01rmb Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 One of the guys on the airfield I am at now was the person who recovered the aircraft and was the independent mechanic to inspect the #4 engine. His comments, repeated only last weekend, was the engine fired up and ran perfectly, as soon as they put fuel in it... I understood at the time (but I was not directly involved so only second hand) the avgas fuel problem for #2 and #3 was investigated by the fuel depots on site and whilst the lead content was 'within limits' it was at the high end but enough to cause the problems observed across the multiple aircraft, flight schools and owners.
gandalph Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 Oscar asked: "If there was an outbreak of lead fouling across the airfield, was there any action taken to investigate the fuel batch?" Well I'll beat FT to the gun and ask: IF there was an outbreak of dud avgas at the field, why didn't Jabiru damn well do something about it? To have not taken immediate action is clearly another indication of their contempt for the Australian flying community and their appalling lack of something or other.... 4 1
Oscar Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 And that result for the Runcorn incident was known within what - a week or so? - of the incident. CASA had nearly five months to validate the inclusion of that incident as an engine 'failure or malfunction' before it presented its 'facts' to validate the Instrument. Is it any wonder that RAA publicly stated that CASA had not done analysis of the information? For how many of the other 'cases' in the CASA spreadsheet, had inadequate research been done on the actual cause of the result? For those who infest this site with a 'guilty unless proven innocent' approach to Jabiru engines, nothing will suffice and they can be safely ignored. However, CASA (and ATSB) are fundamentally required to be professional, dispassionate and expert in their analysis of facts leading to actions - and increasingly, evidence is coming forward that CASA at least was anything BUT professional, dispassionate and expert. Just as CASA did until whipped into a corner through an FOI demand, ATSB has not released the actual raw data for inspection. A Senate Inquiry into all of this may well prove extremely fertile ground for a flogging of CASA and possibly, more than a glancing blow for the ATSB. If we don't have a sudden DD thrust upon us, Australian aviation might well be the benefactor of a flame-thrower applied to the genitalia of both organisations... 1
Oscar Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 Oscar asked: "If there was an outbreak of lead fouling across the airfield, was there any action taken to investigate the fuel batch?" Well I'll beat FT to the gun and ask: IF there was an outbreak of dud avgas at the field, why didn't Jabiru damn well do something about it? To have not taken immediate action is clearly another indication of their contempt for the Australian flying community and their appalling lack of something or other.... Jeez, Gandalph, you just don't get it do you? Jabiru MADE the fuel, and distributed it and sold it. It was MADE at Wellcamp, using Wagner's facilities. Kindergartens have been razed to the ground with all within them perishing as a result of Jabirus using Jabiru fuel. Get with the programme, or get off the pot. 1 1 4 1
facthunter Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 I assumed he was trying to be funny. Anyhow if people did a pull through of the prop the deterioration would be noticed with compression loss. Lead usually shows up with plug problems as well, and mostly with the cooler running heads of the Rotax 912. Jabiru have always hammered not running the engine if the compression is not right on. No engine should be run in that condition in an aircraft and for me a "top" at 500 hours with new exhaust valves would be "Normal" for a Jabiru. (and plenty of other engines out there). Merlins don't do any better and they have RR on them. Tyres crack fuel lines need regular replacement control cables need replacing etc . It's the nature of a flying machine.Nev 2 3
gandalph Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 I assumed he was trying to be funny. Geez Nev! You're a tough audience!
BLA82 Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 One of the guys on the airfield I am at now was the person who recovered the aircraft and was the independent mechanic to inspect the #4 engine. His comments, repeated only last weekend, was the engine fired up and ran perfectly, as soon as they put fuel in it... Just as a matter of interest if #4 was a result of fuel starvation why at the site of the forced landing at Runcorn there was enough fuel leaking you could have started a fire the size of heroshima.
gandalph Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 Just as a matter of interest if #4 was a result of fuel starvation why at the site of the forced landing at Runcorn there was enough fuel leaking you could have started a fire the size of heroshima. I think you've probably answered your own question. Perhaps if the fuel that you say was leaking so copiously had been able to get to the engine there might have been no need for the forced landing. Waddya reckon?
01rmb Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 Just as a matter of interest if #4 was a result of fuel starvation why at the site of the forced landing at Runcorn there was enough fuel leaking you could have started a fire the size of heroshima. Though I am not sure a few litres of fuel qualifies to start a fire the size of Hiroshima. There was fuel in one of the tanks but it was not getting to the engine and fuel starvation does not count as an engine failure. By way of explanation - The Jabiru J160, J170 and J230 fuel tanks are set up with a small 5l header tank behind the seats or sound curtain fed from two 67.5l wing tanks. Total fuel is 140l with 135 useable. The wing fuel line is connected to one end of each of the wing tanks. If one wing is continuously held low, or flying out of balance, then when fuel drops below the fuel line there will be fuel still in the tank but it will be below the fuel line and not able to be transferred to the header tank. Also remember the wings are not level due to the dihedral so there is a natural low point at the wing root where the fuel line is anyway. When the fuel in the other tank is completely used and all the fuel in the header tank is completely used the engine is starved of fuel whilst there is still a small amount of fuel in the other wing tank being held away from the fuel line. The J170 would be running about 15l per hour so the 5l tank would last for 20 minutes on it's own. The aircraft needs to be flown with the ball not balanced for quite some time to not equalise the tanks or feed the header tank and the 'high' wing would need to have been completely drained and the header tank completely drained before running out of fuel. If you took off with low tanks and flew out of balance continuously then yes you can still have fuel onboard but not going to the engine. Remember what they say - straighten up and fly right... 2 1
JEM Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 This is the latest from Australian Flying. May already have been seen as it is dated the 10th. http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/jabiru-slams-atsb-over-engine-failure-report 1 1
Bruce Tuncks Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 Operating Jabirus out of Gawler for training and hire, over ten years there have been some engine-out incidents, all of which were landed without much harm, after all the Jabiru was just turned into a glider . Most of the time however the engines make overhaul time without problems. The majority of the incidents were not caused by faults inherent in the engine, and if the same proportion were of this type in the ATSB report, (and 01rmb indicates this to be so for the samples he knows) then the report is unfair and biased. There are several Rotax engines based at Gawler, but these do not do anything like the same training work or the same hours. Of course they have fewer faults. Personally, I would like to try a turbo 914 in a glider tug, but our tugmaster says that sometimes the 260 horsepower Lycomings are only just powerful enough on a hot day with a heavy 2 seater. I think if a Rotax was used for towing all the time it would have more problems than just sitting in a hangar. Gosh with an insight like that I should be on the ATSB. 1
BLA82 Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 I think you've probably answered your own question. Perhaps if the fuel that you say was leaking so copiously had been able to get to the engine there might have been no need for the forced landing. Waddya reckon? I reckon that the fuel leaking was caused by the sudden stop and had it been leaking that much before the accident it wouldn't have left the ground. So no I didn't answer my own question but thanks 01rnb you did, thanks for explaining it.
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