Reliability reports on Jabiru 2200 engine? Do they make TBO?

[OliverR]

Hello,

I am Oliver an interested in purchasing a Kitfox 4 with a Jabiru 2200 engine, here in the US.

Model: 2200A
Serial No: 22A 2723

I have to admit, that I posted the same question in the Jabiru owners Forum, but thought that will also want to ask for Kitfox specific experience.

I did some research on the Jabiru 2200 engine, and found VERY mixed reports. People were also personally telling me to stay away from them. I posted my concerns in the official Jabiru forum, where I received a detailed response, what I really appreciated and what also lessened my worries a little bit: http://jabiru.net.au/forum/engines/149- ... fe-s-n#462 (http://jabiru.net.au/forum/engines/149-jabiru-2200-change-history-safe-s-n#462)

Doing some more research today, I however found more reports like this one http://www.jabiruownersgroup.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=705 in which pilots described pretty serious issues with their engines (through bolt and flywheel bolt failures), even though the engines were not used in a flight school environment.

Our airport is located in a urban area, with no places to put the plane down in case of an engine failure. Purchasing a plane with an engine with still unsolved reliability issues is therefore not an option.

I was therefore looking for long term experiences with the Jabiru 2200 engine - good or bad. Also, do they typically make it to the 1000 / 2000 mark?

Oliver

[jiott]

Oliver, do a search for Jabiru on this forum and you will find quite a few posts on the subject. Yes, the opinions seem to be mixed.

[av8rps]

I'm not speaking to the reliabilty question, but I have always been impressed with the Jabiru engines as they look like a work of art with their CNC machined cases, and seem to run like a swiss watch.

BUT....I personally have not been impressed with their performance in a Kitfox or Avid. They do however work well on fast planes like a Sonex, as they work best to turn short props at higher rpms, which is what fast planes need. But the Kitfox needs a longer prop turning slower rpms to fly efficiently, and that's why the 912 engines running a gear reduction to the prop work so well. They turn the prop in the low 2000 rpm range, compared to the Jabirus running in the 3,000 plus range, which makes longer props very inefficient.

With that said, if you are ok owning a Kitfox that flies more like a 65 hp Cub or Taylorcraft, you will be ok with the Jabiru. But if you really want to get best performance from a Kitfox, hold out for a 912, or some other engine that will turn a bigger diameter prop at under 2700 rpm. Just my two cents worth...

[OliverR]

Oliver, do a search for Jabiru on this forum and you will find quite a few posts on the subject. Yes, the opinions seem to be mixed.

That's what I did and this is actually the reason why I started this thread. ;)
I read pretty much all I could find about Jabirus, in this as well as in other forums. However, I read about as many negative as positive reports, what is not very encouraging.
As I figured that mainly the unhappy customers share their experiences and as many of the reports were already a bit older, I thought that I specifically ask for long term experiences with these engines.

Frankly, though, the more I think about it, the more I tend to pass on this Jabiru powered plane and to continue searching for one with a Rotax engine. While Rotax also has some unhappy customers, the vast majority seems to be very happy with them. There are even many reports by people who are raving that the Rotaxes regularly make TBO.



[...] With that said, if you are ok owning a Kitfox that flies more like a 65 hp Cub or Taylorcraft, you will be ok with the Jabiru. [...]

Thank you, I was not aware that the difference would be so dramatic. Another reason to pass, since my wife and I would operate it quite often at max. gross weight.

Oliver

[avidflyer]

I flew an Avid MK IV for about 450 hrs with a 85 HP Jabiru engine on it. Mine is serial # 903, which was before they switched to the hydraulic lifters. Mine is considered one of the better engines till they went back to solid lifters. My Avid weighed 585 lbs empty, and takeoff performance was about the same as it was with the 582 before I changed it out to the Jabiru. Top speed was better with the Jabiru, and I did feel more comfortable with it. The plane would do right at 100 MPH flat out full throttle. The Kitfox 4 uses a faster flying wing plus 2' more wingspan which helps with the climb, so I think the Kitfox 4 with a Jabiru engine will fly circles around my Avid. That is if it's not built real heavy. Recently I did some flying in a Kitfox 4 with a 503 in it, and was amazed how well it performed. That plane weighs 525 empty though, and that makes a huge difference. As far as the longevity of the Jabiru engine goes, that's an open question. By and large, I would say they have had a lot more issues then the 912 Rotaxes. No doubt, Rotax had much more $ for research an development. Also far more engines produced to sort out the problem areas. I know this doesn't really answer your original question, but I can only speak to my own personal experiences. My engine has for the most part been good to me. I know of others that have had bad experiences with theirs. JImChuk

PS I'm sure my Avid would out fly a 65 HP cub for climb and speed, and probably legal usefull load as well. Gross weight 1150, empty weight 585.

[jiott]

Yes there are many reports of Rotax making TBO, in fact starting to hear of more than a few making ~3000 hours.

[OliverR]

Jim, avidflyer,

Thank you for your responses as well.
My wife and I discussed what we want to do and decided to pass on the Jabiru powered Kitfox, even though we really like it otherwise.

Thanks again,

Oliver

[cubtractor]

I've had a fairly good experience with the Jabiru. Mine had the engine when I bought it so I kept it and made upgrades. Mine is an early model solid lifter engine. The solid lifter engines were the best, as well as the latest model roller lifter engines. Jab had some issues with their first issue of hydraulic flat tappet engines. I installed the water cooled cylinder heads because mine had an early version of aircooled heads and was going to have to upgrade to the latest aircooled heads. At the time, the water cooled heads from Rotec were a little cheaper than new factory heads so that's what I did. It's actually worked out extremely well. I cruise 95mph on 3 gph of mogas. Climbs about 1200 fpm. Sometimes a little more or a little less depending on the outside air temp.

Just do your research and history of the engine, and do the required maintenance and you should be ok. Call Pete Krotje at Jabiru North America with the engine serial number and he'll give you all the information on it.

[OliverR]

[...] Just do your research and history of the engine, and do the required maintenance and you should be ok. Call Pete Krotje at Jabiru North America with the engine serial number and he'll give you all the information on it.

I already told the seller, that I am not interested anymore.

I really wanted to like the engine and actually started this thread in the hope that a multiple people would respond, saying that their Jabirus easily made TBO. I also reached out to Jabiru Australia, asking them the same question. They said pretty much that with proper maintenance, if the engine was not overheated and if not operated in a flight school environment, there will be no issues - only to find the next day reports of people who still had through bolt and flywheel issues, even though they said that the strictly followed Jabiru's maintenance standards and that they did not use their planes for training.

It doesn't really matter if these negative reports are entirely true or not. I would always have some doubt in the back of my mind and would just not feel comfortable climbing out over the densely popular area, surrounding our airport, behind the Jabiru.

I will now search for a 912 powered Kitfox IV 1200 / Speedster. Our budget is up to $30K, I think we should still be able to find a decent plane, even though the 912 powered Kitfoxes are quite a bit more expensive than those with a Jabiru.

Oliver

[jiott]

I hate to keep beating the drum (maybe I don't because I love my 912 Rotax), but when I was taking flight training at Stick and Rudder about 3.5 years ago, Paul Leadabrand told me that their SS7 912uls training machines easily made TBO and they would sell the complete airplane at 2000 hours for a good price and then buy a brand new one for replacement in the flight school. In fact one of them I believe was sold to another flight school out East to continue in the training environment beyond 2000 hours. At the time all this impressed me immensely and still does because us students used those airplanes hard. Of course S&R maintenance is impeccable and the airplanes looked like new after 2000 hours (seriously). I don't know if Paul is still running according to this plan, but that is how I remember it several years ago.

[av8rps]

I really hope not to offend any Jabiru operators with my comments about the performance, or to negatively impact the saleability of their plane. That isn't my intent.

I just know after trying to help some guys with Jab Kitfoxes and Avids get their planes to work on floats that the 912 Rotax engine works better on these airframes. Admittedly, I've only once flown a Jab 2200 in an Avid Mark 4 taildragger. Even though it had a nice low empty weight, with two grown men in the cabin it had pretty anemic performance overall (like the 65 hp Cub I learned to fly in...). I believe however it was an early engine, and others told me the later engines make more power. So maybe that one airplane I flew wasn't a fair evaluation?

It is encouraging to hear that some here are getting better performance than what I've experienced. I've always liked the Jabiru engine for how smooth it runs and for how light it is. But because my 80 hp 912 Model 4 Kitfox on amphib floats works so well (even though it is almost 800 lbs empty) I'm pretty convinced you won't do better than a 912 on a Kitfox 4. So that's what I generally promote.

And what was I thinking saying an Avid or Kitfox will fly like a 65 hp Cub or Taylorcraft? Heck the Avid prototype (which was my 1st plane) with a 40 hp 2 stroke Cuyuna performs on par with a Super Cub. So all I can say after thinking about that is...Duh? :rolleyes:

[herman pahls]

I have flown Kitfox's for 21 years powered by 532, 582 , Jabiru 80 HP and 912ULS.
I had great success with all 4 engines but my style of flying prefers gear box's and long props.
The Jabiru is a nice to look at machined art work, amazingly smooth and simple ( no gearbox or radiator).

The good news is that model 4 Kitfox's with 80 HP 912's are available in your price range with maybe some left over change to install a big bore kit if you want to go from great to amazing performance