Light plane crash The Oaks, 30 March 2023 (edited)

[bull]

On 31/03/2023 at 10:30 AM, planedriver said:

That's so sad!. Here's a photo I took recently when it was in better shape.

Unfortunately this is the 2nd time this little Jabby has met up with a tree, but fortunately all on board survived pretty much unscathed, which is yet another testimonial of the strength of Jabiru airframes.

The other occasion was an EFTO at Wedderburn in 2001 when it wound up in the trees that surround the airport.

 

 

.so it is a multiple offender ah?

 

[bull]

On 01/04/2023 at 8:11 AM, old man emu said:

Yes, BrendAn, I was.  I'm sure that if you had seen the report on the news you might be inclined to agree with my opinion of him. You'll notice that virtually nothing was said of the instructor, John Taru who was the one with serious injury. Of course the report also uses all the cliches, but at least they didn't call it a Cessna.

 

 

.sounds like your just a bit jealous mate ,,,,really ,,that is how your coming across.....lol

[bull]

On 01/04/2023 at 11:55 PM, Litespeed said:

Glad the PIC has survived and will recover, a bad day at work with a life saving Jabiru airframe.

 

The cocky shit trainee should take up skydiving and learn to fall instead of fly.

 

 

Once again the Jabbawocki has proven it's great ability to shed loads in a crash. 

Two walking away is a hell of a example of safety in design.

 

 

.also showed how good they are as runway markers too.....

 

[bull]

On 02/04/2023 at 8:15 AM, Thruster88 said:

I bought myself a plane before I learned to fly . My bad.

 

.me too ,bugger 

 

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, bull said:

sounds like your just a bit jealous mate

Jealous of what? Oh Yes! Jealous of John Taru's skill and experience.

[spacesailor]

Well !.

The trainee did say that the tail hit the trees & flipped it, 

But did it invert or nosed in . If nosed in , it is well built to have saved the occupants ..

spacesailor

Edited April 4, 2023 by spacesailor
Spelling

[turboplanner]

5 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Well !.

The trainee did say that the tail hit the trees & flipped it, 

But did it invert or nosed in . If nosed in , it is well built to have saved the occupants ..

spacesailor

Have  a read back a few posts; it was described.

[Old Koreelah]

3 hours ago, Area-51 said:

Somebody asked who flies downwind... Often practice downwind landings and take offs;…

Even taxiing downwind can be challenging; one of my groundloops resulted from wind picking up my tail and carrying it around over 180 degrees. Taildragger needs opposite rudder in a tailwind.

[facthunter]

 AND opposite elevator. That was drummed into us in the days of Tailwheelers only.  Nev

[Old Koreelah]

30 minutes ago, facthunter said:

 AND opposite elevator. That was drummed into us in the days of Tailwheelers only.  Nev

I had to ride 7hours into Qld to do my training on taildraggers, but never “graduated” because I couldn’t keep the plurry Thrusters straight after touchdown.
Years later, after getting my ticket in Jabs, I’d forgotten some of these lessons when I was learning to drive my Jodel.
 

Swapping the mainwheels transformed ground handling: it was diabolical when they had toe-in!

[facthunter]

I agree about the thruster and the toe in, in general. If the track increases when weight goes on the wheels. toe in makes the scrubbing effect worse. One of the wheels has the more grip. Nev

Edited April 4, 2023 by facthunter

[BrendAn]

8 hours ago, kgwilson said:

No engine ever made by man has all of the bugs ironed out. They all fail. Rotax engines have a reputation for reliability but they fail too, as do Continental, Lycoming etc. There are probably more Jabirus in flying schools around Australia than any other type. The number of hours they do far oustrips any thing in private ownership. Many make TBO  but not that many are overhauled simply because it is less expensive to purchase a brand new one. There seems to be a a lot of Jabiru knockers in Australia while in other countries around the world they have a good reputation.

i love jabiru because they are australian and great aircraft. can i not even ask a question without being called a jab knocker. this is why i tried to remove my post when i reread it. 2 have gone down with engine failure in the last couple of weeks. 

the 2 i did training in seem to be trouble free but they are working all the time and getting driven as recomended in the poh.

[facthunter]

I didn't say YOU were a Jab knocker, but looking back through the posts you gave a pretty good imitation.  The manufacturer of the engines probably lost the shirt off his back and is certainly not guilty of any crime or negligence.   If we drive all makers out of the scene are we where we want to be?  I've flown 2 strokes which are far far less reliable that Jabiru's in general  I'd be very happy and privileged to fly some ancient thing even with a crap 3 cylinder Anzani in it in the right circumstances but I'd be hesitant to fly in a Spitfire over a large populous area that I couldn't glide clear of. As I said. There are PLENTY of less reliable engines out there than a properly serviced and inspected Jabiru. South Africa seeks to make a go of them..   Nev

[BrendAn]

6 hours ago, bull said:

.sounds like your just a bit jealous mate ,,,,really ,,that is how your coming across.....lol

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by BrendAn

[turboplanner]

Engines are complex; any part or any sub-design process can fail or perform poorly.

Engines are rated by failures per 100.

4 failures per 100 in automotive use is reasonable, usually covered by warranty; the car just rolls to a stop and people get upset by the wait and inconvenience.

In flying there's the change of serious aircraft damage, injury or death so it's a bit more personal.

When failures start to occur a team usually swings onto the issue trying to find the cause.

Where the issue is consistent, e.g. valve seat failure at x hours, manufacturers issue a Recall before that time and replace them, with a lucky development programme, with new seats that don't fail.

A lot goes on that you don't know about.

Cummins designed a new lightweight 259 hp engine and promoted it with a Sanfrancisco-New Yorke semi trailer trip at full gross achieving 10 mpg. Existing trucks were doing 6. It had all the Cummins duraility built into it, so I pre-sold a lot to some of the bigger fleets. Shortly after they went into service, my most aggressive fleet manager started to come after me about trucks staying too long off the road being repaired. They were warranty repairs but time is money. So I made an appointment to see the service manager. I should have known as I drove into the yard and saw pallets stacked with pistons all over the place, but just put them down to scrap going back for recycling. As I walked in one of the girls got up and escorted me into the board room, sat me at the head of the table, and offered me fresh scones and coffee, the penny still didn't drop. Shortly after the Service Manager, State Manager, an Engineer and about four Service guys sat down. I tightened up as I realised I was the only outsider there; this meeting was aimed at me!. One of the victims/service guys stood up and showed the first slide; a list of 141 faults with the pistons. All I could think of was the time my client had looked out of his office and said: "Are you still there Mary????!!! and a timid little voice said "Yes" and he replied "Well go home so I can tell this bastard what I really think of him."

The presentation went on item by item - about 80 items already fixed, and the plans for each of the others, and we worked out a plan which I thought would bee acceptable t the Fleet Manager, and we all survived including the Fleet Manager who had to deal with the drivers.

That's been the worst engine problem I've ever experienced, but we all got through it and the engines went on to become routine.

The Jabiru issues followed the same pattern. Issues started to occur, changes were made and today it will be a different situation. RAA, I presume, is still pumping out the monthly statistics, so it's not that hard to see what today's performance is like. From the lack of news reports, I'd guess going well.

 

 

 

 

[BrendAn]

2 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Engines are complex; any part or any sub-design process can fail or perform poorly.

Engines are rated by failures per 100.

4 failures per 100 in automotive use is reasonable, usually covered by warranty; the car just rolls to a stop and people get upset by the wait and inconvenience.

In flying there's the change of serious aircraft damage, injury or death so it's a bit more personal.

When failures start to occur a team usually swings onto the issue trying to find the cause.

Where the issue is consistent, e.g. valve seat failure at x hours, manufacturers issue a Recall before that time and replace them, with a lucky development programme, with new seats that don't fail.

A lot goes on that you don't know about.

Cummins designed a new lightweight 259 hp engine and promoted it with a Sanfrancisco-New Yorke semi trailer trip at full gross achieving 10 mpg. Existing trucks were doing 6. It had all the Cummins duraility built into it, so I pre-sold a lot to some of the bigger fleets. Shortly after they went into service, my most aggressive fleet manager started to come after me about trucks staying too long off the road being repaired. They were warranty repairs but time is money. So I made an appointment to see the service manager. I should have known as I drove into the yard and saw pallets stacked with pistons all over the place, but just put them down to scrap going back for recycling. As I walked in one of the girls got up and escorted me into the board room, sat me at the head of the table, and offered me fresh scones and coffee, the penny still didn't drop. Shortly after the Service Manager, State Manager, an Engineer and about four Service guys sat down. I tightened up as I realised I was the only outsider there; this meeting was aimed at me!. One of the victims/service guys stood up and showed the first slide; a list of 141 faults with the pistons. All I could think of was the time my client had looked out of his office and said: "Are you still there Mary????!!! and a timid little voice said "Yes" and he replied "Well go home so I can tell this bastard what I really think of him."

The presentation went on item by item - about 80 items already fixed, and the plans for each of the others, and we worked out a plan which I thought would bee acceptable t the Fleet Manager, and we all survived including the Fleet Manager who had to deal with the drivers.

That's been the worst engine problem I've ever experienced, but we all got through it and the engines went on to become routine.

The Jabiru issues followed the same pattern. Issues started to occur, changes were made and today it will be a different situation. RAA, I presume, is still pumping out the monthly statistics, so it's not that hard to see what today's performance is like. From the lack of news reports, I'd guess going well.

 

 

 

 

only 2 in the last 3 weeks. the 3 before that were pilot error.

[turboplanner]

1 minute ago, BrendAn said:

only 2 in the last 3 weeks. the 3 before that were pilot error.

I don't think they were 4 Series for a start, and you need to go through the RAA material for at least that last two years to get anything meaningful.

[RFguy]

As I have mentioned before.. There are a few things , IMO,  that Jabiru Engines SHOULD HAVE been alot more proactive of fixing  / SB issue.
Someone in the company, IMO, made a judgement call (which i disagree with) that IMO, they considered the reputational loss was acceptable and allowed parts and systems to fail in airborne aircraft. (or were not sufficiently competent and didnt understand the rather basic problems) . 

However I think an equal number of Jabiru engine failures are due to, let's call it...  "Variable maintenance practices".

There is half of me that's had about enough of the Jabiru company mindset, and makes me want to sell my J230..... but the other half of me knows  that the J230 airframe is one of the best flying options around.  Economy, speed, performance.,- that wing is gorgeous to fly with compared to GA trucks.  Putting aside I have bought an Archer1 and am studying for my Instrument Rating - that is a separate pathway - the J230 and the Archer are two completely different mission providers.

 

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, RFguy said:

As I have mentioned before.. There are a few things , IMO,  that Jabiru Engines SHOULD HAVE been alot more proactive of fixing  / SB issue.
Someone in the company, IMO, made a judgement call (which i disagree with) that IMO, they considered the reputational loss was acceptable and allowed parts and systems to fail in airborne aircraft. (or were not sufficiently competent and didnt understand the rather basic problems) . 

However I think an equal number of Jabiru engine failures are due to, let's call it...  "Variable maintenance practices".

There is half of me that's had about enough of the Jabiru company mindset, and makes me want to sell my J230..... but the other half of me knows  that the J230 airframe is one of the best flying options around.  Economy, speed, performance.,- that wing is gorgeous to fly with compared to GA trucks.  Putting aside I have bought an Archer1 and am studying for my Instrument Rating - that is a separate pathway - the J230 and the Archer are two completely different mission providers.

 

You need to be a bit more specific. You've covered a lot of work you've done but from my memory it was on older model product. It's usually cost prohibited for engine manufacturers to redesign old engines for parts sales.  In one case I had to import a Holden engine from New Zealand for a client's 4 year old car because manufacturing for that engine series had ceased. The only viable option, which I pushed for and which was accepted was to do a deal with an accessory manufacturer to manufacture and supply parts to the company, and that was a fully developed design with no issues. Supplying new model engines as a replacement is a good policy because it removes the issues and the cost is not that much more than a rebuild.

[RFguy]

Yeah, my comments relate to Gen 1,2,3. 
In my opinion - systematic issues of Gen1,2,3 are pretty well covered off and mitigated in Gen4 (head integration). 

 

and other non head stuff like flywheel bolts / attachment  - sorted, propeller flange extra dowels, - sorted.
Pistons seem to still go bang, but they are few in numbers. Lycoming have lightweight pistons that fail, also.  Not alone....

 

With exception  - that , IMO, the TBO on AVGAS ( without additive that reduces lead products buildup ) is about 300 hours (Gen1,2,3,4), and that fresh ULP98 is best fuel for Jabirus by far.  Running 95/98ULP in Jabirus that have had lots of avgas and have lots of buildup I would avoid because of potential glow/preiginition issues due to buildup.

 

 

[onetrack]

Jabiru have built nearly 8,000 engines and are still in business, and still have a very substantial level of acceptance - worldwide. They have a big following in the U.S. There must still be a lot of Gen 1, Gen 2 and Gen 3 engines still running admirably with an approved level of attention and maintenance. Continentals and Lycomings still go bang on a regular basis, and no-one is threatening to ban them.

 

There's a balance between what a manufacturer needs to do to correct engineering faults, and the owners requirements to operate and maintain their engine in an acceptable and approved manner.

All engines respond with unreliable performance, in response to thoughtless, careless operation, and "she'll be right" maintenance levels.

 

[facthunter]

Looking after any engines that aren't used everyday is a bit of an art . 2 kms to school twice a day isn't much better. When Doctors did home visits in the burbs, same problems. Taxi's which are hardly ever cold do high mileages untouched. It takes about 45 mins of flying to warm up a motor fully at least.  Nev

[Old Koreelah]

8 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Looking after any engines that aren't used everyday is a bit of an art . 2 kms to school twice a day isn't much better. When Doctors did home visits in the burbs, same problems. Taxi's which are hardly ever cold do high mileages untouched. It takes about 45 mins of flying to warm up a motor fully at least.  Nev

I had a boss who drove his V8 Ford 500 metres to work each day. One day I was at the servo when he opened the bonnet to check the oil. There was a very large rats nest IN the engine V! The buggers were warm and comfortable, but his muffler rotted out every year.

[facthunter]

The later V8 "Cleveland/ Windsor" etc rusts the timing chain if you only do  short runs and it jumps teeth. eventually. Those Larger motors take a while to reach normal temps. Country XD waggons as taxis did over a million miles at times. Nev

[old man emu]

Talking of engine reliability, if you follow the development of very many piston-engined aircraft that either made the grade of fell by the wayside, very often you will find that in those that fell aside, the airframe was OK for purpose, but the complete package was let down by unreliable and sometimes dangerous engines. Even the venerated Rolls Royce Merlin went through a lot of development over the years. And who speaks of the Rolls Royce engines that were so bad that they hardly made it as boat anchors? Rolls Royce weren't Robinson Crusoe in the engine game.