With no disrespect for my Aussie compatriots who are having a go, if I
was in the market for a Jabiru engine, I would have to ask the following
questions.
1 How many Jabiru engine owners have actually reached the quoted 2,000
hr TBO ?
2 How many owners, in reaching their 2,000 hours have had to do only
one interim top overhaul at 1,000 hrs ?
3 Do Jabiru publish Technical Bulletins or AD's in respect of their
engines ? If not, why not ? A search of their website today revealed
only one Tech Bulletin which is about contaminated fuel. If anybody
knows of others, please advise, I admit not having researched this
thoroughly.
Fred Klein said : Specs on the Jabiru show 107hp @ 2750 rpm & 120hp @
3300...this strikes me
as a bit high for optimum propellor efficiency (?).
I understand this is correct Fred
Observation only - When I purchased my Airmaster Propeller, I noted the
maximum allowable RPM of the prop is less than the 3,300rpm Max BHP of
the Jabiru 6cyl engine so with the Airmaster at least, the maximum
performance is rendered unusable.
Ques to Andy Silvester in relation to the statement . . . . "
Simplicity. The Jabiru is designed as an aircraft engine, uses all
'aircraft' (AN/SAE) fastenings, is direct-drive and air cooled. No
gearbox,
radiator, header tank, fluid pipework, etc."
Not disputing your statement Andy, but does this infer the Rotax 912 -
914 series are not designed as aircraft engines? Does making an engine
liquid cooled, disqualify it as an aircraft engine ? If so, for what
purpose was the Rolls Royce Merlin developed before becoming an aircraft
engine ?
While on the subject of aircooled vs liquid cooled engines, I am
familiar with a modification carried out over here by the gliding
movement. A Piper Pawnee was converted to a Ford V6 engine and
initially, the age old problems of gearing down the propeller were
encountered but have been put to bed using a wide lugged belt drive.
There has been no problems whatsoever with the engine itself but several
problems were encountered with the exhaust system which has now also
been overcome. The aircraft has now been operating for a few years and
performance wise is identical to the original Lycoming. On descent, it
is able to embarrass the Lycoming powered Pawnees by being able to get
back on the ground extremely rapidly with no adverse cooling problems.
Then there is another aspect called economy, well this is just
laughable. You'd never guess which one burns the most fuel !
Regards
Kingsley Hurst
Mono Classic 281 in Oz.
|