Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:37 AM - Re: Rotax 912, 914 Mandatory Bulletin (G-IANI)
2. 03:05 AM - Re: wheel landings (Kingsley Hurst)
3. 03:38 AM - Re: wheel landings (BEBERRY@aol.com)
4. 04:46 AM - Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] (Jim Thursby)
5. 05:05 AM - Re: wheel landings (Jim Thursby)
6. 06:24 AM - Re: wheel landings (Fergus Kyle)
7. 07:04 AM - Re: wheel landings (Gilles Thesee)
8. 07:23 AM - Re: wheel landings (R.C.Harrison)
9. 07:41 AM - Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] (Garry)
10. 08:12 AM - Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] (Dave_Miller@avivacanada.com)
11. 08:51 AM - Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] (Jim Thursby)
12. 08:54 AM - Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] (ivor.phillips)
13. 09:16 AM - Re: wheel landings (Cliff Shaw)
14. 09:54 AM - Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] (GLENN CROWDER)
15. 11:07 AM - Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] (Fergus Kyle)
16. 11:38 AM - Fw: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] (Fergus Kyle)
17. 12:25 PM - Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] (R.C.Harrison)
18. 12:36 PM - Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] (Mike Parkin)
19. 02:45 PM - Non-certificated engines & night ops (Fred Klein)
20. 02:45 PM - Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] (Bryan Allsop)
21. 02:54 PM - Nose gear springs (NevEyre@aol.com)
22. 03:04 PM - Re: wheel landings (Kingsley Hurst)
23. 03:08 PM - Re: Nose gear springs (Kingsley Hurst)
24. 03:21 PM - Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] (Jeff B)
25. 03:28 PM - Re: Non-certificated engines & night ops (Cliff Shaw)
26. 03:34 PM - Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] (josok)
27. 03:37 PM - Re: Non-certificated engines & night ops (Jeff B)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Rotax 912, 914 Mandatory Bulletin |
--> Europa-List message posted by: "G-IANI" <g-iani@ntlworld.com>
As UK owners will have noticed the PFA have published (Popular Flying Page
42) the existence of a Service bulletin No. 270905.
This bulletin cannot be found on the Skydrive and Rotax web sites as stated
by the PFA.
The bulletin refers to the elbow supplied with the Rotax oil cooler (Which
is black in colour).
IT DOES NOT apply to the Grey oil cooler supplied with the Europa kit.
Ian Rickard #505 G-IANI XS Trigear
Europa Club Mods Rep (Trigear)
e-mail mods@europaclub.org.uk
or direct g-iani@ntlworld.com
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landings |
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst" <hurstkr@growzone.com.au>
> BUT the answer to the monwheel Europa is that it should be landed on the
> stall, so that the she's not flying when you touch.
Hello Ferg and others,
With the sum total of a couple of landings in a mono, I speak from
observation rather than experience.
When people talk about stalling the mono on landing (the ideal thing to do
IMHO), I cannot help but wonder how the mono CAN stall unless the tail wheel
only is on the ground and the main wheel considerably above. My reasoning
is that because the deck angle of the fuse (with main and tail wheels on the
ground) is around 7 degrees from memory. (too lazy to check the manual at
the moment) and the wing incidence is 2.5 degrees, this means the angle of
attack of the wings with both wheels on the ground is around 9.5 degrees.
If I remember correctly, a wing stalls with an AOA of around 14 degrees.
Considering that when landing the wing is also in the influence of 'ground
effect', can somebody explain to me how the wing can possibly properly stall
with such a low AOA ?
Cheers
Kingsley
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landings |
--> Europa-List message posted by: BEBERRY@aol.com
.............................a wing stalls with an AOA of around 14 degrees.
Considering that when landing the wing is also in the influence of 'ground
effect', can somebody explain to me how the wing can possibly properly stall
with such a low AOA ?.....................................
Regardless of AOA the wing will stall when the speed drops to the level
appropriate for the loading.
Patrick
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] |
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Jim Thursby" <jthursby@tampabay.rr.com>
Hi Chris,
If you are that gung ho, by all means try it yourself but don't say you
weren't warned. I thought I was smarter than Ivan Shaw once too. Against
his wishes (and unknown to) I spent the better part of two hours trying to
wheel land one of the company planes. I've been told it was some of the
most entertaining stuff the controllers at Lakeland had ever seen. It will
squeak the main on ever so gently with just a touch of power, then the tail
slams to the runway and you are rewarded for your carelessness with another
chance or two at landing it properly. If you recover from the resulting
three to ten foot bounce and haven't clipped your propeller, and if you
haven't ground looped it, and if you haven't stalled and dropped it in, you
can attempt another landing. I tried many times and NEVER got it to stay on
the ground. If you must attempt wheel landings in a tail dragger aircraft
please buy or build an RV and save the Europa community from losing another
aircraft from the ranks. And the prop is VERY close when on the main wheel
with the plane in a slight nose down attitude.
Jim T.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Beck
Subject: Re: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?]
--> Europa-List message posted by: Chris Beck <n9zes@verizon.net>
Jim Brown wrote:
>--> Europa-List message posted by: Jim Brown <acrojim@cfl.rr.com>
>
>I would also suggest, to those of you who want to "TRY" to wheel land a
>mono wheel, you need to do one thing first. With the engine off, have a
>friend or helper raise the tail to normal flight attitude, then take a
>look at how close the prop is to the ground or pavement. One bounce on
>landing, and you may be buying new prop blades.
>
>The center of gravity is behind the mono wheel, which will make the
>tail drop down, as soon as the wheel touches the runway, if you counter
>with some forward stick, re-read the above paragraph.
>
>
>
Jim, what sort of clearance are we talking about?? 2"? 6"? I've got a
mile on the 140. I'd have to be looking straight at the dirt to get the
prop grounded.
Regarding the C of G, it's the same issue on any taildragger. It's behind
the mains, which causes the tail to drop when landing due to the inertia.
Trick is to zero out the rate of descent just as the mains touch, then nail
it with that bit of forward stick (as I'm sure you know very well from the
Pitts). Again, is it strictly a prop clearance issue that prevents wheelies
in the monowheel? Has this been beaten to death in the past where I can
look it up in the archives?
I'm just very curious about the mechanics of landing a monowheel. I've
flown in a few different ones (a Classic and an XS). Now that I'm flying a
tailwheel plan, I understand a lot more of what's going on.
Chris
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Jim Thursby" <jthursby@tampabay.rr.com>
Hi Kingsley,
If done properly the tail wheel will be on the ground first. Then you
"simply" feel the plane out with the stick until its ready to quit. all the
while keeping it straight and level. You'll feel it when its done and then
you can pin it full back and it stays planted. Interesting point about a
tail wheel first landing. While on a cross country to the Arlington air
show in 2000 with Jim and Augustine Brown we landed at Gillette Wyoming
which has a 7% upslope/down slope in the runway. After I got the tail wheel
on the ground I had rolled what seemed like 3,000 feet of a 7,500 foot
runway on the tail wheel only, I had to cut the ignitions in order to get
it to quit flying! Jim reported a similar experience when he landed. Very
weird feeling.
Jim T.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kingsley Hurst
Subject: Re: Europa-List: wheel landings
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst"
--> <hurstkr@growzone.com.au>
> BUT the answer to the monwheel Europa is that it should be landed on
> the stall, so that the she's not flying when you touch.
Hello Ferg and others,
With the sum total of a couple of landings in a mono, I speak from
observation rather than experience.
When people talk about stalling the mono on landing (the ideal thing to do
IMHO), I cannot help but wonder how the mono CAN stall unless the tail wheel
only is on the ground and the main wheel considerably above. My reasoning
is that because the deck angle of the fuse (with main and tail wheels on the
ground) is around 7 degrees from memory. (too lazy to check the manual at
the moment) and the wing incidence is 2.5 degrees, this means the angle of
attack of the wings with both wheels on the ground is around 9.5 degrees.
If I remember correctly, a wing stalls with an AOA of around 14 degrees.
Considering that when landing the wing is also in the influence of 'ground
effect', can somebody explain to me how the wing can possibly properly stall
with such a low AOA ?
Cheers
Kingsley
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landings |
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kingsley Hurst" <hurstkr@growzone.com.au>
Subject: Re: Europa-List: wheel landings
| --> Europa-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst"
<hurstkr@growzone.com.au>
|
| > BUT the answer to the monwheel Europa is that it should be landed on the
| > stall, so that the she's not flying when you touch.|
| Hello Ferg and others,|
| With the sum total of a couple of landings in a mono, I speak from
| observation rather than experience.|
| When people talk about stalling the mono on landing (the ideal thing to do
| IMHO), I cannot help but wonder how the mono CAN stall unless the tail
wheel | only is on the ground and the main wheel considerably above. My
reasoning | is that because the deck angle of the fuse (with main and tail
wheels on the
| ground) is around 7 degrees from memory. (too lazy to check the manual at
| the moment) and the wing incidence is 2.5 degrees, this means the angle of
| attack of the wings with both wheels on the ground is around 9.5 degrees.
| If I remember correctly, a wing stalls with an AOA of around 14 degrees.
| Considering that when landing the wing is also in the influence of 'ground
| effect', can somebody explain to me how the wing can possibly properly
stall | with such a low AOA ? Cheers Kingsley
KH:
I guess several others answered for me. I believe if you learn
to master this machine, you will be able to fly the length of the runway
with power and only the tailwheel aground. We used to do this with Otters at
airshows.
My mistake was in speaking of absolutes. Landing is some
science, much art so my purpose was to infuse a 'feeling' for what is
happening during approach and landing. None of us has ever done this first
time out - it takes perserverence and dedication. Nevertheless, once
acquired it stays with you and every landing after that adds to the
appreciation.
Both Patrick and Jim answered your question which was not
frivilous because when the tailwheel hits, it pitches the craft forward and
down which does indeed reduce the AoA. However during this exercise, the
speed is falling below that necessary for sufficient lift and the aircraft
flops down where no amount of noseup pressure will resurrect flight. The
advantage is in knowing when this occurs, because there is a speed at which
the stab will have sufficient authority to lift the wings against the
tailwheel. You should be well below that to start with. This brings up gusts
which is another skill altogether.
As several others will attest, big 'planes carry 'way' (a marine
term for momentum) and so when a gust arrives, the first thing that happens
is the airspeed rises accordingly. This can ruin your day if the gust
reduces headwind because the airspeed jumps below stall. The 'big guys' take
half the value of a gust and add it to the approach speed, thus reducing the
risk by half (on average). Of course they never subtract 1/2 the gust for
obvious reasons.
BUT in a small a/c (like the Euro or Moth) you're leaf in the
wind. The machine is up with a headgust, down with a loss of gust. Because
the Euro is so slick, extra speed translates into late landing. All this
should be going through the gray stuuf as you approach. Lightplane drivers
will confirm that they have learned to sniff the wind, look for signs, watch
the windsock. Really, big machine aviators should too but for other reasons.
I'm sure you find the Air France chap in Toronto was suckered into
continuing because he was not told of a lowlevel wind component - perhaps
indetected - and you can bet your boots the insurance lawyers won't bring it
up. At many US fields, lowlevel wind sensors reveal previously-unrecognised
outflow winds from nearby cu-nims. To absolve aviators of faulty charges
they should be available everywhere. Until then, a healthy respect for the
50foot wind is priceless and no less true with light aircraft.
Jim and the others will probably tell you their noses are
sniffing the wind vector out every ten seconds, until they don't even
realise it - it's like riding a bike - it becomes instinctive. You read the
wind from all these inputs during an approach, (from first contact if by
radio to 20 or 30 feet above the ground) and you'll never be surprised.
Another thing: This is often missed during checkout, but a
quick, short burst of power will often straighten out an impending swerve.
Yes, it can tend to add speed, but it's first effect is to pull the machine
straight ahead. Got to be short, mind you. Try it out in the air to see if a
swift burst doesn't work on occasion. It sure works with a Stearman or
Harvard. The other advantage is, if it doesn't have the desired effect -
you're on your way to a Go Around earlier. Naturally this applies only to
tractors!
I'll shut up now.
Ferg
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landings |
--> Europa-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Regardless of AOA the wing will stall when the speed drops to the level
>appropriate for the loading.
>
>
>
Hi, all
There must be some confusion between stall and sink.
Patrick, I believe you mean "the wing *sinks* when the speed drops...."
A stall happens when, due to high AOA, the airflow separates from the
upper surface to a significant extent. Stall is entirely AOA related,
and when flying aerobatics, we can stall at any speed. That's what flick
(or snap) manoeuvres are. Of course if you exceed a safe flick entry
speed, you may overstress the aeroplane.
Kinglsey is right in his demonstration. Contrary to the popular saying,
there is no such thing as a "full stall landing". I mean, if you stall
near the ground, the consequence cannot possibly be called a "landing",
but rather "some plastic/metal/wood heap on the runway" ;-)
Consider that during a stall, the nose of the aircraft drops rather
sharply. An if the airplane is not too well behaved, so does a wing.
What happens during ground effect deceleration is a *gradual* reduction
in lift, compensated by a gradual increase in AOA, until, when the
aeroplane has run out of speed, and the pilot out of pitch, lift cannot
be maintained any longer and the aeroplane gently sinks on to the ground.
For what it's worth,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee, aerobatics FI
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Europa-List message posted by: "R.C.Harrison" <ptag.dev@tiscali.co.uk>
Hi! Ferg
Don't leave off it is all good griff and Makes great reading !
Bob H G-PTAG Europa MKI/Jabiru 3300 TRIKE THANKS.( I feel good about it
!)
Do not archive.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fergus Kyle
Subject: Re: Europa-List: wheel landings
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kingsley Hurst" <hurstkr@growzone.com.au>
KH:
I guess several others answered for me. I believe if you
learn
to master this machine, you will be able to fly the length of the runway
with power and only the tailwheel aground. We used to do this with
Otters at
airshows.
My mistake was in speaking of absolutes. Landing is some
science, much art so my purpose was to infuse a 'feeling' for what is
happening during approach and landing. None of us has ever done this
first
time out - it takes perserverence and dedication. Nevertheless, once
acquired it stays with you and every landing after that adds to the
appreciation.
Both Patrick and Jim answered your question which was not
frivilous because when the tailwheel hits, it pitches the craft forward
and
down which does indeed reduce the AoA. However during this exercise, the
speed is falling below that necessary for sufficient lift and the
aircraft
flops down where no amount of noseup pressure will resurrect flight. The
advantage is in knowing when this occurs, because there is a speed at
which
the stab will have sufficient authority to lift the wings against the
tailwheel. You should be well below that to start with. This brings up
gusts
which is another skill altogether.
As several others will attest, big 'planes carry 'way' (a
marine
term for momentum) and so when a gust arrives, the first thing that
happens
is the airspeed rises accordingly. This can ruin your day if the gust
reduces headwind because the airspeed jumps below stall. The 'big guys'
take
half the value of a gust and add it to the approach speed, thus reducing
the
risk by half (on average). Of course they never subtract 1/2 the gust
for
obvious reasons.
BUT in a small a/c (like the Euro or Moth) you're leaf in
the
wind. The machine is up with a headgust, down with a loss of gust.
Because
the Euro is so slick, extra speed translates into late landing. All this
should be going through the gray stuuf as you approach. Lightplane
drivers
will confirm that they have learned to sniff the wind, look for signs,
watch
the windsock. Really, big machine aviators should too but for other
reasons.
I'm sure you find the Air France chap in Toronto was suckered into
continuing because he was not told of a lowlevel wind component -
perhaps
indetected - and you can bet your boots the insurance lawyers won't
bring it
up. At many US fields, lowlevel wind sensors reveal
previously-unrecognised
outflow winds from nearby cu-nims. To absolve aviators of faulty charges
they should be available everywhere. Until then, a healthy respect for
the
50foot wind is priceless and no less true with light aircraft.
Jim and the others will probably tell you their noses are
sniffing the wind vector out every ten seconds, until they don't even
realise it - it's like riding a bike - it becomes instinctive. You read
the
wind from all these inputs during an approach, (from first contact if by
radio to 20 or 30 feet above the ground) and you'll never be surprised.
Another thing: This is often missed during checkout, but a
quick, short burst of power will often straighten out an impending
swerve.
Yes, it can tend to add speed, but it's first effect is to pull the
machine
straight ahead. Got to be short, mind you. Try it out in the air to see
if a
swift burst doesn't work on occasion. It sure works with a Stearman or
Harvard. The other advantage is, if it doesn't have the desired effect -
you're on your way to a Go Around earlier. Naturally this applies only
to
tractors!
I'll shut up now.
Ferg
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] |
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Garry" <garrys@tampabay.rr.com>
I remain completely baffled as to why so many Europa pilots have chosen the
mono over the trigear when given a choice. There is absolutely zero
performance advantage to the mono, in rate of climb, in cruise speed, in
fuel burn, or whatever. The difference is that the mono is inheritantly
unstable in landing (and takeoff) configuration. Everyone (almost) else in
the aircraft business, both large and small, has abandon the taildragger
design, and no one else is building mono wheel planes. For the life of me I
cannot understand why Ivan thought he could be successful when the rest of
the world says it's an unstable design. The proof is in the results.
Europa mono's are ground looping, wheelbarrowing, bending props, running off
the tarmac, and generally destroying themselves with regularity. Perhaps
that is a smart marketing strategy........to design a product that requires
regular parts replacement and rebuilding, but as a pilot I'm not impressed.
I do acknowledge that there are a few among our ranks who get a certain
thrill out of placing themselves in danger on every flight, and love the
challenge of taming a wild and unpredictable beast. It makes for good chest
thumping and bragging rights at the local pub, but might I suggest that you
take up the (American) sport of bull riding. It's probably safer and more
satisfying than trying to land a mono. I'm not trying to stir up the ranks,
but simply trying to understand the motivation of choosing an unstable
design over a proper one. Both Europas are fabulous planes in the air, but
one operates on the ground in a proper fashion while the other acts like a
drunk and wounded gooney bird. Let's hear some logical and unemotional
arguments in favor of the mono.
Trigear pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Thursby" <jthursby@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?]
> --> Europa-List message posted by: "Jim Thursby"
> <jthursby@tampabay.rr.com>
>
> Hi Chris,
> If you are that gung ho, by all means try it yourself but don't say you
> weren't warned. I thought I was smarter than Ivan Shaw once too. Against
> his wishes (and unknown to) I spent the better part of two hours trying
> to
> wheel land one of the company planes. I've been told it was some of the
> most entertaining stuff the controllers at Lakeland had ever seen. It
> will
> squeak the main on ever so gently with just a touch of power, then the
> tail
> slams to the runway and you are rewarded for your carelessness with
> another
> chance or two at landing it properly. If you recover from the resulting
> three to ten foot bounce and haven't clipped your propeller, and if you
> haven't ground looped it, and if you haven't stalled and dropped it in,
> you
> can attempt another landing. I tried many times and NEVER got it to stay
> on
> the ground. If you must attempt wheel landings in a tail dragger aircraft
> please buy or build an RV and save the Europa community from losing
> another
> aircraft from the ranks. And the prop is VERY close when on the main
> wheel
> with the plane in a slight nose down attitude.
>
> Jim T.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Beck
> To: europa-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?]
>
> --> Europa-List message posted by: Chris Beck <n9zes@verizon.net>
>
> Jim Brown wrote:
>
>>--> Europa-List message posted by: Jim Brown <acrojim@cfl.rr.com>
>>
>>I would also suggest, to those of you who want to "TRY" to wheel land a
>>mono wheel, you need to do one thing first. With the engine off, have a
>>friend or helper raise the tail to normal flight attitude, then take a
>>look at how close the prop is to the ground or pavement. One bounce on
>>landing, and you may be buying new prop blades.
>>
>>The center of gravity is behind the mono wheel, which will make the
>>tail drop down, as soon as the wheel touches the runway, if you counter
>>with some forward stick, re-read the above paragraph.
>>
>>
>>
> Jim, what sort of clearance are we talking about?? 2"? 6"? I've got a
> mile on the 140. I'd have to be looking straight at the dirt to get the
> prop grounded.
>
> Regarding the C of G, it's the same issue on any taildragger. It's behind
> the mains, which causes the tail to drop when landing due to the inertia.
> Trick is to zero out the rate of descent just as the mains touch, then
> nail
> it with that bit of forward stick (as I'm sure you know very well from the
> Pitts). Again, is it strictly a prop clearance issue that prevents
> wheelies
> in the monowheel? Has this been beaten to death in the past where I can
> look it up in the archives?
>
> I'm just very curious about the mechanics of landing a monowheel. I've
> flown in a few different ones (a Classic and an XS). Now that I'm flying
> a
> tailwheel plan, I understand a lot more of what's going on.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] |
11/24/2005 11:09:26 AM,
Serialize complete at 11/24/2005 11:09:26 AM
--> Europa-List message posted by: Dave_Miller@avivacanada.com
Well, that should brighten up a dull day in the office, I trust the mono
guys will not let Garry get away with this.
In the meantime, I'm watching the snow blow across a frozen city, and
realizing that there is not much chance of me getting off the ground this
year.
Dave A061, tri-gear, of course
Do not archive
"Garry" <garrys@tampabay.rr.com>
Sent by: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
11/24/2005 10:37 AM
Please respond to europa-list
To: <europa-list@matronics.com>
cc:
Subject: Re: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa
XS?]
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Garry" <garrys@tampabay.rr.com>
I remain completely baffled as to why so many Europa pilots have chosen
the
mono over the trigear when given a choice. ============================================================
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] |
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Jim Thursby" <jthursby@tampabay.rr.com>
Hi Garry,
Actually I have flown a couple of trikes that track worse than a
mone-wheel. But I guess the three main reasons I had chosen it were;
1. Looks. A mono on a low pass just looks plane sexy, though I've only seen
it from the pilots perspective. A trike looks like it "might" be landing, a
mono to me only implies speed and you just know a steep pull-up is soon to
come. Very fun.
2. Rough field performance. A trike "can" utilize rough fields but will
never be as comfortable as a mono on one, nor will it have the takeoff
performance in the tall grass. I landed a mono in twenty inch high grass
once. And got it airborne again. A trike would need a trailer.
3. Weight. A trike will always weigh more than a like equipped mono will.
To the tune of 20 to 30 pounds. While Europa's are very pound/kilo tolerant
excess always hurts performance.
4. Sorry one more, Speed. Believe it or not a mono has less drag than a
trike. Ask Kim Prout. 801. lbs 172 mph 650 takeoff.
(and that's on 80 or 85 HP) :-0
Jim T.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Garry
Subject: Re: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?]
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Garry" <garrys@tampabay.rr.com>
I remain completely baffled as to why so many Europa pilots have chosen the
mono over the trigear when given a choice. There is absolutely zero
performance advantage to the mono, in rate of climb, in cruise speed, in
fuel burn, or whatever. The difference is that the mono is inheritantly
unstable in landing (and takeoff) configuration. Everyone (almost) else in
the aircraft business, both large and small, has abandon the taildragger
design, and no one else is building mono wheel planes. For the life of me I
cannot understand why Ivan thought he could be successful when the rest of
the world says it's an unstable design. The proof is in the results.
Europa mono's are ground looping, wheelbarrowing, bending props, running off
the tarmac, and generally destroying themselves with regularity. Perhaps
that is a smart marketing strategy........to design a product that requires
regular parts replacement and rebuilding, but as a pilot I'm not impressed.
I do acknowledge that there are a few among our ranks who get a certain
thrill out of placing themselves in danger on every flight, and love the
challenge of taming a wild and unpredictable beast. It makes for good chest
thumping and bragging rights at the local pub, but might I suggest that you
take up the (American) sport of bull riding. It's probably safer and more
satisfying than trying to land a mono. I'm not trying to stir up the ranks,
but simply trying to understand the motivation of choosing an unstable
design over a proper one. Both Europas are fabulous planes in the air, but
one operates on the ground in a proper fashion while the other acts like a
drunk and wounded gooney bird. Let's hear some logical and unemotional
arguments in favor of the mono.
Trigear pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Thursby" <jthursby@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?]
> --> Europa-List message posted by: "Jim Thursby"
> <jthursby@tampabay.rr.com>
>
> Hi Chris,
> If you are that gung ho, by all means try it yourself but don't say you
> weren't warned. I thought I was smarter than Ivan Shaw once too. Against
> his wishes (and unknown to) I spent the better part of two hours trying
> to
> wheel land one of the company planes. I've been told it was some of the
> most entertaining stuff the controllers at Lakeland had ever seen. It
> will
> squeak the main on ever so gently with just a touch of power, then the
> tail
> slams to the runway and you are rewarded for your carelessness with
> another
> chance or two at landing it properly. If you recover from the resulting
> three to ten foot bounce and haven't clipped your propeller, and if you
> haven't ground looped it, and if you haven't stalled and dropped it in,
> you
> can attempt another landing. I tried many times and NEVER got it to stay
> on
> the ground. If you must attempt wheel landings in a tail dragger aircraft
> please buy or build an RV and save the Europa community from losing
> another
> aircraft from the ranks. And the prop is VERY close when on the main
> wheel
> with the plane in a slight nose down attitude.
>
> Jim T.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Beck
> To: europa-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?]
>
> --> Europa-List message posted by: Chris Beck <n9zes@verizon.net>
>
> Jim Brown wrote:
>
>>--> Europa-List message posted by: Jim Brown <acrojim@cfl.rr.com>
>>
>>I would also suggest, to those of you who want to "TRY" to wheel land a
>>mono wheel, you need to do one thing first. With the engine off, have a
>>friend or helper raise the tail to normal flight attitude, then take a
>>look at how close the prop is to the ground or pavement. One bounce on
>>landing, and you may be buying new prop blades.
>>
>>The center of gravity is behind the mono wheel, which will make the
>>tail drop down, as soon as the wheel touches the runway, if you counter
>>with some forward stick, re-read the above paragraph.
>>
>>
>>
> Jim, what sort of clearance are we talking about?? 2"? 6"? I've got a
> mile on the 140. I'd have to be looking straight at the dirt to get the
> prop grounded.
>
> Regarding the C of G, it's the same issue on any taildragger. It's behind
> the mains, which causes the tail to drop when landing due to the inertia.
> Trick is to zero out the rate of descent just as the mains touch, then
> nail
> it with that bit of forward stick (as I'm sure you know very well from the
> Pitts). Again, is it strictly a prop clearance issue that prevents
> wheelies
> in the monowheel? Has this been beaten to death in the past where I can
> look it up in the archives?
>
> I'm just very curious about the mechanics of landing a monowheel. I've
> flown in a few different ones (a Classic and an XS). Now that I'm flying
> a
> tailwheel plan, I understand a lot more of what's going on.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] |
--> Europa-List message posted by: "ivor.phillips" <ivor.phillips@ntlworld.com>
That's Easy! There was no choice!! It was Mono or Mono, they didn't
developed the Tri-gear until after 1997.
>
> I remain completely baffled as to why so many Europa pilots have chosen
> the
> mono over the trigear when given a choice.
Ivor phillips
XS486
do not archive
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landings |
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Cliff Shaw" <flyinggpa@comcast.net>
Trigear pilot (Garry)
Someone told me a long time ago "You can not justify owning an experimental airplane"
If that is true, then how can you justify having a practical one? People
chose the Europa in the momowheel configuration because it is different and
special, not because it is practical. And I am told by my UK friends it works
best in "cow pastures landing sights"
I just had to chime in ! Sorry. I made that decision, the first time.
To al the Europa builders on the left side, like me, happy ThanksGiving !
Cliff Shaw
1041 Euclid ave.
Edmonds, WA 98020
425 776 5555
http://www.europaowners.org/WileE
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] |
--> Europa-List message posted by: "GLENN CROWDER" <gcrowder2@hotmail.com>
I remain completely baffled as to why so many Europa pilots have chosen
the
trigear over the mono when given a choice. The mono is lighter, faster and
much safer to land on a rough field. I feel like I could get the mono down
just
about anywhere if the little whirly thing stops.
I got in 6 circuits around the field last nite and every landing was a
yawner.
Just get into ground effect, slowly bring the stick back till it hits the
stop and
hold it. "Thunk" down, nice straight roll out, bring in the power, lift the
tail an
inch and do it again. I make no claim to any piloting skill, I was just a
FBO 172
rental scum before the Europa. In a light crosswind all you have to do is
put
in a little rudder. Sure if it gets nasty you have to go to work, but you
have
to in any plane. I love the mono!
Glenn
>From: "Garry" <garrys@tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: europa-list@matronics.com
>To: <europa-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?]
>Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:37:23 -0500
>
>--> Europa-List message posted by: "Garry" <garrys@tampabay.rr.com>
>
>I remain completely baffled as to why so many Europa pilots have chosen the
>mono over the trigear when given a choice. There is absolutely zero
>performance advantage to the mono, in rate of climb, in cruise speed, in
>fuel burn, or whatever. The difference is that the mono is inheritantly
>unstable in landing (and takeoff) configuration. Everyone (almost) else in
>the aircraft business, both large and small, has abandon the taildragger
>design, and no one else is building mono wheel planes. For the life of me
>I
>cannot understand why Ivan thought he could be successful when the rest of
>the world says it's an unstable design. The proof is in the results.
>Europa mono's are ground looping, wheelbarrowing, bending props, running
>off
>the tarmac, and generally destroying themselves with regularity. Perhaps
>that is a smart marketing strategy........to design a product that requires
>regular parts replacement and rebuilding, but as a pilot I'm not impressed.
>I do acknowledge that there are a few among our ranks who get a certain
>thrill out of placing themselves in danger on every flight, and love the
>challenge of taming a wild and unpredictable beast. It makes for good
>chest
>thumping and bragging rights at the local pub, but might I suggest that you
>take up the (American) sport of bull riding. It's probably safer and more
>satisfying than trying to land a mono. I'm not trying to stir up the
>ranks,
>but simply trying to understand the motivation of choosing an unstable
>design over a proper one. Both Europas are fabulous planes in the air, but
>one operates on the ground in a proper fashion while the other acts like a
>drunk and wounded gooney bird. Let's hear some logical and unemotional
>arguments in favor of the mono.
>
>Trigear pilot
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jim Thursby" <jthursby@tampabay.rr.com>
>To: <europa-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?]
>
>
> > --> Europa-List message posted by: "Jim Thursby"
> > <jthursby@tampabay.rr.com>
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> > If you are that gung ho, by all means try it yourself but don't say you
> > weren't warned. I thought I was smarter than Ivan Shaw once too.
>Against
> > his wishes (and unknown to) I spent the better part of two hours trying
> > to
> > wheel land one of the company planes. I've been told it was some of the
> > most entertaining stuff the controllers at Lakeland had ever seen. It
> > will
> > squeak the main on ever so gently with just a touch of power, then the
> > tail
> > slams to the runway and you are rewarded for your carelessness with
> > another
> > chance or two at landing it properly. If you recover from the resulting
> > three to ten foot bounce and haven't clipped your propeller, and if you
> > haven't ground looped it, and if you haven't stalled and dropped it in,
> > you
> > can attempt another landing. I tried many times and NEVER got it to
>stay
> > on
> > the ground. If you must attempt wheel landings in a tail dragger
>aircraft
> > please buy or build an RV and save the Europa community from losing
> > another
> > aircraft from the ranks. And the prop is VERY close when on the main
> > wheel
> > with the plane in a slight nose down attitude.
> >
> > Jim T.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Beck
> > To: europa-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa
>XS?]
> >
> > --> Europa-List message posted by: Chris Beck <n9zes@verizon.net>
> >
> > Jim Brown wrote:
> >
> >>--> Europa-List message posted by: Jim Brown <acrojim@cfl.rr.com>
> >>
> >>I would also suggest, to those of you who want to "TRY" to wheel land a
> >>mono wheel, you need to do one thing first. With the engine off, have a
> >>friend or helper raise the tail to normal flight attitude, then take a
> >>look at how close the prop is to the ground or pavement. One bounce on
> >>landing, and you may be buying new prop blades.
> >>
> >>The center of gravity is behind the mono wheel, which will make the
> >>tail drop down, as soon as the wheel touches the runway, if you counter
> >>with some forward stick, re-read the above paragraph.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Jim, what sort of clearance are we talking about?? 2"? 6"? I've got a
> > mile on the 140. I'd have to be looking straight at the dirt to get the
> > prop grounded.
> >
> > Regarding the C of G, it's the same issue on any taildragger. It's
>behind
> > the mains, which causes the tail to drop when landing due to the
>inertia.
> > Trick is to zero out the rate of descent just as the mains touch, then
> > nail
> > it with that bit of forward stick (as I'm sure you know very well from
>the
> > Pitts). Again, is it strictly a prop clearance issue that prevents
> > wheelies
> > in the monowheel? Has this been beaten to death in the past where I can
> > look it up in the archives?
> >
> > I'm just very curious about the mechanics of landing a monowheel. I've
> > flown in a few different ones (a Classic and an XS). Now that I'm
>flying
> > a
> > tailwheel plan, I understand a lot more of what's going on.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] |
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Garry" <garrys@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?]
| --> Europa-List message posted by: "Garry" <garrys@tampabay.rr.com>
|
| I remain completely baffled as to why so many Europa pilots have chosen
the
| mono over the trigear when given a choice. There is absolutely zero
| performance advantage to the mono, in rate of climb, in cruise speed, in
| fuel burn, or whatever. The difference is that the mono is inheritantly
| unstable in landing (and takeoff) configuration. Everyone (almost) else
in
| the aircraft business, both large and small, has abandon the taildragger
| design, and no one else is building mono wheel planes. For the life of me
I
| cannot understand why Ivan thought he could be successful when the rest of
| the world says it's an unstable design. The proof is in the results.
| Europa mono's are ground looping, wheelbarrowing, bending props, running
off
| the tarmac, and generally destroying themselves with regularity. Perhaps
| that is a smart marketing strategy........to design a product that
requires
| regular parts replacement and rebuilding, but as a pilot I'm not
impressed.
| I do acknowledge that there are a few among our ranks who get a certain
| thrill out of placing themselves in danger on every flight, and love the
| challenge of taming a wild and unpredictable beast. It makes for good
chest
| thumping and bragging rights at the local pub, but might I suggest that
you
| take up the (American) sport of bull riding. It's probably safer and more
| satisfying than trying to land a mono. I'm not trying to stir up the
ranks,
| but simply trying to understand the motivation of choosing an unstable
| design over a proper one. Both Europas are fabulous planes in the air,
but
| one operates on the ground in a proper fashion while the other acts like a
| drunk and wounded gooney bird. Let's hear some logical and unemotional
| arguments in favor of the mono. Trigear pilot
Garry,
I guess you knew what would happen. .......even got a reply out
of David Miller over here! I agree with all the replies. I suppose the
retracting gear and the wing design attracted me the most. Mind you, like
"did you remember to take out the garbage?", you're saved - 'did you
retract the gear?'
Yes, with a tick of power, and the stick at the back you could
sift into a tight strip at the same speed (maybe), but I have 17 inches of
lovely golf caddy rubber and you have a tiddly disc on a stalk to contend
with the uneven lumps that follow. I think I'll be saying, "where do I sign
in?" about the same time you're saying, ".... on the overshoot, may see you
next year.....".
I could be wrong - I was wrong once before.
Cheers, Ferg
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] |
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Garry" <garrys@tampabay.rr.com>
| To: <europa-list@matronics.com>
| Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 10:37 AM
| Subject: Re: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?]
I remain completely baffled as to why so many Europa pilots have chosen the
mono over the trigear when given a choice.
Bafflement counts.
There is absolutely zero performance advantage to the mono, in rate of climb,
in cruise speed, in fuel burn, or whatever.
The dangling doughnuts ADD speed?
The difference is that the mono is inheritantly unstable in landing (and takeoff)
configuration. Everyone (almost) else in the aircraft business, both large
and small, has abandon the taildragger design, and no one else is building mono
wheel planes.
U2R, TR1A, come to mind. You say 'bicycle', I say mono/tailwheel.
For the life of me I cannot understand why Ivan thought he could be successful
when the rest of the world says it's an unstable design. The proof is in the
results.
Europa mono's are ground looping, wheelbarrowing, bending props, running
off the tarmac, and generally destroying themselves with regularity. Perhaps
that is a smart marketing strategy........to design a product that requires
regular parts replacement and rebuilding, but as a pilot I'm not impressed.
I do acknowledge that there are a few among our ranks who get a certain
thrill out of placing themselves in danger on every flight, and love the
challenge of taming a wild and unpredictable beast. It makes for good chest
thumping and bragging rights at the local pub, but might I suggest that you
take up the (American) sport of bull riding.
The ancient Cretans were doing it in Greek times.
It's probably safer and more satisfying than trying to land a mono.
I liked it better when you said chest-thumping.
I'm not trying to stir up the ranks, but simply trying to understand the motivation
of choosing an unstable design over a proper one.
Unstable and proper are not necessarily opposites. The odd spouse is both.
Both Europas are fabulous planes in the air, but one operates on the ground in
a proper fashion while the other acts like a drunk and wounded gooney bird.
Let's hear some logical and unemotional arguments in favor of the mono. Trigear
pilot
Garry,
I guess you knew what would happen. .......even got a reply out
of David Miller over here! It's hard not to be emotional - the hobby attracts
emotion. I agree with all the replies. I suppose the
retracting gear and the wing design attracted me the most. Mind you, like
"did you remember to take out the garbage?", you're saved - 'did you
retract the gear?'
Yes, with a tick of power, and the stick at the back you could
sift into a tight strip at the same speed (maybe), but I have 17 inches of
lovely golf caddy rubber and you have a tiddly disc on a stalk to contend
with the uneven lumps that follow. I think I'll be saying, "where do I sign
in?" about the same time you're saying, ".... on the overshoot, may see you
next year.....".
I could be wrong - I was wrong once before.
Cheers, Ferg
|
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] |
--> Europa-List message posted by: "R.C.Harrison" <ptag.dev@tiscali.co.uk>
Hi! Garry
I really didn't wish to defend the mono, but after all I did buy both
landing gears and actually built a convertible. Why? Because the flight
profile of the mono is brilliant. However there is another likely
advantage of staying right way up in a forced ditching. There is nothing
so sure that a trike will flip over onto it's back. However there will
be no way I get to use G-PTAG as a mono thanks.
I don't think you should allege there is mono aircraft doing ground
loops and nosing over onto props. big time because that is not the case.
There are thousands of flights happening per annum in Mono Europa's
without any hitches. But like landing gear up there's those who have and
those who will.
My biggest beef now would be handling the mono because without wings or
a suitable dolly they fall over and for a one man rigging situation from
a covered trailer that makes for extreme problems and IMHO is a total
pain in the butt.
Regards
Bob Harrison G-PTAG Europa MKI/Jabiru 3300
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Garry
Subject: Re: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa
XS?]
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Garry" <garrys@tampabay.rr.com>
I remain completely baffled as to why so many Europa pilots have chosen
the
mono over the trigear when given a choice. There is absolutely zero
performance advantage to the mono, in rate of climb, in cruise speed, in
fuel burn, or whatever. The difference is that the mono is inheritantly
unstable in landing (and takeoff) configuration. Everyone (almost) else
in
the aircraft business, both large and small, has abandon the taildragger
design, and no one else is building mono wheel planes. For the life of
me I
cannot understand why Ivan thought he could be successful when the rest
of
the world says it's an unstable design. The proof is in the results.
Europa mono's are ground looping, wheelbarrowing, bending props, running
off
the tarmac, and generally destroying themselves with regularity.
Perhaps
that is a smart marketing strategy........to design a product that
requires
regular parts replacement and rebuilding, but as a pilot I'm not
impressed.
I do acknowledge that there are a few among our ranks who get a certain
thrill out of placing themselves in danger on every flight, and love the
challenge of taming a wild and unpredictable beast. It makes for good
chest
thumping and bragging rights at the local pub, but might I suggest that
you
take up the (American) sport of bull riding. It's probably safer and
more
satisfying than trying to land a mono. I'm not trying to stir up the
ranks,
but simply trying to understand the motivation of choosing an unstable
design over a proper one. Both Europas are fabulous planes in the air,
but
one operates on the ground in a proper fashion while the other acts like
a
drunk and wounded gooney bird. Let's hear some logical and unemotional
arguments in favor of the mono.
Trigear pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Thursby" <jthursby@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa
XS?]
> --> Europa-List message posted by: "Jim Thursby"
> <jthursby@tampabay.rr.com>
>
> Hi Chris,
> If you are that gung ho, by all means try it yourself but don't say
you
> weren't warned. I thought I was smarter than Ivan Shaw once too.
Against
> his wishes (and unknown to) I spent the better part of two hours
trying
> to
> wheel land one of the company planes. I've been told it was some of
the
> most entertaining stuff the controllers at Lakeland had ever seen.
It
> will
> squeak the main on ever so gently with just a touch of power, then the
> tail
> slams to the runway and you are rewarded for your carelessness with
> another
> chance or two at landing it properly. If you recover from the
resulting
> three to ten foot bounce and haven't clipped your propeller, and if
you
> haven't ground looped it, and if you haven't stalled and dropped it
in,
> you
> can attempt another landing. I tried many times and NEVER got it to
stay
> on
> the ground. If you must attempt wheel landings in a tail dragger
aircraft
> please buy or build an RV and save the Europa community from losing
> another
> aircraft from the ranks. And the prop is VERY close when on the main
> wheel
> with the plane in a slight nose down attitude.
>
> Jim T.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris
Beck
> To: europa-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa
XS?]
>
> --> Europa-List message posted by: Chris Beck <n9zes@verizon.net>
>
> Jim Brown wrote:
>
>>--> Europa-List message posted by: Jim Brown <acrojim@cfl.rr.com>
>>
>>I would also suggest, to those of you who want to "TRY" to wheel land
a
>>mono wheel, you need to do one thing first. With the engine off, have
a
>>friend or helper raise the tail to normal flight attitude, then take a
>>look at how close the prop is to the ground or pavement. One bounce on
>>landing, and you may be buying new prop blades.
>>
>>The center of gravity is behind the mono wheel, which will make the
>>tail drop down, as soon as the wheel touches the runway, if you
counter
>>with some forward stick, re-read the above paragraph.
>>
>>
>>
> Jim, what sort of clearance are we talking about?? 2"? 6"? I've got
a
> mile on the 140. I'd have to be looking straight at the dirt to get
the
> prop grounded.
>
> Regarding the C of G, it's the same issue on any taildragger. It's
behind
> the mains, which causes the tail to drop when landing due to the
inertia.
> Trick is to zero out the rate of descent just as the mains touch, then
> nail
> it with that bit of forward stick (as I'm sure you know very well from
the
> Pitts). Again, is it strictly a prop clearance issue that prevents
> wheelies
> in the monowheel? Has this been beaten to death in the past where I
can
> look it up in the archives?
>
> I'm just very curious about the mechanics of landing a monowheel.
I've
> flown in a few different ones (a Classic and an XS). Now that I'm
flying
> a
> tailwheel plan, I understand a lot more of what's going on.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] |
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Mike Parkin" <mikenjulie.parkin@btopenworld.com>
Trying to remain unemotional and logical !!!!!!!!
You are obviously a late comer to the Europa fraternity, when many of us
started building - training wheels/stabilisers were not an option.
> I remain completely baffled as to why so many Europa pilots have chosen
> the
> mono over the trigear when given a choice. There is absolutely zero
> performance advantage to the mono, in rate of climb, in cruise speed, in
> fuel burn, or whatever.
With respect this statement is complete unadulterated rubbish!! Ask Andy
Draper why on X-country they always flew with the tri-gear fuel state in
mind. Answer - it always ran out of fuel before the monowheel. I have yet
to fly with a tri-gear that can out climb or out cruise my monowheel.
The difference is that the mono is inheritantly
> unstable in landing (and takeoff) configuration. Everyone (almost) else
> in
> the aircraft business, both large and small, has abandon the taildragger
> design, and no one else is building mono wheel planes. For the life of me
> I
> cannot understand why Ivan thought he could be successful when the rest of
> the world says it's an unstable design. The proof is in the results.
> Europa mono's are ground looping, wheelbarrowing, bending props, running
> off
> the tarmac, and generally destroying themselves with regularity. Perhaps
> that is a smart marketing strategy........to design a product that
> requires
> regular parts replacement and rebuilding, but as a pilot I'm not
> impressed.
The original design concept was to produce an aircraft that could operate
from an short, unprepared farm strip. The same aircraft should be able to
cover distance at a good speed and be kept at home on a trailer - avoiding
hangarage costs. Ivan achieved all those points with style - it is fact
that experience has shown that a monowheel can be operated from some strips
that would be a no-go with a tri-gear.
It is true that if it is mis-handled, the monowheel is likely to bite back.
I have only witnessed one major Europa incident and that was a tri-gear that
entered into a PIO and wiped out the prop and the nosewheel on the third
bounce - fortunately the crew walked away unharmed.
> I do acknowledge that there are a few among our ranks who get a certain
> thrill out of placing themselves in danger on every flight, and love the
> challenge of taming a wild and unpredictable beast. It makes for good
> chest
> thumping and bragging rights at the local pub, but might I suggest that
> you
> take up the (American) sport of bull riding. It's probably safer and more
> satisfying than trying to land a mono. I'm not trying to stir up the
> ranks,
> but simply trying to understand the motivation of choosing an unstable
> design over a proper one.
A wild and unpredictable beast -- oh pleeeease !!!! all it requires is
average skill and a little practice. Thats why people choose to fly a Pitts
or an RV - or perhaps the ultimate a Mustang or a Spitfire. If all you want
is a safe aircraft, then why not stick with a wallowing SpamCan.
Both Europas are fabulous planes in the air, but
> one operates on the ground in a proper fashion while the other acts like a
> drunk and wounded gooney bird. Let's hear some logical and unemotional
> arguments in favor of the mono.
>
> Trigear pilot
You may be right in what you say, but as someone else commented - a
monowheel in flight looks sexy. Have you ever tried handling a monowheel or
do you just criticise from a distance.
signed Monowheel Pilot (Slightly twisted, living on the edge with
absolutely no sense at all - BUT IT IS FUN!!)
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Non-certificated engines & night ops |
--> Europa-List message posted by: Fred Klein <fklein@orcasonline.com>
All USA builders/flyers,
Some of you may recall my postings regarding the wingtip lite covers
I've made and my interest in the CAM 125 Honda-based engine with which
Alex Bowman is flying; I'm also, of course, considering a Rotax
installation. As a consequence, I've been trying to educate myself on
any issues regarding night flying here in the USA with non-certificated
engines and the necessary inspections and sign-offs. In this process,
I've learned a few things which have, in turn, raised some questions to
which I hope some of you may have answers.
I've quoted from various sources and provided the URL source in
parentheses...my questions are at the end of my email.
"Rotax's operating instructions prohibit the use of a Rotax engine at
night or in IFR conditions unless it is the FAA type-certificated
engine; that is, certificated to FAR Part 33. Rotax's non-certificated
engines are indicated by the letters "UL" after the engine series
number; for example, 912UL, 912ULS, and 914UL."
(http://www.sportpilot.org/news/051013_ifr.html)
"Rotax engines supplied for the Europa are 4 stroke, geared, liquid/air
cooled, 4 cylinder horizontally opposed engines. As engines supplied
for homebuilt aircraft, they are non-certificated.
Rotax 912 UL -=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 80 bhp
@ 5800 engine rpm - normally
aspirated=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A38,100.84
Rotax 912 ULS -=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 100 bhp @ 5800 engine rpm
- normally
aspirated=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A38,940.84
Rotax 914 UL - 115 bhp@ 5800 engine rpm -
turbocharged.=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A313345.84
"The engines as supplied by Europa will be complete with:
Rotax ring mount , Prop flange collar nuts , Slipper clutch (to
protect the engine in case of prop strike) , Stainless steel exhaust
system (914 UL only) , Vacuum pump drive , Air guide hood (912 ULS
only) , Regulator/rectifier , Overflow bottle"
(http://www.europa-aircraft.co.uk/)
"Normal Operation of Your Amateur-Built Aircraft
Once again, all of the general operating rules under FAR Part 91 apply
to daily operations of your aircraft. In addition, the operating
limitations presented under FAR 91.319 and as issued by the FAA
Inspector at the time of inspection govern."
(http://www.sportair.com/articles/
Rules%20&%20Regulations%20of%20Airplane%20Building.html)
"Upon satisfactory completion of the inspection you will be issued
three documents: (1) the airworthiness certificate, (2) Phase I
operating limitations, and (3) Phase II operating limitations. The
inspector is also authorized to issue further restrictions under FAR
91.319 (e) if necessary. An appropriate logbook entry will also be made
in the airframe logbook. Occasionally, the inspector will issue only
Phase I operating limitations. These limitations only apply to the test
flying phase and they have a limited duration of one year. You may not
fly your airplane under Phase I after you have completed the required
flight test hours or after one year unless you have approval from the
FAA. Another inspection is often necessary. Phase II operating
limitations apply to the operation of the aircraft after the required
test flying and exist for the life of the aircraft. Usually, the
inspector will issue both Phase I and Phase II at the time of
inspection. To legally fly your airplane under Phase II after it has
been test flown, you must make the following entry in the aircraft
logbook: "I certify that the prescribed flight test hours have been
completed and this aircraft is controllable throughout its range of
speeds and throughout all maneuvers to be executed, has no hazardous
operating characteristics or design features, and is safe for
operation." The number of flight test hours is 25 when a type
certificate (FAA approved) engine/propeller combination is installed or
40 hours when a non-certificate engine and/or propeller is installed."
(http://exp-aircraft.com/library/alexande/begin.html)
Questions:
1. In practice, with 912ULS and 914UL installations, are inspectors
issuing Phase II operating limitations which preclude night operations,
?
2. Are USA builders/flyers buying the Rotax from Europa (in order to
get the listed ancillaries in one box) and just finessing the
distinction between the "UL" and the certificated versions?...assuming
its wise to attempt to do so w/ your inspector.
3. Does the "40 hours when a non-certificate engine and/or propeller in
installed" during Phase I trump Rotax's own operating limitations which
prohibit night ops with the "UL" engines?
4. Does anyone know the approx. price difference between the "UL" and
the certificated version of the Rotax 912?
5. Is the distinction between the "UL" and certificated 912/914 one of
those "elephants in the living room which no one wants to bring
attention to?
Any answers would be much appreciated and (perhaps) reassuring!..thanks,
Fred
A194
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] |
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Bryan Allsop" <bryan@blackballclub.com>
Learning to land a Mono is just like learning to ride a bicycle. It takes
some getting used to, but one you have mastered it you cannot recall what
all the fuss was about, and you get some useful benefits
Similarly. You do not find many grown ups choosing to ride a tricycle.
Cheers Bryan Allsop
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Thursby" <jthursby@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?]
> --> Europa-List message posted by: "Jim Thursby"
> <jthursby@tampabay.rr.com>
>
> Hi Chris,
> If you are that gung ho, by all means try it yourself but don't say you
> weren't warned. I thought I was smarter than Ivan Shaw once too. Against
> his wishes (and unknown to) I spent the better part of two hours trying
> to
> wheel land one of the company planes. I've been told it was some of the
> most entertaining stuff the controllers at Lakeland had ever seen. It
> will
> squeak the main on ever so gently with just a touch of power, then the
> tail
> slams to the runway and you are rewarded for your carelessness with
> another
> chance or two at landing it properly. If you recover from the resulting
> three to ten foot bounce and haven't clipped your propeller, and if you
> haven't ground looped it, and if you haven't stalled and dropped it in,
> you
> can attempt another landing. I tried many times and NEVER got it to stay
> on
> the ground. If you must attempt wheel landings in a tail dragger aircraft
> please buy or build an RV and save the Europa community from losing
> another
> aircraft from the ranks. And the prop is VERY close when on the main
> wheel
> with the plane in a slight nose down attitude.
>
> Jim T.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Beck
> To: europa-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?]
>
> --> Europa-List message posted by: Chris Beck <n9zes@verizon.net>
>
> Jim Brown wrote:
>
>>--> Europa-List message posted by: Jim Brown <acrojim@cfl.rr.com>
>>
>>I would also suggest, to those of you who want to "TRY" to wheel land a
>>mono wheel, you need to do one thing first. With the engine off, have a
>>friend or helper raise the tail to normal flight attitude, then take a
>>look at how close the prop is to the ground or pavement. One bounce on
>>landing, and you may be buying new prop blades.
>>
>>The center of gravity is behind the mono wheel, which will make the
>>tail drop down, as soon as the wheel touches the runway, if you counter
>>with some forward stick, re-read the above paragraph.
>>
>>
>>
> Jim, what sort of clearance are we talking about?? 2"? 6"? I've got a
> mile on the 140. I'd have to be looking straight at the dirt to get the
> prop grounded.
>
> Regarding the C of G, it's the same issue on any taildragger. It's behind
> the mains, which causes the tail to drop when landing due to the inertia.
> Trick is to zero out the rate of descent just as the mains touch, then
> nail
> it with that bit of forward stick (as I'm sure you know very well from the
> Pitts). Again, is it strictly a prop clearance issue that prevents
> wheelies
> in the monowheel? Has this been beaten to death in the past where I can
> look it up in the archives?
>
> I'm just very curious about the mechanics of landing a monowheel. I've
> flown in a few different ones (a Classic and an XS). Now that I'm flying
> a
> tailwheel plan, I understand a lot more of what's going on.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Nose gear springs |
--> Europa-List message posted by: NevEyre@aol.com
Hi all,
I had the chance to look over one of the Dutch trigear Europa's this week,
in my workshop.
It had been fitted with the spring system, in place of the bungee.
Looks a very neat set up. In my opinion, only needs the addition of some
sort of collar to keep the springs as close to the leg as possible [ they were
free to migrate outboard along the ''tee bar'']
BTW, if you have ever had to listen to the Dutch speaking, and not been able
to fathom out ANY word, I had the ''pleasure'' to see it written this week,
and that makes it all very much clearer, written Dutch is very close to
Dyslexia !
Cheers,
Nev
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst" <hurstkr@growzone.com.au>
> Regardless of AOA the wing will stall when the speed drops to the
level
appropriate for the loading.
Sorry Patrick but I have to disagree with you on this one. As far as I
can recall, by definition, a stall is when the aerofoil reaches its
"critical angle of attack" and this can happen at any speed. My posting
was questioning if the wing in fact can reach the critical angle.
Anyway, this morning when I awoke, I suddenly thought of something that
escaped me last night when I was tired. Ie, when the flaps are
deployed, the geometry of the wing is changed such that the 'effective'
angle of attack is increased so maybe, the wing on the mono is closer to
stalling at the point of touch down (assuming tailwheel on ground) than
I first thought.
A comment in relation to Garry's statement :-
> The difference is that the mono is inheritantly
unstable in landing (and takeoff) configuration. Everyone (almost) else
in
the aircraft business, both large and small, has abandon the taildragger
design, and no one else is building mono wheel planes.
There are heaps of mono wheel taildragger aircraft still being made. If
you don't believe me, visit your nearest sailplane site especially when
a competition is being run.
Because of its shorter couplings, I'm perfectly happy to believe the
Europa Mono is more lively than sailplanes. However, I cannot see that
the principles are very much different so I believe it is more a matter
of familiarity and training than anything else. I would have little
respect for anybody who jumps straight into a mono after never having
flown anything other than a C150 or C172.
I have now enjoyed several flights in four Europa Monos and one in a
trigear. I have to say that I certainly did not gain the impression
that any of the monos were untameable beasts and as I have stated some
time back, I am chaffing at the bit to have a go.
Garry, I have no idea if you have any tailwheel experience or not but if
you haven't, may I suggest you do yourself a favour and get an
endorsement on a Piper Pawnee. After that, do some glider towing and
when you have done 40 or 50 landings, let me know what you think. You
may be surprised just how enjoyable a tailwheel aircraft can be.
Notwithstanding what I have just said, you are certainly correct that
tri gear aircraft are more popular but Hey, Windows is the most popular
operating system in computers too !
Cheers
Kingsley
Do not archive
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Nose gear springs |
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst" <hurstkr@growzone.com.au>
> BTW, if you have ever had to listen to the Dutch speaking, and not
been able
to fathom out ANY word, I had the ''pleasure'' to see it written this
week,
and that makes it all very much clearer, written Dutch is very close to
Dyslexia !
It all sounds like double Dutch to me Nev
Regs
Kingsley
Do not archive
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] |
--> Europa-List message posted by: Jeff B <topglock@cox.net>
I think both sides are becoming a bit emotional on the subject.
My own experience dictated that I build a tri-gear. I bought my kit, as
a mono, from a guy who had purchased it 4 years prior and never started
it. Lucky me as the price was right. Before buying, however, I flew a
mono, with John Hurst, in Lakeland. In the air it was pure art. On the
ground, on pavement, it just plane sucked. Had nothing to so with
landing or take-offs. It just handled terribly on the pavement.
Incidently, John had the same impression. Now, because most of my
flying was to be from paved runways, it was a no brainer for me. "But
Jeff", you say, "you're based at a grass strip". True, however that
came about after the build was finished and, besides, that strip serves
three puropses; first takeoff, last landing and storage. Like I said,
most of my flying is from paved strips and it is. I realize that the
mono, with its larger wheel, is better suited for rough terrain, but the
tri-gear, even with a speed kit, does just fine on less that smooth
grass surfaces. Add to that, the less complex mechanism and that sewed
it up, for me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not bashing the mono. It is a
beautiful bird and a bit faster, than its "small wheel up front" sister,
though not enough to make any real difference to me. I believe the
problem, here is, "defence of your own". We're all guilty of it. Fact
is, though, whether you fly a mono or a trike, you have one of the
finest homebuilts in the sky. It is one of the most unique aircraft
that I've seen, anywhere. Attending as many fly-ins as I do, "Baby
Blue" has been the talk of them all. Oh, and BTW, at every gathering
she's attended, she's been dubbed "sexy". ;)
So, guys, argue til you're blue in the face. Fact remains, the Europa,
in any flavor, is fun, economical and shear joy to fly. So stop beating
your chests and go enjoy your birds... ;)
Jeff - N55XS
109 hours and grinning more, every day...
Mike Parkin wrote:
> --> Europa-List message posted by: "Mike Parkin" <mikenjulie.parkin@btopenworld.com>
>
> Trying to remain unemotional and logical !!!!!!!!
>
> You are obviously a late comer to the Europa fraternity, when many of us
> started building - training wheels/stabilisers were not an option.
>
>
>>I remain completely baffled as to why so many Europa pilots have chosen
>>the
>>mono over the trigear when given a choice. There is absolutely zero
>>performance advantage to the mono, in rate of climb, in cruise speed, in
>>fuel burn, or whatever.
>
>
> With respect this statement is complete unadulterated rubbish!! Ask Andy
> Draper why on X-country they always flew with the tri-gear fuel state in
> mind. Answer - it always ran out of fuel before the monowheel. I have yet
> to fly with a tri-gear that can out climb or out cruise my monowheel.
>
> The difference is that the mono is inheritantly
>
>>unstable in landing (and takeoff) configuration. Everyone (almost) else
>>in
>>the aircraft business, both large and small, has abandon the taildragger
>>design, and no one else is building mono wheel planes. For the life of me
>>I
>>cannot understand why Ivan thought he could be successful when the rest of
>>the world says it's an unstable design. The proof is in the results.
>>Europa mono's are ground looping, wheelbarrowing, bending props, running
>>off
>>the tarmac, and generally destroying themselves with regularity. Perhaps
>>that is a smart marketing strategy........to design a product that
>>requires
>>regular parts replacement and rebuilding, but as a pilot I'm not
>>impressed.
>
>
> The original design concept was to produce an aircraft that could operate
> from an short, unprepared farm strip. The same aircraft should be able to
> cover distance at a good speed and be kept at home on a trailer - avoiding
> hangarage costs. Ivan achieved all those points with style - it is fact
> that experience has shown that a monowheel can be operated from some strips
> that would be a no-go with a tri-gear.
> It is true that if it is mis-handled, the monowheel is likely to bite back.
> I have only witnessed one major Europa incident and that was a tri-gear that
> entered into a PIO and wiped out the prop and the nosewheel on the third
> bounce - fortunately the crew walked away unharmed.
>
>
>>I do acknowledge that there are a few among our ranks who get a certain
>>thrill out of placing themselves in danger on every flight, and love the
>>challenge of taming a wild and unpredictable beast. It makes for good
>>chest
>>thumping and bragging rights at the local pub, but might I suggest that
>>you
>>take up the (American) sport of bull riding. It's probably safer and more
>>satisfying than trying to land a mono. I'm not trying to stir up the
>>ranks,
>>but simply trying to understand the motivation of choosing an unstable
>>design over a proper one.
>
>
> A wild and unpredictable beast -- oh pleeeease !!!! all it requires is
> average skill and a little practice. Thats why people choose to fly a Pitts
> or an RV - or perhaps the ultimate a Mustang or a Spitfire. If all you want
> is a safe aircraft, then why not stick with a wallowing SpamCan.
>
> Both Europas are fabulous planes in the air, but
>
>>one operates on the ground in a proper fashion while the other acts like a
>>drunk and wounded gooney bird. Let's hear some logical and unemotional
>>arguments in favor of the mono.
>>
>>Trigear pilot
>
>
> You may be right in what you say, but as someone else commented - a
> monowheel in flight looks sexy. Have you ever tried handling a monowheel or
> do you just criticise from a distance.
>
>
> signed Monowheel Pilot (Slightly twisted, living on the edge with
> absolutely no sense at all - BUT IT IS FUN!!)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Non-certificated engines & night ops |
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Cliff Shaw" <flyinggpa@comcast.net>
Fred
question #1
I think we all get our Phase II at the first inspection. I did. My plane had
nav-lights and panel lighting installed and the inspector looked at them. I have
not restriction.
#2
I bought from Europa because they designed it for my plane. I had an installation
manual to guide me. If you buy piecemeal you do all the designing.
#3
Rotax has not control what you do with your UL engine. The notation they make is
an attempt to free them selves of liability, IMHO.
#4
You will have to make a phone call to find the current prices. I can not find
anything on the web.
Cliff Shaw
1041 Euclid ave.
Edmonds, WA 98020
425 776 5555
http://www.europaowners.org/WileE
Questions:
1. In practice, with 912ULS and 914UL installations, are inspectors
issuing Phase II operating limitations which preclude night operations,
?
2. Are USA builders/flyers buying the Rotax from Europa (in order to
get the listed ancillaries in one box) and just finessing the
distinction between the "UL" and the certificated versions?...assuming
its wise to attempt to do so w/ your inspector.
3. Does the "40 hours when a non-certificate engine and/or propeller in
installed" during Phase I trump Rotax's own operating limitations which
prohibit night ops with the "UL" engines?
4. Does anyone know the approx. price difference between the "UL" and
the certificated version of the Rotax 912?
5. Is the distinction between the "UL" and certificated 912/914 one of
those "elephants in the living room which no one wants to bring
attention to?
Any answers would be much appreciated and (perhaps) reassuring!..thanks,
Fred
A194
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?] |
0.64 REPLY_TO_EMPTY Reply-To: is empty
--> Europa-List message posted by: "josok" <josok-e@ukolo.fi>
On top of all other good reasons for the mono, it was my choice because hope to
land it and take off from snow. Just tonight Ivan told me he has been doing just
that in 30 cm of snow on car track rutted ice. Now try that with a tricycle.
Btw, this week i have been looking at a tricycle with all legs bent as result
of a mishap landing. Which only confirms that the trigear can have bad landings
as well. I wonder if the owner will now be converting back to mono?
Regards,
Jos Okhuijsen
----------------
Visit EuropaOwnersForum http://www.europaowners.org/
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Non-certificated engines & night ops |
--> Europa-List message posted by: Jeff B <topglock@cox.net>
Fred, I don't know where sport pilot got the info, though I could
probably look it up, however my phase II limitations state that my bird
may not be flown at night, unless equipped with proper lighting, which
it has. The FAA inspector (not a DAR), when questioned about night
flying, said that my bird had proper lighting, thus could be flown at
night. BTW, it has an uncertified Rotax on the nose. Limitations went
on to state that the bird must be flown VFR only, unless it had the
minimum required IFR equipment installed. In other words, if I install
IFR gear, I can fly IFR (given I attain my instrument rating). There
are a lot of myths and misconceptions floating around, but I've found
that most FAA folks are pretty reasonable in their thinking. The folks
around here are anyway. If there is any question about night or day,
IFR/VFR, I'll just show them my AW certificate and phase II limitations...
Now, get that bird finished and get it in the air... <G>
Jeff - N55XS
109 hrs
Fred Klein wrote:
> --> Europa-List message posted by: Fred Klein <fklein@orcasonline.com>
>
> All USA builders/flyers,
>
> Some of you may recall my postings regarding the wingtip lite covers
> I've made and my interest in the CAM 125 Honda-based engine with which
> Alex Bowman is flying; I'm also, of course, considering a Rotax
> installation. As a consequence, I've been trying to educate myself on
> any issues regarding night flying here in the USA with non-certificated
> engines and the necessary inspections and sign-offs. In this process,
> I've learned a few things which have, in turn, raised some questions to
> which I hope some of you may have answers.
>
> I've quoted from various sources and provided the URL source in
> parentheses...my questions are at the end of my email.
>
> "Rotax's operating instructions prohibit the use of a Rotax engine at
> night or in IFR conditions unless it is the FAA type-certificated
> engine; that is, certificated to FAR Part 33. Rotax's non-certificated
> engines are indicated by the letters "UL" after the engine series
> number; for example, 912UL, 912ULS, and 914UL."
> (http://www.sportpilot.org/news/051013_ifr.html)
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|