rick-p

Yes, thanks Chris I figured that one out a little late as there appears to be two (2) threads on this guys video's.

But what I was eventually saying was that even though in the other video it states that the motor is a 912UL I can't accept it as truth because if you study the video and you fly a Kitfox or Skyfox CA21 or CA22 fitted with a 912 UL there is no way that you would be able to pull a verticle climb from that position and maintain it for the height gain that the Kitfox in the video does it for.

Having said that, the guy's piloting skills impressed me somewhat in both videos.

He seem to have everything balanced so well, it was almost like a radio controlled plane.

His actions were smooth and seamless flowing from one manoeuvre to the next and it made the Kitfox look like a magic machine to fly.

Regards,

Rick-p

A comment was made to me yesterday in repect of Jabiru and 912 motors that they are only as reliable as you treat them and this seems to be an emerging trend in this thread in respect of Jab motors.

But the same does also apply to the 912.

If one looks at the S/B's, these threads and personal experience 912's can also be problematic.

The comment was made by a very senior and knowledgeable aviator.

He also made the comment that the ealier 912UL motor was the bullet proof version as against the newer 912s and 914's because the earlier 912's were heavier in the castings and therefore stronger.

The Jab 3300 may be in the end the bees knees of motors when all the bugs are ironed out.

Comments please!

Rick-p

AND FURTHER, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS A 912UL AS IT SAYS AT THE BEGINING OF THE VIDEO.

HELL IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ON MORE STEROIDS THAN BIG ARNIE.

RICK-P

In the video Kitfox Flying by Jimmy Franklin, the yellow M1V I think, is not a 582.

Look at the video "Kitfox 05.39" no 582 equiped Kitfox could perform those manoeuvres performed in the video.

The first one was, that is the "mud lark", fitted with a 582 but not the yellow Kitfox it had something a bit bigger.

Rick-p

HEY THRASHER, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT DONK :devil: HE HAD UP FRONT.

HE CERTAINLY HAD SOME ABILITY.

IT MUST HAVE BEEN, THATS THE YELLOW ONE, A NASA SPECIAL.:yuk:

REGARDS,

RICK-P

Thanks Ron we need the good and the bad as I believe that is the only way the truth of the matter will be reached.

Apart from some isolated issues there appears to either be or have been some problems with the valves.

It's a little hard to tell at the moment because the reports have not been of a sufficient volume to make any sort of informed assessment.

I will go quiet again for a little longer to see what transpires, maybe we can achieve a higher than the present 5% posting rate as against tourists just visiting the thread.

Regards,

Rick-p:crying:

Thanks gents,

It would appear from what I have received thus far from PM's and posts in this thread that valves are or have been a real issue for both the 2200 & 3300 but it would also appear that the factory hasn't abandoned anyone yet.

It needs collective reporting such as that which we are attempting to do here.

There has also been a number of 2200 operator's stating that their motor's have done a quite a number of hours without a problem.

We need a lot more posts than that which we have had thus far.

I note that there has been in excess of 200 visits to this thread but only about 7 posts on point.

I'm sure we can all do a lot better than this, can't we?

Regards,

Rick-p

Well it would appear that there is either no problems with the Jab 2200 contrary to that as previously alleged many times in these posts or the 100 odd tourists that have visited this thread in the last few days don't have or have not flown an aircraft with a Jab 2200 motor or just don't care.

Come on guys at least tell us something, how reliable are they?

How many hours have your engines done with regular maintenance and no breakdowns?

Give us something to work with.

Rick-p

Thanks Darren and just to keep everyone informed valve problems are in the lead.

I have had a couple of PM's reporting on this problem.

Anyway I will keep you all posted.

I note that there has been 3 replies here out of 75 visit by 70 tourists, come on guys start giving us the info we need.

Rick-p

Ross, yes it's important to nominate the engine number and the mod's installed in the ordinary course of things but at the moment all that is needed initially is that it's a Jabiru 2200 but if people posting wish nominate engine number etc then they are welcome 6to do so.

I'm at the moment only interested for perpose of putting into categories the problems that have been experienced with these motors.

I'm trying to develop a statistical format for the Jab motor's that once in place, if it works, hopefully will operate to pinpoint areas that need immediate engineering attention and other areas that are strictly maintenance matters.

I don't want advice on the probable cause of a problem at the moment only factual information as to the problem and the cause if can be giveen wiyh 100% certainty then we can get into the area causes and fix's for the problem.

I'm doing off my own bat with no thought of gain for myself only that, hopefully, everyone with these motors will get some benefit out of it in the long run.

My time is valuable to me ($400 plus per hr) so please if people don't want me to attempt this research project then tell me and I won't bother to waste my time with it.

Ian has given us a wonderful vehicle in these forums in which we can gain a wealth of knowledge if used appropriately such as what I'm trying to acieve now.

Regards,

Rick-p

Reg

Ralph,

I too have an oil pressure problem but because of overseas trips and work commitments that I haven't addressed it properly but hope to do so this weekend.

I noticed that you in fact replied to a post of mine about oil pressure problems back in February this year.

I will stick to the rules and not make assumptions here but will post the facts in due course.

The oil pressure problem is the only problem my Jabiru motor has experienced in 250hrs run time.

It would also be interesting to have people who have Jab 2200's who have had no problems with there motor to report so and give TTIS of the motor and further, report on their level of maintenance.

Statistically that information would be of a great benefit as it could assist in a number of ways such as indicating whether or not a quality control problem at the factory exists.

Another point I wish to make is that we are not interested in Jabiru bashing as it's not appropriate.

I'm sure that if we do come up with repetitive problems and we collectively bring it to Jabiru's attention that they will listen as they are not in business to fail or to shaft the people who purchase their products.

They are highly successful and I would think that they wish to stay that way.

As the information comes in I will extract it from the posts and categorise it first and then we will proceed with stage two which I will ellude to later when and if my initial proposal is a success.

Kindest regards,

rick-p

My Jab 2200 doesn't have carby heat as such and I don't get carby ice. Reason, the manufacture's of my aircraft designed the installation in such a way that there is always warm air around the carby which such prevents carby ice.

In my Skyfox the 912 has iced up on take off in the middle of summer, of course under idle conditions, right dewpoint etc.

My old Auster Gypsy Major can run with carby heat on all the time and should be used at times on takeoff.

Rick-p

I have read so much in recent times about the Jabiru 2200 engine's problems and I think that I can safely say that it is very hard to seperate fact from fiction.

On this point I don't think that I'm on my own.

Anyway just an idea but how about we seperate the fact from the fiction and use this thread to report on the factual problems the end users of this power plant have experienced.

That is anything ranging from a minor problem to a major problem resulting in a complete engine failure.

The reporting should be brief at first just enough to establish a trend and then a more in depth examination of the issue could be embarked upon.

For example state the problem and the resultant effect and only if 100% known the cause of the problem, no guessing please.

We don't at this point need engine hours, place of incident or the time of the year.

These matters to start with are irrelevant to the initial categorisation of the various problems.

It is my view that by approaching the issue this way with the reporting of absolute fact not theory or guess work the end result will benefit all end users of these motors.

Also there should not be self denial, everyone who has had a genuine mechanical problem with these motors please report it here in this thread.

No Jabiru knockers please as this type of activity achieves nothing for anyone.

It is my view that by doing this if there are genuine major problems with the subject motor then they need to be identified and rectified, not just be the Saturday night topic of bellyachers and whingers.

It does work look what Tony Hayes has achieved with the Thruster Group.

Regards to all,

Rick-p;)

Darren, those BRS chutes can be a blessing but also a big danger in certain circumstances.

Mate of mine had a heavy hit in a Quicksilver and it broke and seperated the airframe at a point where the cable for firing the rocket motor was routed and it cause the cable to pull tight and fire of the rocket.

End result, the instructor received a severely burnt arm.

Close call because a few inches to the right and he could have lost his head.

I think my mates bumb got scorched.

Regards,

Rick

Facthunter nothing is ever certain in this life but we can if we work on it balance the probabilities in our favour.

It's fact and cold hard evidence that we are after not unsubstantiated rumours.

Thats the frustration a lot of us face.

We all know basically what engines can and can't do and what they have to do in the different applications for which they were designed for that is the various types of motors we have, from cars to boats to planes.

But what we are really after is to crunch the numbers and assess the probability factors of a failure and reduce that probability by using the knowledge of the cause these failures to rectify each individual cause of a failure.

This is so whether it's an engineering problem or a finger mentality problem.

We want honesty from both the manufacturer and end user otherwise the problem will continue.

Your idea about forming a group like TOSG is great but unfortunately we are dealing with people and the effort required to get something like that going is beyond a mere mortals patience and strength.

You can always fly low and slow and then you haven't got far to go when the fan up front stops turning.

Regards,

Rick

I'm the same as you Ian.

I find it quite amazing when it comes to the engine failure topic because you don't seem to be able to get any real answers or direction, paricularly on the mechanical failure statistics ie cause and following result.

I have been in a situation of one engine failure, rotax 582, fortunately the PIC was a very experienced chappy.

He only has one arm and a hook for the other so Ian you now know who I am speaking of.

It was carby ice.

He didn't bat an eyelid and landed it in a paddock not very long or wide and in the middle a gully which he jumped the aircraft over.

No damage to anything even my thoughts about flying remained in tact and I continued on learning as I was doing at the time of the incident.

I know now that an engine failure is only a fatality waiting to happen if you let the risk increase and the situation to degrade to the point of no return.

In other words fly safe in the first place try to avoid, of course unless unavoidable due to the circumstances of the flight, the aircraft being at any time in a place, position or attitude that would not allow for a safe engine out landing, well as safe as one can make it anyway.

How many times has your car engine failed you whilst it's under load?

I think for me it's been once in more than 2 million kay's of driving.

Engines have broken on start up and shutting down but only once under load.

I had an ald HQ Holden used as a taxi in which we ran up over 500,000 kay's and it was still going strong when sold.

You will probably find that a lot of the engine failures that occur are due to finger mentality ie fiddler's not really knowing what they are doing but they still do it.

The hydraulic lifters now on Jab motors were probably only installed to take it out of the hands of the fiddler's.

What we all need to know are the real reasons for the engine failures on any motor's used in our aircaft and that info factually diseminated to the end users not spread by way of hype or gossip only.

When I was in the Philippines recently an Australian guy came to the flying club and on seeing that some Xairs at the club were fitted with Jab's he immediately started to tell all that Jabiru were no good.

He said that the company was broke and they were closing it down because of so many engine failures.

Well even the locals thought that that which was said was a crock as of the 3 or 4 jab engines they do have operating at the club none have ever failed.

Of course there is a very strict maintenance program adhered to but that should be par for the course shouldn't it?

Anyway those in the know who read Ian's and my post please give us some direction as to where all this information can be found on all type engine failures as in my case I have both Rotax and Jab motors.

You think about it if all you ever here or see is not substantiated by fact and evidence and you believe it then you are really only a mushroom.

I heard that Jab motors had dangerous harmonics at about 2200 rev's but I have never been able to substantiate it as fact or fiction.

Why I was interested is that matter was that my aircraft's economic cruise is around that rev reading and has probably done of it's 250hr life 200hrs at those rev's.

Anyway if we are going to use this forum for reporting on engines lets substantiate all that is posted that has specific relevance to engine maintenance and failures by giving the reader reference points so that the reader of the post can make their own mind up in the matter, being able to make an informed decision.

Regards,

Rick-p

Darren I use to scoff at the Drifter but was recently, whilst overseas, forced to fly one because I was having withdrawals and there was nothing else available at the time to fly.

After the first flight and when I got over my feeling of aprehension sitting up front wondering what happend to the prop and how I would get all the bugs out of my teeth and back of my throat I decided to give it another go and it was then that it dawned on me that it was a great little aircraft to fly and by no means unresponsive to control input.

So I went on with it and got endorsed on type and went on to have a ball for a few weeks.

The moral of my story is don't knock it until you try it and have an open mind when you do.

The only aircraft I won't go back to flying is the Quicksilver a laundry basket with a motor and a tent for wings.

Glide ratio of 4 to 1 and take of speed at 40 mph cruise at 45mph and a stall at somewhere like 39mph, not much room for error.

Plus you need to wear bicycle clips on your trouser legs or your nuts get frozen.

Also whilst I think of it over where I was flying you need to get endorsed on each type that you fly, maybe that's something we need here in the ultralight movement.

It does make sense though, dosn't it.

Regards,

Rick

Mike a very good article.

I would commend it to all to read.

It is very easy to read and understand.

To those who think they know VNE read the article it may just save your life.

I lost a very good friend through, I believe, exactly that which the article is addressing, but it wasn't a RV aircraft.

It applies to all aircraft.

Regards,

Rick-p

Darren, my gosh your quick off the mark with your posts, I was still cooling my fingers in the bucket of cold water I keep beside the keyboard for that very purpose.

NO OFFENCE TAKEN

A big SMILE :big_grin:

Kaz basically hit the nail on the head with her very astute observations.

If your not fit to work you shouldn't be flying.

Work Cover only have grounds to shut you out if you were performing activities that could be said are not appropriate to do if you are unfit to work.

Think about it, would it be ok to go surfing if you were off work because of a work related accident which left you with a broken hip.

Same as a car accident where you claim a whiplash injury and you are observed by the insurance investigator playing a round of 18 holes.

My two bob's worth.

Rick-p

Disperse I really don't thing anybody was talking ill of the dead.

It's a human reaction to go on the offensive in times of tradgedy and disaster.

Particularly in the case of Australian's and there sense of humor under stress, they are just knee jerk reactions to a stressful sitiuation.

Remember the dingo jokes and the Appolo mission.

We at the moment being a privileged few able to enjoy the freedom of flight in a reasonably unrestricted environment are faced with, because of this lattest spate of incidents and accidents, possibly further regulation which may in turn totally destroy that which what we now have and enjoy.

Regards,

Rick-p

If things do start to go wrong maybe a class action brought as against the Government and fuel companies may put the cat amongst the pigeons.

To my way of thinking there was not enough consultation between the appropriate parties as to the effects of the unwanted brew.

But notwithstanding the powers to be know the side effects of ethanol in certain applications but choose to ignore it because the commercial inconvenience to some is by far outweighed by their gain.

But what happens when it's not just a commercial loss that is being suffered by a few but the use of ethanol eventually results in the loss of a human life.

Regards,

Rick-p

If I may just add my own definition here.

A cowboy is a term, probably wrongly used, that describes the Richard Craniums of the human race whereas a test pilot is a professional aeronautical flight characteristic analyst (or something like that).

The diference between the two is chalk and cheese.

The cowboy is just trying to show it's mates that it has big kahoona's whilst the test pilot is making sure that the damn contraption will fly well enough that it will only kill the cowboys not the innocent.

Please the reality of it all is that the plane you fly has already been tested and past why try to see if it will really crack up after you exceed vne.

Some people learn by the mistakes of others whilst those one's that don't usually set the example of what not to do for those who do learn by the mistakes of others.

I don't believe that anyone here has tried to be hard on the poor guy that died in the Italian accident, his demise has just driven home a little further that which is at this time being discussed very emotively in another post in these forums.

Please all just keep your ideas and comments flowing because that is from which solutions are reached ie an informed decision can eventually be made which hopefully will see all taking a serious look at their own actions and ability and thereafter improving their situation.

It's not about how well I fly the plane it is the culmination of many things that give us the edge for self presevation and survival, it's called AIRMANSHIP, isn't it?

Regards,

Rick

Never stop learning at least one new thing each day of your life and you will have the edge.