I have a J160C (primary category, not LSA) Jabiru on cross-hire to an RA-Aus flying school. Here is my story...
The airframe has 1400 hours on it. It's now on its 4th Jabiru 2200 engine.
The first engine broke a through-bolt at 675 hours approx. It was maintained by a LAME/Level 2 and was maintained in accordance with the "Jabiru J160 and J170 Aircraft Service Manual". The through-bolt breakage happened without warning or any visible signs of fretting or oil-leakage around cylinder-bases. It happened just after reducing power at the beginnning of descent. The engine continued to run, albeit roughly and the pilot was reluctant to turn it off as the residual thrust was much-appreciated. It got the aircraft safely back to a runway, sustaining serious engine-damage but with no airframe damage or crew injuries.
The engine was overhauled (zero-timed) by Jabiru Aircraft Engines. For reasons which have never been explained they re-used one cylinder from the pair that were associated with the broken through-bolt. Within a few hours that cylinder had cracked around the base and the engine went back to Jabiru Aircraft engines for repair under warranty.
The third incarnation of the engine developed a habit of very rough running at high power settings shortly after being placed back into service. After several checks by the engineer the engine was removed and sent back to Jabiru Aircraft Engines. They were unable to duplicate the symptoms and returned the engine after some more work. The engine still exhibited the same behaviour. Eventually the cure was found to be in reducing the throttle-travel by approximately 1/4". No satisfactory cause for the symptoms was ever found...even swapping out the carburettor made no difference, and the throttle-stroke had not been altered since the engine had been removed. By now the aircraft had been off cross-hire for the best part of nine months. My financial losses were something I really didn't care to think about, and I just gritted my teeth and reminded myself "in time, this too shall pass."
After approximately another 600 hours or so this engine (in its fourth incarnation) broke a stud at the rear top of No. 4 cylinder, but continued to run and in fact performed three circuits before steadily reducing oil-pressure and more noise at takeoff-power than seemed normal made the pilot land and investigate. The engine was removed and top-end overhauled by Jabiru Aircraft Engines, who were extremely helpful and did their best to get the aircraft back in the air as quickly as possible.
(An aside:- Unfortunately, the courier delivering the engine after repair managed somehow to either hit the wooden box with a forklift, or drop it, because the repaired engine was received obviously damaged, and the wooden shipping-box was heavily damaged. It was returned for repair under warranty. Jabiru Aircraft Engines were again very helpful.)
As a result of all this, I have concluded the little Jabiru 2.2l engine is a tough piece of gear, inasmuch as it will often still run with a major failure, at least long enough to give the pilot a good chance of finding somewhere to carry out a forced-landing.
The Jabiru airframe is "unkillable", and has excellent handling for a training-aircraft, with the added benefit of being relatively low-maintenance due to the use of composites in its construction. (This applies to all models, not just the J160.)
For those two reasons, and the fact my Jabiru isn't LSA-registered, I will keep the aircraft on cross-hire, with all the attendant risks - and work with the restrictions placed on it for as long as they remain in place.
All I want is a Jabiru 2.2L engine which will get to 1000 hours for its top-end overhaul without throwing a valve, breaking a stud or breaking a through-bolt. All the 3.3L Jab engine-owners want is pretty much the same.
One problem I see is Jabiru engines are still "works-in-progress". As soon as they get a reliable design, they promptly go and change something and introduce a whole raft of new problems. The solid-lifter engines were pretty reliable units and many go to 2000 hours without any issues and are still running well when they are torn down and rebuilt. They are simple, with just enough parts in them to actually work.
The change to hollow push-rods and hydraulic lifters seemed (admittedly anecdotally) to be the beginning of the through-bolt issues. The change of manufacturers of exhaust-valves seemed to be marked by an outbreak of valve-failures. Machining valve-head clearance grooves in the latest pistons is a step in the right direction, but wouldn't buying a better quality exhaust-valve in the first place be a better one? I know Jabiru have to operate on the "no expense is spared to keep the cost down" principle, but I'd happily pay an extra hundred dollars if it meant my exhaust-valves would make it to 1000 hours before replacement, instead of some ridiculously short times before failure I have seen in two 3.3L Jabiru engines in my local area.
That said, I'm not an aircraft engine-designer, so what would I know anyway? I just fly them. In 700 hours behind Jabiru engines I have had 2 partial engine-failures. In 1100 hours behind Rotax 2-stroke engines I only had one. I don't know how many hours I have behind Rotax 912 engines (not all that many probably) but I've never had one fail me yet, nor do I expect to, but if any engine I am flying with fails, I have a plan.
I'm also a pragmatist. I don't have the luxury of being able to thunder on about CASA's high-handedness, or setting a dangerous precedent, or the legality or otherwise of the whole rattling affair. I have my own opinion on what CASA needs, but that is a subject for another time and another thread. Nor am I a statistician, so anything I might say about the reliability of CASA's data, or how it was sourced, collated and analysed has no merit - so I shan't comment there either.
However, I do know what I want, and what I don't want, when it comes to Jabiru aircraft. I don't want Jabiru Aircraft to fail, nor do I want to have Jabiru Aircraft Engines fail as a company. Neither do I want to re-engine my J160C with a Rotax 912 because there are significant weight penalties for doing so, and the Rotax is not the 2000-hour wonder everyone thinks it is. It might be a 1500-hour TBO engine, and there is also a years since manufacture limit on them as well...some 912s require a mandatory overhaul after 15 years, irrespective of hours run. The Rotax 912 is not a cheap engine to buy, it isn't cheap to repair, and not all are 2000-hour TBO engines.
I just want a reliable Jabiru engine which will make it to the 1000-hour top-end overhaul, and eventually to the 2000-hour rebuild. Surely that's not too much to ask...and I really don't care how this is obtained. I want a result, not procedures and limitations designed to placate the regulator and cover its ample posterior.
So, all I can do is live with the restrictions placed on my aircraft, and endure what has to be endured until this sorry affair is finally laid to rest. What has to come out of this is a better engine from Jabiru, otherwise this has been a massive exercise in futility reflecting little credit on just about all concerned.
"In time, this too shall pass."