Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:09 AM - Re: Tank leaks (Alan Burrows)
2. 12:48 AM - Re: Tank leaks (Kingsley Hurst)
3. 04:35 AM - Mod 74 (nigel charles)
4. 02:06 PM - Re: Mod 74 (Laptop JR)
5. 02:41 PM - Re: StructuraL failure or? (Duncan & Ami McFadyean)
6. 03:39 PM - Rotax 914 performance info request.... (R.C.Harrison)
7. 03:48 PM - Re: StructuraL failure or? (R.C.Harrison)
8. 04:16 PM - Re: Rotax 914 performance info request.... (Gilles Thesee)
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 |
|
Lets hope you don=92t have the problem and therefore don=92t become a
=93contributor=94 to the topic :-)
Cheers
Alan
_____
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kingsley
Hurst
Sent: 11 September 2007 23:56
Subject: RE: Europa-List: Tank leaks
Hello Alan,
you said:-
> Not sure if my tank was the older type, I suspect it wasn=92t. But the
support straps were firmly bonded to the tank. Hope that helps
Having been empty for "far too long" after installation, my tank
(Classic
pre Fluoride treated) rattles around in the cockpit module almost like a
pea
in a postman's whistle. The layup of the brackets etc did not adhere to
the
tank.
With the revelation of all the cracks in the tanks lately, I am just
curious
as to whether there is any correlation between tanks (treated and
untreated)
and (brackets bonded or unbonded) to the tanks.
Looks like this matter is almost dead again now so I might just wait
until
the topic comes around for its next hearing on the list.
Cheers
Kingsley
10/09/2007
17:43
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 |
|
> Lets hope you don't have the problem and therefore don't become a
"contributor" to the topic :-)
Indeed Alan so I'm hoping you will keep your fingers crossed for me.
K
do not archive
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 |
|
I have a tip for anyone who is doing Mod 74 from the wing underside.
When it comes to making a foam plug to fill in the access hole the
existing drilled out plug will be too small to fit tightly. I have found
that using a 2.5 inch hole saw makes a plug which is a forced fit for
the hole. It is then only necessary to trim and sand the excess before
doing the layup. The whole job took less than 10 minutes.
Although the access via the rear closeout is neater clearance for the
flap may be compromised as the tolerances are quite close in this area.
Nigel Charles
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 |
|
Nigel
Thank you for the tip just in time!
JR (Bob) Gowing in Oz
----- Original Message -----
From: nigel charles
To: Forum Europa
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:34 PM
Subject: Europa-List: Mod 74
I have a tip for anyone who is doing Mod 74 from the wing underside.
When it comes to making a foam plug to fill in the access hole the
existing drilled out plug will be too small to fit tightly. I have found
that using a 2.5 inch hole saw makes a plug which is a forced fit for
the hole. It is then only necessary to trim and sand the excess before
doing the layup. The whole job took less than 10 minutes.
Although the access via the rear closeout is neater clearance for the
flap may be compromised as the tolerances are quite close in this area.
Nigel Charles
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: StructuraL failure or? |
On the other hand, I have had one of the little plastic bushes in the T-bar
fall out during derigging, although this was spotted before the next flight.
But what could have been the consequence had it not been spotted?
Duncan Mcf.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Pattinson" <carl@flyers.freeserve.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: StructuraL failure or?
> <carl@flyers.freeserve.co.uk>
>
> Please be assured you would know if you attempted a takeoff with the T bar
> disconnected - I have done it !!!!
>
> On commencing the takeoff run the stick was VERY back heavy such that when
> I started to ease the stick forwards I assumed the controls were jammed
> and aborted the takeoff. Gravity makes the trim tabs hang down forcing the
> trailing edge of the tailplanes upwards. As this is the normal position
> for takeoff (stick hard back till airspeed is reached), the problem dosent
> become obvious till the pilot tries to move the stick forward in order to
> raise the tailplane. Believe me it isnt something you could miss.
>
> If only one of the pins was engaged this would disengage fairly rapidly.
> Even if this didnt occurr there would still be a substantial force acting
> on the disengaged tailplane which would be hard to miss. It is unlikely
> that this could be trimmed out using the trim servo.
>
> Carl Pattinson
> G-LABS
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "josok" <josok-e@ukolo.fi>
> To: <europa-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 3:23 PM
> Subject: Europa-List: StructuraL failure or?
>
>
>>
>> Hi All,
>> As far as i know there is still no conclusion from the AAIB about the
>> cause of this one and only structural failure. It keeps buzzing in my
>> mind. It is a fact that there should be no slop in tail planes, that the
>> bushes should be secure, and that wing pins should be properly attached.
>> Period.
>> But was it the cause off the accident? Speed 90 knots, no abnormal
>> movements, then suddenly very steep up and down movements, paper flying
>> from the cabin. All according the AAIB report.
>> I received the following suggestion, which i think has not been
>> communicated before: The plane was rigged by three persons. What if one
>> of the anti-trim tab drive pins was not in but on the T-rod? Everything
>> would look pretty much OK, feel pretty much OK, until the pin would pass
>> the T-rod, on which the anti tab would become a pro-tab. This would
>> cause a violent movement, on which the pilots correction would cause
>> another and so on, until destruction. It would explain the described up
>> and down movements eh? Start shooting please!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jos Okhuijsen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Visit - www.EuropaOwners.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Rotax 914 performance info request.... |
Hi! All
Today I began to enjoy fuel economy..!
I and my observer brother did a 2 hour 2 landing trip with a couple of
timed climbs commencing initially at 1370 lbs and used only 24
litres(best capable measure since I wouldn't claim a scientific
measure!). Ambient temp/pressure was 22deg C /1024. Generally the
Manifold pressure was maintained to 27 inches excepting a timed
1000ft/2000ft. 100% power climb at 85kts
80seconds.... one hour later (fuel used lighter) 1,500ft/2500ft...115%
power climb at 80kts..60seconds ...I failed to collect the manifold
pressures during the climbs. However the intake manifold locally
insulated surface temperature was 31.1deg C during the initial climb
and 35 deg C during the high power climb. 100- 110kt cruise 5,150 RPM
the intake manifold temp at 2000ft was 27.4 deg C. (but in this instance
the manifold pressure was 29")
Intake manifold temp. at 1000ft 70kts was 30.8 deg C . At 100kt cruise
the coolant temperature was 92 deg C . Oil temperature was 98 deg C with
oil pressure at 2 bar.
I am using "Mobil One" 0w -40w and find myself wanting to increase the
oil pressure somewhat although the light viscosity oil must be "reaching
places where more viscous oils don't reach !" Would anyone care to pass
comment on the suitability of a higher oil pressure and the generally
accepted best climb speed, please?
The engine does not now appear to be using/loosing oil from
engine/turbo.
The rising coolant temps. on the sustained 115% climb would not have
enabled a 5 minute climb.
Would any capable statistician care to crunch/"nit pick" these figures ?
and make appropriate recommendations with regards to the oil pressure ?
and does anyone have any comparable intake manifold locally insulated
surface temps without an intercooler fitted?
A radio test at 20nm 2,000ft was effected at "fives" abeam and
approaching Humberside Radar an item near impossible with the Jabiru
installation!
Regards
Bob Harrison G-PTAG
PS the stabilator torque tube clamps worked fine and won't need any heat
to remove them !!!!!!
Robt.C.Harrison
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: | StructuraL failure or? |
All
I believe Roger Bull had an incident with the servo trim tabs which
resulted in the modification which stiffened the drive pin plates.
Perhaps he would kindly contribute to this thread?
When I had my trim motor "failing to reverse" without going to full
travel position problem, the forces on the control stick were enormous
to such a degree I allowed the plane to climb momentarily until it
reached full trim nose up position before reversing the mode of
operation. I would have had great difficulty landing in this
configuration in fact I doubt it possible.
Regards
Bob H.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Duncan &
Ami McFadyean
Sent: 12 September 2007 10:38
Subject: Re: Europa-List: StructuraL failure or?
<ami@mcfadyean.freeserve.co.uk>
On the other hand, I have had one of the little plastic bushes in the
T-bar
fall out during derigging, although this was spotted before the next
flight.
But what could have been the consequence had it not been spotted?
Duncan Mcf.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Pattinson" <carl@flyers.freeserve.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: StructuraL failure or?
> <carl@flyers.freeserve.co.uk>
>
> Please be assured you would know if you attempted a takeoff with the T
bar
> disconnected - I have done it !!!!
>
> On commencing the takeoff run the stick was VERY back heavy such that
when
> I started to ease the stick forwards I assumed the controls were
jammed
> and aborted the takeoff. Gravity makes the trim tabs hang down forcing
the
> trailing edge of the tailplanes upwards. As this is the normal
position
> for takeoff (stick hard back till airspeed is reached), the problem
dosent
> become obvious till the pilot tries to move the stick forward in order
to
> raise the tailplane. Believe me it isnt something you could miss.
>
> If only one of the pins was engaged this would disengage fairly
rapidly.
> Even if this didnt occurr there would still be a substantial force
acting
> on the disengaged tailplane which would be hard to miss. It is
unlikely
> that this could be trimmed out using the trim servo.
>
> Carl Pattinson
> G-LABS
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "josok" <josok-e@ukolo.fi>
> To: <europa-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 3:23 PM
> Subject: Europa-List: StructuraL failure or?
>
>
>>
>> Hi All,
>> As far as i know there is still no conclusion from the AAIB about the
>> cause of this one and only structural failure. It keeps buzzing in my
>> mind. It is a fact that there should be no slop in tail planes, that
the
>> bushes should be secure, and that wing pins should be properly
attached.
>> Period.
>> But was it the cause off the accident? Speed 90 knots, no abnormal
>> movements, then suddenly very steep up and down movements, paper
flying
>> from the cabin. All according the AAIB report.
>> I received the following suggestion, which i think has not been
>> communicated before: The plane was rigged by three persons. What if
one
>> of the anti-trim tab drive pins was not in but on the T-rod?
Everything
>> would look pretty much OK, feel pretty much OK, until the pin would
pass
>> the T-rod, on which the anti tab would become a pro-tab. This would
>> cause a violent movement, on which the pilots correction would cause
>> another and so on, until destruction. It would explain the described
up
>> and down movements eh? Start shooting please!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jos Okhuijsen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Visit - www.EuropaOwners.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Rotax 914 performance info request.... |
Bob,
>
> Generally the Manifold pressure was maintained to 27 inches excepting
> a timed 1000ft/2000ft 100% power climb at 85kts
>
> 80seconds.. one hour later (fuel used lighter) 1,500ft/2500ft..115%
> power climb at 80kts.60seconds .I failed to collect the manifold
> pressures during the climbs. However the intake manifold locally
> insulated surface temperature was 31.1deg C during the initial climb
> and 35 deg C during the high power climb. 100- 110kt cruise 5,150 RPM
> the intake manifold temp at 2000ft was 27.4 deg C. (but in this
> instance the manifold pressure was 29)
>
Our usual settings are as follows :
39"/5800 => 115 % for take off
35"/5500 => 100 % initial climb
31"/5000 => 75 % for cruise & climb
29"/4800 => 65 % for economical cruise
28"/4300 => 55 % (very rarely used)
I don't know the output for 5150 RPM.
27" seems rather low for break in : you need manifold pressure for the
rings to bed in.
> Intake manifold temp. at 1000ft 70kts was 30.8 deg C . At 100kt cruise
> the coolant temperature was 92 deg C . Oil temperature was 98 deg C
> with oil pressure at 2 bar.
>
> I am using Mobil One 0w -40w and find myself wanting to increase the
> oil pressure somewhat although the light viscosity oil must be
> reaching places where more viscous oils dont reach ! Would anyone
> care to pass comment on the suitability of a higher oil pressure and
> the generally accepted best climb speed, please?
>
> The engine does not now appear to be using/loosing oil from engine/turbo.
>
> The rising coolant temps. on the sustained 115% climb would not have
> enabled a 5 minute climb.
>
Our cooling setup allows for close to 5 minutes 115 % climb, but we
never bothered to wait until the 5 minute light flashes.
I usually reduce power to 100 % as soon as I'm airborne.
>
> Would any capable statistician care to crunch/nit pick these figures
> ? and make appropriate recommendations with regards to the oil
> pressure ? and does anyone have any comparable intake manifold locally
> insulated surface temps without an intercooler fitted?
>
Unfortunately, we did not make those measurements, and our engine is
intercooled. We focused on airbox temperatures.
Yes the 914 oil pressure seems lowish, but it is the way the engine works.
Remember the oil pressure is usually measured at the oil pump, but we
have no means to know what the pressure actually is at the journals,
etc...Certainly much lower than the healthy number usually displayed by
the gauge on other engines.
Sooo, as long as the pressure stays within the manufacturer's numbers...
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
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! --
|