The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Jabiru engine failures

Old 14th Nov 2014, 04:03
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 54
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It's also interesting and slightly disturbing that the consultation draft published doesn't list any engine types, model numbers or failure modes.

In my opinion, that's pretty poor professionalism on CASA's part. Why has the failure rate on an unspecified series of engine models suddenly become "an urgent safety risk"?

It would be easy to construe this as a commercial vendetta on someones part rather than a valid safety action.
Andy_RR is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 04:06
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,381
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
it's always easier to destroy than it is to build up and plenty of Aussies seem to like to see destruction...
Witness our government, for instance.
Arnold E is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 04:09
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,859
Received 167 Likes on 94 Posts
Absolutely Andy. How about some serial numbers, 4 or 6 cylinders, thru bolt compliance, etc. Nothing at all from them as yet.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 04:41
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fuel DOES NOT COOL
Would you care to elaborate on that?

Formation of CO2 releases more than 3x the energy of CO.

My high school chemistry calculations (admittedly with 25+ years of rust) suggest that 10% excess fuel reduces the energy (heat) released by about 3%.

You get more molecules and hence more pressure at the same temperature, or the same pressure at a lower temperature.
andrewr is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 04:51
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Andy RR, I think that you will find CASA have had a couple of Audits of the Bundaberg factory where the topic was raised.

Also worth a look at the Jabiru Facebook page to see the owner reaction for and against the CASA proposal.
Ndegi is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 05:16
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 54
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Ndegi, that may be true, but the CASA proposal makes no concrete case for the action. It's all hearsay and anecdote and, like I said, no data, serial numbers, model numbers or anything.

All engines have their weak points which need to be managed, but CASA wouldn't dare put blanket restrictions on "Lycoming engines" or "Continental engines" without specifying models, build dates, specs, installations or some other form of identification. Why is it OK to do this to a local manufacturer?

Even if Rod is being blind or belligerent, it's not CASA's job to "teach him a lesson" by wielding a big regulatory stick without just cause.
Andy_RR is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 05:42
  #47 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's still just a proposal. Perhaps if the manufacturer supplies relevant data to limit the action to certain models or serial numbers CASA will change the proposal.
Draggertail is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 06:26
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: YLIL
Posts: 250
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From today's RAAus email:

Reported data for 2014 year to date (January through October)


Hours flown
Jabiru 41,834
Rotax 71,626
All 131,227

Landings
Jabiru 92,735
Rotax 145,638
All 260,383

Engine failures (full or partial)
Jabiru 28
Rotax 16
All 51
That makes Jabiru 0.67 per thousand hours, Rotax 0.22 and others 0.39.

Jabs way in front, if the stats are complete (which they may not be, based on track record). Even if they aren't, it's a wide margin.

Last edited by triton140; 14th Nov 2014 at 07:05. Reason: Do the math!
triton140 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 07:03
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think you used landings for Rotax and hours for Jabiru. Rotax should be 0.22.
andrewr is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 07:03
  #50 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I make it Jabiru 0.67 per thousand hours, Rotax 0.22 and others 0.39.

Jabiru 3 times more likely to fail than Rotax.

Jabiru almost twice as likely to fail as the "others".

Enough reason to take action I suppose but I wonder why these stats are only now coming out. Why haven't RAAus (or CASA) advised us of this before. If they had then maybe market forces would have forced Jabiru to take action.
Draggertail is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 07:04
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: YLIL
Posts: 250
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by andrewr
I think you used landings for Rotax and hours for Jabiru. Rotax should be 0.22.
Indeed - fixed, thanks!
triton140 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 07:07
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
are rotax's more likely to be in installations where engine failures are shall we say less likely to be reported?
waren9 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 07:24
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 54
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It's interesting data, but not really very enlightening.

Rotax = 447, 582, 912A/F/S/iS/UL/ULS 914F/UL and probably other variants

Jabiru = 2200 and 3300

Others = ?

Of course installation plays a big part in reliability too, so how many variations do all these account for?

Looking at the data from flight hours/landing perspective, you have 0.45hrs for Jabiru, 0.49hrs for Rotax and 0.50hrs as a fleet average, so clearly the use profile for Jabirus are different from Rotaxes and just what is it that's bumping the fleet average beyond even that...?

The data might be enough to trigger an investigation, but enough to destroy a company's reputation in public by regulatory sabre rattling?

There's certainly a case for more information required before proposing a case for regulatory action. And this proposed action? Just what comment should the public make without any concrete data or information?
Andy_RR is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 07:28
  #54 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
waren9, are you suggesting Rotax owners are more dishonest than Jabiru owners?
Draggertail is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 07:50
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
waren9, are you suggesting Rotax owners are more dishonest than Jabiru owners? 14th Nov 2014 18:24
I don't know about 'Dishonest' but I thought with the 2 stroke engines failures were more or less ops normal. I know of a couple that I'd bet good money never landed on any report.
rutan around is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 07:59
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,859
Received 167 Likes on 94 Posts
It may just be all over after today's meeting with CASA.

There is work to be done and it's possible it may never come to fruition.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 08:00
  #57 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rutan around, some at CASA seem to think a Jabiru engine failure is "ops normal".
Draggertail is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 08:17
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Didn't Lee Ungerman work for RAAus? This issue hasn't suddenly arisen. Where was he then and what was he doing?
Eyrie is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 09:57
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,455
Received 49 Likes on 33 Posts
Thumbs down

I would not put my wife in kids in an aircraft with a Jab engine, even with me driving it. Sad to see this happen to an Australian aircraft manufacture. In this case I believe CASA do have a legitimate reason to think about placing restrictions on the engines until the manufacture can come up with a suitable fix, which I doubt will happen unfortunately. Forget the stats, there is way to much evidence to convince me that the engines are unreliable, and I'm certain that there is a heap more engine malfunction events that haven't been reported.
Duck Pilot is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 10:01
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
andrewr, answers inserted in red.
Would you care to elaborate on that? I did already, you just failed to copy and paste the rest of the answer.

Formation of CO2 releases more than 3x the energy of CO. OK, and by running richer and richer you generate a lot more CO. This was graphed way back before computers…I have the graph. I can't easily print the graph I know to be accurate but this one is probably near enough


My high school chemistry calculations (admittedly with 25+ years of rust) Don't worry….I am worse off suggest that 10% excess fuel reduces the energy (heat) released by about 3%.

Not really, it slows down the burn rate, and the peak pressure occurs later, therefore at a lower peak pressure. Just like your air compressor, compress to a lower pressure you don't get the heads as hot. And no fuel used at al.

You get more molecules and hence more pressure at the same temperature, or the same pressure at a lower temperature.
Jabawocky is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.