Geoff13 Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Shags are you interested in looking at a syndicate. May have a proposition. I live in Manly West, distance wise Heck Field is exactly the same distance as Caboolture from my house. Caboolture however does have hangers come up from time to time. In fact I do know of a space available atm. Heck Field on the other hand never seems to have spaces. I call in there from time to time sniffing around but nothing seems to come up. It takes me about 40 mins to each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldo Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Shags The first thing you need to do is really assess what type of flying you are going to be doing there is no point owning an aircraft for the sake of owning one that doesn't suit your objective. Do you Want to just keep your hand in and have a flit around the sky for an hour a couple of times a week maybe a 100 NM trip (lots of people go a lot further than this) - can't beat a drifter Want to do some 1-3 hour (80 - 200 NM) trips with wife (or passenger) include beach, bush strips camping etc - Savannah is a good choice (ugliest looking aeroplane I've ever seen but people I know that own one swear by them) Want to do some 1-5 hour (100 - 500 NM) trips with wife and plenty of luggage space (you will need it) - can't go past a J230 (for all the negative publicity they get they are best in class). Take your time selecting one. Aldo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGL Fox Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Want to do some 1-5 hour (100 - 500 NM) trips with wife and plenty of luggage space (you will need it) - can't go past a J230 (for all the negative publicity they get they are best in class). If you could get a Rotax in a Jab 230 that would be my choice of a ride from sure...they would be great...it's a pity they are not an option... David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldo Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 If you could get a Rotax in a Jab 230 that would be my choice of a ride from sure...they would be great...it's a pity they are not an option... David I'm not sure how much time you've spent behind a Jab 3300 engine or for that matter behind a Rotax engine I've spent considerable time behind both (more in the 3300) as well as Lycomings and continentals the only engine failure I have had is behind a Lycoming. All engines require maintenance and management and if you do the required maintenance and manage the engine correctly it should perform as required. Granted I do more maintenance (and I don't touch it myself, professionals only) on my 3300 than what is recommended and it costs me about $10/hour more to operate, it hasn't let me down yet (that's not to say it won't happen today) but after all it is an engine and failure can happen anytime. All engines are mechanical and all can fail, if one is dumb enough to fly over country in a single where you don't have an escape route then you are well on your way to becoming a statistic. If you want a different engine there are suitable options available (can't do it in a 24 reg though) CAMIT 3300 by all accounts it appears to be more reliable and requires less maintenance than the J3300 The IO-335 I believe has also been used as a replacement. Rotax don't make a suitable alternative (as far as I'm aware) So unless you have way more information and knowledge than a lot of people (and there are some very intelligent people) who comment here, give the Jab Vs Rotax a break it has been done to death Aldo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGL Fox Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 So unless you have way more information and knowledge than a lot of people (and there are some very intelligent people) who comment here, give the Jab Vs Rotax a break it has been done to death Aldo you are right that this subject has been done to death but Shags-j asked for advice about what sort of aircraft he should buy. When I do a hazard assessment at work I need to look at all the possible risks that a particular task may involve and whether the risk can be reduced or eliminated, I look at flying in a similar way, you look at the risk and I look at reducing them, I'm a very low hour pilot and I know more than likely the risk is low to fly a Jab powered aircraft if maintained correctly and I certainly don't know the statistics of JAB V Rotax but from what I have seen and heard around my training airfield there seems to be more problems and more intensive maintenance required on Jab engines than Rotax, which as you said you need a professional to do this work to feel safe and know it's done right and that equates to more costs for my first aircraft. When I now look at my own safety and look at my low hours and my abilities of handling an aircraft safely to the ground in an emergency, a Rotax powered aircraft is the way to go for me, it's a mind thing, I just feel more comfortable that the fan will continues turn than I would in Jab engine plane, that's my personal preference from a low hour pilots point of view to Shags-j David 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Lycoming 233 is what you mean perhaps?.. Quite a wide engine. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Jabs don't kill pilots but they do some serious damage to your wallet when they break. Owning a Jabiru is different to renting because you can hand back the keys and go "too bad, so sad" and its someone else's problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Having a flat 6 makes it soo smooth compared with a four. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planesmaker Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Lycoming 233 a bit heavy! A jab with rotax is an option if you are prepared to build. It makes a great combination. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 It probably is but TBO 2400 hours 115 HP @ 19 litres/hour, I don't know what the latest is on them. Rotax is a liquid cooled motor with the good (and bad) that brings. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldo Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Lycoming 233 is what you mean perhaps?.. Quite a wide engine. Nev Nev You are as usual correct, there is some place coastal NSW north of Sydney doing the conversions. Aldo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I had to look it up. It's a while since I did the research. It is a lightened and modified (ignition and throttle body injection) version of the 235. There is a lot of variants of the 235 and I would say they are as good as any of the older motors. for reliability. Who knows if you can make money out of producing motors for this market.? It wouldn't be easy. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldo Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Aldo you are right that this subject has been done to death but Shags-j asked for advice about what sort of aircraft he should buy. When I do a hazard assessment at work I need to look at all the possible risks that a particular task may involve and whether the risk can be reduced or eliminated, I look at flying in a similar way, you look at the risk and I look at reducing them, I'm a very low hour pilot and I know more than likely the risk is low to fly a Jab powered aircraft if maintained correctly and I certainly don't know the statistics of JAB V Rotax but from what I have seen and heard around my training airfield there seems to be more problems and more intensive maintenance required on Jab engines than Rotax, which as you said you need a professional to do this work to feel safe and know it's done right and that equates to more costs for my first aircraft.When I now look at my own safety and look at my low hours and my abilities of handling an aircraft safely to the ground in an emergency, a Rotax powered aircraft is the way to go for me, it's a mind thing, I just feel more comfortable that the fan will continues turn than I would in Jab engine plane, that's my personal preference from a low hour pilots point of view to Shags-j David David You like the rest of us here are entitled to an opinion and I respect that, but now you have brought risk assessments into the equation. I do know a little about risk assessments I have been in oil & gas for about the last 30 years and they in the last 10 years have made an art form out of risk assessments, you almost need one to take a crap. So if we use the risk assessment matrix (which is the most commonly used these days) we would do the following. 1. Identify any hazards 2. Give those hazards a consequence and likelihood rating to give a location on the matrix 3. If possible put control measures in place to lower the risk to be happy to continue the job (flight) Based on the above Hazard - Engine failure Likelihood of this happening (now based on available data and I have not researched this) I will use the latest that has been posted on this site as this is the best data I can find easily. (Investigations by RAA & Jabiru found that some of the so called "Inflight Occurrences" included fuel starvation and other maintenance related problems. Of the 46 incidents there were 12 that required forced landing due to complete or partial engine failure and that was in 93,000 flights totaling 43,000 flying hours. So that provides a statistic which is 0.0129% chance of an engine failure requiring forced landing per flight or 0.028% chance per flying hour) posted by KGWilson today. Selections from the Australian standards and WHS documents are as follows Almost certain >80% Likely >50-80% Possible > 15-50% Unlikely >5-15% Rare <5% Based on the above I would therefore consider the likelihood to be rare (0.028%/flying hour). That gives me a position in column E I then look at the consequence of that hazard so once again I look for information that would assist me in finding what the consequences are if this hazard were to occur Considering all the data that I have seen and the fact that Jabiru airframes are considered one of the safest in the world and there have been no deaths (that I know of) from engine failures in Jabiru aircraft I select a consequence rating from the following. 1. Fatality 2. Serious Injury 3. LTI - Lost time 4. MTI - Medical case 5. FAI - First aid case Therefore considering the data I have I would select serious injury placing me on line 2 This gives me a likelihood/consequence position on the risk matrix of a green E2 Doesn't get much safer than that I have attached a photo of the risk matrix for those of you that are interested. Aldo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGL Fox Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Doesn't get much safer than that I have attached a photo of the risk matrix for those of you that are interested. Well it does Aldo, now do the same scenario with a Rotax powered aircraft by using your matrix you should see that the Rotax powered aircraft are even less likely to have serious injury or death by engine failure and that is my point, thankyou, you have made it very clear that FOR ME it is a safer option, if I want to buy my first aircraft it should be cheaper to run and safer to buy a Rotax powered plane because there has been less failures. Aldo you have way more experience flying experience than I and you feel a lot more confident in the thought that you may have an engine failure and you can handle it but I don't have the experience or that confidence, in time probably, but not right now, so I am happy with the knowledge that I have done MY due diligence and this is the best option for me. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 ... So if we use the risk assessment matrix (which is the most commonly used these days) .... Those numbers are not particularly relevant to this debate, neither are those in this attachment but they are much closer (these are for systems in a FAR 23 certified single piston engine aircraft, not for the engine itself). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 In reality if you wish to improve your chances and lower risks I would (a) Make sure your flying abilities are raised particularly with regard to handling engine failure situations. (reason ALL engines can fail) (b) Consider the survivability aspects of the airframe as well as the engine. This includes glide speed considerations. Structural consideration. seat belt(S) and cockpit padding and whether it has an assured means of exit if inverted © don't fly over terrain where a landing doesn't give you a good chance of survival. (d) wear a fireproof suit and light gloves. I'm serious about this. There is a lot more to it than having the BEST engine. Your fuel system can alter that. or flying into cloud or a faulty hose radiator cap. or not having a duplicate means of pitch control. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldo Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Well it does Aldo, now do the same scenario with a Rotax powered aircraft by using your matrix you should see that the Rotax powered aircraft are even less likely to have serious injury or death by engine failure and that is my point, thankyou, you have made it very clear that FOR ME it is a safer option, if I want to buy my first aircraft it should be cheaper to run and safer to buy a Rotax powered plane because there has been less failures.Aldo you have way more experience flying experience than I and you feel a lot more confident in the thought that you may have an engine failure and you can handle it but I don't have the experience or that confidence, in time probably, but not right now, so I am happy with the knowledge that I have done MY due diligence and this is the best option for me. David David You miss the point risk assessments are objective (logical) not subjective (emotional) so if you are going to use the risk assessment procedure then you will arrive at the same conclusion I have. If one aircraft that is/was powered by a Rotax engine has had a fatality in an engine failure situation then by nature of the risk assessment process it is automatically in a higher category the lowest it can ever be is a yellow (medium) E1 position on the matrix. The difference here is we are talking about Jab airframes and engines as a combination, if Rotax had an airframe that was as good as a Jab the outcome may be different. I'm happy that you are happy. Aldo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldo Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Those numbers are not particularly relevant to this debate DJ So where does Jab arrive in comparison on the FAR 23 matrix Aldo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I'm quite familiar with that AS as well as aviation SMS and aircraft certification requirements. My point relates to the use of, for example, 5% as the figure for a rare occurrence. CASA specifies rare as "Once in the next 10 years–may occur only in exceptional circumstances" per http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/sms/download/2012-sms-book3-safety-risk-management.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGL Fox Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Aldo, Sorry but you are missing the point, the engine is the problem not the airframe, do the analysis on the engine only. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldo Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I'm quite familiar with that AS as well as aviation SMS and aircraft certification requirements. My point relates to the use of, for example, 5% as the figure for a rare occurrence. CASA specifies rare as "Once in the next 10 years–may occur only in exceptional circumstances" per http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/sms/download/2012-sms-book3-safety-risk-management.pdf DJ Ok thanks for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldo Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Aldo,Sorry but you are missing the point, the engine is the problem not the airframe, do the analysis on the engine only. David David No problem have a nice night Aldo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Not wanting to get into the Fords v Holden debate (Jabiru vs Rotax). The gentlemen who does the Jabiru Rotax conversions is Ole Hartmann at AAK in Taree. And by all accounts does a lovely conversion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 Lol Holy thread necromancy batman! And sidetracked to boot. I love it (have since bought a mk1 Escort instead of an acft. An Aero's capable aircraft will be purchased probably sometime late next year). Good reading though guys regarding risk. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Have you inherited a large sum of money? MK 1 Escort and Aerobatic plane soon. WOW. Nev 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