Jabiru Twin redefining Ugly
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: cloud9
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Perth, WA
Age: 40
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't stand Jabirus. They're fraught with problems and just about the only aircraft (in the loosest context) that almost comes with a guarantee that you're going to get some sort of emergency or failure. This thing looks like a bad idea from the outset, I'll be looking out for the first crash!
Last edited by Diesel Pilot; 8th Sep 2013 at 23:47.
I am no fan of the Jabiru airframe and have some reservations about the power plant, even though I fly behind one installed in a Sonex. The Sonex is just one aircraft hit with the ugly stick which performs exceedingly well on low power. So proving an aircraft does not have to be pretty to be effective.
And, despite my reservations about the Jabiru power plant, it is evolving into a reasonably reliable thing.
if this twin gets certified and can be brought to market for under 200 grand, I predict that it will become an all-time best seller.
The potential market is huge.
And, despite my reservations about the Jabiru power plant, it is evolving into a reasonably reliable thing.
if this twin gets certified and can be brought to market for under 200 grand, I predict that it will become an all-time best seller.
The potential market is huge.
I think this is a fantastically innovative piece of engineering. It's obviously not conventional thought and it is a bit visually challenging, but it ticks a lot of boxes in terms of twin engined aircraft requirements, including keeping the wing free from nasty nacelles and protuberances.
I'll bet a Mr Bent is doing a merry jig because he can sell twice as many engines to Mr Stiff.
(do you have to have a funny surname to be involved with Jabiru...?)
I'll bet a Mr Bent is doing a merry jig because he can sell twice as many engines to Mr Stiff.
(do you have to have a funny surname to be involved with Jabiru...?)
first twin flight ?
If the youtube truly IS the first flight, then I reckon the crew need to look at a few good books about test flying.
1. 2 on board
2. Rolling takeoff
3. off centreline
4. early right turn over tiger country
5. no upper air work to check aircraft handling
6. orbit at 500ft on final !!! FFS
7. touch and go off first ever landing
etc etc etc
good luck guys !!
1. 2 on board
2. Rolling takeoff
3. off centreline
4. early right turn over tiger country
5. no upper air work to check aircraft handling
6. orbit at 500ft on final !!! FFS
7. touch and go off first ever landing
etc etc etc
good luck guys !!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the youtube truly IS the first flight, then I reckon the crew need to look at a few good books about test flying.
They're fraught with problems and just about the only aircraft (in the
loosest context) that almost comes with a guarantee that you're going to get some sort of emergency or failure.
loosest context) that almost comes with a guarantee that you're going to get some sort of emergency or failure.
I've never heard of any significant issues with a Jabiru yet, engines aside. They have a proven record of passenger protection that likely surpasses most other operating light aircraft in this country. They are economical performers, have an excellent payload, perform very well (model dependant), are inexpensive, are comfortable, have excellent range and these would be some of the reasons why they are arguably the most successful aircraft ever produced in this country.
(do you have to have a funny surname to be involved with Jabiru...?)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Perth, WA
Age: 40
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-XXX,
Personally I'm just not a fan. IMO a bit too cheap and nasty, topped off with reliability issues. But hey that's just my opinion, no offence to any proud Jabiru owners/drivers out there
Personally I'm just not a fan. IMO a bit too cheap and nasty, topped off with reliability issues. But hey that's just my opinion, no offence to any proud Jabiru owners/drivers out there
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I think your initial comments were a tad harsh then.
Doesn't equal:
They're fraught with problems and just about the only aircraft (in the loosest context) that almost comes with a guarantee that you're going to get some sort of emergency or failure.
Personally I'm just not a fan. IMO a bit too cheap and nasty, topped off with reliability issues
...oh goody a dedicated thread to the ugly duckling 'Jab'
Donk failures are nasty at ay time but at least with a SE Jab donk failure you know there's no further trying save the day yr on yr way down & try to pick a soft spot for the inevitable. With a twin Jab twice the chance of a failure (as if you needed more chances!) & the added danger of going blw VMCA & spinning in as am sure they'll be jab drivers out there who'll tr to save the day & lose.
I wish the venture well but am reserved:-)
Wmk2
Donk failures are nasty at ay time but at least with a SE Jab donk failure you know there's no further trying save the day yr on yr way down & try to pick a soft spot for the inevitable. With a twin Jab twice the chance of a failure (as if you needed more chances!) & the added danger of going blw VMCA & spinning in as am sure they'll be jab drivers out there who'll tr to save the day & lose.
I wish the venture well but am reserved:-)
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 9th Sep 2013 at 05:37.
'Andy' it's the 'jaba' donks that is the issue, as I said 2 of them twice the chance of failure, the airframe is just dog ulgy that's a separate issue more of a personal nature:-) Obviously my ref to the above relates to all twins that are marginal on one donk there's no argument there lots of documented cases of excursions Blw VMCA.
The push-me-pull-me is still scarey losing one on T/off especially the rear, the most efficient one of the two.
Wmk2
The push-me-pull-me is still scarey losing one on T/off especially the rear, the most efficient one of the two.
Wmk2
Again, all you say is true Wally and for all non-centreline thrust twins, however, I think the Jabiru is a pretty cool solution because:
a) it's started life as a single, so SE climb rate isn't going to be terrible (relatively)
and b) the thrust axes are quite close together compared with most twins, so Vmca is going to be relatively low by comparison.
One would presume that a twin-rating will be needed to fly them still, unlike (I believe) the similar-in-concept Cri Cri.
a) it's started life as a single, so SE climb rate isn't going to be terrible (relatively)
and b) the thrust axes are quite close together compared with most twins, so Vmca is going to be relatively low by comparison.
One would presume that a twin-rating will be needed to fly them still, unlike (I believe) the similar-in-concept Cri Cri.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wally, I know you'd be disappointed if I didn't, in an entirely predictable fashion, reference a Rotax light-twin option:
Tecnam.com - P2006T
The hand of the venerable Prof. Pascale and the Partenavia lineage is pretty obvious. Never flown a P2006 but my general impression is that he knows how to produce nice-handling aircraft. Guess time will tell how the maintenance, ruggedness etc. stacks up.
Tecnam.com - P2006T
The hand of the venerable Prof. Pascale and the Partenavia lineage is pretty obvious. Never flown a P2006 but my general impression is that he knows how to produce nice-handling aircraft. Guess time will tell how the maintenance, ruggedness etc. stacks up.
Too true there 'A_rr' but VMCA is a number, it's academic & all relevant as to what it is as going below that number yields the same end result, loss of directional control.
Was shown it in an old Sneca a 100 yrs ago during the endo....bloody scared the crap out of me & reinforced the dangers....ohhhh ahhhhh!
The biggest advantage about any multi eng plane (inc twin jab, barely) is you have options & that may mean delaying the inevitable so as to reach a forced Ldg site unattainable in a SE.
I haven't looked closely at the machine but I wonder if it has feathering props?
Wmk2
Was shown it in an old Sneca a 100 yrs ago during the endo....bloody scared the crap out of me & reinforced the dangers....ohhhh ahhhhh!
The biggest advantage about any multi eng plane (inc twin jab, barely
) is you have options & that may mean delaying the inevitable so as to reach a forced Ldg site unattainable in a SE.I haven't looked closely at the machine but I wonder if it has feathering props?
Wmk2
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A J430 is 120 hp at full noise (on a good day). 90hp at 75% power. They will fly on less power of course, loitering along.
This machine has 2 x 85 hp 4 cylinders. She might struggle at full weight if you wanted to climb. I'd imagine they are still testing it so it will be interesting to see what the climb rate is. As a 2 seater it would probably cream it in.
To be offered as an add-on kit for J430's... hmmmmm....
Name another aircraft you can just "bolt" two engines onto, except that modified Lazair from "The Gods must be crazy" perhaps.
This machine has 2 x 85 hp 4 cylinders. She might struggle at full weight if you wanted to climb. I'd imagine they are still testing it so it will be interesting to see what the climb rate is. As a 2 seater it would probably cream it in.
To be offered as an add-on kit for J430's... hmmmmm....
Name another aircraft you can just "bolt" two engines onto, except that modified Lazair from "The Gods must be crazy" perhaps.
If they yawed the engines out a few degrees each, it'd be even less.
1. 2 on board
2. Rolling takeoff
3. off centreline
4. early right turn over tiger country
5. no upper air work to check aircraft handling
6. orbit at 500ft on final !!! FFS
7. touch and go off first ever landing
2. Rolling takeoff
3. off centreline
4. early right turn over tiger country
5. no upper air work to check aircraft handling
6. orbit at 500ft on final !!! FFS
7. touch and go off first ever landing
They have a proven record of passenger protection
If the bottom of the windscreen extended bit lower it would help counter the loss of forward visibility due to the cabin being located behind two engines.
Comments on crash worthiness of having a nosecone instead of an engine up front?
Locating the engines outboard and further from the cabin is a plus?
Mickjoebill
Last edited by mickjoebill; 9th Sep 2013 at 09:57.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the statistics on passenger survivability?
I'm not defending them directly, I'm just stating the obvious.
I know a chap that smacked into a power line at VNE during a beat up. Lost the end of his finger and ruptured his eye socket, but he's fine and the aircraft is flying again!
Lowering the windscreen or making the forward parts transparent would be good but you couldn't do it without significant modification which means it would no longer be a bolt on kit.
Last edited by VH-XXX; 9th Sep 2013 at 09:43.