Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:47 AM - Re: Started Mod 73 (Duncan & Ami McFadyean)
2. 01:58 AM - Re: Started Mod 73 (Flying Farmer)
3. 02:01 AM - Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 (Mike Parkin)
4. 02:21 AM - Re: Transponders (John Price)
5. 02:29 AM - Re: Tailplane Retention. (Carl Pattinson)
6. 02:31 AM - Re: Started Mod 73 (Carl Pattinson)
7. 02:44 AM - Re: Transponders (Carl Pattinson)
8. 02:44 AM - Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 (Nigel Graham)
9. 03:03 AM - Re: Transponders (nigel charles)
10. 03:48 AM - Re: Transponders (David Joyce)
11. 04:09 AM - Europa Fault Reporting (Carl Pattinson)
12. 04:16 AM - FW: Lydeway Fly-In 2007, Wiltshire, UK (nigel charles)
13. 06:51 AM - Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 (Karl Heindl)
14. 06:59 AM - Re: Transponders (europa flugzeug fabrik)
15. 07:43 AM - Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 (Carl Pattinson)
16. 08:33 AM - Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 (glenn crowder)
17. 11:27 AM - Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 (Rman)
18. 11:32 AM - Re: Europa Fault Reporting (Steve Pitt)
19. 11:54 AM - Re: Europa Fault Reporting (R.C.Harrison)
20. 11:58 AM - Mod 73 - some practical experience (David.Corbett)
21. 12:03 PM - Re: Transponders (Carl Pattinson)
22. 12:10 PM - Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 (Pete Lawless)
23. 12:16 PM - Re: Europa Fault Reporting (DuaneFamly@aol.com)
24. 12:19 PM - Re: Mod 73 - some practical experience (Flying Farmer)
25. 01:25 PM - Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 (Mike Parkin)
26. 01:48 PM - Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 (Karl Heindl)
27. 01:52 PM - Re: Europa Fault Reporting (Carl Pattinson)
28. 01:55 PM - Re: Transponders (Tim Houlihan)
29. 02:16 PM - Re: Europa Fault Reporting (Carl Pattinson)
30. 02:30 PM - Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 (Jeff B)
31. 02:57 PM - Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 (glenn crowder)
32. 03:00 PM - Re: Europa Fault Reporting (William Harrison)
33. 03:24 PM - Mod 73 (David Joyce)
34. 04:00 PM - Tailplane retention (Roger Sheridan)
35. 04:10 PM - Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 (Karl Heindl)
36. 05:09 PM - Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 (Graham Singleton)
37. 05:14 PM - Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 (Graham Singleton)
38. 05:36 PM - Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 (Karl Heindl)
39. 06:31 PM - Re: Transponders (europa flugzeug fabrik)
40. 06:44 PM - Re: Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 "new pip pin" (rlborger)
41. 06:44 PM - Fw: Carr Lane Double-Acting Ball Lock Pins (rlborger)
42. 10:59 PM - Tailplane retention (Fred Klein)
43. 11:50 PM - Re: Tailplane retention (mau11@free.fr)
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: | Re: Started Mod 73 |
Maybe you were supplied originally with two sets of TP5's, which are longer?
Duncan McF
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Flying Farmer" <richard@scarrhillalpacas.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 6:42 PM
Subject: Europa-List: Started Mod 73
> <richard@scarrhillalpacas.co.uk>
>
> All
>
> Starting the mod 73, as my tail planes are still in the workshop and not
> filled or painted; In I went with the knife.
>
> I have found that the TP6 bush measures at 50mm from the face of the
> inboard side of the outboard rib. This puts it 10mm inboard more than the,
> instructions on the Mod 73 paper work, in turn will make the span wise
> diameter 60mm instead of the described 50mm.
>
> Before I continue, I ask is anyone finding the same measurements?
>
> I have checked the first instillation of the TP6 from the manual and I
> fine it is as it should be.
>
> Thank You
> Richard Wheelwright.
>
>
> Visit - www.EuropaOwners.org
>
>
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: Started Mod 73 |
Duncan,
Yes that had crossed my mind. But aren't the TP5 cut on an angle to match
the inboard rib?
Visit - www.EuropaOwners.org
Attachments:
http://www.europaowners.org//zfiles/dsc01238_147.jpg
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: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 |
I accept what you say about CM about the aerodynamic centre for an
aerofoil. But are you saying that irrespective of the CofG of the
aircraft, an aircraft will always pitch down.
regards,
Mike
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: | Re: Europa-List:Transponders |
14 Hantone HillHere's a teaser to get us away from the trauma of mod 73,
Where's the best place to site the transponder antenna on a classic
monowheel.
Thanking you all,
John Price.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Price
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
Since I bought my Europa classic already flying can anyone advise if
there is a quick way of finding out if Mod 10672 has been incorporated.
This may save a lot of problems.
John Price.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Gregory
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
Pete/All
I understand from Francis Donaldson that the incorporation of Mod 73
will not remove the requirement for the recurring inspection of the tail
called for in Flight Safety Bulletin FSB-006. He has sent me a copy of
issue 3; I have converted this to PDF format which has brought it down
to 387 kB, which should come through as an attachment on the List. I
apologise to those with dial-up, but I believe this is important because
I also understand from Francis that FSB-006 Issue 3 will not now be
posted on the PFA website until next week.
I'm awaiting an amended copy of the covering letter sent out by the
PFA, which I will also post on this List, which should make it clear
that further inspection of the rear wing attachment is not required if
it passed the criteria set out in FSB-007. This applies to classic
Europas only, and Andy will be carrying out a trial modification to
install a longer pin together with a washer and nut outboard of the root
rib which will allow the aircraft that failed 007 to fly, and also
improve the integrity of the attachment for all classic aircraft. The
PFA anxious not to compromise the integrity of the root rib in this
area, so a hole will have to be cut in the lower skin surface to
incorporate this mod.
Regards
Mike will
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete
Lawless
Sent: 13 July 2007 10:28
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
Hi Mike
Do you know from the PFA if carrying out Mod 73 will remove the
requirement for the recurring 10 hour inspection of the tail end?
Regards
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Gregory
Sent: 12 July 2007 19:01
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Subject: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
To all Listers
Francis Donaldson, Chief Engineer of the UK Popular Flying
Association has asked me to give maximum publicity to the attached
leaflet for Mod 73 covering tailplane retention. It will be available
on the PFA website tomorrow, and copies have been put in the post today
to all UK owners of flying aircraft, together with a covering letter and
revised FSB 006 at issue 3.
The good news is that compliance (for UK owners) is required within
the next ten flying hours or before the next permit renewal, whichever
is earlier, rather than "before next flight".
There are three steps:
1. Elongation of the pip-pin holes in the torque tube.
2. Modification of the underside of the tailplane by
constructing a reinforced pip-pin recess, except for tailplanes that are
pre-moulded or fitted with Europa Club Standard Mod 10672. Note that
10672 is not capable of being retrofitted.
3. Placards on the top surface of each tailplane warning of the
need to ensure correct engagement of both tab drive pin and pip pin
before flight, and on the root rib of each tailplane to certify that Mod
73 has been complied with.
Fly safely
Mike
Europa Club Safety Officer
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tailplane Retention. |
Im not sure if we are thinking along the same lines - I mentioned this
idea before but nobody picked up on it.
A very simple solution would be to drop a long pin (9" long by about
1/4" DIA) through the top of the rib root closeout, behind the TP 12
drive plate and through the bottom closeout. This could be secured at
the bottom with a sprung split pin and would prevent any outward
movement of the tailplanes.
The pin might need to be made of a hardened material rather than mild
steel (to resist bending) - the TP12 drive plates would provide a degree
of support.
The pin would not need to pass through the TP4 torque tube itself but
could be either forward or aft of it or both - 2 pins (IHMO excessive
!!). Through the centre of the torque tube might be better but this
could weaken the torque tube - Europa/ PFA would need to look into this.
It would probably be necessary to drill holes through the TP4 flanges
(which face inboard) but I cant see this weakening the drive plates to
any significant degree.
To ensure the pin didnt pull through the glass closeout, small plates
could be bonded and riveted to the undersides of the tailplane closeouts
where the pin passes through it.
IHMO this would be a relatively cheap alternative and about as failsafe
as one could wish for. Installation time less than one hour.
Possibly a tad unsightly with the pin head protruding above the
tailplane surface (this could be recessed) but 100% effective.
Carl Pattinson
G-LABS
----- Original Message -----
From: R.C.Harrison
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:00 AM
Subject: RE: Europa-List: Tailplane Retention.
Hi! Mike ...the threaded rod would need to "negotiate" past the
central drive pins.
What has happened to Stabilator retention mod. which I saw which has
spring levers which drop behind the drive plates when rigging?
Regards
Bob Harrison.
Robt.C.Harrison
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Parkin
Sent: 13 July 2007 18:59
To: Europa-List@Matronics.Com
Subject: Europa-List: Tailplane Retention.
Well it looks like this problem is not going to be over anytime soon.
I'm domestically grounded, having been flooded out in the June rains - I
suspect it will be 2008 before G-JULZ flies again. It seems to me that
Mod 73 is a 'sticking plaster' solution while they find something
better. For once I totally support the PFA while they try and make our
aircraft a safer machine.
Here is an idea that might be fairly easy to implement.
How about threaded bar going right through the torque shaft. Some
nicely glassed reinforced recesses in the tip of each tailplane, a
couple of nuts and some neat covers to hide it all.
Just thinking out of the box....... Anyone got any better ideas.
regards,
Mike
- The Europa-List Email Forum - -->
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List - NEW
MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - --> http://forums.matronics.com
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: Started Mod 73 |
Mine certainly arent (cut at an angle).
Carl
G-LABS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Flying Farmer" <richard@scarrhillalpacas.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Started Mod 73
> <richard@scarrhillalpacas.co.uk>
>
> Duncan,
> Yes that had crossed my mind. But aren't the TP5 cut on an angle to
> match the inboard rib?
>
>
> Visit - www.EuropaOwners.org
>
>
> Attachments:
> http://www.europaowners.org//zfiles/dsc01238_147.jpg
>
>
>
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: Europa-List:Transponders |
14 Hantone HillOurs is mounted on the underside of the fuselage about
12" forward of the tailspring attachment bolt.
It is a small sharksfin design from Spruce and we stuck a circular
groundplane (made from bacofoil) to the inside of the fuselage.
The only downside is the length of the coax cable to the transonder unit
itself. Anything over 6 feet requires a beefed up coax cable (cant
remember the spec). If you buy it from specialist suppliers it is darned
expensive (and about 10mm in diameter). I seem to recall we found
something similar at much less cost from Tandy- bit it was 10 years ago.
Alternatively save some money and shorten the distance to the aerial
(ie: move it closer to the cockpit) - unless you are planning to have
kids !!!!!
Remember that unlike a comms radio a transponder transmits continuously
so the exposure to radiation is greater.
Carl Pattinson
G-LABS
----- Original Message -----
From: John Price
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: Europa-List:Transponders
Here's a teaser to get us away from the trauma of mod 73,
Where's the best place to site the transponder antenna on a classic
monowheel.
Thanking you all,
John Price.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Price
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
Since I bought my Europa classic already flying can anyone advise if
there is a quick way of finding out if Mod 10672 has been incorporated.
This may save a lot of problems.
John Price.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Gregory
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
Pete/All
I understand from Francis Donaldson that the incorporation of Mod
73 will not remove the requirement for the recurring inspection of the
tail called for in Flight Safety Bulletin FSB-006. He has sent me a
copy of issue 3; I have converted this to PDF format which has brought
it down to 387 kB, which should come through as an attachment on the
List. I apologise to those with dial-up, but I believe this is
important because I also understand from Francis that FSB-006 Issue 3
will not now be posted on the PFA website until next week.
I'm awaiting an amended copy of the covering letter sent out by
the PFA, which I will also post on this List, which should make it clear
that further inspection of the rear wing attachment is not required if
it passed the criteria set out in FSB-007. This applies to classic
Europas only, and Andy will be carrying out a trial modification to
install a longer pin together with a washer and nut outboard of the root
rib which will allow the aircraft that failed 007 to fly, and also
improve the integrity of the attachment for all classic aircraft. The
PFA anxious not to compromise the integrity of the root rib in this
area, so a hole will have to be cut in the lower skin surface to
incorporate this mod.
Regards
Mike will
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete
Lawless
Sent: 13 July 2007 10:28
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
Hi Mike
Do you know from the PFA if carrying out Mod 73 will remove the
requirement for the recurring 10 hour inspection of the tail end?
Regards
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Gregory
Sent: 12 July 2007 19:01
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Subject: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
To all Listers
Francis Donaldson, Chief Engineer of the UK Popular Flying
Association has asked me to give maximum publicity to the attached
leaflet for Mod 73 covering tailplane retention. It will be available
on the PFA website tomorrow, and copies have been put in the post today
to all UK owners of flying aircraft, together with a covering letter and
revised FSB 006 at issue 3.
The good news is that compliance (for UK owners) is required
within the next ten flying hours or before the next permit renewal,
whichever is earlier, rather than "before next flight".
There are three steps:
1. Elongation of the pip-pin holes in the torque tube.
2. Modification of the underside of the tailplane by
constructing a reinforced pip-pin recess, except for tailplanes that are
pre-moulded or fitted with Europa Club Standard Mod 10672. Note that
10672 is not capable of being retrofitted.
3. Placards on the top surface of each tailplane warning of
the need to ensure correct engagement of both tab drive pin and pip pin
before flight, and on the root rib of each tailplane to certify that Mod
73 has been complied with.
Fly safely
Mike
Europa Club Safety Officer
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List">http://www.matron
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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 |
|
| Subject: | Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 |
<kheindl@msn.com>
Can anyone explain to me how the tailplane can possibly move outward by even
a millimeter when the pip pin head is resting firmly against a solid wall on
the inboard side..................................Snip
Karl,
I have attached below, an excerpt of a long mail I sent to the PFA that
describes a sequence of events that could lead to the tailplain moving
outboard. Out of interest, there is always a gap between the pip-pin and the
face of the rib.
This was sent before the current Mod 73 was issued, but you will see why the
temporary remedial action has been to reinforce the pip-pin hole.
Nigel
-------------------------------
Excerpt
...... The only thing preventing each tailplane moving sideways is a single
pip-pin that passes through the TP6 bush and into the TP4 torque tube. (See
Fig.5 Chap 4)
The design relies on a good bond to hold TP6 in place, however only the
protruding outer 12mm (just 8mm on TP5) is required to bond to the tailplane
rib that will subsequently be laid-up onto it. Epoxy adhesive does not bond
well to stainless steel - so the potential for this bondline to fail is
great.
This tiny bondline is the only "design" load path to prevent the tailplane
moving laterally. If the bond failed, the loose TP6 bush would tend to push
its way inboard into the soft blue foam, allowing the tailplane to move
outboard. The TP5 bush would offer no resistance since it would simply slide
along the TP4 torque tube.
In some early Europas, this TP6 bush has de-bonded and it is only the
laminations into the "PipPin" access hole that prevent any lateral movement
of the tail-plane. This lamination was never intended to be structural. If
the aircraft is high-time and habitually operated off rough strips, it is
logical to predict that the continual fretting would cause the glass around
the pip-pin hole to chafe, opening up the hole to a point where the whole
tailplane could slide far enough laterally to allow the tail-pane drive pins
(TP12) to disengage from their drive bushes (TP13) - The tailplane would
then oscillate violently with catastrophic results.
Modification 10672) calls for both the Stainless TP5 and TP6 bushes to be
laminated into an epoxy/Bi-Directional Glass tube before inserting this into
the tailplane TP2 cores and laminating the ribs. This bonds both bushes over
their entire surface area, significantly increasing the bond area and more
importantly, physically tying TP5 with TP6 and both the inner and outer ribs
together. With this structure, the entire bond surface area and both ribs
would have to fail before the tailplane could move sideways.
The loadpath is through the mod 10672 and not through the outer skin and
pip-pin hole - a significantly better engineering solution.
-
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: | Europa-List:Transponders |
I would suggest as low as possible in the rear fuselage but away from
metal parts such as the flap crosstube. I have mine on a bracket on the
join of the fuselage halves on the starboard side. In most cases it is
OK but some ATC units have problems receiving a signal when I am flying
towards them (particularly if they are in the 11 o'clock position) which
infers screening from the engine. I intend moving it at the next
opportunity.
Nigel Charles
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Price
Sent: 15 July 2007 10:21
Subject: Re: Europa-List:Transponders
Here's a teaser to get us away from the trauma of mod 73,
Where's the best place to site the transponder antenna on a classic
monowheel.
Thanking you all,
John Price.
----- Original Message -----
From: John <mailto:nicolaprice@tiscali.co.uk> Price
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
Since I bought my Europa classic already flying can anyone advise if
there is a quick way of finding out if Mod 10672 has been incorporated.
This may save a lot of problems.
John Price.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike <mailto:m.j.gregory@talk21.com> Gregory
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
Pete/All
I understand from Francis Donaldson that the incorporation of Mod 73
will not remove the requirement for the recurring inspection of the tail
called for in Flight Safety Bulletin FSB-006. He has sent me a copy of
issue 3; I have converted this to PDF format which has brought it down
to 387 kB, which should come through as an attachment on the List. I
apologise to those with dial-up, but I believe this is important because
I also understand from Francis that FSB-006 Issue 3 will not now be
posted on the PFA website until next week.
I'm awaiting an amended copy of the covering letter sent out by the PFA,
which I will also post on this List, which should make it clear that
further inspection of the rear wing attachment is not required if it
passed the criteria set out in FSB-007. This applies to classic Europas
only, and Andy will be carrying out a trial modification to install a
longer pin together with a washer and nut outboard of the root rib which
will allow the aircraft that failed 007 to fly, and also improve the
integrity of the attachment for all classic aircraft. The PFA anxious
not to compromise the integrity of the root rib in this area, so a hole
will have to be cut in the lower skin surface to incorporate this mod.
Regards
Mike will
_____
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete
Lawless
Sent: 13 July 2007 10:28
Subject: RE: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
Hi Mike
Do you know from the PFA if carrying out Mod 73 will remove the
requirement for the recurring 10 hour inspection of the tail end?
Regards
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Gregory
Sent: 12 July 2007 19:01
Subject: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
To all Listers
Francis Donaldson, Chief Engineer of the UK Popular Flying Association
has asked me to give maximum publicity to the attached leaflet for Mod
73 covering tailplane retention. It will be available on the PFA
website tomorrow, and copies have been put in the post today to all UK
owners of flying aircraft, together with a covering letter and revised
FSB 006 at issue 3.
The good news is that compliance (for UK owners) is required within the
next ten flying hours or before the next permit renewal, whichever is
earlier, rather than "before next flight".
There are three steps:
1. Elongation of the pip-pin holes in the torque tube.
2. Modification of the underside of the tailplane by constructing a
reinforced pip-pin recess, except for tailplanes that are pre-moulded or
fitted with Europa Club Standard Mod 10672. Note that 10672 is not
capable of being retrofitted.
3. Placards on the top surface of each tailplane warning of the
need to ensure correct engagement of both tab drive pin and pip pin
before flight, and on the root rib of each tailplane to certify that Mod
73 has been complied with.
Fly safely
Mike
Europa Club Safety Officer
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List">http://www.matronh
ref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: Europa-List:Transponders |
John, I couldn't say whether it's the best, but an easy, simple and
effective place to mount it is at the bottom of the side of the plywood
tower that encloses the tailplane mass balance. Mine is a Bob Archer SA-005
antenna and has worked without any apparent problem for 5 yrs. Regards,
David Joyce, G-XSDJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Price" <nicolaprice@tiscali.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: Europa-List:Transponders
14 Hantone HillHere's a teaser to get us away from the trauma of mod 73,
Where's the best place to site the transponder antenna on a classic
monowheel.
Thanking you all,
John Price.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Price
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
Since I bought my Europa classic already flying can anyone advise if there
is a quick way of finding out if Mod 10672 has been incorporated.
This may save a lot of problems.
John Price.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Gregory
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
Pete/All
I understand from Francis Donaldson that the incorporation of Mod 73
will not remove the requirement for the recurring inspection of the tail
called for in Flight Safety Bulletin FSB-006. He has sent me a copy of
issue 3; I have converted this to PDF format which has brought it down to
387 kB, which should come through as an attachment on the List. I apologise
to those with dial-up, but I believe this is important because I also
understand from Francis that FSB-006 Issue 3 will not now be posted on the
PFA website until next week.
I'm awaiting an amended copy of the covering letter sent out by the PFA,
which I will also post on this List, which should make it clear that further
inspection of the rear wing attachment is not required if it passed the
criteria set out in FSB-007. This applies to classic Europas only, and Andy
will be carrying out a trial modification to install a longer pin together
with a washer and nut outboard of the root rib which will allow the aircraft
that failed 007 to fly, and also improve the integrity of the attachment for
all classic aircraft. The PFA anxious not to compromise the integrity of
the root rib in this area, so a hole will have to be cut in the lower skin
surface to incorporate this mod.
Regards
Mike will
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete Lawless
Sent: 13 July 2007 10:28
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
Hi Mike
Do you know from the PFA if carrying out Mod 73 will remove the
requirement for the recurring 10 hour inspection of the tail end?
Regards
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Gregory
Sent: 12 July 2007 19:01
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Subject: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
To all Listers
Francis Donaldson, Chief Engineer of the UK Popular Flying Association
has asked me to give maximum publicity to the attached leaflet for Mod 73
covering tailplane retention. It will be available on the PFA website
tomorrow, and copies have been put in the post today to all UK owners of
flying aircraft, together with a covering letter and revised FSB 006 at
issue 3.
The good news is that compliance (for UK owners) is required within the
next ten flying hours or before the next permit renewal, whichever is
earlier, rather than "before next flight".
There are three steps:
1. Elongation of the pip-pin holes in the torque tube.
2. Modification of the underside of the tailplane by constructing a
reinforced pip-pin recess, except for tailplanes that are pre-moulded or
fitted with Europa Club Standard Mod 10672. Note that 10672 is not capable
of being retrofitted.
3. Placards on the top surface of each tailplane warning of the
need to ensure correct engagement of both tab drive pin and pip pin before
flight, and on the root rib of each tailplane to certify that Mod 73 has
been complied with.
Fly safely
Mike
Europa Club Safety Officer
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: | Europa Fault Reporting |
It is easy to point the finger of blame after the event and what I am about
to say is not intended to blame anyone but rather offered as food for
thought.
It seems to me that there is a serious flaw in the regulatory system that
has allowed this (and probably other) accidents to occurr.
As far as I am aware there is no mandatory requirement to report to the
authorities -( ie: the CAA, PFA and Europa), defects or faults that are
discovered during the course of routine maintenance. It is necessary to
enter details of maintenance work in the aircraft log but these are rarely
examined until someone has had an accident. I am not sure if PFA inspectors
are required to report back to the PFA on such issues.
The issue of TP6 sleeves disbonding had been known about for many years but
no one knows exactly how many tailplanes have been affected. A Europa owners
mod was produced but this never became mandatory - in any event it could not
be easily retrofitted to the many aircraft already built. We are only now
addressing the problems that this particular design fault/ oversight has
created.
The point I am making is that without proper facts we are all working in the
dark and it seems there is no formal mechanism for collating this data.
A recent point in case was the implementation of FSB-006. We were asked to
check for play in the tailplanes but there was no requirement to pass the
data back to Europa or the PFA - nor was there a specific requirement to
record the amount of play in the airframe logbook.
Kitplanes can never be as rigorously tested or evaluated as commercial
aircraft and even these reveal design flaws long after they have been deemed
fit for service. Surely it is doubly important then that design and
manufacturing defects are reported back to the manufacturer for them to
evaluate and decide whether changes should be made.
This is purely my view as a builder/ owner. Are there any PFA inspectors out
there who could comment. Maybe there is a system and I have been unaware of
it.
Im donning my hard hat now.
Carl Pattinson
G-LABS
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: | FW: Lydeway Fly-In 2007, Wiltshire, UK |
This is the final reminder of the Lydeway BBQ/Fly-In
LYDEWAY BBQ/FLY-IN 2007
The Lydeway BBQ/Fly-In will be held on Saturday 21st July 2007 with
Sunday 22nd July as a back-up day in case of bad weather. For those who
haven't been to Lydeway before it is a 790m grass strip 11nm south of
RAF Lyneham. A BBQ and drinks are provided for free in exchange for a
couple of joyride flights for local residents. Due to the numbers of
flight movements during the day I need to limit the event to 12-14
aircraft. With that in mind it is strictly PPR and I am now taking
bookings. If you are only able to make one or other of the 2 days set
aside for the event that is OK as I am taking bookings for both days
independently. There will be a weather check at 2000hrs on Friday 20th
July and immediately afterwards pilots will be notified by email as to
which day the event will go ahead.
Anyone interested in attending should contact me at nwcmc@tiscali.co.uk
or by phone on 01380 860620.
Nigel Charles.
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: | Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 |
Nigel,
I understand all that and your mod should have been made standard a long
time ago. But what about older Europas ? We hear reports about disbonded
TP6s but we don't hear how they were repaired. I really would like to know.
A suitable retrofit mod should also have been made available as soon as this
problem was known.
I still say that there is no way the tailplane can move if the pip pin head
is firmly against solid material on the inboard side. You say there is
always a gap, but that gap is filled with floxed epoxy, and the head is
inside a close fitting plastic pipe in my case. I think another builder
recently told us about a similar mod he made. The remaining space around the
pipe is also filled with epoxy. Of course all these solutions are based on
theory and only a lab test could verify the claims.
When my TP5s disbonded from trailering I was kicking myself for not having
installed a one-piece pipe, but in those early days I was very careful to
follow the build instructions precisely. I stll think that a retrofit of a
one-piece sleeve would be more than strong enough to prevent any future
disbonding, and would be a relatively easy solution where the TP6s have
already disbonded.
As far as the accident goes, we still don't have any real conclusive
evidence about the sequence of events. Only a number of theories. Only a
wind tunnel test would verify the flutter theory, but who is going to pay
for that ? Eyewitness reports can be very misleading.
If the wing trailing edge pin came off first, is it possible that the pilot
was getting set up for landing and deploying flaps and undercarriage ?
I also like the other suggested solutions where a lock is put behind the
TP12
Karl
>
>
>Karl,
>
>I have attached below, an excerpt of a long mail I sent to the PFA that
>describes a sequence of events that could lead to the tailplain moving
>outboard. Out of interest, there is always a gap between the pip-pin and
>the
>face of the rib.
>
>This was sent before the current Mod 73 was issued, but you will see why
>the
>temporary remedial action has been to reinforce the pip-pin hole.
>
>Nigel
>
>
>-------------------------------
>Excerpt
>
>...... The only thing preventing each tailplane moving sideways is a single
>pip-pin that passes through the TP6 bush and into the TP4 torque tube. (See
>Fig.5 Chap 4)
>The design relies on a good bond to hold TP6 in place, however only the
>protruding outer 12mm (just 8mm on TP5) is required to bond to the
>tailplane
>rib that will subsequently be laid-up onto it. Epoxy adhesive does not bond
>well to stainless steel - so the potential for this bondline to fail is
>great.
>This tiny bondline is the only "design" load path to prevent the tailplane
>moving laterally. If the bond failed, the loose TP6 bush would tend to push
>its way inboard into the soft blue foam, allowing the tailplane to move
>outboard. The TP5 bush would offer no resistance since it would simply
>slide
>along the TP4 torque tube.
>
>In some early Europas, this TP6 bush has de-bonded and it is only the
>laminations into the "PipPin" access hole that prevent any lateral movement
>of the tail-plane. This lamination was never intended to be structural. If
>the aircraft is high-time and habitually operated off rough strips, it is
>logical to predict that the continual fretting would cause the glass around
>the pip-pin hole to chafe, opening up the hole to a point where the whole
>tailplane could slide far enough laterally to allow the tail-pane drive
>pins
>(TP12) to disengage from their drive bushes (TP13) - The tailplane would
>then oscillate violently with catastrophic results.
>
>Modification 10672) calls for both the Stainless TP5 and TP6 bushes to be
>laminated into an epoxy/Bi-Directional Glass tube before inserting this
>into
>the tailplane TP2 cores and laminating the ribs. This bonds both bushes
>over
>their entire surface area, significantly increasing the bond area and more
>importantly, physically tying TP5 with TP6 and both the inner and outer
>ribs
>together. With this structure, the entire bond surface area and both ribs
>would have to fail before the tailplane could move sideways.
>
>The loadpath is through the mod 10672 and not through the outer skin and
>pip-pin hole - a significantly better engineering solution.
>
>
>-
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Watch all 9 Live Earth concerts live on MSN. http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
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: Europa-List:Transponders |
carl(at)flyers.freeserve. wrote:
> ...(ie: move it closer to the cockpit) - unless you are planning to have kids
!!!!!
>
> Remember that unlike a comms radio a transponder transmits continuously so the
exposure to radiation is greater.
No, it does not transmit continuously, but only bursts of a few milliseconds (at
partial duty cycle) only when our reply lamp blinks in response to an ATC radar
sweep. If we do the math on RF exposure, we absorb more RF energy from a
cell phone than a transponder antenna a few feet away.
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123903#123903
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: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 |
The only "solid" material on the inboard side is 2 plies of bid comprising
the pip pin recess (and a bit of foam!!!) . That is why the PFA have been so
specific as to what is considered acceptable or not.
The tailplane rib is on the outboard side of the pip pin recess and would
provide no suport to a disbonded TP6.
You say that the pip pin head is located against "solid material" but what
is that solid material anchored to? If it isnt anchored to the tailplane
surface or to the outboard tailplane rib then it isnt anchored to anything !
I suspect the current mod 73 will prove to be no more than a temporary
solution and a more robust mod will follow in due course.
There would seem to be several retrofit solutions to this problem and
ultimately it is up to the PFA to decide which will be best in the long
term.
Whilst I agree this problem should have been addressed a long time ago, the
fact is that many Europas have flown many hours without incident. This
would suggest the problem is not as dire as we all think it is. I suspect
that 99% of Europas are flying around with secure tailplanes but in the
absence of definitive proof one has to assume the worst.
We are also assuming that a disbonded TP5 contributed towards Williams
accident. So far however there is no definitive evidence to support such an
assumption (in the public domain at least).
Carl (with a C !)
G-LABS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Heindl" <kheindl@msn.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 2:49 PM
Subject: RE: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
>
>
> Nigel,
>
> I understand all that and your mod should have been made standard a long
> time ago. But what about older Europas ? We hear reports about disbonded
> TP6s but we don't hear how they were repaired. I really would like to
> know. A suitable retrofit mod should also have been made available as soon
> as this problem was known.
> I still say that there is no way the tailplane can move if the pip pin
> head is firmly against solid material on the inboard side. You say there
> is always a gap, but that gap is filled with floxed epoxy, and the head is
> inside a close fitting plastic pipe in my case. I think another builder
> recently told us about a similar mod he made. The remaining space around
> the pipe is also filled with epoxy. Of course all these solutions are
> based on theory and only a lab test could verify the claims.
> When my TP5s disbonded from trailering I was kicking myself for not having
> installed a one-piece pipe, but in those early days I was very careful to
> follow the build instructions precisely. I stll think that a retrofit of a
> one-piece sleeve would be more than strong enough to prevent any future
> disbonding, and would be a relatively easy solution where the TP6s have
> already disbonded.
>
> As far as the accident goes, we still don't have any real conclusive
> evidence about the sequence of events. Only a number of theories. Only a
> wind tunnel test would verify the flutter theory, but who is going to pay
> for that ? Eyewitness reports can be very misleading.
> If the wing trailing edge pin came off first, is it possible that the
> pilot was getting set up for landing and deploying flaps and undercarriage
> ?
>
> I also like the other suggested solutions where a lock is put behind the
> TP12
>
>
> Karl
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Karl,
>>
>>I have attached below, an excerpt of a long mail I sent to the PFA that
>>describes a sequence of events that could lead to the tailplain moving
>>outboard. Out of interest, there is always a gap between the pip-pin and
>>the
>>face of the rib.
>>
>>This was sent before the current Mod 73 was issued, but you will see why
>>the
>>temporary remedial action has been to reinforce the pip-pin hole.
>>
>>Nigel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------
>>Excerpt
>>
>>...... The only thing preventing each tailplane moving sideways is a
>>single
>>pip-pin that passes through the TP6 bush and into the TP4 torque tube.
>>(See
>>Fig.5 Chap 4)
>>The design relies on a good bond to hold TP6 in place, however only the
>>protruding outer 12mm (just 8mm on TP5) is required to bond to the
>>tailplane
>>rib that will subsequently be laid-up onto it. Epoxy adhesive does not
>>bond
>>well to stainless steel - so the potential for this bondline to fail is
>>great.
>>This tiny bondline is the only "design" load path to prevent the tailplane
>>moving laterally. If the bond failed, the loose TP6 bush would tend to
>>push
>>its way inboard into the soft blue foam, allowing the tailplane to move
>>outboard. The TP5 bush would offer no resistance since it would simply
>>slide
>>along the TP4 torque tube.
>>
>>In some early Europas, this TP6 bush has de-bonded and it is only the
>>laminations into the "PipPin" access hole that prevent any lateral
>>movement
>>of the tail-plane. This lamination was never intended to be structural. If
>>the aircraft is high-time and habitually operated off rough strips, it is
>>logical to predict that the continual fretting would cause the glass
>>around
>>the pip-pin hole to chafe, opening up the hole to a point where the whole
>>tailplane could slide far enough laterally to allow the tail-pane drive
>>pins
>>(TP12) to disengage from their drive bushes (TP13) - The tailplane would
>>then oscillate violently with catastrophic results.
>>
>>Modification 10672) calls for both the Stainless TP5 and TP6 bushes to be
>>laminated into an epoxy/Bi-Directional Glass tube before inserting this
>>into
>>the tailplane TP2 cores and laminating the ribs. This bonds both bushes
>>over
>>their entire surface area, significantly increasing the bond area and more
>>importantly, physically tying TP5 with TP6 and both the inner and outer
>>ribs
>>together. With this structure, the entire bond surface area and both ribs
>>would have to fail before the tailplane could move sideways.
>>
>>The loadpath is through the mod 10672 and not through the outer skin and
>>pip-pin hole - a significantly better engineering solution.
>>
>>
>>-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Watch all 9 Live Earth concerts live on MSN. http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
>
>
>
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: | Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 |
Hi Mike - yes the aircraft will always pitch down with a non symmetrical ai
rfoil. This is why
aerobatic aircraft are designed with symmetrical airfoils - zero pitching m
oment. Aerobatic pilots don't like their aircraft pitching without their c
ommand!
Also, in the accident aircraft, losing the tailplane suddenly removed 20
lbs of weight off the
tail, pitching the nose down further.
If you've ever flown a C-172 while lowering the flaps you will probably r
emember the
pitch down. Actually, it balloons up first while speed is being lost, then
pitches down.
The wing is now very non-symmetrical, requiring up trim on the elevator t
o
balance the increased negative CM. The Europa does this too but not as not
iceable,
probably because of the powerful tail.
Glenn
From: mikenjulie.parkin@btinternet.comTo: europa-list@matronics.comSubject:
Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:01:17
+0100
I accept what you say about CM about the aerodynamic centre for an aerofoil
. But are you saying that irrespective of the CofG of the aircraft, an air
craft will always pitch down.
regards,
Mike
_________________________________________________________________
See what you=92re getting into=85before you go there.
http://newlivehotmail.com
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: | Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 |
All,
I've read, with great interest, all the suggestions and discussion. I'm
no engineer, but I have a pretty good idea of what I would do, should I
find any evidence of disbonding of the tailplane bushings. And, I
believe it could be done with very little cosmetic damage to the
tailplane. I like the solid tube idea and would build off of that.
Basically, a tube, of the appropriate length, with two 1/4", round,
metal rods welded fore and aft, on centerline. The rods wouldn't have
to run the full length of the tube, but it certainly wouldn't hurt. The
purpose of the rods would be to further stabilize the tube and prevent
it from twisting.
Should the original bushings become disbonded, it should be a fairly
simple task to remove the old bushing (even if it required opening the
wingtip), remove the inner bushing and modify the foam and ribs, to
accomodate the new shape of the tube. Inserting the new tube would be
as simple as applying a thin coat of Redux to the tube and inner walls
of the foam, plugging the outboard end of the new tube and pushing the
assembly in. The new tube would then be drilled to accept the standard
pip pins. Adding covers to the pip pin access holes would further
remove the possibility of a pin becoming dislodged.
Seems to me that the new assembly would be extremely strong and should
remove any further chance of the tailplanes pulling away from the drive
pins.
So, am I way off base, of does this idea hold water?
Jeff - Baby Blue
300 hours and finishing up her 2nd annual...
Karl Heindl wrote:
>
>
> Nigel,
>
> I understand all that and your mod should have been made standard a
> long time ago. But what about older Europas ? We hear reports about
> disbonded TP6s but we don't hear how they were repaired. I really
> would like to know. A suitable retrofit mod should also have been made
> available as soon as this problem was known.
> I still say that there is no way the tailplane can move if the pip pin
> head is firmly against solid material on the inboard side. You say
> there is always a gap, but that gap is filled with floxed epoxy, and
> the head is inside a close fitting plastic pipe in my case. I think
> another builder recently told us about a similar mod he made. The
> remaining space around the pipe is also filled with epoxy. Of course
> all these solutions are based on theory and only a lab test could
> verify the claims.
> When my TP5s disbonded from trailering I was kicking myself for not
> having installed a one-piece pipe, but in those early days I was very
> careful to follow the build instructions precisely. I stll think that
> a retrofit of a one-piece sleeve would be more than strong enough to
> prevent any future disbonding, and would be a relatively easy solution
> where the TP6s have already disbonded.
>
> As far as the accident goes, we still don't have any real conclusive
> evidence about the sequence of events. Only a number of theories. Only
> a wind tunnel test would verify the flutter theory, but who is going
> to pay for that ? Eyewitness reports can be very misleading.
> If the wing trailing edge pin came off first, is it possible that the
> pilot was getting set up for landing and deploying flaps and
> undercarriage ?
>
> I also like the other suggested solutions where a lock is put behind
> the TP12
>
>
> Karl
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Karl,
>>
>> I have attached below, an excerpt of a long mail I sent to the PFA that
>> describes a sequence of events that could lead to the tailplain moving
>> outboard. Out of interest, there is always a gap between the pip-pin
>> and the
>> face of the rib.
>>
>> This was sent before the current Mod 73 was issued, but you will see
>> why the
>> temporary remedial action has been to reinforce the pip-pin hole.
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> Excerpt
>>
>> ...... The only thing preventing each tailplane moving sideways is a
>> single
>> pip-pin that passes through the TP6 bush and into the TP4 torque
>> tube. (See
>> Fig.5 Chap 4)
>> The design relies on a good bond to hold TP6 in place, however only the
>> protruding outer 12mm (just 8mm on TP5) is required to bond to the
>> tailplane
>> rib that will subsequently be laid-up onto it. Epoxy adhesive does
>> not bond
>> well to stainless steel - so the potential for this bondline to fail is
>> great.
>> This tiny bondline is the only "design" load path to prevent the
>> tailplane
>> moving laterally. If the bond failed, the loose TP6 bush would tend
>> to push
>> its way inboard into the soft blue foam, allowing the tailplane to move
>> outboard. The TP5 bush would offer no resistance since it would
>> simply slide
>> along the TP4 torque tube.
>>
>> In some early Europas, this TP6 bush has de-bonded and it is only the
>> laminations into the "PipPin" access hole that prevent any lateral
>> movement
>> of the tail-plane. This lamination was never intended to be
>> structural. If
>> the aircraft is high-time and habitually operated off rough strips,
>> it is
>> logical to predict that the continual fretting would cause the glass
>> around
>> the pip-pin hole to chafe, opening up the hole to a point where the
>> whole
>> tailplane could slide far enough laterally to allow the tail-pane
>> drive pins
>> (TP12) to disengage from their drive bushes (TP13) - The tailplane would
>> then oscillate violently with catastrophic results.
>>
>> Modification 10672) calls for both the Stainless TP5 and TP6 bushes
>> to be
>> laminated into an epoxy/Bi-Directional Glass tube before inserting
>> this into
>> the tailplane TP2 cores and laminating the ribs. This bonds both
>> bushes over
>> their entire surface area, significantly increasing the bond area and
>> more
>> importantly, physically tying TP5 with TP6 and both the inner and
>> outer ribs
>> together. With this structure, the entire bond surface area and both
>> ribs
>> would have to fail before the tailplane could move sideways.
>>
>> The loadpath is through the mod 10672 and not through the outer skin and
>> pip-pin hole - a significantly better engineering solution.
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Watch all 9 Live Earth concerts live on MSN. http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
>
>
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: Europa Fault Reporting |
Carl, I must agree with your comments about collating information. I was
very surprised and disappointed that when the recent FSBs were issued and I
failed my own aircraft due to pip pin holes that despite advising my
inspector and Francis Donaldson personally I am not aware that anyone was
actually collating the number or type of issues that were being thrown up.
As I do not come from an aeronautic background I did not know what the norm
was, but, certainly in my world of finance, we would have noted problems to
see if there was a common thread.
I would not wish to cast an extra work on to any one body but I do wonder if
there should be some form of database held (presumably by the PFA as the
Licensing Authority) to be able to show that any FSB or similar issue had
been resolved by any aircraft on the British Register. With 200 plus flying
Europas surely it would not be that big a job for someone to manage.
Flak jackets on!!
Steve Pitt
G-SMDH
(Both pip pin holes cut out, top and bottom (see above) and ready to recast
fibreglass - for those wondering about the exercise it took about 1/2 hour
to do the cutting and shaping for each tailplane. The fibreglassing will
probably take a little longer.)
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: | Europa Fault Reporting |
Hi! Carl
Interesting questions the replies to which will be eagerly awaited by
numerous people. I wish to make no comment however I recently asked the
forum a question and got no reply ....it is relevant to keeping the
tailplanes secured on the torque tube ...I repeat.....
I recently saw a prospective mod. suggestion which I felt to be really
good "out of the box" thinking ..... there was a spring lever through a
slot in the forward upper surface of the tailplane closeout area which
when opened by holding against the spring allowed the tail plane to push
the lever behind the drive plates and then sprung into place behind the
drive plates.
Personally I would also have the same lever/spring arrangement also in
an aft position making two pairs of levers all in addition to the
existing pip pins.
Anyone know the status of this mod ...has it been applied for ?
Regards
Bob Harrison G-PTAG 914 installed and ready for first "stoke up
"...about to start works on "the moved goal posts" prior to flight test
permit application.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl
Pattinson
Sent: 15 July 2007 12:09
Subject: Europa-List: Europa Fault Reporting
<carl@flyers.freeserve.co.uk>
It is easy to point the finger of blame after the event and what I am
about
to say is not intended to blame anyone but rather offered as food for
thought.
It seems to me that there is a serious flaw in the regulatory system
that
has allowed this (and probably other) accidents to occurr.
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: | Mod 73 - some practical experience |
Having received the Mod 73 instructions on Friday afternoon, I have spent
the weekend working on 3 sets of tailplanes with the following results;
Adrian Lloyd, my inspector, has been around all weekend, and has inspected
at the relevant stages, and the owners have helped:
1 The aircraft are UK no's 10, 76, and 265; 76 and 265 are on the
airfield here at Shobdon, the tailplanes for 10 came by car.
2 Opening up all 6, ready for lay-up, was completed in 3 hours. We
were surprised by the differences inside - apparently early classic models
had TP6 positioned with the centre of the tube on the centreline of the ply
bulkhead, so the pip pin holes are not half way along TP6.
3 All 6 tailplanes had strong flox bonds attaching them to the ply
bulkhead, and none showed any sign of dis-bonding.
4 After opening up in the workshop, we moved down to the airfield
and positioned the tailpanes for 76 and 265 onto the TP4's of those aircraft
as instructed.
5 I did not consider that grease alone would be sufficient release
agent, and therefore on top of the grease I positioned a triangle of very
thin polythene sheet - sheet that I had been using throughout my build to
wet out lay-ups on, and then transfer the lay-up onto wherever it was
required. In the context of Mod 73, this sheet is so thin that it does not
increase the thickness of the grease - in fact, the opposite - and therefore
the flox "lip" is not compromised.
6 Because of the shorter than expected length of TP4 showing
through the dug-out hole on no's 10 and 76, because of the factor referred
to in 2 above, there was quite a gap between the bottom of the foam and the
TP4 itself; this needs either a very stiff flox mix, ("outside" the runny
flox mix on the TP4 itself) or an added fillet of foam, or both, because of
the fairly severe stippling required to get the BID layers into place
without any creases or air bubbles.
7 I worked on all 4 tailplanes at the same time yesterday; in
retrospect, I would do 2 at a time in future.
8 Around the dug-out hole, we have to stipple down the 2 BID layers
onto the sanded off skin; it was very hard work getting a satisfactory
lay-up, and I support the thoughts of those who have commented that a flox
joint would be better.
9 Today we returned the tailplanes for 76 and 265 to the workshop
for inspection and then (tomorrow?) covering. We then found that 10's
tailplanes would not fit onto either 76 or 265's TP4.
10 I have a short length of plastic pipe - almost the correct size -
around which I had previously wrapped masking tape to give a good fit into
my TP5 and TP6. We therefore wrapped one layer of the very thin plastic
sheet around what would be the TP6's band of masking tape and laid up one
tailplane; this was successful, and after 4 hours I turned the plastic pipe,
which immediately freed itself from the flox lay-up. I have now laid up the
second tailplane for 10.
11 On all 6 tailplanes, the two layers of BID stippled down onto the
sanded down 1" width of tailplane skin around the hole are already proud of
the painted surface outside them; there are another two layers to be added
when the holes are covered after final inspection, so there is going to be
more sanding off of paint required (another 1" at least all round), and then
lots of filler to blend the raised area into the existing tailplane surface.
How lucky that this mod is on the under side!
12 So this is definitely not a "one day to cosmetic finish" job!
Provided that I can get the last two tailplanes inspected tomorrow, I should
get all 6 covered by the end of the day - some of the foam plugs are already
prepared. Then the sanding and finishing has to be done.
I am lucky, because I had the aircraft, the materials, the workshop, and my
inspector all on site. We have discovered that the job can be done away from
the aircraft, but it is essential to be sure that whatever "insert" you use
is a good fit, and is properly fitted with a good release agent.
I hope this helps, and does not frighten anyone off!
David
G-BZAM - UK 265
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: | Re: Europa-List:Transponders |
I was always given to believe that RF from transponders was fairly potent
stuff but im no expert and I dont know how it compares to mobile phones or
comms radios.
I guess it depends on your definition of continuously but for my money a few
milliseconds of transmission every 2 seconds adds up to a significant amount
of RF energy. Its not continuous but must add up to quite a bit. Comms
transmission on the other hand would amount to a couple of minutes per hour
for most of us.
But if you say transponder antennas are relatively safe then I guess you
know what you are talking about. Fortunately no amount of RF is going to
affect me in the parenting department - I had the snip 30 years ago ! - and
the grand children are someone elses responsibility.
Carl Pattinson
G-LABS
----- Original Message -----
From: "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu@oh.rr.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: Europa-List:Transponders
> <n3eu@oh.rr.com>
>
>
> carl(at)flyers.freeserve. wrote:
>> ...(ie: move it closer to the cockpit) - unless you are planning to have
>> kids !!!!!
>>
>> Remember that unlike a comms radio a transponder transmits continuously
>> so the exposure to radiation is greater.
>
> No, it does not transmit continuously, but only bursts of a few
> milliseconds (at partial duty cycle) only when our reply lamp blinks in
> response to an ATC radar sweep. If we do the math on RF exposure, we
> absorb more RF energy from a cell phone than a transponder antenna a few
> feet away.
>
> Fred F.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123903#123903
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 |
So how do you drill the new pip pin holes though the outside new tube to
line up with the existing holes in TP4?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rman
Sent: 15 July 2007 19:25
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
All,
I've read, with great interest, all the suggestions and discussion. I'm
no engineer, but I have a pretty good idea of what I would do, should I
find any evidence of disbonding of the tailplane bushings. And, I
believe it could be done with very little cosmetic damage to the
tailplane. I like the solid tube idea and would build off of that.
Basically, a tube, of the appropriate length, with two 1/4", round,
metal rods welded fore and aft, on centerline. The rods wouldn't have
to run the full length of the tube, but it certainly wouldn't hurt. The
purpose of the rods would be to further stabilize the tube and prevent
it from twisting.
Should the original bushings become disbonded, it should be a fairly
simple task to remove the old bushing (even if it required opening the
wingtip), remove the inner bushing and modify the foam and ribs, to
accomodate the new shape of the tube. Inserting the new tube would be
as simple as applying a thin coat of Redux to the tube and inner walls
of the foam, plugging the outboard end of the new tube and pushing the
assembly in. The new tube would then be drilled to accept the standard
pip pins. Adding covers to the pip pin access holes would further
remove the possibility of a pin becoming dislodged.
Seems to me that the new assembly would be extremely strong and should
remove any further chance of the tailplanes pulling away from the drive
pins.
So, am I way off base, of does this idea hold water?
Jeff - Baby Blue
300 hours and finishing up her 2nd annual...
Karl Heindl wrote:
>
>
> Nigel,
>
> I understand all that and your mod should have been made standard a
> long time ago. But what about older Europas ? We hear reports about
> disbonded TP6s but we don't hear how they were repaired. I really
> would like to know. A suitable retrofit mod should also have been made
> available as soon as this problem was known.
> I still say that there is no way the tailplane can move if the pip pin
> head is firmly against solid material on the inboard side. You say
> there is always a gap, but that gap is filled with floxed epoxy, and
> the head is inside a close fitting plastic pipe in my case. I think
> another builder recently told us about a similar mod he made. The
> remaining space around the pipe is also filled with epoxy. Of course
> all these solutions are based on theory and only a lab test could
> verify the claims.
> When my TP5s disbonded from trailering I was kicking myself for not
> having installed a one-piece pipe, but in those early days I was very
> careful to follow the build instructions precisely. I stll think that
> a retrofit of a one-piece sleeve would be more than strong enough to
> prevent any future disbonding, and would be a relatively easy solution
> where the TP6s have already disbonded.
>
> As far as the accident goes, we still don't have any real conclusive
> evidence about the sequence of events. Only a number of theories. Only
> a wind tunnel test would verify the flutter theory, but who is going
> to pay for that ? Eyewitness reports can be very misleading.
> If the wing trailing edge pin came off first, is it possible that the
> pilot was getting set up for landing and deploying flaps and
> undercarriage ?
>
> I also like the other suggested solutions where a lock is put behind
> the TP12
>
>
> Karl
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Karl,
>>
>> I have attached below, an excerpt of a long mail I sent to the PFA that
>> describes a sequence of events that could lead to the tailplain moving
>> outboard. Out of interest, there is always a gap between the pip-pin
>> and the
>> face of the rib.
>>
>> This was sent before the current Mod 73 was issued, but you will see
>> why the
>> temporary remedial action has been to reinforce the pip-pin hole.
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> Excerpt
>>
>> ...... The only thing preventing each tailplane moving sideways is a
>> single
>> pip-pin that passes through the TP6 bush and into the TP4 torque
>> tube. (See
>> Fig.5 Chap 4)
>> The design relies on a good bond to hold TP6 in place, however only the
>> protruding outer 12mm (just 8mm on TP5) is required to bond to the
>> tailplane
>> rib that will subsequently be laid-up onto it. Epoxy adhesive does
>> not bond
>> well to stainless steel - so the potential for this bondline to fail is
>> great.
>> This tiny bondline is the only "design" load path to prevent the
>> tailplane
>> moving laterally. If the bond failed, the loose TP6 bush would tend
>> to push
>> its way inboard into the soft blue foam, allowing the tailplane to move
>> outboard. The TP5 bush would offer no resistance since it would
>> simply slide
>> along the TP4 torque tube.
>>
>> In some early Europas, this TP6 bush has de-bonded and it is only the
>> laminations into the "PipPin" access hole that prevent any lateral
>> movement
>> of the tail-plane. This lamination was never intended to be
>> structural. If
>> the aircraft is high-time and habitually operated off rough strips,
>> it is
>> logical to predict that the continual fretting would cause the glass
>> around
>> the pip-pin hole to chafe, opening up the hole to a point where the
>> whole
>> tailplane could slide far enough laterally to allow the tail-pane
>> drive pins
>> (TP12) to disengage from their drive bushes (TP13) - The tailplane would
>> then oscillate violently with catastrophic results.
>>
>> Modification 10672) calls for both the Stainless TP5 and TP6 bushes
>> to be
>> laminated into an epoxy/Bi-Directional Glass tube before inserting
>> this into
>> the tailplane TP2 cores and laminating the ribs. This bonds both
>> bushes over
>> their entire surface area, significantly increasing the bond area and
>> more
>> importantly, physically tying TP5 with TP6 and both the inner and
>> outer ribs
>> together. With this structure, the entire bond surface area and both
>> ribs
>> would have to fail before the tailplane could move sideways.
>>
>> The loadpath is through the mod 10672 and not through the outer skin and
>> pip-pin hole - a significantly better engineering solution.
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Watch all 9 Live Earth concerts live on MSN. http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
>
>
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
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: | Re: Europa Fault Reporting |
To All,
Maybe it's just my way of thinking or the American way of thinking, but why
get any authorities invloved. The only thing that they do is stop people from
flying with any possible reason at all. (MHO)
With the exception of accident causes and their corrections, why not simply
use this forum, as we are presently doing, to keep a list of Mods that we
determine as being of a matter pertaining to Europas. Police yourselves and avoid
the official hassles.
Hard hat on.
Mike Duane A207A
Redding, California
XS Conventional Gear
Jabiru 3300
Sensenich R64Z N
Ground Adjustable Prop
************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
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: Mod 73 - some practical experience |
David,
Did you find that the TP6 was loner in to the recess than others? below is a
copy of my post from Saturday. This makes my recess finished at 60mm instead of
50mm.
" Starting the mod 73, as my tail planes are still in the workshop and not filled
or painted; In I went with the knife.
I have found that the TP6 bush measures at 50mm from the face of the inboard side
of the outboard rib. This puts it 10mm inboard more than the, instructions
on the Mod 73 paper work, in turn will make the span wise diameter 60mm instead
of the described 50mm.
Before I continue, I ask is anyone finding the same measurements?
I have checked the first instillation of the TP6 from the manual and I fine it
is as it should be. "
Visit - www.EuropaOwners.org
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: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 |
Glen and Ron P.
I am a pilot and not an aerodynamicist. However, having just blown off
the dust from my old aerodynamics textbook, what you are saying is not
strictly correct. It may be that you are correct with relevance to the
europa, but it really does depend on where the C of G is!!
If one considers the main wing, if the Aerodynamic Centre (AC) is aft of
the CofG the wing would be in a stable configuration. That is without
any opposing forces the aircraft would pitch down. On the other hand,
if the AC was forward of the CofG without any opposing forces the
aircraft would pitch up.
As the stabiliser is well aft of the aircraft CofG it is always
stabilising. But it is possible to have a de-stabilising wing with a
stabilising tailplane. Overall the aircraft would be stable as long as
sum of wing and tailplane Cm/Cl curves have a negative slope.
The point is that if the wing AC is forward of the CofG with no other
forces affecting it the aircraft will pitch up, not down.
Most aeroplanes I have flown 'balloon' on flap selection, particularly
with the first notch of flap. However the nose down effect of selecting
flap is caused by a rearward movement of the Centre of Pressure which
creates an increased moment about the C of G which requires the
adjustment of the tailplane trim - all be it with a slightly increased
nose down attitude. Much the same I suppose as saying the pitch down is
caused by an increase in negative Cm.
Having said all that looking at the diagram in the aircraft handbook in
the weight and balance chapter as a rough guestimate it would appear
that the C of G of our europas (58-62.5in AOD) would always be forward
of the Aerodynamic Centre which is approximately 25% chord in subsonic
flow.
regards,
Mike.
----- Original Message -----
From: glenn crowder
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 4:32 PM
Subject: RE: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
Hi Mike - yes the aircraft will always pitch down with a non
symmetrical airfoil. This is why
aerobatic aircraft are designed with symmetrical airfoils - zero
pitching moment.
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: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 |
Jeff,
I think that the TP5 and TP6 can be removed with heat without cutting any
holes. Also, it would be easier to pre-drill the pip-pin holes, as you can
then do a trial fit before bonding. To get the position exactly right I
would attach a template (using double-sided tape) with a 1/4 inch hole over
the top of the recess, first lining up all 3 holes with a 1/4 inch shaft or
bolt, before removing the TP6. Just one of my crazy ideas.
Karl
>From: Rman <topglock@cox.net>
>To: europa-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:25:12 -0500
>
>
>All,
>
>I've read, with great interest, all the suggestions and discussion. I'm no
>engineer, but I have a pretty good idea of what I would do, should I find
>any evidence of disbonding of the tailplane bushings. And, I believe it
>could be done with very little cosmetic damage to the tailplane. I like
>the solid tube idea and would build off of that. Basically, a tube, of the
>appropriate length, with two 1/4", round, metal rods welded fore and aft,
>on centerline. The rods wouldn't have to run the full length of the tube,
>but it certainly wouldn't hurt. The purpose of the rods would be to
>further stabilize the tube and prevent it from twisting.
>
>Should the original bushings become disbonded, it should be a fairly simple
>task to remove the old bushing (even if it required opening the wingtip),
>remove the inner bushing and modify the foam and ribs, to accomodate the
>new shape of the tube. Inserting the new tube would be as simple as
>applying a thin coat of Redux to the tube and inner walls of the foam,
>plugging the outboard end of the new tube and pushing the assembly in. The
>new tube would then be drilled to accept the standard pip pins. Adding
>covers to the pip pin access holes would further remove the possibility of
>a pin becoming dislodged.
>
>Seems to me that the new assembly would be extremely strong and should
>remove any further chance of the tailplanes pulling away from the drive
>pins.
>
>So, am I way off base, of does this idea hold water?
>
>Jeff - Baby Blue
>300 hours and finishing up her 2nd annual...
>
>Karl Heindl wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Nigel,
>>
>>I understand all that and your mod should have been made standard a long
>>time ago. But what about older Europas ? We hear reports about disbonded
>>TP6s but we don't hear how they were repaired. I really would like to
>>know. A suitable retrofit mod should also have been made available as soon
>>as this problem was known.
>>I still say that there is no way the tailplane can move if the pip pin
>>head is firmly against solid material on the inboard side. You say there
>>is always a gap, but that gap is filled with floxed epoxy, and the head is
>>inside a close fitting plastic pipe in my case. I think another builder
>>recently told us about a similar mod he made. The remaining space around
>>the pipe is also filled with epoxy. Of course all these solutions are
>>based on theory and only a lab test could verify the claims.
>>When my TP5s disbonded from trailering I was kicking myself for not having
>>installed a one-piece pipe, but in those early days I was very careful to
>>follow the build instructions precisely. I stll think that a retrofit of a
>>one-piece sleeve would be more than strong enough to prevent any future
>>disbonding, and would be a relatively easy solution where the TP6s have
>>already disbonded.
>>
>>As far as the accident goes, we still don't have any real conclusive
>>evidence about the sequence of events. Only a number of theories. Only a
>>wind tunnel test would verify the flutter theory, but who is going to pay
>>for that ? Eyewitness reports can be very misleading.
>>If the wing trailing edge pin came off first, is it possible that the
>>pilot was getting set up for landing and deploying flaps and undercarriage
>>?
>>
>>I also like the other suggested solutions where a lock is put behind the
>>TP12
>>
>>
>>Karl
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Karl,
>>>
>>>I have attached below, an excerpt of a long mail I sent to the PFA that
>>>describes a sequence of events that could lead to the tailplain moving
>>>outboard. Out of interest, there is always a gap between the pip-pin and
>>>the
>>>face of the rib.
>>>
>>>This was sent before the current Mod 73 was issued, but you will see why
>>>the
>>>temporary remedial action has been to reinforce the pip-pin hole.
>>>
>>>Nigel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-------------------------------
>>>Excerpt
>>>
>>>...... The only thing preventing each tailplane moving sideways is a
>>>single
>>>pip-pin that passes through the TP6 bush and into the TP4 torque tube.
>>>(See
>>>Fig.5 Chap 4)
>>>The design relies on a good bond to hold TP6 in place, however only the
>>>protruding outer 12mm (just 8mm on TP5) is required to bond to the
>>>tailplane
>>>rib that will subsequently be laid-up onto it. Epoxy adhesive does not
>>>bond
>>>well to stainless steel - so the potential for this bondline to fail is
>>>great.
>>>This tiny bondline is the only "design" load path to prevent the
>>>tailplane
>>>moving laterally. If the bond failed, the loose TP6 bush would tend to
>>>push
>>>its way inboard into the soft blue foam, allowing the tailplane to move
>>>outboard. The TP5 bush would offer no resistance since it would simply
>>>slide
>>>along the TP4 torque tube.
>>>
>>>In some early Europas, this TP6 bush has de-bonded and it is only the
>>>laminations into the "PipPin" access hole that prevent any lateral
>>>movement
>>>of the tail-plane. This lamination was never intended to be structural.
>>>If
>>>the aircraft is high-time and habitually operated off rough strips, it is
>>>logical to predict that the continual fretting would cause the glass
>>>around
>>>the pip-pin hole to chafe, opening up the hole to a point where the whole
>>>tailplane could slide far enough laterally to allow the tail-pane drive
>>>pins
>>>(TP12) to disengage from their drive bushes (TP13) - The tailplane would
>>>then oscillate violently with catastrophic results.
>>>
>>>Modification 10672) calls for both the Stainless TP5 and TP6 bushes to be
>>>laminated into an epoxy/Bi-Directional Glass tube before inserting this
>>>into
>>>the tailplane TP2 cores and laminating the ribs. This bonds both bushes
>>>over
>>>their entire surface area, significantly increasing the bond area and
>>>more
>>>importantly, physically tying TP5 with TP6 and both the inner and outer
>>>ribs
>>>together. With this structure, the entire bond surface area and both ribs
>>>would have to fail before the tailplane could move sideways.
>>>
>>>The loadpath is through the mod 10672 and not through the outer skin and
>>>pip-pin hole - a significantly better engineering solution.
>>>
>>>
>>>-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Watch all 9 Live Earth concerts live on MSN. http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Watch all 9 Live Earth concerts live on MSN. http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
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: Europa Fault Reporting |
I no longer represent the Europa club or their committee but I wonder if
they would be willing to look into this. Perhaps Mike Gegory the club safety
officer would consider collating such data and and passing it on to Europa
aircraft or the PFA.
I would suggest an annual inspection form where owners can note any defects
or irregularities that can be recorded in the database and passed on to the
factory.
I appreciate that the Europa committee is a voluntary organisation and that
perhaps there is a cost element involved. I for one would be happy to
contribute towards the cost of such an exercise.
Carl Pattinson
G-LABS
- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Pitt" <steven.pitt2@ntlworld.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Europa Fault Reporting
> <steven.pitt2@ntlworld.com>
>
> Carl, I must agree with your comments about collating information. I was
> very surprised and disappointed that when the recent FSBs were issued and
> I failed my own aircraft due to pip pin holes that despite advising my
> inspector and Francis Donaldson personally I am not aware that anyone was
> actually collating the number or type of issues that were being thrown up.
> As I do not come from an aeronautic background I did not know what the
> norm was, but, certainly in my world of finance, we would have noted
> problems to see if there was a common thread.
> I would not wish to cast an extra work on to any one body but I do wonder
> if there should be some form of database held (presumably by the PFA as
> the Licensing Authority) to be able to show that any FSB or similar issue
> had been resolved by any aircraft on the British Register. With 200 plus
> flying Europas surely it would not be that big a job for someone to
> manage.
> Flak jackets on!!
> Steve Pitt
> G-SMDH
> (Both pip pin holes cut out, top and bottom (see above) and ready to
> recast fibreglass - for those wondering about the exercise it took about
> 1/2 hour to do the cutting and shaping for each tailplane. The
> fibreglassing will probably take a little longer.)
>
>
>
Message 28
| 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: | Europa-List:Transponders |
Hi Carl
Believe Fred he is completely correct on this issue.
I recall doing a training course on the then new transistorised IFF coder
whilst in the RAF a considerable number of years ago. From memory the
individual pulses for mode A and Ident ( and I assume for mode C ) are each
less than a microsecond long and a transmission of a peak power of about 700
Watts ( as in my transponder ) will give a mean power of just a couple of
watts.
I will let you do the sums about all this in your own time but your comment
that that it adds up to a significant sum is in my view wrong and misleading
.
Like you I am not an expert on these issues so I tend to leave it to others
to offer advice.
Tim H
No 10
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Carl
Pattinson
Sent: 15 July 2007 20:03
Subject: Re: Europa-List:Transponders
<carl@flyers.freeserve.co.uk>
I was always given to believe that RF from transponders was fairly potent
stuff but im no expert and I dont know how it compares to mobile phones or
comms radios.
Its not continuous but must add up to quite a bit. Comms
transmission on the other hand would amount to a couple of minutes per hour
for most of us.
But if you say transponder antennas are relatively safe then I guess you
know what you are talking about. Fortunately no amount of RF is going to
affect me in the parenting department - I had the snip 30 years ago ! - and
the grand children are someone elses responsibility.
Carl Pattinson
G-LABS
----- Original Message -----
From: "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu@oh.rr.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: Europa-List:Transponders
> <n3eu@oh.rr.com>
>
>
> carl(at)flyers.freeserve. wrote:
>> ...(ie: move it closer to the cockpit) - unless you are planning to have
>> kids !!!!!
>>
>> Remember that unlike a comms radio a transponder transmits continuously
>> so the exposure to radiation is greater.
>
> No, it does not transmit continuously, but only bursts of a few
> milliseconds (at partial duty cycle) only when our reply lamp blinks in
> response to an ATC radar sweep. If we do the math on RF exposure, we
> absorb more RF energy from a cell phone than a transponder antenna a few
> feet away.
>
> Fred F.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123903#123903
>
>
15:36
15:36
Message 29
| 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: Europa Fault Reporting |
I cant speak for the American authorities but as far as the PFA is
concerned I have to disagree strongly with you.
Francis Donaldson and Andy Draper (the PFA engineering supremos) could
have grounded all Europas pending the outcome of the AIIB investigation
- they didnt. Instead they have worked tirelessly to implement changes
that have enabled us to continue flying.
I dont wish to undermine the usefullness of this particular forum - the
information shared here is invaluable.
As for keeping a list of mods, the Europa club already does this. There
is no reason why the matter of defect reporting could not be undertaken
by them as well.
I dont believe that policing ourselves would work. Someone has to take
unpopular decisions regarding airworthiness and for my money it is still
the PFA.
----- Original Message -----
From: DuaneFamly@aol.com
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Europa Fault Reporting
To All,
Maybe it's just my way of thinking or the American way of thinking,
but why get any authorities invloved. The only thing that they do is
stop people from flying with any possible reason at all. (MHO)
With the exception of accident causes and their corrections, why not
simply use this forum, as we are presently doing, to keep a list of Mods
that we determine as being of a matter pertaining to Europas. Police
yourselves and avoid the official hassles.
Hard hat on.
Mike Duane A207A
Redding, California
XS Conventional Gear
Jabiru 3300
Sensenich R64Z N
Ground Adjustable Prop
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL.com.
Message 30
| 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: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 |
Karl,
The particulars on aligning and drilling the pip pin holes should not be
a big problem. It may be as simple as marking cross hairs on the
surface of the tailplane or, building a template using a plastic tube
and end plate, simulating the drive plate, should allow you to get a
precise enough measurement to drill the holes. If you've built in a
drain hole, as provided for in the instructions, the lower hole should
be a breeze. At any rate, I see it as a doable mod and one that should
provide a much stronger tailplane.
Jeff
Karl Heindl wrote:
>
>
> Jeff,
>
> I think that the TP5 and TP6 can be removed with heat without cutting
> any holes. Also, it would be easier to pre-drill the pip-pin holes,
> as you can then do a trial fit before bonding. To get the position
> exactly right I would attach a template (using double-sided tape) with
> a 1/4 inch hole over the top of the recess, first lining up all 3
> holes with a 1/4 inch shaft or bolt, before removing the TP6. Just one
> of my crazy ideas.
>
> Karl
>
>
>> From: Rman <topglock@cox.net>
>> To: europa-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
>> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:25:12 -0500
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I've read, with great interest, all the suggestions and discussion.
>> I'm no engineer, but I have a pretty good idea of what I would do,
>> should I find any evidence of disbonding of the tailplane bushings.
>> And, I believe it could be done with very little cosmetic damage to
>> the tailplane. I like the solid tube idea and would build off of
>> that. Basically, a tube, of the appropriate length, with two 1/4",
>> round, metal rods welded fore and aft, on centerline. The rods
>> wouldn't have to run the full length of the tube, but it certainly
>> wouldn't hurt. The purpose of the rods would be to further stabilize
>> the tube and prevent it from twisting.
>>
>> Should the original bushings become disbonded, it should be a fairly
>> simple task to remove the old bushing (even if it required opening
>> the wingtip), remove the inner bushing and modify the foam and ribs,
>> to accomodate the new shape of the tube. Inserting the new tube
>> would be as simple as applying a thin coat of Redux to the tube and
>> inner walls of the foam, plugging the outboard end of the new tube
>> and pushing the assembly in. The new tube would then be drilled to
>> accept the standard pip pins. Adding covers to the pip pin access
>> holes would further remove the possibility of a pin becoming dislodged.
>>
>> Seems to me that the new assembly would be extremely strong and
>> should remove any further chance of the tailplanes pulling away from
>> the drive pins.
>>
>> So, am I way off base, of does this idea hold water?
>>
>> Jeff - Baby Blue
>> 300 hours and finishing up her 2nd annual...
>>
>> Karl Heindl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nigel,
>>>
>>> I understand all that and your mod should have been made standard a
>>> long time ago. But what about older Europas ? We hear reports about
>>> disbonded TP6s but we don't hear how they were repaired. I really
>>> would like to know. A suitable retrofit mod should also have been
>>> made available as soon as this problem was known.
>>> I still say that there is no way the tailplane can move if the pip
>>> pin head is firmly against solid material on the inboard side. You
>>> say there is always a gap, but that gap is filled with floxed epoxy,
>>> and the head is inside a close fitting plastic pipe in my case. I
>>> think another builder recently told us about a similar mod he made.
>>> The remaining space around the pipe is also filled with epoxy. Of
>>> course all these solutions are based on theory and only a lab test
>>> could verify the claims.
>>> When my TP5s disbonded from trailering I was kicking myself for not
>>> having installed a one-piece pipe, but in those early days I was
>>> very careful to follow the build instructions precisely. I stll
>>> think that a retrofit of a one-piece sleeve would be more than
>>> strong enough to prevent any future disbonding, and would be a
>>> relatively easy solution where the TP6s have already disbonded.
>>>
>>> As far as the accident goes, we still don't have any real conclusive
>>> evidence about the sequence of events. Only a number of theories.
>>> Only a wind tunnel test would verify the flutter theory, but who is
>>> going to pay for that ? Eyewitness reports can be very misleading.
>>> If the wing trailing edge pin came off first, is it possible that
>>> the pilot was getting set up for landing and deploying flaps and
>>> undercarriage ?
>>>
>>> I also like the other suggested solutions where a lock is put behind
>>> the TP12
>>>
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Karl,
>>>>
>>>> I have attached below, an excerpt of a long mail I sent to the PFA
>>>> that
>>>> describes a sequence of events that could lead to the tailplain moving
>>>> outboard. Out of interest, there is always a gap between the
>>>> pip-pin and the
>>>> face of the rib.
>>>>
>>>> This was sent before the current Mod 73 was issued, but you will
>>>> see why the
>>>> temporary remedial action has been to reinforce the pip-pin hole.
>>>>
>>>> Nigel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------
>>>> Excerpt
>>>>
>>>> ...... The only thing preventing each tailplane moving sideways is
>>>> a single
>>>> pip-pin that passes through the TP6 bush and into the TP4 torque
>>>> tube. (See
>>>> Fig.5 Chap 4)
>>>> The design relies on a good bond to hold TP6 in place, however only
>>>> the
>>>> protruding outer 12mm (just 8mm on TP5) is required to bond to the
>>>> tailplane
>>>> rib that will subsequently be laid-up onto it. Epoxy adhesive does
>>>> not bond
>>>> well to stainless steel - so the potential for this bondline to
>>>> fail is
>>>> great.
>>>> This tiny bondline is the only "design" load path to prevent the
>>>> tailplane
>>>> moving laterally. If the bond failed, the loose TP6 bush would tend
>>>> to push
>>>> its way inboard into the soft blue foam, allowing the tailplane to
>>>> move
>>>> outboard. The TP5 bush would offer no resistance since it would
>>>> simply slide
>>>> along the TP4 torque tube.
>>>>
>>>> In some early Europas, this TP6 bush has de-bonded and it is only the
>>>> laminations into the "PipPin" access hole that prevent any lateral
>>>> movement
>>>> of the tail-plane. This lamination was never intended to be
>>>> structural. If
>>>> the aircraft is high-time and habitually operated off rough strips,
>>>> it is
>>>> logical to predict that the continual fretting would cause the
>>>> glass around
>>>> the pip-pin hole to chafe, opening up the hole to a point where the
>>>> whole
>>>> tailplane could slide far enough laterally to allow the tail-pane
>>>> drive pins
>>>> (TP12) to disengage from their drive bushes (TP13) - The tailplane
>>>> would
>>>> then oscillate violently with catastrophic results.
>>>>
>>>> Modification 10672) calls for both the Stainless TP5 and TP6 bushes
>>>> to be
>>>> laminated into an epoxy/Bi-Directional Glass tube before inserting
>>>> this into
>>>> the tailplane TP2 cores and laminating the ribs. This bonds both
>>>> bushes over
>>>> their entire surface area, significantly increasing the bond area
>>>> and more
>>>> importantly, physically tying TP5 with TP6 and both the inner and
>>>> outer ribs
>>>> together. With this structure, the entire bond surface area and
>>>> both ribs
>>>> would have to fail before the tailplane could move sideways.
>>>>
>>>> The loadpath is through the mod 10672 and not through the outer
>>>> skin and
>>>> pip-pin hole - a significantly better engineering solution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Watch all 9 Live Earth concerts live on MSN.
>>> http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Watch all 9 Live Earth concerts live on MSN. http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
>
>
Message 31
| 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: | Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 |
Yes, thats all correct. The downforce of the tail just perfectly balances
the CG being in front of the Aerodynamic Center. That creates a stable pit
ch attitude. Actually the negative CM of the wing is one of the factors th
at determine the Aerodynamic Center. Once the tail is gone, the aerodynami
c center of the entire aircraft will move back to the wings center of press
ure, which is behind the CG causing the aircraft to pitch nose down. At th
e same time, the CG has moved forward since 20 lbs on the tail is now missi
ng. Bad JuJu. The tail was creating a positive CM, which is no longer the
re. If the tail is normally creating downforce, then losing that downforce
will cause the plane to pitch down. Just think what happens when you push
the stick forward. You are lessening the downforce on the tail, which cau
ses the aircraft to pitch down.
Glenn
From: mikenjulie.parkin@btinternet.comTo: europa-list@matronics.comSubject:
Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:24:08
+0100
Glen and Ron P.
I am a pilot and not an aerodynamicist. However, having just blown off the
dust from my old aerodynamics textbook, what you are saying is not strictl
y correct. It may be that you are correct with relevance to the europa, bu
t it really does depend on where the C of G is!!
If one considers the main wing, if the Aerodynamic Centre (AC) is aft of th
e CofG the wing would be in a stable configuration. That is without any opp
osing forces the aircraft would pitch down. On the other hand, if the AC w
as forward of the CofG without any opposing forces the aircraft would pitch
up.
As the stabiliser is well aft of the aircraft CofG it is always stabilising
. But it is possible to have a de-stabilising wing with a stabilising tail
plane. Overall the aircraft would be stable as long as sum of wing and tai
lplane Cm/Cl curves have a negative slope.
The point is that if the wing AC is forward of the CofG with no other force
s affecting it the aircraft will pitch up, not down.
Most aeroplanes I have flown 'balloon' on flap selection, particularly with
the first notch of flap. However the nose down effect of selecting flap i
s caused by a rearward movement of the Centre of Pressure which creates an
increased moment about the C of G which requires the adjustment of the tail
plane trim - all be it with a slightly increased nose down attitude. Much
the same I suppose as saying the pitch down is caused by an increase in neg
ative Cm.
Having said all that looking at the diagram in the aircraft handbook in the
weight and balance chapter as a rough guestimate it would appear that the
C of G of our europas (58-62.5in AOD) would always be forward of the Aerody
namic Centre which is approximately 25% chord in subsonic flow.
regards,
Mike.
----- Original Message -----
From: glenn crowder
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 4:32 PM
Subject: RE: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
Hi Mike - yes the aircraft will always pitch down with a non symmetrical ai
rfoil. This is whyaerobatic aircraft are designed with symmetrical airfoil
s - zero pitching moment.
_________________________________________________________________
Local listings, incredible imagery, and driving directions - all in one pla
ce! Find it!
http://maps.live.com/?wip=69&FORM=MGAC01
Message 32
| 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: Europa Fault Reporting |
Leaving aside our views on the regulators, it is worth reflecting on
the financial implications if your insurance company decides you (or
your heirs) are on your own to foot the bill after a big claim
because you are deemed to have made a material change to the insured
risk (eg an unapproved mod) without their consent. They don't need
much of an excuse to wriggle out of paying up.
Stay safe
Willie Harrison
On 15 Jul 2007, at 22:15, Carl Pattinson wrote:
> I cant speak for the American authorities but as far as the PFA is
> concerned I have to disagree strongly with you.
>
> Francis Donaldson and Andy Draper (the PFA engineering supremos)
> could have grounded all Europas pending the outcome of the AIIB
> investigation - they didnt. Instead they have worked tirelessly to
> implement changes that have enabled us to continue flying.
>
> I dont wish to undermine the usefullness of this particular forum -
> the information shared here is invaluable.
>
> As for keeping a list of mods, the Europa club already does this.
> There is no reason why the matter of defect reporting could not be
> undertaken by them as well.
>
> I dont believe that policing ourselves would work. Someone has to
> take unpopular decisions regarding airworthiness and for my money
> it is still the PFA.
>
>
> -
Message 33
| 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 |
|
Just to add to what David Corbett has said about the practicalities: I
brought my tail planes back to my workshop and used a piece of plumbing
waste pipe, and a vacuum cleaner extension pipe which both needed building
up to a tight fit using PVC tape on one side and duct tape covered with
smooth parcel tape on the other side, both covered liberally with grease,
but without cling film or any extra release agent. The mod part 1 took about
90 mins and seemed straightforward with the hole dimensions OK and both TP6s
solidly bonded. The pipes came out with the sort of twisting force you can
readily apply by hand.
For those who don't want to wait for self adhesive labels, I
experimented with putting a single layer of bid over the required placard,
simply photocopied onto ordinary paper. It has set solidly in legible state
without any blurring of the lettering Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ
Message 34
| 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: | Tailplane retention |
Hi Bob,
I haven't applied for a mod for the "levers" but did get this
response from Andy Draper:
--------------------------------------------
Dear Roger,
Thanks for the idea for tailplane retention. I was sent copies from a
couple of other sources yesterday and I must say that I like the
principle of what you've done. In anticipation of discussions with
Roger Bull from Europa later today (if he makes it past the floods!)
about possible solutions to the issues raised following the accident to
G-HOFC, I have drawn up a development of your design, using a
compression spring (a tension spring might break) and with a tang that
protrudes through the bottom flange as well as the top when latched to
relieve the pivot from any loads. The aim is that we can offer a method
of tailplane retention that requires no composite work to install - a
lot of current Europa owners don't have the skills nor the materials.
How are you doing? How is the Europa project coming along? I hope that
we might catch up with each other soon.
Regards
Andy
------------------------------------------------
Can't enter into further discussions for a fortnight as I'm off on
hols in the morning.
Brgds,
Roger
Message 35
| 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: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 |
Hi Jeff,
I think we are basically in agreement. But pre-drilling the holes in my view
is absolutely essential.
If you make a tiny mistake in drilling after the installation you will have
to start all over again, and you won't have a 100% accurate reference for
the holes and angle.
Regards,
Karl
>From: Jeff B <topglock@cox.net>
>To: europa-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:25:18 -0500
>
>
>Karl,
>
>The particulars on aligning and drilling the pip pin holes should not be a
>big problem. It may be as simple as marking cross hairs on the surface of
>the tailplane or, building a template using a plastic tube and end plate,
>simulating the drive plate, should allow you to get a precise enough
>measurement to drill the holes. If you've built in a drain hole, as
>provided for in the instructions, the lower hole should be a breeze. At
>any rate, I see it as a doable mod and one that should provide a much
>stronger tailplane.
>
>Jeff
>
>Karl Heindl wrote:
>>
>>
>>Jeff,
>>
>>I think that the TP5 and TP6 can be removed with heat without cutting any
>>holes. Also, it would be easier to pre-drill the pip-pin holes, as you
>>can then do a trial fit before bonding. To get the position exactly right
>>I would attach a template (using double-sided tape) with a 1/4 inch hole
>>over the top of the recess, first lining up all 3 holes with a 1/4 inch
>>shaft or bolt, before removing the TP6. Just one of my crazy ideas.
>>
>>Karl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: Rman <topglock@cox.net>
>>>To: europa-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
>>>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:25:12 -0500
>>>
>>>
>>>All,
>>>
>>>I've read, with great interest, all the suggestions and discussion. I'm
>>>no engineer, but I have a pretty good idea of what I would do, should I
>>>find any evidence of disbonding of the tailplane bushings. And, I
>>>believe it could be done with very little cosmetic damage to the
>>>tailplane. I like the solid tube idea and would build off of that.
>>>Basically, a tube, of the appropriate length, with two 1/4", round, metal
>>>rods welded fore and aft, on centerline. The rods wouldn't have to run
>>>the full length of the tube, but it certainly wouldn't hurt. The purpose
>>>of the rods would be to further stabilize the tube and prevent it from
>>>twisting.
>>>
>>>Should the original bushings become disbonded, it should be a fairly
>>>simple task to remove the old bushing (even if it required opening the
>>>wingtip), remove the inner bushing and modify the foam and ribs, to
>>>accomodate the new shape of the tube. Inserting the new tube would be as
>>>simple as applying a thin coat of Redux to the tube and inner walls of
>>>the foam, plugging the outboard end of the new tube and pushing the
>>>assembly in. The new tube would then be drilled to accept the standard
>>>pip pins. Adding covers to the pip pin access holes would further remove
>>>the possibility of a pin becoming dislodged.
>>>
>>>Seems to me that the new assembly would be extremely strong and should
>>>remove any further chance of the tailplanes pulling away from the drive
>>>pins.
>>>
>>>So, am I way off base, of does this idea hold water?
>>>
>>>Jeff - Baby Blue
>>>300 hours and finishing up her 2nd annual...
>>>
>>>Karl Heindl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nigel,
>>>>
>>>>I understand all that and your mod should have been made standard a long
>>>>time ago. But what about older Europas ? We hear reports about disbonded
>>>>TP6s but we don't hear how they were repaired. I really would like to
>>>>know. A suitable retrofit mod should also have been made available as
>>>>soon as this problem was known.
>>>>I still say that there is no way the tailplane can move if the pip pin
>>>>head is firmly against solid material on the inboard side. You say there
>>>>is always a gap, but that gap is filled with floxed epoxy, and the head
>>>>is inside a close fitting plastic pipe in my case. I think another
>>>>builder recently told us about a similar mod he made. The remaining
>>>>space around the pipe is also filled with epoxy. Of course all these
>>>>solutions are based on theory and only a lab test could verify the
>>>>claims.
>>>>When my TP5s disbonded from trailering I was kicking myself for not
>>>>having installed a one-piece pipe, but in those early days I was very
>>>>careful to follow the build instructions precisely. I stll think that a
>>>>retrofit of a one-piece sleeve would be more than strong enough to
>>>>prevent any future disbonding, and would be a relatively easy solution
>>>>where the TP6s have already disbonded.
>>>>
>>>>As far as the accident goes, we still don't have any real conclusive
>>>>evidence about the sequence of events. Only a number of theories. Only a
>>>>wind tunnel test would verify the flutter theory, but who is going to
>>>>pay for that ? Eyewitness reports can be very misleading.
>>>>If the wing trailing edge pin came off first, is it possible that the
>>>>pilot was getting set up for landing and deploying flaps and
>>>>undercarriage ?
>>>>
>>>>I also like the other suggested solutions where a lock is put behind the
>>>>TP12
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Karl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Karl,
>>>>>
>>>>>I have attached below, an excerpt of a long mail I sent to the PFA that
>>>>>describes a sequence of events that could lead to the tailplain moving
>>>>>outboard. Out of interest, there is always a gap between the pip-pin
>>>>>and the
>>>>>face of the rib.
>>>>>
>>>>>This was sent before the current Mod 73 was issued, but you will see
>>>>>why the
>>>>>temporary remedial action has been to reinforce the pip-pin hole.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nigel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-------------------------------
>>>>>Excerpt
>>>>>
>>>>>...... The only thing preventing each tailplane moving sideways is a
>>>>>single
>>>>>pip-pin that passes through the TP6 bush and into the TP4 torque tube.
>>>>>(See
>>>>>Fig.5 Chap 4)
>>>>>The design relies on a good bond to hold TP6 in place, however only the
>>>>>protruding outer 12mm (just 8mm on TP5) is required to bond to the
>>>>>tailplane
>>>>>rib that will subsequently be laid-up onto it. Epoxy adhesive does not
>>>>>bond
>>>>>well to stainless steel - so the potential for this bondline to fail is
>>>>>great.
>>>>>This tiny bondline is the only "design" load path to prevent the
>>>>>tailplane
>>>>>moving laterally. If the bond failed, the loose TP6 bush would tend to
>>>>>push
>>>>>its way inboard into the soft blue foam, allowing the tailplane to move
>>>>>outboard. The TP5 bush would offer no resistance since it would simply
>>>>>slide
>>>>>along the TP4 torque tube.
>>>>>
>>>>>In some early Europas, this TP6 bush has de-bonded and it is only the
>>>>>laminations into the "PipPin" access hole that prevent any lateral
>>>>>movement
>>>>>of the tail-plane. This lamination was never intended to be structural.
>>>>>If
>>>>>the aircraft is high-time and habitually operated off rough strips, it
>>>>>is
>>>>>logical to predict that the continual fretting would cause the glass
>>>>>around
>>>>>the pip-pin hole to chafe, opening up the hole to a point where the
>>>>>whole
>>>>>tailplane could slide far enough laterally to allow the tail-pane drive
>>>>>pins
>>>>>(TP12) to disengage from their drive bushes (TP13) - The tailplane
>>>>>would
>>>>>then oscillate violently with catastrophic results.
>>>>>
>>>>>Modification 10672) calls for both the Stainless TP5 and TP6 bushes to
>>>>>be
>>>>>laminated into an epoxy/Bi-Directional Glass tube before inserting this
>>>>>into
>>>>>the tailplane TP2 cores and laminating the ribs. This bonds both bushes
>>>>>over
>>>>>their entire surface area, significantly increasing the bond area and
>>>>>more
>>>>>importantly, physically tying TP5 with TP6 and both the inner and outer
>>>>>ribs
>>>>>together. With this structure, the entire bond surface area and both
>>>>>ribs
>>>>>would have to fail before the tailplane could move sideways.
>>>>>
>>>>>The loadpath is through the mod 10672 and not through the outer skin
>>>>>and
>>>>>pip-pin hole - a significantly better engineering solution.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>Watch all 9 Live Earth concerts live on MSN.
>>>>http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Watch all 9 Live Earth concerts live on MSN. http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk/
Message 36
| 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: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 |
Karl
you might get the TP5 out with heat but the TP6 is not so easy. Even
after it is loose from the end rib you then have to get it inserted into
the root rib and then get it out of that.
The heat to loosen it from the end rib will almost certainly melt the
foam to an unknown extent, not worth the risk.
Graham
Karl Heindl wrote:
>
>
> Jeff,
>
> I think that the TP5 and TP6 can be removed with heat without cutting
> any holes. Also, it would be easier to pre-drill the pip-pin holes, as
> you can then do a trial fit before bonding. To get the position exactly
> right I would attach a template (using double-sided tape) with a 1/4
> inch hole over the top of the recess, first lining up all 3 holes with a
> 1/4 inch shaft or bolt, before removing the TP6. Just one of my crazy
> ideas.
>
> Karl
>
>
Message 37
| 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: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 |
Glenn
lowering the flaps gently at a trimmed 80 kts should result in a trimmed
60 kts without needing to adjust the trim.
I remember Ivan was delighted to discover this early in the testing and
bought Don Dykins a pint or two to celebrate!
Don was gracious and put it down to luck.
Graham.
glenn crowder wrote:
> Hi Mike - yes the aircraft will always pitch down with a non symmetrical
> airfoil. This is why
> aerobatic aircraft are designed with symmetrical airfoils - zero
> pitching moment.
> Aerobatic pilots don't like their aircraft pitching without their command!
> Also, in the accident aircraft, losing the tailplane suddenly removed
> 20 lbs of weight off the
> tail, pitching the nose down further.
> If you've ever flown a C-172 while lowering the flaps you will
> probably remember the
> pitch down. Actually, it balloons up first while speed is being lost,
> then pitches down.
> The wing is now very non-symmetrical, requiring up trim on the elevator to
> balance the increased negative CM. The Europa does this too but not as
> noticeable,
> probably because of the powerful tail.
>
> Glenn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: mikenjulie.parkin@btinternet.com
> To: europa-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:01:17 +0100
>
> I accept what you say about CM about the aerodynamic centre for an
> aerofoil. But are you saying that irrespective of the CofG of the
> aircraft, an aircraft will always pitch down.
>
> regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> *
>
> arget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
> p://forums.matronics.com
>
> *
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See what youre getting intobefore you go there. Check it out!
> <http://newlivehotmail.com>
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
Graham Singleton
Tel: +441629820187
Mob: +447739582005
Message 38
| 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: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 |
Graham,
I could be wrong, but I don't agree. I think I can control the heat
precisely to a localized area and not damage any foam.
Karl
>From: Graham Singleton <grahamsingleton@btinternet.com>
>To: europa-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:11:29 +0100
>
><grahamsingleton@btinternet.com>
>
>Karl
>you might get the TP5 out with heat but the TP6 is not so easy. Even after
>it is loose from the end rib you then have to get it inserted into the root
>rib and then get it out of that.
>The heat to loosen it from the end rib will almost certainly melt the foam
>to an unknown extent, not worth the risk.
>Graham
>
>Karl Heindl wrote:
>>
>>
>>Jeff,
>>
>>I think that the TP5 and TP6 can be removed with heat without cutting any
>>holes. Also, it would be easier to pre-drill the pip-pin holes, as you
>>can then do a trial fit before bonding. To get the position exactly right
>>I would attach a template (using double-sided tape) with a 1/4 inch hole
>>over the top of the recess, first lining up all 3 holes with a 1/4 inch
>>shaft or bolt, before removing the TP6. Just one of my crazy ideas.
>>
>>Karl
>>
>>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
Message 39
| 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: Europa-List:Transponders |
RF energy harms body tissue by heating it, as in a microwave oven, which is continuous
energy. However, my oven on the defrost setting zaps the food only periodically,
like on for X seconds and off for Y seconds. Also, the higher the
frequency, the more the heating. VHF does a poor job, and 1 gHz (transponder)
is better, and that's in the range of a cell phone also.
Transponders are spec'd in peak power, and 250W is typical. RF energy is transmitted
only when we send a "1 bit" during a pulse train time duration of 21 microseconds,
and how many pulse trains we send is based upon a whole bunch of variables.
Like how many 1-bits we send. How many pulse trains do we send when
our reply lamp flashes? Not really relevant, as we shall see, but it could be
a total of 2 milliseconds worth, as a guess.
So, 2 ms every 2000 ms cuts our avg 250W RF power to an average of only 250mW,
roughly our cell phone's typical power (to save battery, they cut themselves back
to minimum needed). This comparison is not a good one, because we would need
to multiply the transponder's 250mW times a 50% duty cycle for sending bits,
then by sending typically only 40% of maximum bits, times another % because
of the significant dead time between between each pulse train we send, and finally
by another % to reflect the fact that a bottom-mounted antenna will not
place our body in a strong part of the radiating pattern at all. And of course,
unlike the cell phone, the distance to our antenna is at least feet away. There's
a square in the formula for that, so double the distance and we attenuate
the radiated power by 25%.
So, we're talking about an average handful of milliwatts here rec'd by our body.
Like trying to heat food in the microwave by turning it on for just 2 seconds
each hour. In a week, it will still be room temp.
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124003#124003
Message 40
| 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: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73 "new pip pin" |
Richard,
Mea culpa. Wrong company. I had to go back and check my e-mails
for the right company. The manufacturer of the pins is Carr-Lane and
they are purchased through a company in Fort Worth called RMP
Industrial Supply. I purchased a number of spare pins from them back
in January. They were identical to the pieces provided by Europa.
The price was USD16.25 each. And this was considered a "custom" length.
I will forward a copy of the e-mail from RMP.
It is possible that I could get further reduced price if the order
were large enough.
I'll see if I can find the web page from which I located the
supplier. If I can, I'll pass it along as well.
Good building and great flying,
Bob Borger
Europa Kit #A221 N914XL, XS Mono, Intercooled 914, Airmaster C/S
http://www.europaowners.org/N914XL
(90%) tail kit done, wings closed, cockpit module installed, pitch
system in, landing gear frame in, rudder system in, outrigger mod in,
Fuselage Top on, lift/drag/flap pins in, wing incidence set, tie bar
in, flap drive in, Mod 70 done. Baggage bay in. Flaps & Main Gear
complete. Mod 72 complete. Instrument panel complete, except for
testing. Rotax 914 installed (for the 3rd time). Airmaster Prop
installed. Electrical complete, except for testing. Fuel system
complete except for testing. Working in - 32 Tail, 34 Door Latches &
35 Doors, 37 Interior & Finishing. Airmaster arrived 29 Sep 05.
Seat arrived from Oregon Aero. E04 interior kit has arrived and is
being installed.
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208
Home: 940-497-2123
Cel: 817-992-1117
On Jul 15, 2007, at 3:13 AM, Richard Holder wrote:
>
> Bob
>
> This is a great message thank you.
>
> I have actually checked the McMaster site and they don't
> seem to have a pip pin equivalent to BLS4R17N.
>
> I could of course be going blind/stupid :-)
>
> My requirement is for a pin with a button which is no
> wider at the top than the existing pip pin - around 3/8
> inch - as I have a narrow threaded brass sleeve between
> the skin and the TP4 which has a threaded cover to it to
> keep the rain out. I have no ring in the pip-pin. I have a
> tool (a bit of bent wire), which just fits between the
> brass and the pip pin to allow entry to the hole in the
> pip pin for removal. It is a bit tight and a pip pin with
> a 1/2 inch head would not work, nor any of the t-handled
> pip pins.
>
> And of course it has to be a locking pip-pin with a button.
>
> Maybe McMaster have some other pip pins which are not
> shown on the web site; or maybe I am just blind and
> missing the obvious !
>
> TIA
>
> Richard
>
> G-OWWW grounded 5 weeks
Message 41
| 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: | Fwd: Carr Lane Double-Acting Ball Lock Pins |
Richard,
The e-mail from RMP Industrial Supply
Bob
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Steve Raines <sraines@rmpis.com>
> Date: January 15, 2007 11:02:16 AM CST
> To: 'rlborger' <rlborger@mac.com>
> Subject: RE: Carr Lane Double-Acting Ball Lock Pins
>
> Bob '
>
> The Carr-Lane CL-4-BPDR-1.15 double acting pins are 16.25-each/
> net. Shipment is approx 3-weeks after receipt of order (because of
> special grip length) plus transit time.
>
> Credit card purchases are fine.
>
> Let me know if I can help.
>
> Thanks -
>
>
> Steve Raines
>
> RMP Industrial Supply Inc
>
> 3209 Stuart Drive
>
> Fort Worth, TX 76110
>
> 817-927-1966 phone
>
> 817-429-3184 phone-metro
>
> 800-543-4537 toll free
>
> 817-927-1978 fax
>
> www.rmpis.com
>
> sraines@rmpis.com
>
>
> From: rlborger [mailto:rlborger@mac.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 8:57 PM
> To: sraines@rmpis.com
> Cc: rlborger
> Subject: Carr Lane Double-Acting Ball Lock Pins
>
>
> To: RMP Industrial Supply
>
> 3209 Stuart Dr.
>
> Ft. Worth, TX 76110
>
>
> sraines@rmpis.com
>
>
> I would like to purchase four Carr Lane Double-Acting Ball Lock
> Pins, Part Number CLMF CL-4-BPDR-1.15.
>
>
> I can provide credit card charge information upon confirmation of
> the order.
>
>
> Please feel free to contact me by e-mail or through my cel phone
> number for any other information you may need.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob Borger
>
> 3705 Lynchburg Dr.
>
> Corinth, TX 76208
>
> Home: 940-497-2123
>
> Cel: 817-992-1117
>
>
Message 42
| 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: | Tailplane retention |
Far be it for me, a humble late-builder, to chime in on this very
technical discussion thread; nonetheless, in the spirit of "open source
communication" with its underlying premise that an optimal solution to
the problem will arise out of the clamor, I have a few thoughts to
share. If I seem long-winded, my apologies, but clarity is my goal, as
I've had difficulty understanding some of the posts of others whose
brevity obscured (at least to me) some aspects of their intent.
As I look at my "pre-glassed" tailplanes which came w/ my "accelerated"
kit, the first thing I notice is that the pip pin recesses as supplied
bear no resemblance to the drawings in the manual...at the skin
surface, the recesses are round...about 1.25" diameter...and taper down
to a .50" hemisphere in which is centered the hole for the pip pin. So
I really have no assurance as to what extent the TP6 is properly bonded
in or exactly what is going on...I ponder this while reading about
variations (such as TP6 location) which others are discovering.
As I review Mod 73 and digest the insightful posts regarding the
process of accomplishing it, I can't escape my sense that...while it's
doable and apparently (at least to those with both the hands-on
building skills and technical knowledge to make such an assessment)
solves the problem...the mod seems like a bit of a band aid solution.
If I understand it correctly, it relies upon a proper bond between a
small crescent of a portion of TP6 to some bid cloth which transfers
any loads to the skin of the tailplane....I question whether I want to
rely on that bond to resist impacts from normal (and sometimes not so
normal) rigging.
If the fundamental goal is to simply keep the TP12 pins fully engaged,
I'm looking elsewhere from the pip pins.
I'm looking at the tailplane root close out which, on my tailplanes,
looks like about .088" of solid FG skin. I'm referring to the flanges
which measure a full inch in width...from edge to innermost surface of
the inboard plywood insert with the bushes which receive the TP12 pins.
I liked Carl P.'s suggestion (as I understood it) of a hardened steel
pin extending thru both top and bottom skins and lying inboard of the
TP12 driveplate. The FG flange could be suitably reinforced...perhaps
with an embedded plate which could be threaded to receive a threaded
rod, thus eliminating fasteners extending beyond the plane of the
tailplane surface. I did not understand Carl's calling for the rod to
be 9" long, as the depth of the tailplane at the root is just under 5",
but perhaps that was a typo. The beauty of Carl's suggestion is that it
is simple and direct...it is completely visable anytime the tailplane
is slid away from the fuselage an inch or so...and the condition of the
"fix" can be monitored at any time in the future.
Now that FG flange is only 1" wide, and the TP12 flanges measure 7/16",
and the bushes sit 1/16" proud of the glassed plywood...so...after a
(let's say) 1/4" dia. hole is drilled for a hardened steel pin to slide
past the TP12 drive plate, there's only a 1/4" left of the flange. It
would be sufficient however if the flange were reinforced with an
embedded plate which would allow the forces to be transferred to both
the top and bottom skins.
The steel pin could be cut flush top and bottom; perhaps only the
bottom plate would be threaded, and the top end of the pin could be
slotted for a screwdriver so the pin could be turned in place (and
perhaps loctite'd?). For redundancy, there could be two pins per side
as Carl P. suggested for the faint of heart.
With such a solution, the uncertainties of the conditions of the foam,
flox, TP5 placement, and other issues around the pip pins become
irrelevant.
Amen...thanks for wading through this post.
In the time it's taken me to write this, I may well have been able to
install Mod 73...and...there's always been more than one way to skin a
cat,
Fred
A194
Message 43
| 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: Tailplane retention |
Hi Roger,
I am interested by your lever retention developpement, if you have pictures, or
drawings, thanks to send to me.
Thank you
Michel AUVRAY
Builder 145
Europa 320 hours fligt
Selon Roger Sheridan <rogerjohnsheridan@yahoo.co.uk>:
> <rogerjohnsheridan@yahoo.co.uk>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I haven't applied for a mod for the "levers" but did get this
> response from Andy Draper:
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Dear Roger,
>
> Thanks for the idea for tailplane retention. I was sent copies from a
> couple of other sources yesterday and I must say that I like the
> principle of what you've done. In anticipation of discussions with
> Roger Bull from Europa later today (if he makes it past the floods!)
> about possible solutions to the issues raised following the accident to
> G-HOFC, I have drawn up a development of your design, using a
> compression spring (a tension spring might break) and with a tang that
> protrudes through the bottom flange as well as the top when latched to
> relieve the pivot from any loads. The aim is that we can offer a method
> of tailplane retention that requires no composite work to install - a
> lot of current Europa owners don't have the skills nor the materials.
>
> How are you doing? How is the Europa project coming along? I hope that
> we might catch up with each other soon.
>
> Regards
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Can't enter into further discussions for a fortnight as I'm off on
> hols in the morning.
>
> Brgds,
>
> Roger
>
>
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! --
|