Jabiru Owners Group

Welcome to the world of Jabiru

CASA Consultation Draft

This is a read only forum and contains all the archived posts from jabiruowner.co.uk.
  • Advertisement

Re: CASA Consultation Draft

Postby Anonymous » Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:16 pm

Posted by: BobP on 21:46:44 11/30/14 Sun

I agree that the Jabiru airframes seem to have been (generally) pretty trouble free. But how many (if any?) new Jabiru aircraft/kits were sold in the UK in the last year? And as (I guess) Jabiru aircraft are only approved to fly with Jabiru engines who would buy a new Jabiru airframe now?


I'm sure Jabiru would sell more (some?) aircraft if they sold them with Camit made engines.
Anonymous
 

Re: CASA Consultation Draft

Postby Anonymous » Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:16 pm

Posted by: Gary on 19:14:42 12/01/14 Mon

I would say they would sell more with theD motor, ul or if possible the 912..
I don't think the current press will do CAMit any favours either, as said earlier they are basically the same engine with mods to improve them, the sGBP&t has already stuck. Just my view. Hope not though
Anonymous
 

Re: CASA Consultation Draft

Postby Anonymous » Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:16 pm

Posted by: Steve on 20:24:57 12/01/14 Mon

The problem with using an engine other than CAMiT is that a lot of other things would have to change. The CAMiT engine is virtually the same weight and exact same fitting. Any other engine would need modification to the mountings and possibly firewall and take weight away from an aircraft that is already weight limited. With exception to the J160 etc, the other 2 seater aircrafts can only just about accommodate 2 people as it is, and the 4 seater can just about take 3 comfortably.

If you read the Jabiru blurb, they say the only reason they built their own engine was for the above reasons. They did contemplate the Rotax but with all the cooling system etc it adds around 10kg on the front.

Not so bad with the group A aircraft as they could possibly build and certify at a higher maximum weight but trying to keep the Jab in the microlight class would be extremely difficult. Plus staying with CAMiT would mean parts would continue to be available for all of us.
Anonymous
 

Re: CASA Consultation Draft

Postby Anonymous » Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:16 pm

Posted by: Gary on 20:30:21 12/01/14 Mon

I believe the D motor is a straight drop in engine and is 10kg lighter, did the for see anything?
Anonymous
 

Re: CASA Consultation Draft

Postby Anonymous » Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:16 pm

Posted by: dl on 21:48:26 12/01/14 Mon

you also have 10 extra ponies which no doubt the laa would want some sort of stress test on as torque would be higher. if the laa were ready to support the change then you might be in business, however the aircraft is likely to be grounded for the best part of a year ....

with 130 jabs in the UK you would think someone would go for it. The manufacturer would probably give a massive discount for getting it approved as It would open up a massive chunk of the UK jab market if it was approved.
Anonymous
 

Re: CASA Consultation Draft

Postby Anonymous » Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:16 pm

Posted by: Steve on 09:42:58 12/02/14 Tue

I would welcome any options for the Jab. I must admit, I do not completely trust the Jab engine. Whether that is completely justified or just because of reputation I don't know but I always have some apprehension.

I have had one engine failure after take off and that's enough to make me cautious of the Jab engine for life.

But my previous experience of mods going through the LAA do not inspire me of getting anything approved in my life time.
Anonymous
 

Alternative Power Plants for Jab

Postby Anonymous » Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:16 pm

Posted by: DL on 17:50:14 12/02/14 Tue

steve,

I suppose that would be with the current lifetime expectancy (which is over 100)?

The fact that the CAMit engine is not yet aproved poses a number of other probs in that anything that is not considered "like for like" would still have to go through the LAA approval process.

Would it be worth putting together a consortium made up of Jabiru owners with the aim of getting alternative power plants approved for the jab airframe ?

As the old saying goes "strength in numbers" ... I suppose that requires unity.
Anonymous
 

Re: Alternative Power Plants for Jab

Postby Anonymous » Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:16 pm

Posted by: Gary on 19:18:35 12/02/14 Tue

Steve, totally agree with you on that score
DL, also agree on that 1, a good idea. I would think the LAA would be lenient on time scales with the latest issues with jabs.
You are right on the power and 10 kg lighter, also fits straight in. But like you say the engine mounting would need load testing for the extra torque produced by the D motor to see what mods need doing to support the power. The mount would not be usable again as stressed to limits.
Is the 3300 the same mount?
If so then no problem.
The other hurdle is its about GBP10k + vat so a large investment to make, but what an aeroplane afterwards

I would say about GBP8k has been wiped off the price of jabs now. The old motor you take out maybe worth max GBP3k ish if a good un and you can get a buyer. So 8 off, 3 on 12 to buy= 9 for the motor, value back to were it was and a bit more so overall approx 6 to 7 investment? Or am I in dream world
Suppose there is cost for a new prop and a bunch of other incidentals? Dreaming
Anonymous
 

Re: Alternative Power Plants for Jab

Postby Anonymous » Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:16 pm

Posted by: Northumbrian on 21:22:54 12/02/14 Tue

I am not sure why people think that a Jabiru Aircraft with a Jabiru engine is any less serviceable or lower in value in this country now than it was six months ago. I am on my second Jabiru and was aware when I bought it that there were issues with the engine but these are known and fixable. Cooling is an issue but can be dealt with and we live in a climate much cooler than the Australian average which makes life easier for the engine. I am not aware of Jabirus falling out of the sky in any great numbers and definitely not more than other types. There are Jabirus out there with over 1000 hours on the engine. There are problems with other new motors mentioned in this string of posts which are not public knowledge. One of the problems with Jabirus is that they have a greater percentage of owners who have little mechanical knowledge or interest compared with owners of vintage types or harder to build types (eg Europa, Vans). I have come across many bad points in the two Jabirus I have owned which appall me but which previous owners have been happy with. If you are happy to jump into your aircraft and fly it with high oil temperature and low oil pressure and cylinder head temperatures in the red on full power climb then the life of the engine will be shortened. We are fortunate that The Jabiru engine uses automotive ancillaries as this keeps costs down. However it is up to us to make sure that the quality of components fitted matches the expectation of performance from that component. I bought a Jabiru as an aerial estate car. Once I have sorted it to the standard I require I expect reliable performance from it. Jabiru flying qualities are not outstanding but I believe if I put the effort in I will end up with a good aircraft. Unfortunately most of the ones I have seen are not properly sorted but finished only as far as a permit to fly.
I bow to those with greater knowledge than myself and will let them correct me.
Brian.
Anonymous
 

Re: Alternative Power Plants for Jab

Postby Anonymous » Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:16 pm

Posted by: Gary on 21:30:15 12/02/14 Tue

Your sounding a bit like Rod lol
Anonymous
 

PreviousNext

Return to Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests