motzartmerv

Give it time kev...These is just the ones i havnt deleted yet from August..

Why on earth would casa not open channels with the people who actually build the engines? I'm dumbfounded.

Yea no doubt, and incredibly disappointing considering the depth of exrement they currently find themselves in. It was the last straw for me today, my comment for CASA's current discussion is now a lengthy document with todays conversation as the highlight and point in case, emails from Jabiru, maintenance history on several aircraft, engineering reports and engine data. Im happy to make my records,( both maintenance and flight records) available to CASA or who ever else is interested to see exactly what "operating" these machines in a busy school 'reads' like. Apparently jabiru dont find it significant, but im sure CASA will. Its a significant data file too. 2 x 230's (Both failed) 2 x 160's (Both failed, one of them on multiple occasions) 1x170 (failed 3 times) 1x Bantam jabiru ( failed twice in 100 hours) 1x LSA 55, valve failure ( First flight by owner after purchase) (Note, i have included through bolts and issues discovered on the ground as failures) Too be honest I was on the fence with regards as to how I should 'comment' to lee re the proposal. I was considering a balanced approach, with consideration to the thousands of hours we have done in them, all the students we have trained, and the quality of pilot that is generally produced when they learn in these aircraft, along with the failure reports. But jabiru have today proven to me where their concerns lay and have tipped me off the fence.

It causes a slight rise in egt but no where near limits. Oil temp and cht remain optimal with this method.

Further to the above post re the 160 failure. (and I offer this NOT as a Jab bash, but a practical example of some ststements regarding jab service) After the failure jab washed their hands of the engine realising that the AD not being complied with meant they were free and clear of any responsibility. So they told us to " do what you like with the engine" My engineer at the time requested that the factory check the engine for a cause, but was met with " you didnt do the through bolt mod" . I think THIS case is a perfect example of how the factory's attitude has lead (in part) to the current climate. For the sake of some shipping costs, the factory could have had a 'dead engine' to give an autopsy, but instead, washed their hands of it once they had their "out". This is (IMHO) an example of a reactive rather than pro active mentality. Another example, just TODAY, I recieved a call from the Jab factory asking if I run jabiru engines in my flying school. I answered no, the last engine is broken with little or no chance of being repaired. The previous 4 jab powered aircraft have also 'broken' and are no longer online. The girl on the phone said " Well, ok, theres no need for you to do our survey if your not running jabirus anymore." Ummm.. I was dumbfounded. I just told you I have broken 4 jabs at my school, and you dont think this is statistically important? Anyway. Todays dealing has sealed the deal with me. Nobody can now convince me that they truely care. IMHO, they are only "reacting" still.

The first aircraft (first through bolt failure) was a 160. I cant recall the hour state of the engine, but the total time was 1200 ish. Training aeroplane that had extensive time spent at bankstown. It has pent its life run on AVGAS but had recently been changed to Mogas when the failure occurred, I wold guess maybe 3 months . This engine was a "hot runner" with two bank CHT monitoring. regular running temps around 160-175 degs (CHT) Semi powered approaches were generally flown IAW with POH and carefull monitoring of temps during climb was always needed. Quite often requiring levelling off and relaxing the engine to allow it time to cool before entering the climb again. for this reason the aircraft was seldom used for navigation training. There was no reason given for the failure other than the fact the owner had not had the through bolts changed IAW with an AD (that expired 9 days before ) The reason for the failure from then on was " We didnt do AD". Subsequent years and continued failures have proven this not to be the case, but as I said, its the only reason ever given.

The aircraft in question was used primarily for training. Run on 98 octane Mogas. Always flown IAW the poh with regards to speeds etc. Cht ( single probe) was always notably low for a jab. Indications were generally sub 150 degs during normal operations. The engine lasted till 800 hours when we were forced to change the through bolt nuts IAW a jabiru AD ( I forget the ad number) for bigger nuts. 40 hours later the front stud bolt sheared off and was found during a preflight inspection. The engine was returned to the factory for a top end and the factory stated the cause of the bolt failure was " incorrect bolts supplied by the factory" . The top end overhaul was completed by the factory and the engine re installed by an L4. 250( ish) hours later the fly wheel screws sheared. Only 2 remained intact. This was picked up again during a pre flight inspection. The screws showed signs of being " reused" from the top end overhaul evidenced by multiple fitting and wear points on each screw . 80 hours later another through bolt was found sheared during an inspection after pilot reported rough running during run ups. Note. The new even bigger through bolts were NOT fitted during the factory top end overhaul. We don't know why, and requests for this info have not been .... Handled. The j170 this engine is fitted to as I said has been used fr training on a short, grass runway. In order to obtain speeds IAW with the poh idle approaches are generally used, particularly after jabiru released an AD which reduced the amount of flap available. We teach VY climb to 1000ft agl followed by a power reduction and an increase to 80-85 kts indicated for " cruise climb" with regular clearing of the nose by lowering to cruise attitude every 1000 ft during the climb.

The engine in question has four cracked heads, discovered through the latest SB. The stud wasnt a through bolt, it was one of the front studs that go to a dowel type thingy (technical term)

Hi. Can you give some detail re this resonance issue? How its caused, how you rectified it? 3 Through bolt failures we have suffered: 1. Oil filter side, front cylinder, top rear bolt 2, Front stud (off oil filter side) 3. off oil filter side, front pot, bottom rear bolt 2 failures on the same engine. Fly wheel attachment bolts failed in between through bolt failures.

I was responding to the radio interview quote by the president " There have been no fatalities " . I did not say the above accidents were related to engine failures. The line" there have not been any fatals in jabs" is simply not true, that was my point. Sorry if I was not clear.

Apparently not... Interesting to hear all this talk of Zero fatals in jabs. Do we mean Zero fatals attributed to engine failure? Thats also an interesting assumption when some of these are not explained in detail (the usual non investigated means) There has indeed been fatals in jabs, all over the world. NO aeroplane is bullet proof. http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/mildura-fatal-accident.21802/ http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Jabiru%20UL,%20G-VILA%2009-13.pdf http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2012/11/single-engine-plane-crash-at-cherokee.html http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2001/aair/aair200104707.aspx

Not blamed you for what tho? You said yourself you have only had minor problems.

Frank had a failure didn't he?

Whos dragging anybody down? Im stating the current case of one owner. Im just one little flying school in a big pond.

Probably true, but at the end of the day, the result is the same.

The owner of our training jab is already in this boat. The aeroplane is parked up un insured, can't afford To fix it. Busted through bolt and now it's discoverd all the heads are cracked. She's paid for the engine twice in 1000 hours.

Perhaps a little dramatic, but I thought he did a good job there. Some good points, and he speaks well.

Welcome to the forum elon. There are already other threads discussing this topic in detail.

Im not arguing jet, i am saying that there will be multiple avenues for litigation. Not least of which is along the consumer rights line should any resemblance of the current paper get passed.

Its very interesting. Theres a case where a student over controlled on the elevator and a fire extinguisher broke free and smashed through the canopy. Ive instructed a few hundred hours in this type and I can relate to the concerns raised in the article. The ailerons are firm and require quite strong pressures, while the elevator is twitchy to almost " joke" proportions. In fact its the only aircraft ive ever instructed in where I felt the need to "gate" on the controls to stop gross errors low to the ground causing a prang.

Imagine the "claims" from owners against jab of they can use their aircraft as advertised.. I doubt it will pass in its current state.

Did you read the article Nev?

Less is more!!! Leave it alone and it will leave you alone. It's incredibly pitchy, so think about pressure on the controls rather than ' moving ' them. Good luck :)

Interesting article that. I think the Geeza factor is a huge player in those stats. This accounts for the low (comparibly) incident rate across GA, and having done countless conversions, some in Piper sports (Czech airworks) and The Evektor, I can tell you for sure, Cessna pilots really do need 'help'.

Fuel, interesting and always comes up as a possible cause. Our first through bolt popped on an engine that had spent 100% of its life on AVGAS. I accept that someone may be very unlucky and get a carby full of dodgy fuel. Maybe, once in a blue moon. I know it doesnt have the same regulation of AVGAS, but the higher quality fuels should be ok, after all, people put it in cars worth much much more than our little jabirus's. Imagine the uproar if a bad batch caused the destruction of a few mercedes and a couple of porshe's. The engines we have run on high octane mogas look so much better when stripped, no lead deposits, nice charcoal colour instead of grey. What is the mod required to Lyc engines to allow them to run on Mogas? I know it aint bigger through bolts and liquid cooling:)