Another Jab bites the dust.

[Guernsey]

Have a look at Tocumwal where they use a Sportstar and a Eurofox with Rotaxs as tugs.

There are also Rotax powered Trikes towing gliders.

 

Alan.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Some of your remarks are a bit offputting turbo. How can you be sure that some of the failures are not fuel "lack of supply"? there is a lot of variation in just where the selector is left with the Jabiru's . some could have been selected wrong..Any attempt to analyse this is fine, but do it right. If you get this engine grounded you "won't know what you have lost till its gone". It hasn't reached that stste by a long way , in my view. I am not a Jab basher or a supporter . Just realistic I hope.. Nev

Please actually read my post, but I'll explain

 

Of the 35 incidents there were:

 

16 thru bolt failures - not fuel supply

 

6 valve failures - not fuel supply

 

6 exhaust valve failures - not fuel supply

 

3 seized - not fuel supply

 

1 conrod failure - not fuel supply

 

1 catastrophic engine failure - not fuel supply

 

1 cylinder crack - not fuel supply

 

1 misfire and shudder - could be fuel supply, may have been just fright.

 

TOTAL = 35

 

I repeat, I did not report lack of fuel supply or other non-mechanical issues as an engine failure

 

 

[turboplanner]

People need to seek assistance and know their mechanical limits not experiment. This is what needs to be educated not regulated.

I'd be happy with a programme which lifted the culture to that level but as a mechanic, surely you'd grimace at some of the comments here from people asking questions and describing the way they do scheduled and non-scheduled maintenance?

 

 

[M61A1]

I also agree that service standards are so bad that CASA should apply the same safety standard used in GA and ensure engines are maintained by a qualified person.

.

Aircraft used for training are supposed to be maintained by qualified personnel.

I you want GA standards, then pay a LAME to do your work, otherwise go and fly GA.

 

The whole idea of flying ultralights was to build, maintain and fly your own a/c.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I've gone through the same 48 magazines to pull the same statistics.

 

Here's the comparison

 

Mechanical failures: Jabiru - 35 vs Rotax 912, 912A, 912ULS - 6

 

Forced Landings: Jabiru - 28 vs Rotax - 4

 

Causes of the five Rotax failures were:

 

Tailpipe separated

 

Engine failure - no cause

 

Oilleakage around filter

 

circlip failure

 

Oil pressure zero

 

Vapour lock

 

As for Jabiru, I did not classify the following forced landings as mechanical engine failures

 

1 Carbs overflowing (forced landing)

 

1 Spark plug found hanging by its cable (forced landing)

 

Edited to correct formatting - shown in blue

 

 

[turboplanner]

Aircraft used for training are supposed to be maintained by qualified personnel.I you want GA standards, then pay a LAME to do your work, otherwise go and fly GA.

The whole idea of flying ultralights was to build, maintain and fly your own a/c.

Totally agree with you, but under self-regulation, you're expected not to have spark plugs drop out etc.

 

 

[M61A1]

Totally agree with you, but under self-regulation, you're expected not to have spark plugs drop out etc.

This sort of stuff also happens in the LAME/AME world too.

In my little world, if you built it, you maintained it, you flew it .......only yourself to blame. .

 

 

[turboplanner]

Problem is these people are taking up passengers, letting other people fly their aircraft unawares.

 

 

[facthunter]

You have just lost me turbo. What you have just posted is CRAP..Nev

 

 

[naremman]

Hang on guys. If we are seeking perfection the internal combustion engine is a long way off the mark. Most of us are operating aero engines in an environment that the aero engine designer did not anticipate.

 

Did de Havilland consider that engine components 60 years of age would be trying to drag a Tiger Moth the sky around fuelled with Avgas 100?

 

Did the Continental engineer think that the 0-2o0A engine designed for 80/87 Octane would have to cope with 8 times the lead in 100 Octane, or thatt he same engine tonking away in a C150 could propell a Cosmic Wind around Reno?

 

How come a engine as renown as the Merlin could be a "firecracker" in a Spitfire, and the epitome of reliability in a Lancaster?

 

There are so many variable conditons that an aero engine can be exposed to. The bloke flying the aircraft can have a significant influence on how an aero engine fares. Owner pilots can display either the best or worst influence in their engines. Aircraft flown by multiple pilots can have the most careful pilot wearing the consequences of the least proficient. I have met 20,000 hour pilots that have not had a hiccup out of an engine, and know of one that has had two engines quit on take-off before having 500 hours logged.

 

In Australia we often subject our engine to the extremes in operation. What is a good operator in the USA or Europe can be found out in an Australian Summer. The greatest number of hours I have spent behind any one engine is a Rolls Royce 0-200A. In the European theatre oil warming is a consideration, in Australian Summers oil cooling and CHT redlines are of prominence. When we lost access to 80/87 around 1980, my LAME installed an EGT and advised me to run the engine "hot and hard". As a farmer I was always inclined to "baby" machinery, so the advice was not easy to folllow initially, but so far that engine has looked after me, and I hope to sit behind it for a few years more doing exactly the same.

 

My only experience of a Jab engine was the J160 that I did a PPL to RAA conversion on. It had 700 hours on it since new, run as smooth as, and what was the advice? Basically, "hot and hard". Bit difficult with no control over mixture.

 

My daughter learnt on a J160, and whilst she did not have a squeak out of it, before and after her training it run the littany of Jab ailings.

 

If you want predictability in life, flying light aircraft is not for you. As good as the engines are today, there are no guarantees. If you are worried about risk in aviaton, just carefully consider the drive to the airstrip!!

 

 

[turboplanner]

You have just lost me turbo. What you have just posted is CRAP..Nev

Which part is CRAP?

 

#486 where I said "the problem is these people are taking up passengers and letting other people fly their aircraft

 

OR

 

#484 where I said "you're expected not to have the spark plugs drop out etc"

 

OR

 

#483 where I posted factual extracts from the RAA magazine's Pilot Notes, with disclaimers noted in #57, and later in #472?

 

 

[kgwilson]

I've gone through the same 48 magazines to pull the same statistics.Here's the comparison

 

Jabiru Rotax 912 family

 

Mechanical failures 35 6

 

Forced Landings 28 4

 

Causes of the five Rotax failures were:

I'm confused too. What is the "Jabiru Rotax 912 family" ? I always thought they weren't even related. Where did the 356 mechanical failures & 284 forced landings come from & what do they refer to? Sorry but this does sound like crap.

 

 

[Zibi]

I'm confused too. What is the "Jabiru Rotax 912 family" ? I always thought they weren't even related. Where did the 356 mechanical failures & 284 forced landings come from & what do they refer to? Sorry but this does sound like crap.

Looks like the forum didn't like the formatting, It's supposed to be 35 mechanical failures and 28 forced landings for Jabiru, and 6 and 4 respectively for Rotax 912 family.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sorry, I've corrected #483 for fomatting, and removed reference to the 912 family - failures came from the three versions noted.

 

 

[boingk]

Well, everytime I look in the back of an RAAus mag theres at least one - if not two or three - incidents involving a Jabiru powered craft either neccessitating a shut down or suffering mechanical failure of some sort. I reckon the poor old Jabiru design is either suffering 'tall poppy' syndrome via market saturation or the design is being overstressed.

 

Hang on guys. If we are seeking perfection the internal combustion engine is a long way off the mark. Most of us are operating aero engines in an environment that the aero engine designer did not anticipate....

 

How come a engine as renown as the Merlin could be a "firecracker" in a Spitfire, and the epitome of reliability in a Lancaster?

 

...

 

my LAME installed an EGT and advised me to run the engine "hot and hard".

 

...

 

My only experience of a Jab engine was the J160 that I did a PPL to RAA conversion on. It had 700 hours on it since new, run as smooth as, and what was the advice? Basically, "hot and hard". Bit difficult with no control over mixture.

 

...

 

If you want predictability in life, flying light aircraft is not for you. As good as the engines are today, there are no guarantees. If you are worried about risk in aviaton, just carefully consider the drive to the airstrip!!

The internal combustion engine may well be somewhat 'off the mark' as far as perfection goes, but then again it is easily constructed, maintained and operated. I say thats a pretty good deal. As for environments that weren't anticipated... thats crap. All air designers know that engines may well be used anywhere in the world and under almost any condition - thats the precise nature of aircraft.

 

The Merlin engines were reliable in Lancasters because they were detuned and subjected to much kinder operating conditions. They were somewhat cantankerous in Spitfires because of their greatly increased state of tune, and the fact that they were operating on, what was then, the edge of the possible. I would also say that the wartime demand had stressed the production facilities and maintenance to the point of impacting on reliability, too.

 

An EGT is almost a neccessity in an aircraft and I would be somewhat uncomfortable without one as they can show up engine problems as they start and before they become a dangerous emergency situation. They also show good engine tuning, running condition and are cheap and easy to install. 'Hot and hard' may well sound a bit harsh but you need reasonable operating temps and efficienct combustion (ie hot and hard) to run an engine at its best. THis also happens to prevent carbon buildup, sticking rings, etc.

 

No mixture control? Either its EFI or something is seriously wrong.

 

Light aircraft are, like anything, quite safe when operated and maintained correctly. I could, for example, be out flying my Minicab at the moment as its a gorgeous day here in Goulburn. However, I am of the sorts not to want to fly on a tyre going bald, nor a prop that is structurally ok but also over 42 years and 900 hours old!

 

The way I see it is that if people take risks, they accure a 'luck debt'. Like all major owings, sooner or later the debt collector comes around. In aviation, he wears a dark hooded robe and carries a scythe.

 

CHeers - boingk

 

 

[M61A1]

I could, for example, be out flying my Minicab at the moment as its a gorgeous day here in Goulburn. However, I am of the sorts not to want to fly on a tyre going bald, nor a prop that is structurally ok but also over 42 years and 900 hours old!CHeers - boingk

Without throwing a spanner in your works........have you considered that your airframe , made of the same material, will have similar hours and age?

 

 

[Mark11]

Reading rotax engine brochure for my 582, it says the engines are not aviation engines and are prone to stopping!

 

 

[Mark11]

Actually it says it's not a certified aircraft engine - section 4.2 of the operators manual

 

 

[j230]

no mate, i dont own a jabiru, and no, i wont be buying one, 'to make up my mind'. Seems a rather expensive exercise to me. My mind is made up (for now, see end of post), and i dont see why because you own a jabiru, you have taken my comments as a personal attack on you, because that is not how it is intended. But i stand by what i said. Especially with my luck, I wouldnt want to tempt fate (if something is ever going to go wrong with any product, it will be the one I get). I Appreciate your offer of a flight, but i must decline. I'm only dissapointed that I cant place my trust in Jabiru motors, becuase i would love to be able to support an Australian company. If you are happy to fly them, go for it, more power to you. Its like the old Ford vs. Holden, Nissan vs Toyota. Everyone is entitled to an opinion about a product... but ones opinion about a product means jack all about people who use it.And, you could be well right about problems being attributed to how the engines are being treated, but I cannot draw conclusions from that, not having 1st hand knowledge, or knowing the owners/operators of them. I can only go on statistics. I only wish I could actaully get some solid figures, and have the time to go through a pile of accident investigations. Im happy to be proven wrong, but until then, i will be staying out of jab powered aircraft.

 

edit: to anyone who has access to figures, it would be great if you could compile a list, and populate a time/failure graph.

 

also, does anyone know the failure rate of the 3300? I personally havent heard of many of them failing?

Sorry you took it to hart, it was not meant to be. In all the good coments made by every one yes im the first to admit that Jabiru need to do some tidying up on lots of things but so do all the manufactures on all the aircraft and engines, if you take the time to realy look around as i scruitinise every aircraft and engine that i can get near some of the things you see make your hiar curl and they are straight out of the factory.I see so many mistreated aircraft and engines i just shake my head and walk away but when it fails the por old manufacturer is the first to get blamed even if it is not his fault whether he could have made the product better or not . I know of a 3300 jab moter that will get an oil change when ever and not the oil filter, the owner says when i queried it , said no need to change it, said its okay you dont have to change them every time as its a waste of money, also the aircraft is never taken for a fly first to warm up the oil before draining it . Its only a matter of time before it goes bang and poor old manufacturer will get the blame agian whether it goes bang through design fault or poor maintenace. As some one brought up about shoddy lame people out there i have seen a few and no they are not all like that as there is some very good ones out there. My jab is maintaned 110 percent i do not let any one put a spanner on it as i am an ex heavy mechanic and very fussy about what i do whether its for me or some one else as there is a thing called pride in your work,.Today it seems to be a thing of the past no matter where you look in most cases.

 

Regards Ray

 

no mate, i dont own a jabiru, and no, i wont be buying one, 'to make up my mind'. Seems a rather expensive exercise to me. My mind is made up (for now, see end of post), and i dont see why because you own a jabiru, you have taken my comments as a personal attack on you, because that is not how it is intended. But i stand by what i said. Especially with my luck, I wouldnt want to tempt fate (if something is ever going to go wrong with any product, it will be the one I get). I Appreciate your offer of a flight, but i must decline. I'm only dissapointed that I cant place my trust in Jabiru motors, becuase i would love to be able to support an Australian company. If you are happy to fly them, go for it, more power to you. Its like the old Ford vs. Holden, Nissan vs Toyota. Everyone is entitled to an opinion about a product... but ones opinion about a product means jack all about people who use it.And, you could be well right about problems being attributed to how the engines are being treated, but I cannot draw conclusions from that, not having 1st hand knowledge, or knowing the owners/operators of them. I can only go on statistics. I only wish I could actaully get some solid figures, and have the time to go through a pile of accident investigations. Im happy to be proven wrong, but until then, i will be staying out of jab powered aircraft.

 

edit: to anyone who has access to figures, it would be great if you could compile a list, and populate a time/failure graph.

 

also, does anyone know the failure rate of the 3300? I personally havent heard of many of them failing?

[cooperplace]

Looks like the forum didn't like the formatting, It's supposed to be 35 mechanical failures and 28 forced landings for Jabiru, and 6 and 4 respectively for Rotax 912 family.

so is there data for the relative numbers of Jabiru vs Rotax engines, to enable calculation of the rate of failure?

 

 

[boingk]

Without throwing a spanner in your works........have you considered that your airframe , made of the same material [as your wooden propellor] will have similar hours and age?

Yeah mate I queried the previous owner about it and he pointed to two names decalled onto the fuselage under the lefthand side of the canopy. He told me they were cabinet makers and part time aircraft constructors, who were also previous owners. They apparently gave the craft an inspection about 5 years ago and noted that the airframe was in 'very good original condition' and would have no doubts as to its strength to original parameters. You can see the patched inspection points on the airframe if you look for them.

 

I went into this very sceptical, on the basis that buying a craft worked out better than renting one. I believe that after the money spent on new prop, tyres, and batteries I will have invested a further $700 or so into the aircraft. This is fine by me and is mostly filed under 'preventative maintenance'.

 

Cheers - boingk

 

 

[eightyknots]

.....

If you want predictability in life, flying light aircraft is not for you. As good as the engines are today, there are no guarantees. If you are worried about risk in aviaton, just carefully consider the drive to the airstrip!!

OR, if you're worried about risk in aviation, "fly" a "mission" or two on Flight Simulator.

 

 

[turboplanner]

so is there data for the relative numbers of Jabiru vs Rotax engines, to enable calculation of the rate of failure?

Someone did post some numbers with Rotax outnumbering Jab considerably, but I think he was including two strokes. We really need 912 figures only.

 

I've managed to extract about the same number of RAA magazines as I collated the figures on, so will be able, when I have the time, to collate about double the statistics I posted on, and we can draw some very rough conclusions from them, but they are way under reported

 

For example there are engine failures which didn't make it to "Pilot Notes" because the owner didn't report them - probably 6 or so in one flying school alone, and fatalities don't appear in "Pilot Notes".

 

 

[poteroo]

I would seriously question whether the 'reported' engine failures, for all makes and models, are the real numbers. Perhaps 25%? I think we've seen threads on this before - but there's much opinion that there is under-reporting of incidents in the entire aviation industry...not just RAAus.

 

happy days,

 

 

[boingk]

Yep, under reporting for sure. I had the flying schools C150M have a stumble on me at about 5,500ft over Braidwood on the way to Moruya. First thoughts were carby ice so I put in carby heat. Sure enough, after about 30 seconds it improved markedly and I was on my way again.

 

Does that constitute a report? What exactly does?

 

Cheers - boingk