by fastj22 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:52 pm
Seems to me the only analysis that CASA did was compare the hours flown to the number of engine failures.
Reported data for 2014 year to date (January through October) (from the Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus) )
Hours flown
Jabiru 41834
Rotax 71626
All (includes other engine types) 131227
Landings
Jabiru 92735
Rotax 145638
All (includes other engine types) 260383
Engine failures (full or partial)
Jabiru 28
Rotax 16
All (includes other engine types) 51
The number of failures compared to Rotax is alarming. But the nature of the failures is pretty important too. How many were owner induced failures due to modifications? Is the Rotax used more in certified aircraft in Australia than Jabiru thus tighter controls on owner mods? I don't know of many experimental Rotax owners here in the US who modify their installations like we do the Jabiru. Do the Rotax numbers include the 2 stroke engines? I've heard the saying that its not if you will have an engine failure with a 2 stroke, its when.
I've flown behind a Rotax ULS 912 and its a very smooth and refined engine. Probably the gold standard in LSA engines and a good benchmark for reliability.
I have a feeling this entire episode was Jabiru was presented with the above numbers and asked what they were going to do about it. They gave CASA a response they didn't like. CASA came down hard on them. But it looks like it got the result they were looking for. Jabiru is now responding appropriately.
My only real concern with the engine is the ability to get insurance here in the US. I don't think the FAA will restrict any use of the engine in E/AB aircraft.
John Gillis
SEL Private, Comm Glider, Tow pilot (Pawnee Driver)
Waiex N116YX, Jabiru 3300, Tail dragger,
First flight, 3/16/2013. 403 hours and climbing.
Home: CO15. KOSH x 5
Flying a B-Model Conversion (Super Bee Baby!)