Jabiru Twin redefining Ugly
 

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!

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.

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...?)

Wow a plastic Dornier

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 !!:suspect:

It is in South Africa after all! The reason why they wanted a twin was because of the dangers of an out-landing on a farmers property with an AK47 :{

Engine aside Diesel Pilot, what exactly is wrong with Jabiru aircraft?

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.

Stiff - Bent :D

They are made in Australia ergo they must be bad. This is the way the whole nation thinks... :rolleyes:

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 :ok:

Ok, I think your initial comments were a tad harsh then.

Doesn't equal:

...oh goody a dedicated thread to the ugly duckling 'Jab':E
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

your arguments condemn all twins (except 336/7's) Wally. Nothing special about Jabirus in this regard.

'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

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.

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.

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:E) 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

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.... :cool: Name another aircraft you can just "bolt" two engines onto, except that modified Lazair from "The Gods must be crazy" perhaps.

If it's near or below stall speed, then it becomes largely irrelevant. In the case of this Jab, it might be.

If they yawed the engines out a few degrees each, it'd be even less.

No helmets, flight suit or gloves and the copilot monitoring his iphone rather than the instruments looks pretty casual.


What are the statistics on passenger survivability?

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

Aside from a well known CFIT, name me a significant injury or fatality in a Jabiru?

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.