Oscar

Roos are the most determinedly stupid animals; I used to drive in a number of areas where they were in large numbers and I've hit/been hit by (and the latter, more frequently) around a dozen over the years. No matter what speed you drive, they can and will target you, though at low speed you minimise the damage / maximise the ability to swerve/stop/accelerate. I've had one jump out from behind a tree and hit my mudguard hard enough to put it onto the tyre at about 10kph in the Gurnang Forest; I've had one tear down the side of a slope (Cann River Highway, near 'Hopping Joe Creek') from over 200 metres off the side of the road and thrown it probably 50 metres off the extremely strong bull-bar on my Rangie at 130 kph. Neither strong lights nor air horns are necessarily effective in every situation.

 

The low grass for visibility seems a good idea, but no grass at all has other downsides, including a lack of erosion control and more likelihood of stone damage to props. The low pass before landing seems advisable provided the surrounding terrain is good for that. Not always possible, of course; years ago, a glider pilot had to put down in the Warrumbungles and hit -(and killed) a Roo that popped up in front of him; since it was in a National Park the local Ranger was apparently mulling some sort of action, but the pilot pointed out to him that since he'd used a Boomerang (Schneider ES-60) to do the deed, it should be considered 'traditional hunting' - and matters were resolved..

 

 

Guys, I think we're not looking at the big picture here.

 

There are people in our community who are defined as 'Special Needs', because their synapses do not tend to operate as normal. Silicanaceous species in particular fit this definition, and FT lives in a generally temperate climate where the extreme cold required for effective cognitive function is rarely available, therefore it is not a matter for derision at the fact that he has the intellectual capacity of a concussed duckling. Let's all try to be embracing bipedals, and allow him the freedom of his expression.

 

Indeed, there are about 6 'Usual Suspects' that appear on most Jabiru-oriented threads with less than useful contributions. Given that there are something in excess of 1000 Jabiru owners in this country alone, that is in fact a miniscule - almost homeopathic - proportion. It is commendable that the Internet provides these few with the democratic opportunity to express their opinion, for what it is worth (and that is about the utility of a chocolate hammer in a heatwave); but I feel we should embrace diversity of opinion here and not try to censor those who have the evident ability of bullfrogs to do accountancy in their commentary on Jabirus.

 

So - hey - let these people roam free - they are all part of the rich tapestry of life, just as the Obeid clan adds to the understanding of the comparative value of truth - for a given value of true. Rather than get annoyed, have the chuckle that is so evidently there for the taking, and let's get on with useful exchange of genuine information that helps us all - yes?

 

 

Gandalph, if you are trying to elicit an intelligent and reasoned response from FT, may I politely point out that there is a fundamental flaw in your logic? Many have tried, and realised that further sacrifice of innocent electrons is a complete WOFTAM.

 

 

Try Performance Metals: http://www.performancemetalsaustralia.com.au/6061-T6-aluminium-product-information.php

 

I've used them and they are good to deal with.

 

 

Cheer up Oscar

Go look at the actual 'certification' of a new Cessna 172 - it's an 'upgrade' of the 1950's C172, to take advantage of the statute of limitations for liability decreed by the US Congress. Learn your history, or be plainly shown as ignorant.

 

 

Gippsaero is no longer an 'Aussie' company; Seabird has been shafted by its USA subsidiary and is no longer an 'Aussie' company, Brumby are Chinese owned... Jabiru is the 'last man standing' in terms of an Aussie aero company competing in world markets for serious, fixed-wing, 3-axis aircraft. But hey - in order to cement their status as legends in their own lunchtime, even Board members of RAA pursue a campaign of pulling Jabiru down; when we have NO indigenous manufacturer supplying the RAA market, you can thank these people.

 

Are they just motivated by concerns about safety? Look at their personal commercial interests in servicing non-Jabiru products.

 

 

If you - seriously though - think that Jabiru is the only aircraft manufacturer that might have exposure to product liability lawsuits, then you are either naive or wilfully manipulating the real situation.

 

Either go learn the facts, or STFU. Or, alternatively, continue to place yourself in the camp of dedicated Jab. bashers with no more justification than your own assertions, oft repeated.

 

 

Gippsaero is wholly owned by Mahindra.

 

 

Mike: absolute best wishes for your trial flight(s) tomorrow! May it all turn to champagne, strawberries and cream for you.

 

 

Phil - couldn't agree more.

 

Jabs aren't perfect and constructive criticism can only help. A quick run through, for instance, the 'Jab. engine cooling' thread: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/jabiru-engine-cooling.112581/ is a great example of how informative posts from non-invective posters, can really help us Jab owners to improve things. Triumphal, snide commentary when there is a Jab. down is nothing more than personal aggrandisement for the 'knockers' . We have recently seen that a realistic statistical summary from reported problems shows that about 4% of Jab's actually have forced-landing-occurrence problems - and the only recorded deaths in Jabs in this country were from one CFIT.

 

Jab engines are not as good as they should be - and CAMit is basing, to a considerable degree, its future on being able to manufacture a better 'Jab' engine. The years of investigation and research it has done and the mods it has designed as a result will shortly be either proven or disproven (I've put my money on it being proven..) - and if proven, A J2X/4X series, in particular, will be a serious competitor as world's best value-for-money new aircraft in the world.

 

There is arguably no better airframe around with demonstrated secondary safety - they get rolled up into balls, torn apart, and yet people walk away with contusions and a few scratches. They don't top the 'performance' table in any area - but for general, everyday Australian conditions PTP travellers, Jab's fly many, many thousands of hours per year with nothing less than a totally uneventful trip.

 

Try that with a haybale in the back of your Euro vunderkinder. I mean, a real haybale, not a Gucci toothbrush and across the top end of Australia, not down to the next town's cafe for a latte and croissant.

 

 

So here we have an Aussie company in a high-tech market, doing well - and continuing to do well in a market where Cessna and Piper have been unable to even compete! Selling INTO China, consumer products instead of raw resources. Selling probably the best combination of capability and performance on the world market for thew $$, in the form of the J230. Selling, for US$128K, a better aircraft than a base Cessna 172 at $280k.

 

Yet, back here, we have a dedicated small band of people whose raison d'etre seems to be denigrating the brand and taking any opportunity to try to destroy its reputation, for no obvious reason other than self-promotion.

 

Go figure where these people are coming from and what their motivation may be to pursue a vendetta against Jabiru.

 

 

Some would say that if you allowed anybody with a Mariah Carey CD set into your aircraft, you deserve what you get... but seriously, what other form of defence would one have than being able to have a chance of demonstrating that one had met some sort of 'standard' - even if that is only a recommendation, or perhaps checklist? I'd be surprised in there are not many instructors who have had some experience of students freezing on the pedals, for instance, even though they would have, surely, had not just advice but experience in the use of the controls.

 

Possibly, and I have no legal expertise whatever to support this idea, the catch-all 'Recreational Aviation is a dangerous activity' clause MIGHT cover one, but I have my doubts. What do other 'dangerous recreational activity' sports do by way of safety briefings? Can we draw any guidance from those?

 

 

To me, this brings up a can of worms with regard to what is 'adequate instruction' (and there is precisely zero useful advice in that CASA video!) on not interfering with controls - including safe stowage of loose baggage - or 'satisfactory communication'. In the hugely over-represented area of litigation in regard to aircraft accidents, I think some sort of 'standard' by which a PIC can have at least a chance of demonstrating compliance with some set of agreed minimum conditions, is likely to be a necessary first line of legal defence.

 

 

They have to start somewhere...

 

 

This is quite bizarre - two (apparently) crashes with zero media attention? Any local cub reporter worth her or his salt would have a 'Pilot Hailed as Hero for Saving Rabbits, Termite Mound in Miracle Aircraft Crash Escape' story, with detailed witness reports of the jet-powered Cessna triplane plunging to earth in a ball of flames.

 

 

But we already knew that it was a result of Jabiru's 'piss-poor design and lack of testing' (post #307). Only the circumstances needed to be explained, the conclusion was already drawn.

 

 

Turbs - I'm building, I'm building! Fuselage is back on its wheels after the repaint (yesterday), but engine developments have intervened in the grand march of progress. The devil is in the details, and this machine was originally a factory 'hack' for the development of the 2200 engine (was build no #50), and there's a lot of more modern and better practice to be included. SBs to be incorporated; seriously crap maintenance work to be remediated; flow-on effects of changing major aerodynamic components to be compensated for, tested, and incorporated in the EO. A winter so far that has had temps. below the workable limits for LC3600 for the last nearly three months hasn't helped, either..

 

Hey, and my keyboard is about due for an upgrade anyway.

 

 

The 170 suffers extreme adverse yaw, and is one of the most difficult 'rudder' aeroplanes around. That being said, flying with fuel levels low enough for this to cause a starvation, is always going to end in tears. It may cause a tank to empty faster then the other one, which is standard for most types anyway.Proper planning will stop this type of accident ever happening.

I bow to your experience here, Merv, but for adverse yaw, a 20-metre span Janus-C certainly required a healthy bootful of the bits that your feet sit on to get it to turn decently. A bit of string on the canopy in front of your eyes is a damn good heads-up display of uncoordinated flying.. My power experience is way too low to comment with other than 'newbie' curiosity, so don't flame me for that admitted situation, but is it common that people fly power without realising that they're holding the aircraft in an unnatural position? I used to routinely and consciously take my hands and feet off the controls probably about every five minutes, except when climbing in thermals, to simply ensure I wasn't fighting the aircraft through the sky without realising it, that I had trim set correctly etc. In a glider, on a hot day, you have to remember things like fluid intake and getting muscle-bound from tension; it's the equivalent of the 'check the instruments' on the straight in motor racing.

 

Here's a serious question: would it help if light aircraft that don't have wing-leveller servos, had a simple thin line across the windscreen in the eyeline set at the horizontal so one is constantly reminded of the aircraft orientation vs the horizon? I need bi-focals these days to monitor the panel and even with an A/H, a simple reference to the horizon would be handy for out-of-the-cockpit flying. That line doesn't need to be set at 'the horizon' to be useful, it just needs to be an aide memoire of the relative angle of the aircraft vs the horizon. We used the same technique in yacht racing: as the skipper, you'd sight the next mark when coming off a tack, note its position vs say the forestay, and once you'd gotten to best AoA vs the wind direction, try to hold that line.

 

 

Heck, Turbs, you can be hard to please! Still, ANY award is better than none, as long as they spell my name correctly..

 

 

QED are good people to do business with - recommended. (and I absolutely don't have anything other than a customer relationship with them!)

 

 

It still seems to me that adequate attention to one's flying - and adequate knowledge of the 'peculiarities' of the aircraft being flown - is the simplest and most effective way. The J170 POH does not contain any warning / information regarding flight with low fuel levels, perhaps that might be an upgrade that Jabiru might consider.

 

It it were my Jab with wing tanks (and especially no header tank) on the line, I'd write up an information sheet for users that included a note re flying with low fuel levels (amongst other things!) that the intending user should be given and required to read and (probably) sign off - if for not other reason than trying to limit recourse to my insurance company and incurring later increased premiums.

 

 

Yep, that's what I thought, the fillers are at about 40% span, so if the tanks extend much beyond that, how would you fill them?

 

 

Surely, a simpler idea than four fuel pumps, is to have a header tank and if you want, inboard feeds from both in the normal location plus outboard feeds that come down the lift struts (they have to have fall from the end of the tank to the header tank so that no point of them is above the tank-end with that wing low, obviously).

 

 

Is it feasible to have a pickup both inboard and outboard on each tank with a simple inexpensive facet type pump on each one (the pumps have check valves)? That way there is very little unusable fuel, if you were so inclined you could put a pressure switch in line on each pump, driving a LED to indicate , bit like an F111 wing tank system. Can't be any more difficult than some of the whiz bang instrumentation some of them have.

Jeez, a hard call. Add three pumps with attendant power drain, two lines, four more things to watch on the panel, four check valves to possibly malfunction.. or teach people to fly a bit more accurately and to be aware of the implications of having low fuel in one or both tanks?

 

 

I suspect the position of the actual egt in relation to the exhaust port and flow pulses in the extractor is quite critical. When we were developing extractors for our racing engines, we used a pyrometer to determine the pulse positions along the extractor so as to place the extractor joins in the correct position so that we had each pipe entering the junction at a low-pressure point for a specific rev range (to best suit the cam being used) and at any given revs the positions of pulses changes, so one gets different positions for hot spots along the length of the extractor depending on the revs. Having the egts set at the same distance from the port is a good step along the way but any difference in the curve of the extractor tube will make variations. The Jab exhaust tubes have different bends for different cylinders and it's not possible to get an exactly uniform position for the egts - at least clamp-type egts - and have the clamp work effectively; welded-nut and screw-in type egts would be easier here, but you'd still need to determine the correct location for each tube for a given rev range (which will be small).