters to hydraulic, does this cause a completely different set of resonances and harmonic vibrations to be established in the valve-train/cylinder/cylinder-head and crankcase areas, causing through-bolts to be stressed in a way they were never stressed in solid-lifter engines? Was any vibrational analysis done when this change was made, and was there any vibrational analysis of the solid-lifter engine to use as a benchmark? (I think I know the answers to both questions already.)

I will replace exhaust valves on my 2200B Jabiru engine every 500 hours. Actually, there's quite a bit I will be doing every 500 hours. Removing all the cylinder-heads is a very easy job...especially if your engine has the hollow push-rods. A good valve-spring compressor-tool and a calibrated torque-wrench are the only specialist tools you need. At 500 hours a new set of exhaust valves, inspection and decarbonisation of heads and pistons, bore inspection, through-bolt torque-check, checking of hydraulic-lifters, valve-guides and rocker-bushes, re-assembly and return to service doesn't seem too onerous to me. I'd rather do that twice in 1000 hours than send the engine back to Bundaberg for a rebuild because it broke a through-bolt. If it came down to it, whilst the heads were off, I'd even contemplate a new set of through-bolts and nuts for the cylinders as well, if that would give me reliability. I'd have the aircraft off-hire for less time and it would cost me less money - and I could watch as the LAME/L2 did the work. Because of broken through-bolts and consequential issues, my aircraft was off-hire for three days short of a calendar-year (23rd Dec 2010 to 20 Dec 2011). This will not happen again. I am not unhappy as people seem to assume. That is far too "perfumed" a term for my feelings. However, my aircraft is now back on-hire, performing well (the propeller probably would benefit from a dynamic re-balance) and now has a chance to pay me back the money and lost income I have suffered as a result of the original problem. In my view, the Jabiru engines are the most maintenance-intensive light-aircraft engines ever made. You are forever putting the spanners to them for one thing or another. A four-stroke engine with two-stroke reliability. A uniquely Australian achievement. Such a great airframe deserves a far, far better engine.