Oscar Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Good grief. I go bush for a few days, and yet another alleged 'Jabiru engine failure' thread erupts, without facts and promoted by the Usual Suspects. When we all look at this, we see actually three posters bashing away at their drum: Asmol, FT, Bull. Heck, even Turbs, Merv and Deadstick have withdrawn from the fight...though in several of those cases (and another I won't bother to mention), there would be some serious embarrassment if all of the CASA action against Jabiru engines becomes public knowledge. FT and Bull don't have skin in the Jabiru-owning game, we don't know about Asmol. So., about three people in Australia vs. the 1300 owners of Jabs. post their opinions. Why do we bother to take issue?
SDQDI Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Speaking of turbs, Merv and Deadstick I haven't seen them post for a while so maybe they have just found some more intelligent company:sweat: Which is a pity as they had a lot of info between them. Also Oscar it seems to be the same jab basher bashers that bash away on their drums:bash:, it certainly isn't all one way. You also seem to be alleging that Turbs, Merv and Deadstick (along with the unnamed one) are somehow singlehandedly responsible for bringing on the CASA action which seems a pretty big call!
fly_tornado Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 why do you always bite Oscar? because everytime you see the RAA member's market there is your used Jabiru with an overhauled motor 1
Oscar Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Speaking of turbs, Merv and Deadstick I haven't seen them post for a while so maybe they have just found some more intelligent company:sweat: Which is a pity as they had a lot of info between them.Also Oscar it seems to be the same jab basher bashers that bash away on their drums:bash:, it certainly isn't all one way. You also seem to be alleging that Turbs, Merv and Deadstick (along with the unnamed one) are somehow singlehandedly responsible for bringing on the CASA action which seems a pretty big call! Nope, but CASA has listened to the 'evidence' from a few ( and quoted it back to enquirers) but has evidently not weighed up the depositions of many, including FTFs with happy Jabiru operational experience. Nobody with intelligence says Jabiru engines are the gold standard for reliability, but the noisy protestation of a very few appears to have triumphed over the careful analysis of the facts. This is of course human nature, hence the expression of 'the squeaky wheel gets the oil'.
Oscar Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 why do you always bite Oscar? because everytime you see the RAA member's market there is your used Jabiru with an overhauled motor Horseshit. My Jab is NOT for sale. More of your unfounded and inaccurate speculation, FT. 1
Guest asmol Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Good grief. I go bush for a few days, and yet another alleged 'Jabiru engine failure' thread erupts, without facts and promoted by the Usual Suspects.When we all look at this, we see actually three posters bashing away at their drum: Asmol, FT, Bull. Heck, even Turbs, Merv and Deadstick have withdrawn from the fight...though in several of those cases (and another I won't bother to mention), there would be some serious embarrassment if all of the CASA action against Jabiru engines becomes public knowledge. FT and Bull don't have skin in the Jabiru-owning game, we don't know about Asmol. So., about three people in Australia vs. the 1300 owners of Jabs. post their opinions. Why do we bother to take issue? FACTS I think its the first time i have posted anything about a Jabiru. I logged on around lunchtime and checked the latest threads, 4 of the 7 news threads had something to do with Jabiru failures I was personally attacked about my Avitar - Now gone I was personally attacked over my user name which is medication i need daily I am joining the other members mentioned, turbs, merv and deadstick and its the last you will see of me. But i guess with 6,000 plus members and only about 20 posting all the time then i guess you can go back to all doing what you do best and thats talking crap about nothing ! Look at the posts in the past 24 hours, less than half have anything to do with aviation, the rest are what fuel for my car, new prime ministers, go the cowboys, replacement priests and other non aviation stuff. Anyway, signing off.
Yenn Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Asmol. I hear whaat you are saying, but there is no compulsion to restrict this forum to matters aviation. There is a section for laughter, which is well used. I agree with you that there can be rubbish talked here, but there is also a lot of good advice and help given to people. I have been using this forum since just after it started and it is my belief that it has been more good than bad. Sure there are some people saying silly things, maybe I am one of them, but most people seem to want to help, rather than denigrate. If I based my avatar on the same principles as you it would be blank, or maybe alcohol. 5 1
facthunter Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 You need a thick skin sometimes to stay here. No one said it was easy and amongst the stuff you think is rubbish there is, and always will be, some information, I am sure would be of assistance to you. It's YOUR site as much as anyone elses. Everyone has to justify their statements. No exceptions. There are a lot of Jabiru owners and operators who have been massively disadvantaged by CASA's actions UNFAIRLY. as well as CAMit and Jabiru. You walked into a hornet's nest. (sh) IT happens. Nev 3
Kiwi303 Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 You need a thick skin sometimes to stay here. Geeze. thick skin? This place is a Pussy Wimp Pink Candyfluff Paradise compared to the likes of the old Usenet days on Rec.SCUBA and Rec.SCUBA.UK with the late, great AirHog and crew... 2 1
gandalph Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 why do you always bite Oscar? because everytime you see the RAA member's market there is your used Jabiru with an overhauled motor Which one is Oscar's plane. I wouldn't mind giving it a once over if it's nearby. 1 1
turboplanner Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Good grief. I go bush for a few days, and yet another alleged 'Jabiru engine failure' thread erupts, without facts and promoted by the Usual Suspects.When we all look at this, we see actually three posters bashing away at their drum: Asmol, FT, Bull. Heck, even Turbs, Merv and Deadstick have withdrawn from the fight...though in several of those cases (and another I won't bother to mention), there would be some serious embarrassment if all of the CASA action against Jabiru engines becomes public knowledge. FT and Bull don't have skin in the Jabiru-owning game, we don't know about Asmol. So., about three people in Australia vs. the 1300 owners of Jabs. post their opinions. Why do we bother to take issue? More ridiculous dribble. I certainly have not provided CASA with any information, and I backed my claims up with official RAA published data. 3 1
turboplanner Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Getting a funny for straight facts is a measure of how low some people will go. 1
Guest ozzie Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Wow interesting read over the last few pages. Jab bashing has been going on for years and does not seem to have affected sales. As for damaging the companies reputation they themselves have done far more than anyone or group has done to them. Failing to accept real problems with a product and cure them and failing to look after your customers has done far worse to their reputation. The only reason they are probably still running in the engine business is the lack a competitive like product. As for these twin engine commuter type aircraft and their engines. They are so old now. Tired airframes, engines that have been overhauled too many times, i doubt any of those aircraft have had a factory fresh new engine ever fitted to them due to need to make a profit. The airframes are possibly heavier now than when new 40 years ago. They were certified to fly on one engine back then, fresh factory test airframes, engines, factory test pilots and ISA days. When working at Bankstown watched many a Dutchess wind it's way along Georges River clawing for height running on one. Only two onboard and always early in the morning. The Mojave accident at Banstown (smithfield) overflew a couple of suitable places to land including Richmond. Lesson there, no matter what you are flying if you have a problem never let an opportunity go by, and don't fixate on a long strip of black, flat and open is good enough. I always thought it was common knowledge that running a big Continental at low power settings would toss a counterweight through the case.
forexjohnny Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 I have noticed that many deaths and injuries that occur in RAA fixed wing aircraft appear to occur when attempting an emergency landing after an engine failure. As “Recreational” aircraft they do not meet the same build and maintenance standards of GA aircraft. Even so I do not think this is a major factor as certified engines can also fail. When I fly I only fly over areas that I know I can safely land on which seems to be the mantra for many pilots. But what abilities do these modern day RAA aircraft actually have to land on anything other than bitumen or high grade dirt and grass runways. If your aircraft does not have the ability to land in a paddock without shedding undercarriage flipping over and killing or maiming all on board then why are you flying over it? If you cannot glide to an appropriate site then you should never have been there in the first place. Remember your last flight and then imagine an engine out at ANY stage of that flight where you would be trying to land on ground that was not appropriate for your aircraft. If you wish to fly over water then flotation devices are required. Aircraft that fly over their tiger country should also be require to either have safety devices like ballistic chutes or not be there. I understand that what is tiger country for some is not for others but if you crash your Jabiru/Tecnam etc in a paddock because it has little wheels and undercarriage not up to the job then as the pilot in control you should wear the blame not the engine manufacturer. John 1
Ada Elle Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 You've obviously never been to Wedderburn airport.
microman Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 I have noticed that many deaths and injuries that occur in RAA fixed wing aircraft appear to occur when attempting an emergency landing after an engine failure. As “Recreational” aircraft they do not meet the same build and maintenance standards of GA aircraft. Even so I do not think this is a major factor as certified engines can also fail.When I fly I only fly over areas that I know I can safely land on which seems to be the mantra for many pilots. But what abilities do these modern day RAA aircraft actually have to land on anything other than bitumen or high grade dirt and grass runways. If your aircraft does not have the ability to land in a paddock without shedding undercarriage flipping over and killing or maiming all on board then why are you flying over it? If you cannot glide to an appropriate site then you should never have been there in the first place. Remember your last flight and then imagine an engine out at ANY stage of that flight where you would be trying to land on ground that was not appropriate for your aircraft. If you wish to fly over water then flotation devices are required. Aircraft that fly over their tiger country should also be require to either have safety devices like ballistic chutes or not be there. I understand that what is tiger country for some is not for others but if you crash your Jabiru/Tecnam etc in a paddock because it has little wheels and undercarriage not up to the job then as the pilot in control you should wear the blame not the engine manufacturer. John Typical GA attitude to microlights(ultralights) - although here in NZ it is slowly changing as GA pilots become aware of the capabilities of the lighter machines, and they are moving over to microlights in droves. I would much rather crashland my Alpi in tiger country at 30kts than a Cessna weighing twice as much at twice the speed. There was a recent case of a Zenith 601 which crashlanded in a canopy of trees where the terrain was so rough it could only be reached by helicopter - only very minor injuries resulted. As for the "should never have been there in the first place" comment - what garbage - we have confidence in the maintenance of our aircraft (and our engines) and for many in NZ if they never flew over tiger country they would simply never fly! Forexjohnny has obviously never visited the West Coast of the South Island. We have a bunch of Zenith 701's in our club - they routinely land on strips (so called) that only Alaskan bush pilots would consider. 3
pmccarthy Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 The argument that you cannot fly over rough land is the same as saying you can't drive a car on roads with trees alongside them in case you run off the road. 3
K-man Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Typical GA attitude to microlights(ultralights) - although here in NZ it is slowly changing as GA pilots become aware of the capabilities of the lighter machines, and they are moving over to microlights in droves. I would much rather crashland my Alpi in tiger country at 30kts than a Cessna weighing twice as much at twice the speed. There was a recent case of a Zenith 601 which crashlanded in a canopy of trees where the terrain was so rough it could only be reached by helicopter - only very minor injuries resulted. As for the "should never have been there in the first place" comment - what garbage - we have confidence in the maintenance of our aircraft (and our engines) and for many in NZ if they never flew over tiger country they would simply never fly! Forexjohnny has obviously never visited the West Coast of the South Island. We have a bunch of Zenith 701's in our club - they routinely land on strips (so called) that only Alaskan bush pilots would consider. One of our most memorable flights was when my wife and I each hired a Technam and flew, each with an instructor, over that section of NZ from Waneka. It was basically instruction in mountain flying and we each logged about 7 hours. We flew over the alps with the most beautiful glaciers, down into Milford Sound and out and North to one of those beautiful seafront strips you refer to, used by deer shooters, with flax lining the strip about 2 metres from each wingtip. We drive on the roads trusting that the guy in the 20 ton truck coming at us at 100k will miss us by more than a metre by staying on his side of the road. I think my chances over tiger country are at least as good as that. 4
K-man Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 I have noticed that many deaths and injuries that occur in RAA fixed wing aircraft appear to occur when attempting an emergency landing after an engine failure. As “Recreational” aircraft they do not meet the same build and maintenance standards of GA aircraft. Even so I do not think this is a major factor as certified engines can also fail.When I fly I only fly over areas that I know I can safely land on which seems to be the mantra for many pilots. But what abilities do these modern day RAA aircraft actually have to land on anything other than bitumen or high grade dirt and grass runways. If your aircraft does not have the ability to land in a paddock without shedding undercarriage flipping over and killing or maiming all on board then why are you flying over it? If you cannot glide to an appropriate site then you should never have been there in the first place. Remember your last flight and then imagine an engine out at ANY stage of that flight where you would be trying to land on ground that was not appropriate for your aircraft. If you wish to fly over water then flotation devices are required. Aircraft that fly over their tiger country should also be require to either have safety devices like ballistic chutes or not be there. I understand that what is tiger country for some is not for others but if you crash your Jabiru/Tecnam etc in a paddock because it has little wheels and undercarriage not up to the job then as the pilot in control you should wear the blame not the engine manufacturer. John You might have noticed the sad incident where the RMIT student crashed at Ballarat recently. That was a GA aircraft. I'm not saying this to denigrate GA, just that from the photo it looks like she had a heavy landing that collapsed the undercarriage followed by a very long slide. A lighter aircraft would have less inertia. You may have read that no metal aircraft have survived ditching in Bass Straight. What you may not of read about was the Alpi Pioneer that came down in one of the waterways in Europe some years back. They picked it up the next day, still floating. If we are forced to land in rough terrain it is recommended that we land with the undercarriage up, again something you can't do in most VH registered light aircraft. As microman said, I'll also take my chances in the Alpi over the Cessna anytime.
Litespeed Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Myself, I would happily choose a bad landing/controlled low speed flight into trees/terrain in a Jabiru over almost anything and certainly over a GA aircraft. Yes, it has a smooth ground only front wheel assembly but that will breakaway and reduce the inertia and hence G load on the pilot. Time and again the Jabiru has proven to be a extremely strong little aircraft when it all goes pearshaped. We must remember that there have been no fatalities in a Jabiru unless it hits terrain at cruising speed. Many a pilot has walked away with no or little injuries due to the strength of a Jabiru. And No I do not own one or have a vested interest. 1 3
Oscar Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 I have noticed that many deaths and injuries that occur in RAA fixed wing aircraft appear to occur when attempting an emergency landing after an engine failure. As “Recreational” aircraft they do not meet the same build and maintenance standards of GA aircraft. Even so I do not think this is a major factor as certified engines can also fail.When I fly I only fly over areas that I know I can safely land on which seems to be the mantra for many pilots. But what abilities do these modern day RAA aircraft actually have to land on anything other than bitumen or high grade dirt and grass runways. If your aircraft does not have the ability to land in a paddock without shedding undercarriage flipping over and killing or maiming all on board then why are you flying over it? If you cannot glide to an appropriate site then you should never have been there in the first place. Remember your last flight and then imagine an engine out at ANY stage of that flight where you would be trying to land on ground that was not appropriate for your aircraft. If you wish to fly over water then flotation devices are required. Aircraft that fly over their tiger country should also be require to either have safety devices like ballistic chutes or not be there. I understand that what is tiger country for some is not for others but if you crash your Jabiru/Tecnam etc in a paddock because it has little wheels and undercarriage not up to the job then as the pilot in control you should wear the blame not the engine manufacturer. John Of the 5 deaths in Jabiru aircraft in Australia, out of a fleet of something in excess of 1,000, only one has been associated with a 'landing incident' - and the circumstances of that have not yet been disclosed. The other four were a result of CFIT. While it is certainly true that many 'ultralights' have very poor levels of occupant safety in the event of a crash, the Jabiru airframe has an extremely good record of crash-worthiness - far better than a considerable number of popular GA aircraft, including - from a recent statistical analysis undertaken in the USA - the C172, the world's most populous GA aircraft, I believe. The idea that GA aircraft do not flip over is completely false - they certainly can and do. I would not argue that Jabirus quite frequently flip over - I own one that did - but the suggestion that 'shedding undercarriage, flipping over and killing or maiming all on board' applies only to RAA aircraft, is a nonsense. And the size of the wheels is a complete load of claptrap: the terrain makes the difference. 3 2
forexjohnny Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Well aren’t we a touchy little lot. First of all I am not a GA pilot and never have been. I have been flying RAA for a number of years and was in no way comparing GA to RAA aircraft. In fact I said it makes little difference which you fly because all engines can stop. Secondly as far as I am concerned you are quite welcome to fly over any type of countryside that you desire. If you engine out in the middle of the NZ mountains that is most certainly not going to affect me in the least. These are your risks and your choice and I respect that. What I was trying to do was create conversation about any aircraft and its ability to land on anything but a runway. I am certain that there are those that crash into undesirable areas and happily survive. There are also many that do not. If safety is something that you are interested in then would it not be better to talk about this. I am only interested to learn how others deal with this problem or not deal with it as the case may be. I do not fly fixed wing and my aircrafts STOL ability far exceeds any fixed wing on this forum (at a guess). That is not meant to be “mine is better than yours” just that this is meant to be for recreation or fun so if you are going to fly over terrain that you cannot safely land on than shouldn’t you be using a system like a ballistic chute so that if the engine does stop then there is a reasonable chance that the fun can continue at a later date. John
facthunter Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 IF you land into wind in a lot of our aircraft you will actually be going very slow. The rate at which YOU change speed is what does the damage. Kinetic energy is M times V squared so it's all about actual speed and what you hit (How it yields) and how the structure in front of you deforms. This inceases the distance you take to stop and reduces the deceleration (force) applying to you. Going inverted worries me as you might not be able to get out. John ...There are a lot of planes that can safely outland and sit out weather, or if you are feeling crook. or tired. It's not always engine related. You might run into a grasshopper plague and the radiator gets blocked. RAAus planes may be a lot better in that respect than average GA. You are entitled to air your opinion. That's what everyone else does. Nev
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