Jump to content

J230 with Lycoming


quentas
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey view to right and biggles, which part exactly in my statement " At least it should be reliable " is unhelpful ? The aircraft is fitted with a O - 235 according to the add , WHICH IS one of most reliable engines that Lycoming has produced.

 

 

  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey view to right and biggles, which part exactly in my statement " At least it should be reliable " is unhelpful ? The aircraft is fitted with a O - 235 according to the add , WHICH IS one of most reliable engines that Lycoming has produced.

I think you mean " Biggles 5128 "

 

Bob

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brumby are having electrical problems we spoke to them about itthey told us they are using second hand engines so who knows what went wrong really

I SAY AGAIN, it has a 0-235 fitted NOT O-233 go and read the add.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting how other engine and aircraft manufacturers take an interest in Jabiru engines and airframes and provide modifications where as Jabiru take no interest or likening to their products.

 

Rotec have throttle body, water cooled heads, electronic ignition and alternator. Camit with their engine bits, Brumby with conversion mentioned here, SDS fuel injection. UK have lots of aftermarket add on like sun visors and speed fairings, USA use Matco brakes and different instruments etc. it would be good to see a full aftermarket option list, could be a good plane with all the options but experimental.

 

If Jabiru took an interest I sure that their aircraft would become more popular.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many versions of the Lyc O-235. Of course they are/were reliable, but they are not new anymore. They can be rebuilt but many parts are not new, and a high time crankcase may have been welded. You CAN spend as much onan old one as a new one costs, and still not have a satisfactory outcome. They are not light or compact and probably need a weight in the tail which WILL alter their handling, spin reaction. etc The prop will be bigger and have clearance problems. I don't see why Jabiru should take responsibility for aftermarket mods if they choose not to. Their engines were supposed to be simple in concept.( and probably should have stuck to solid lifters) but these are market choices that anybody in the market makes.

 

Having said all that, I am interested in the CAMIT product, and hope to visit the factory in the next 3 months. Nev

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Jabiru took an interest I sure that their aircraft would become more popular.

Jabiru are doing fine . Today I noticed 5 x J230 kits ready for shipment to China . They also confirmed an overseas order for 85 engines for UAV's .

 

Bob

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had my Jab powered 230 for 7 years and nearly 700 hours. The only problems I had were when I was running avgas. I had the heads removed and new exhaust valves installed at 300 hours because of a "choofy" valve on a pull through. That was caused by a build up of by products from the avgas. Now that I use premium mogas, she's all shiny and nice inside. I run the engine hard and climb at 100 as overheating kills these engines fast. I had a new 'bolly/jab' prop and electronic ignition fitted last year and can say these are probably the best mods so far? I Reckon the 230 is the sweetest smoothest plane for the money. With all the jabiru stories abound, I tend to fly much higher than I would in the Cessna. All we need is jabiru to adopt the improvements by cammit and we would have one great all rounder.

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least it should be reliable

MODS this is a reasonable correct statement yet Dazza received 4 "Unhelpful

 

It backs up what I was saying earlier about bringing the site down - those 4 disgraceful comments stay on his record and should be removed. He doesn't deserve a permanent record and we don't need to be misled.

 

 

  • Agree 4
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another guy who got an "Unhelful" for his troubles, and I see I've picked up a few more including two or three intended to be humorous in the NES.

There's humor in the NES thread????

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have thought that a half life Lycoming would make an attractive proposition if the C0fG issues aren't too daunting and the mount/cowling not too dear. I suspect though that there would be a few more of these swaps if it were as easy as all that. I know of the 2 PG Aviation have done, the 914 into a J400 and believe there is at least one flying J200 with an O-235 knocking around in Victoria. Anyone here flown one?

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Caution 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't but I've flown a 152 with a 36o. Prop clearance and fuel flow were adverse. Gets off the ground quicker but you don't use the power in. cruise as it's a fuel waster.

 

I'm pretty sure you would have to put weight in the tail. This changes a lot of things and would need a full flight stalls including incipient and spin review. The 0-233 would be much the same weight as the six. FOUR's are not sixes. ALL six cylinder motors I have experienced are so much smoother than fours. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quentas - good thread mate.

 

This is my take on what has transpired ( look it up Deb if you don't know what transpired means) anyway this post is about a J230 with a Lycoming o-235 engine. I made a statement that a Lycoming o-235 has a good reputation in reliability. But my exact wording was " at least it should be reliable ". I made that comment simply stating that, it had nothing to do at all with the reliability of the manufacture's engine that is normally installed in that airframe.

 

Then a few muppets ( I am using the word muppets instead of their avatar names purely to protect the guilty), ASSUMED that by my simple statement of " at least it should be reliable" I was actually bagging the Jabiru engine normally fitted. Then of course then there was the side show of, the O-233 isn't reliable, it has electrical problems ( which most of us know about) then I pointed out that the aircraft which is the centre of the thread is actually fitted with a o-235 . Then a little bit of creative editing was done then BAM a new engine was created known as the o-233/5.

 

So I will ask the muppets again, what exactly is unhelpful/disliked in the statement of " at least it should be reliable" knowing full well that the 9-235 engine has a great reliability history ?

 

Isn't it ironic that nearly every single "unhelpful" comes from a muppet who has a Jabiru aircraft or flys a aircraft with a Jabiru engine installed. What are you guys afraid of ? Are you that uptight that if anybody remotely says anything about Jabiru, you get your knickers in a knot and fire off a "unhelpful" without taking into account the context of a post in relation to what the thread is all about. In this case a Lycoming powered Jabiru ?

 

 

  • Agree 3
  • Caution 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...