Jabiru experience

[Spooks]

I've no experience of them but I have heard of a few issues with the 2200 engine.

 

The title of this thread was something I heard last week at the airfield from a chap offering advice on a first aircraft purchase (not to me, to another chap!). I had hoped to ask him what was so bad/ what his experience was but he'd buggered off by the time I'd finished my lesson.

 

So I was just wondering if they did have a bad rep beyond the known engine issues? Personally I think they look quite good as an affordable first purchase!

 

 

[Litespeed]

Could you please change the title to something relevant and impartial.

 

Like " Jabiru experience?".

 

As you current title is alarmist and more suited to tabloid newspapers.

 

Thankyou

 

 

[Spooks]

Unfortunately I can't, unless there's an edit button hidden somewhere?

 

 

[Robbo]

You will have to PM Ian (Admin) to do that.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

You will have to PM Ian (Admin) to do that.

Yeah, I for one will PM him and ask him to peez this thread off, haven't we had enough of them, hope others will request it as well from Ian.

 

Spooks, there's plenty of threads to read on the subject, pop into the Jabiru forum here.

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/forums/jabiru.40/

 

 

[DrZoos]

Agreed, in light of CASA this needs deleting

 

 

[Spooks]

My apologies. I hadn't realised the issues that Jabiru were facing with CASA.

 

I was mainly curious about the reputation as I'd heard of the few engine problems (which could be at the same rate as rotax, just that it depends on how and whether issues are reported!) but also read that Jabiru are one of the stronger aircraft with regards to the body and go,through thorough stress testing.

 

Feel free to delete the thread. I'd rather not fan the flames through this if there's a bit of a witch hunt going on!

 

 

[DrZoos]

Looks like its now been changed

 

 

[DrZoos]

Normally this question would start a huge debate...

 

In light of CASA's massive over reaction discussing the topic could take down our largest manufacturer or our entire governing body, so its best just left alone...

 

There are many many threads already on this site...use the search function and search something like jabiru engines, jabiru failure, jabiru safety, jabiru through bolts, jabiru temps,

 

Keep in mind when they where written we had no idea our governing body would react in such a ridiculous way, we thought perhaps they might just investgate the issues and force the manufacturer to get some data

 

 

[nomadpete]

In answer to the question, in my opinion, Jabiru make an excellent ultralight aircraft. A good performer and generally represent good value for what they offer. They are used extensively in Australia for training. The airframes have proven to be sturdy. Yes, I have had some limited experience with them. Never actually owned one although our club has quite a few. As far as the engine debate goes, well, I can only say that my observations bring me to the conclusion that most owners get good results as long as the operator pays close attention to the correct 'care and feeding' of it (particularly temps and cooling). After all, do you really expect to get the same ultimate product reliability as a Lycoming or Continental for a small fraction of their cost?

 

Jabiru can sell me a complete aircraft for the price of a Lycoming engine.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

There was a good article recently (maybe in Sport Pilot?) of Americans getting better results from their Jabiru Engines, they concluded this was down to better systems in place for monitoring (and recording) engine performance (temps etc).

 

 

[Nobody]

I dont own a Jabiru Aircraft or engine but have spent a lot of time looking at them and talking to people who currently do and perhaps my next aircraft will be jabiru powered.

 

Peoples view on Jabiru are polarized into two opposing camps. To understand this you need to understand what Jabiru have done. They designed, developed and marketed one of the best small aircraft airframes ever to fly. They however put in it an engine that is only OK. It isn't bad(there are many "aircraft" engines that are much much worse) but it isn't great. When the aircraft was originally designed they were going to use someone else s engine. That engine faced delay's in being ready and they were forced to develop their own engine. The engine has some good points, low weight, good power, simple oil system but is sensitive to overheating. Engines that have been overheated tend to have onset detonation issues and dimensional issues with the heads in the longer term.

 

The overheating comes down to a few points. Some people run their engines that little bit hotter, some live in hotter locations and there is some variability in the setup of the baffles in individual setups. The acceptable temperature limits published by Jabiru are probably too high to be acceptable. What this means is that some people never have an engine issue and swear balck and blue that the Jabiru is the best aircraft ever. Other people are overhauling engines every few hundred hours and, on their third engine cant wait to get rid of the thing.

 

This isn't helped by Jabiru's approach to customer service. To the people who have problems they point out that there are many others who are getting good service out of their engines so the customer must have done something wrong, bad maintenance, incorrect operating, poor fuel. The customer says "but I operated it within the limits you had in the manual." Both statements are true. This also hasnt been helped by Jabiru's approach to development. Over time many little changes have been made to the engines. When people have an issue with an engines Jabiru's response has been to offer a overhauled engine with all the upgrades for eg $10k. Now some people think, "Greet, A new engine for half price". Others think, "I paid $20K to buy an engine and this one failed halfway through its life and now you want me to give you more money"

 

Jabiru engines are in this halfway house between a fully old school certified engine like a lycoming and the wild west of full experimental. This allows their factory built aircraft to be used from training and hire. Jabiru engines have been demonstrated by the manufacturer to meet the ASTM standards by testing in a test cell and that was the case in the early days. Following the design improvements this testing hasnt been repeated. CASA got wind of a number of failures and had a chat with Jabiru. Their response was along the lines of "don't worry, we have fixed these issues". CASA's response was "while that may be so you haven't demonstrated that is true in a test cell and how come you have made changes without updating the paperwork."

 

Overall a Jabiru aircraft is a reasonably good aircraft. Anyone who says what your original thread title said is an idiot.

 

Their weakness is engine cooling.

 

Anyone who flys them without temp monitoring/recording on all cylinders and doesn't keep well within the CHT limits is also an idiot.

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

I've no experience of them but I have heard of a few issues with the 2200 engine.The title of this thread was something I heard last week at the airfield from a chap offering advice on a first aircraft purchase (not to me, to another chap!). I had hoped to ask him what was so bad/ what his experience was but he'd buggered off by the time I'd finished my lesson.

 

So I was just wondering if they did have a bad rep beyond the known engine issues? Personally I think they look quite good as an affordable first purchase!

I purchased a Jabiru J170 from the factory because it was within my price range and I like the endurance, double that of many similar planes. I believe that most problems are caused by owners dicking about with the engines. (Notice I said 'most problems'.) The Gawler flying club regularly gets 1000 hours out of their engines and those planes are flogged by students most days of the week. The fuselage is second to none, and very roomy. The only thing I do not like is the way the J170 floats down the runway on landing, doesn't settle real quick like the shorter wing J160. Anyway, that's my opinion, have fun...

 

 

[Ultralights]

if your flaoting down the runawy, then you a little to fast, try losing a know or 2 next time.. as for the engines, im not saying anything...

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

No, I disagree. I have flown many aircraft and the J170 is noted for its tendency to float. Fly a J160 then a J170 in the same configuration and same conditions and you'll understand. By the way, your spell checker is as bad as mine!

 

 

[Ultralights]

typing from a phone doesnt help... i know the 170 has a reputation for floating, but i have no issue with the 170 landing as the stall horn sounds... the 170 is a different aircraft to the 160 with that big wing, and so, requires a slightly different technique to land just as well.

 

 

[Russ]

the 160 and 170...........identical, except for wing length. So..........why the bigger wing ?? ( mtow etc etc.....same yes ?? )

 

 

[Oscar]

If Jabiru offered the J170 with manual flaps that you could dump on round-out, it'd be no problem.. Ever watched an Auster flying as a glider tug? They float without dumping the flaps; an experienced tug pilot can land the damn things in much the same distance as a glider using airbrakes - and that's after kicking the tow-rope over the fence. A family member had one he used as commuter transport into Bankstown, and routinely landed on a taxiway adjacent to HdH where he worked until the Tower communicated to him that the Flight School instructors were getting antsy because their students were getting the idea that the runways were optional..

 

Mind you, that was back in the 'good old days', when Randy Greene, the HdH test pilot, would routinely improve his position in the queue to do test flights on maintenance -released Wessex helicopters by hovering alongside the tower. Apparently, being unable to grab your coffee as it is shaken off the desk is a powerful inducement to get rid of the bugger in the take-off queue.

 

 

[Russ]

Several occasions we've ventured into some bush strips, Trees abound, strip shortish.........but winds / turbulence all over the shop. The LAST thing i want is to "float".....using up valuable length, and getting tossed here there and everywhere............i want wheels on deck, quick smart please. Love me 160.........

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

the 160 and 170...........identical, except for wing length. So..........why the bigger wing ?? ( mtow etc etc.....same yes ?? )

because when you are close to MTOW and flying where ground temps are close to the max allowed in the POH the 160 climb rate is a bit anaemic..... which means you cant reduce the rate of climb to get better cooling airflow by trading rate of climb for better forward speed....170 is better in those conditions......imho if you also swap out the body to the 230 and pop in the six then the improvement is even better......

 

 

[Nobody]

the 160 and 170...........identical, except for wing length. So..........why the bigger wing ?? ( mtow etc etc.....same yes ?? )

Isnt the J-160 540kg and the J-170 600kg?

 

 

[jetjr]

think thats the reason for longer wing, to lower stall and permit full 600kg MTOW

 

Shorter wing is a little faster and better rough condition performance, specs says 116kts Va for 160, just 94 for 170

 

Vo min for 170 is just 68 kts

 

Similar differences for J230 vs J200

 

 

[Russ]

know a chap that reports loading his 160 to 600+, said the only difference to flight was longer take off, slower rate of climb, nothing else changed. Jab figures quoted must be conservative, erring on the side of caution.

 

Interesting to note tho........600 in a 160, quite doable. ( but illegal )...........so's 65 in a 60 zone, and we've all done that.

 

 

[jetjr]

If you look at data for small wing J2/400, theres just a 3kt stall difference between 544kg and 700kg !!

 

I believe the thinking is that a RAA trained pilot cannot handle the extra speed that the extra weight incurs.....

 

 

[Oscar]

know a chap that reports loading his 160 to 600+, said the only difference to flight was longer take off, slower rate of climb, nothing else changed. Jab figures quoted must be conservative, erring on the side of caution.Interesting to note tho........600 in a 160, quite doable. ( but illegal )...........so's 65 in a 60 zone, and we've all done that.

Jab. figures are tested with calibrated instruments, not deduced from corrected ASI figures. For whatever sins Rod Stiff may be charged with, he's never overstated performance.