Interested - single or twin engine?

[facthunter]

That might be more of an urban myth than anything based on reality.  The J230 is pretty good to learn in and has a good cruise speed as well as not having any particular vices and is sturdy also. . Nev

[turboplanner]

Why would it even be an Urban myth?

 

[facthunter]

I'm sure some very questionable concepts  are "out there" for various reasons. Nev

[RFguy]

"Jabiru airplanes have been identified as higher risk vehicles to consider training in and require special procedures however people still train in these airplanes."

 

Ian that is complete and utter horsesh1t !

 

Jabiru's are fine if they've been maintained to the books (IE so the flywhweel doesnt fall off ) AND CHT < 170C  MAX. not 200 and not 180.

 

In fact training in an aircraft that might have an engine stop might be more worthwhile to your training in that you might learn some natural life preserving behaviour ....

 

 

[Ian]

My understanding is that Jabirus still requires some additional procedures when training compared to other aircraft. CASA imposed these due to their perception of risk (rightly or wrongly)

This is partially based upon this report which led to the following report created by Jabiru engineers where explicit design changes and changes to the maintenance procedures were made to make CASA happy. It would appear that there was a real issue associated with the through bolts.

For instance my understanding is that through bolts are now replaced at 1000 hours and recessed pistons are fitted to attempt to provide for the possibility that some power may be retained in the case of a stuck piston.

The graph below is from the report.

Now I'm aware that Jabiru contested a significant number of the engine findings however even with these taken into account they didn't have the best safety record.

This would indicate that aircraft powered by these engines are a higher risk, not an enormously higher risk however a higher risk none the less.

I'd like to see these engines evolve to become the best is class engines from a safety perspective however new designs tend to fail more than older ones. I'd also like to know the alloy used in the heads and whether this was a high temperature alloy like hiduminium

 

[F10]

To Jabirus credit, I think they have put a lot into improving their engines and the latest Gen 4, seem to be pretty sorted. It’s great to have a local manufacturer in Australia too. I’ve certainly never seen anything come up on UTube regarding Jab engines in the USA. Even Katherines Report does not show a tendency that occurred here in Australia?

Let’s face it, if you look at overall cost, performance, comfort and load carrying ability, the J230D is hard to beat. Nice looking aircraft too. One personal small fruit fly in my ointment… I have just never been a fan of “side” sticks, I can live with them but… call me a traditionalist but there you are. I think it wouldn’t be hard to offer a  traditional centre stick in the Jab. Simple re-routing of the elevator Bowden and surely a simple bell rank setup for ailerons? Anyhow, the J230 is a great all round package. 

Edited October 10, 2021 by F10
Typo

[turboplanner]

8 hours ago, F10 said:

One personal small fruit fly in my ointment… I have just never been a fan of “side” sticks, I can live with them but… call me a traditionalist but there you are. I think it wouldn’t be hard to offer a  traditional centre stick in the Jab. Simple re-routing of the elevator Bowden and surely a simple bell rank setup for ailerons? Anyhow, the J230 is a great all round package. 

I haven't seen the interior of a J230D, tried to find a photo but couldn't. All I could find was a line which said the centre console was slimmer and gave more interior room. The issue with the J239D's predecessors was there was so much cabling squeezed into the centre consolethat when you set trim prior to takeoff, then opened the throttle for take off the throttle lever would drag the trim lever so you had to reset it in the TO roll. The centre joystick also had a "Y" top which didn't look very Biggles-like.

 

I would think the side sticks were to clear the log jabm in the centre console and look like the current upmarket aircraft.

[turboplanner]

14 hours ago, Ian said:

Jabiru airplanes have been identified as higher risk vehicles to consider training in and require special procedures however people still train in these airplanes.

You later clarified with this: "My understanding is that Jabirus still requires some additional procedures when training compared to other aircraft. CASA imposed these due to their perception of risk (rightly or wrongly)"

 

These statements are misleading.

The main statement was applied to aircraft, when the issue was with some engines.

"have been identified" was fair enough because there were a series of problems.

However you used the current "require" and "Still train in: which are present-time terms.

 

Jabiru had a run of issues on one engine series which showed up as above average forced landings in the RAA Magazine from about February 2007 to March 2012. Not long after that Jabiru started supplying a new series engine, and the reports dropped away.

 

I doubt that any any aircraft today would be using the old, affected, engines, so while there would be nothing wrong with checking, it is wrong to brand the Make across the board as "higher risk vehicles".

 

This also applies to aircraft with Jabiru engines built before the series affected in private ownership.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ian]

The point I was trying to make was that there are a number of aircraft which are deemed suitable to fly and train in however not all of these aircraft are equally reliable or safe.

It may have been better to pick an example where there are fewer emotional attachments, however I still think that's it's good example

As I stated I'd like to see the Jabiru engine series evolve into a best of breed engine. I think that its great that a small company has the engineering chutzpah to compete against the likes of Lycoming, Rotax and Continental. 

I'd actually like to see a graph like the one above post 2016-2021 showing the current failure rate.

 

Anyway how this relates to the original question whether a single or a twin is a suitable for an new pilot is look at why you want a twin? 

If it's safety I would recommend that you do some reading along the lines of this article on twin safety

 

 

 

[facthunter]

That article is about attitudes to twin/single safety of insurance companies, industry participants  etc. It's lightweight about handling specifics. A high Horsepower Single has issues too and a go around comes into the equation.. TWINS require  thorough training which if done in an actual plane can be risky. Modern simulators have saved countless lives by removing the need to do these thing in an actual aircraft.

   I think the original question has been answered.

  Philosophically, the more engines you have the more the chance of one failing.. IF you only have one engine, you definitely are not going to get where you intended  to, if it  fails..

    Coping with any of these possibilities requires training and competent performance. Nev

[Flightrite]

The big boys could eaily design a SE jet Airliner due the huge output of today’s donks but will they! Nope never will all due to ‘safety’, just ask CAsA what safety means.......$$$😉

Twins do give you options, SE simply has no option other than you are landing/crashing, same thing😉

[RFguy]

squeezed them down in size

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by RFguy

[APenNameAndThatA]

On 02/10/2021 at 9:09 AM, Ian said:

As someone who recently went through the process if getting their pilots licence and buying a plane there's a few things that you might want to consider.

• Find an instructor who you're comfortable with and do the training from start to finish in one or two runs. The whole couple of times a month doesn't work as you need to constantly reinforce skills and life gets in the way and suddenly you're back to square one.
• Do the theory and exames first, it might give you a clue about your ability to complete the program.
• What the mission, do you want to cover distance, visit family, fly with your partner, fly over mountains and oceans, short field operations or hard long strips.
• Do you want to go further with your qualifications IFR, night operations, fly above weather

I ended up going down the path of a centreline twin, experimental as I have a family dispersed around the country, run a business where I sometimes need to travel to rural areas at short notice, and wanted the reliability of twin engines without the problems associated with asymmetric thrust.

Flight schools may push you towards longer training periods however that's to suit their cashflows and resource constraints rather than your needs.

 

Personally I think that the experimental pathway is a much better approach simply because it's the part of the aviation industry that's thriving. I would have preferred to buy a commercial offering however the industry is moribund and overpriced and sells decades old technology which isn't fit for purpose.

There should be a vintage airplane licence and any plane which doesn't have a completely automated engine management regime should be classified as vintage. The theory about how to manage fuel/air mixtures turbocharger wastegate operations, carb ice, detonation management etc should be relegated to this category.   

 

What plane did you get? 

[Ian]

A Rutan Defiant, as with anything it's a compromise, hopefully they're compromises I can live with.

[APenNameAndThatA]

5 minutes ago, Ian said:

A Rutan Defiant, as with anything it's a compromise, hopefully they're compromises I can live with.

I worked that out, but was too lazy to un-ask. Congrats on an awesome aircraft!

[Ian]

All Good, I've done that more than once myself. So far I'm happy though I do get a bit envious of the STOL capabilities of something like the Foxbat. If only I could justify two planes 🙂