Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:32 AM - Re: Classic stall characteristics (High Top Mod) (G-IANI)
2. 09:32 AM - Re: Classic stall characteristics (High Top Mod) (Frans Veldman)
3. 01:13 PM - Re: Classic stall characteristics (High Top Mod) (Frans Veldman)
4. 11:38 PM - Re: Jos Okhuisen (nwcmc@tiscali.co.uk)
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: | Classic stall characteristics (High Top Mod) |
Frans
Both the original High Top (with the high cowl) and the new version (lowered
cowl, bigger screen) the difference in max speed and cruise speed (for a
fixed power setting) is too small to measure given the other variables such
as weight and very small build differences.
The only thing I have noticed since we completed testing is that the new
(64b) setup seems to be very slightly less stable in pitch. Having modified
the aircraft we cannot go back to the original to get a real comparison.
The new deeper screen seems to generate a little more lift from the
fuselage. Flying "hands off" in gusty conditions, and directly into wind,
the nose will hunt up and down very slightly with a period of about 10
seconds. This is so slight that the original High Top may have been the
same but we did not notice until we started to look carefully for
differences. If you have your hand on the stick you damp this out. Most of
this testing was done with the TruTrak autopilot on to maintain the heading
and this could be the cause.
Has any other high top owner noticed anything similar?
Ian Rickard G-IANI XS Trigear, 200 hours
Europa Club Mods Rep (Trigear)
e-mail mods@europaclub.org.uk
or direct g-iani@ntlworld.com
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Classic stall characteristics (High Top Mod) |
Hi Ian,
> The only thing I have noticed since we completed testing is that the new
> (64b) setup seems to be very slightly less stable in pitch. Having modified
> the aircraft we cannot go back to the original to get a real comparison.
You might be interested to know that we have incorporated a modified
mod64b, that is, we have lowered the forward section only by 3,5 cm
(about halfway), and made it parallel with the lower fuselage. With some
juggling we were able to use the original windscreen for this. (Actually
we bought the deeper windscreen as well, but this one was not going to
fit with our modified mod, so we extended the rear window flange
slightly so we could use the original windscreen, which was a bit
oversized anyway). We thought this to be a good alternative because:
1) We didn't like the look of mod 64b too much (don't feel offended,
this is just a matter of personal taste), and now it looks much more
like a regular Europa XS. The windscreen remains flatter, and does not
extend below the side windows.
2) We already built a customised instrument panel, which partly utilized
the taller panel space available.
3) We wanted to have a better view outside, but we didn't desire to see
the entire cowling. ;-)
We are not flying yet, but you may be sure we will give a detailed
report. Not that this will say anything, as we have incorporated a few
more mods.
If we find some time we will post a few pictures. Too busy building
until now to worry about pictures. ;-)
--
Frans
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: Classic stall characteristics (High Top Mod) |
A picture about my hi-top mod64B mod:
[img:9080fbc341]http://www.privatepilots.nl/europa/modfranshi.jpg[/img:9080fbc341]
Visit - www.EuropaOwners.org
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: Jos Okhuisen |
>As a poor-man's alternative, I now have the 912 return-line
restrictor
>located just behind the firewall (because there is a joint in the
return
>line there and because it creates more unrestricted vapour headspace
in the
>top of the return line); so, if the return line is severed at a
point
>forward of the firewall, the restrictor provides at least some
restriction
>to backflow from the tank; LAA know about this and approved the
>installation.
As the flow back to the tank is slow one idea might be to place a
second inline restrictor by the tank (slightly larger orifice if
considered necessary). Any fracture in the line between the firewall
and the tank would result in a very limited flow rate of fuel.
Nigel Charles
How safe is your email? - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/securemail
__________________________________________________________
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! --
|