Europa-List Digest Archive

Sun 08/29/10


Total Messages Posted: 11



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 03:09 AM - 82 UL MOGAS (Guerner Remi)
     2. 03:29 AM - Re: 82 UL MOGAS (houlihan tim)
     3. 05:24 AM - Re: MG Airbrake question (Karl Heindl)
     4. 08:21 AM - Re: 82 UL MOGAS (Frans Veldman)
     5. 08:41 AM - Fw: Cooling modifications (Frans Veldman)
     6. 09:03 AM - Re: 82 UL MOGAS (David Joyce)
     7. 11:32 AM - Re: Fw: Cooling modifications (Bud Yerly)
     8. 12:14 PM - Re: Fw: Cooling modifications (Frans Veldman)
     9. 06:05 PM - Europa Sounds in Flight (Troy Maynor)
    10. 06:15 PM - Rough River Up-Date # 9  (JEFF ROBERTS)
    11. 07:36 PM - Re: Europa Sounds in Flight (Tim Ward)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 03:09:24 AM PST US
    From: Guerner Remi <air.guerner@orange.fr>
    Subject: 82 UL MOGAS
    Hi all, Landing at Sywell last September for the LAA rally, I was surprised they had both 100LL Avgas and 82UL Mogas. I decided to take 20 liters of this -unknown to me- 82UL. This small quantity being mixed with about 50 liters of the fuel remaining, I thought I was not taking a big risk. Later I did some research on the internet and among available publications. This is what I found: 82UL has a MON (Motor Octane Number) of 82 and AKI (Anti Knock Index) of 87, which translate into a RON (Research Octane Number) of 92, as AKI=(RON+MON)/2. In their Operator's Manuals and applicable SI, Rotax provides the following instructions regarding the suitable fuels: 912 UL: minimum RON: 90 or minimum AKI: 87 912 ULS and 914UL: minimum RON: 95 or minimum AKI: 91 So it is clear that 82UL is not suitable for the 912 ULS and 914. In order to confirm this conclusion, could anyone provide a detailed specification of this 82UL Mogas as supplied in the UK? Other questions: is there any ethanol in this fuel? Why they do not supply Premium or Premium Plus / Super, whatever they call it, which would offer the higher octane rating we need for the 912S and 914, with only a slight cost increase? Comments please! Regards Remi Guerner F-PGKL


    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
    Time: 03:29:37 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: 82 UL MOGAS
    From: houlihan tim <thoulihan@blueyonder.co.uk>
    Hi Remi. Thanks for the Mogas availability information at Sywell that is good to know as I plan to be there next weekend. In answer to your point about the higher octane fuel at higher cost all I can say is thanks for letting me know that it is suitable for my 912 engine !. Tim On 29 August 2010 11:07, Guerner Remi <air.guerner@orange.fr> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > Landing at Sywell last September for the LAA rally, I was surprised they > had both 100LL Avgas and 82UL Mogas. I decided to take 20 liters of this > -unknown to me- 82UL. This small quantity being mixed with about 50 liters > of the fuel remaining, I thought I was not taking a big risk. > Later I did some research on the internet and among available publications. > This is what I found: > 82UL has a MON (Motor Octane Number) of 82 and AKI (Anti Knock Index) of > 87, which translate into a RON (Research Octane Number) of 92, as > AKI=(RON+MON)/2. > In their Operator's Manuals and applicable SI, Rotax provides the following > instructions regarding the suitable fuels: > 912 UL: minimum RON: 90 or minimum AKI: 87 > 912 ULS and 914UL: minimum RON: 95 or minimum AKI: 91 > So it is clear that 82UL is not suitable for the 912 ULS and 914. > In order to confirm this conclusion, could anyone provide a detailed > specification of this 82UL Mogas as supplied in the UK? > Other questions: is there any ethanol in this fuel? Why they do not supply > Premium or Premium Plus / Super, whatever they call it, which would offer > the higher octane rating we need for the 912S and 914, with only a slight > cost increase? > > Comments please! > > Regards > Remi Guerner > F-PGKL > >


    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
    Time: 05:24:39 AM PST US
    From: Karl Heindl <kheindl@msn.com>
    Subject: MG Airbrake question
    Hi Bud=2C Thanks for your input again. It will be interesting to see what Europa will come up with. I especially like your attachments.At the moment I am still learning to fly this thing properly=2C and approach/landing without any air brake. I am getting very close to the adjacent cornfield=2C then the fence =2C and I am still touching down way too far down the runway. When a goarou nd is called for=2C I just open the throttle a little bit and I am off agai n. No flaps=2C prop or trim to worry about.I don't really have the official approval (Special CofA) yet to fly the motorglider=2C but hope to get it s oon.On the airbrake issue=2C I am going to start with putting in a couple o f holes in each airbrake=2C drilled horizontally in the max open position =2C and re-enforced with a ring of flox.As you said=2C in the worst case it is easy to fill them in again or put tape over it. Karl From: budyerly@msn.com Subject: Re: Europa-List: MG Airbrake question Karl=2C I normally get 57 degrees and can tweak 60 but usually don't bother for the last 3 degrees. See the notes from my shop instructions attached. I have not minded the pull effort=2C as they stay at 50% for landing normally. Above 85 knots it is a heck of a pull past 50%. John Bolyard and I have discussed putting holes in his airbrake trailing edge to decrease the deployment effort (as in the Dauntless) or lengthening the leading edge and fitting holes to prevent rapid pressure build up or they w ill flop wildly open. Unfortunately it will be manual research and trial and error on my part until the factory planes are finished and tested... NASA=2C or NACA more accurately=2C and the Air Ministry documents (see one example above in .pdf) are far and few between on air brake analysis as dive or airbrake research was proprietary data of manufacturers who used hydraulics to move their airbrake. Our airbrake is a copy of a Slingsby design which was quite successful=2C but something went wrong in t he translation. Just a note to the others=2C the MG wings (about 34 sets) were sold only by the original company to the US/North American market ( I think the last set was produced in 2004) but unable to be flown in Europe until recently. Today=2C Europa is ready to begin new MG wing production certified under JAR-VLA and CS 22 requirements which make them stronger and saleable world wide. It took Dave Stanbridge to make this happen. Now the factory has two MGs being constructed and will be evaluated for these kind of fixes. First a computerized aerodynamic evaluation was made=2C followed by a detailed structural test=2C currently the rigging and building is being evaluated=2C which will be followed by flight test and airbrake fixes will surely follow. Doesn't help your situation now I'm afraid. The airbrakes are not dangerous as is but are very inconvenient to use without pumping up the muscles. You can tell a MG pilot by the size of his right bicep. I know we all are going as fast as time and money permit. Bud ----- Original Message ----- From: Karl Heindl To: europa-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday=2C August 28=2C 2010 6:50 PM Subject: Europa-List: MG Airbrake question Hi motorglider guys. Has anyone made any changes to their airbrakes ? I find they requires a lot of force to hold them in the fully open position. The air pressure on the bottom half far exceeds that on the top. Because of that it is also impossible to get the maximum deflection of 60 degrees. I mounted an angle indicator=2C and it shows about 45-50=2C whic h severely degrades their performance. I don't understand why nothing was ever done about this. They have been producing these wings for about 11 years now. The obvious solution to me is to reduce the area of the bottom half=2C either by putting in holes=2C or trimming back the trailing edge. These brakes are not really necessary with the engine running=2C but are essential when I get to making dead stick landings. Karl href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List">http://www.matronhr ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c


    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
    Time: 08:21:37 AM PST US
    From: Frans Veldman <frans@privatepilots.nl>
    Subject: Re: 82 UL MOGAS
    On 08/29/2010 12:07 PM, Guerner Remi wrote: > Other questions: is there any ethanol in this fuel? Why they do not > supply Premium or Premium Plus / Super, whatever they call it, which > would offer the higher octane rating we need for the 912S and 914, with > only a slight cost increase? One way to increase the octane rating is by... adding ethanol. So, take the lowest suitable RON number you can find. There is no benefit to use higher octane ratings than the engine needs. The higher the octane rating, the higher chance that the fuel contains ethanol, or other similar unwanted additives. I always use Euro 95 fuel, and never experienced any problems with it. Frans


    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
    Time: 08:41:36 AM PST US
    From: Frans Veldman <frans@privatepilots.nl>
    Subject: Fwd: Cooling modifications
    Hi everyone, The message below was my reply in a private discussion regarding cooling of the Rotax 914. I thought that maybe some other people are interested in this as well, so I decided to share this contribution on the list. Just a reminder: After initial problems with the cooling of the 914 in my Europa, I decided (after many hints from other list members to lower the oil cooler) to take the oil cooler completely out of the cooling duct. At the moment I have flown 50+ hours with the oil cooler on the passenger foot well, fed via a 2 inch air opening next to one of the original 3 inch openings. The 3 inch openings are closed. That solved most of my problems. The discussion below is about a further optimization of the cooling, what I consider the ultimate cooling solution. Ultimate, because it offers good temperature control in all circumstances, in summer and winter, and comes with the least "air consumption". The less air is taken in for cooling, the less cooling drag. Cooling drag is one of the major sources of drag of the Europa. == Hi Paul, > Well I test flew my airplane this evening and disappointingly, my set up > over heats as well. Yep, I feared that this was going to be the case. The stacked radiator setup reduces the air flow too much, no inlet or diffuser can change this. I have now flown quite a lot with my split radiator setup, including in mediterran countries with temperatures around 100F and prolonged climb outs. My findings are: 1) The water temperature is no longer an issue. Never. Can't get it over 100 Celcius no matter what I try. This includes long slow speed climbs in high ambient temperatures with the cowl flap closed! It is a dramatic difference. Before I splitted the radiators, the water had a tendency to reach the boiling point, even in low power level flight. As I did not change anything else regarding the water cooling, it is an obvious conclusion that the oil radiator was just blocking the air stream too much. With the oil radiator out of the way, the water radiator gets enough air flow and even appears to be oversized. I fear that in the winter I won't be able to get the water temp up high enough, unless I change my cowl flap design. 2) The oil temperature takes a long time to climb up high enough to allow me to take off. Far too long. I have to wait for a long time, and take off as soon as the oil finally reaches 60 degrees Celcius. (which is much lower than I actually want, but I can't get the oil temp up higher than that in a reasonable time. Off course, once take off power is applied, the oil temp comes up in a short time). Water temp comes up almost instantly after starting, but oil temp takes a very very long time. It is obvious that I won't be able to fly this winter, unless I find out a way to heat up the oil. Again, it is obvious that impeded air flow was the problem in the stacked radiator design. The stacked radiator design had one advantage though: the oil radiator was receiving pre-heated air, allowing for a reasonable warm up time. 3) The oil temperature still climbs too high in prolonged climbs. It more or less stabilises just a tad before the red line, in warm weather. This indicates that the oil cooler is not setup efficiently enough. The air inlet is a meager 2 inch via a scat tube, and the diffuser is a simple wedge shape, and testing shows that most of the air leaves the radiator near the far end, and the front end is not doing much. Still, it is impressive that an air inlet of just 2 inches provides better cooling than the standard huge XS "mouth". 4) Forget about directing air through the cowling. The cylinders / engine core are not a great heat source. I have completely closed off the round air inlets since I splitted the radiators. All mentioned testing has been done with these inlets sealed. Attempts from other people to solve the cooling problem by increasing the air flow over the engine are just ill attempts to air cool an engine which is designed to be cooled by liquids instead, just like a car engine. Blowing loads of air over it might work but it is inefficient and comes with a lot of cooling drag. It is simply the wrong route. Needless to say, with 85 hours on the hobbs, I have no signs of elevated cowling temperatures. The spark plug labels are still bright yellow, cable ties have not melted, there is just nothing wrong with the cowling temperature. Note that I still have the Naca ducts in the top cowling, which are my only cowling air sources. Gills were never opened at all. I have no shroud over the cylinders. Keep in mind that I have the oil cooler mounted on the foot well. All hot air from the oil cooler is dumped inside the cowling without any routing. If I optimize this, cowling temperature will drop even further. Cooling air for the cowling is just not an issue once the radiators are de-stacked. So.... After thinking a while about it, I'm going to try the following solution: I will reduce the oil cooler radiator to a fairly small size. Yes, something that has equal dimensions as the intercooler would be sufficient, although my intention is to put the oil rad somewhere on the port side. This allows for an easier routing of oil and air. Then, the oil that leaves the radiator is fed through an oil-to-water heat exchanger, fitted in the hot side of the water radiator hose. I figure that this will give me optimal performance in all situations: 1) During startup, the oil radiator isn't doing much as there is hardly any air flow, so the oil temperature is dominated by the heat exchanger. The warm water is heating up the oil, so it will reach take off temperature much sooner. 2) During slow hot climbs, the oil radiator is probably not sufficient to keep the oil cool. Here, the excess heat is transferred to the water, and as the water radiator has now surpluss capacity, I have no doubt that this isn't going to have a bad influence on the water temperature. (Remember, max heat dissipation of the oil is 7kW, while the max heat dissipation of the water is over 30kW. The pre-cooled oil maybe needs to exchange just an additional 3 kW or so to the water, which is only 10% of the water cooling capacity. ) This setup also prevents over cooling of the oil. The water stabilizes the oil temperature to a comfortable 100 to 110 degrees Celcius. 3) During the cruise in winter time, the heat exchanger prevents the oil from cooling down too much. Several people have reported a problem with the oil temp in winter, and I can easily believe it from what I have seen now. Of course I have to close the cowl flap to prevent the water temperature going down too much. 4) This setup eliminates the need for an oil thermostat. I hate oil thermostats with their complicated routing, lots of connections, and valves waiting to fail. Coupling the oil temp to the water temp is a more elegant solution, and allows for a faster warming up of the oil than a thermostat could achieve. Of course I have to change my water radiator inlet and outlet once again. The whole duct has previously been optimized for more and more cooling, and with the oil radiator out of the way, the thing simply cools too much and the cowl flap can not be closed far enough. I foresee a reduction in cooling drag as well with my new setup. :-) Maybe you wonder why I still want to have a small oil radiator, as the whole setup is going to work probably well enough with the heat exchanger alone. There are a few reasons for this: 1) reduncancy. I don't want to fry my entire engine if I loose the water cooling, because of a coolant leak or whatever. It is acceptable if I bake my cylinder heads, but as long as I keep some oil cooling I can spare the rest of the engine during the flight to the forced landing spot. 2) I'm not sure how high the oil temperature is at the exit of the engine. Oil temperature is measured at the oil inlet, AFTER cooling, so I don't know what it is before the radiator. At least I want to get the oil temperature down to 130 Celcius before it is allowed to go the heat exchanger, to prevent localised boiling of the water. I know, some Finnish folks fly with the heat exchanger alone and report good results, even in hot weather, but I think it is safer to pre-cool the oil a bit. I figure that a small radiator is enough to get the oil temp down just a tad, as the temperature difference between oil and air is very large at that point. The water takes then care of cooling the oil further down. > I have a TIG welder and I can custom make my own but I have not had any > luck finding a suppler for blank cores. Have you had any luck in > finding different radiator cores ? No, but I haven't tried very hard, as it is not my goal to get the radiator stacked with the intercooler. This would make routing of the oil line too long, given the fact that it has to be routed back to the in line heat exchanger as well. And I have developed an aversion against stacked radiators. ;-) It didn't do much good for the water cooler, and I fear that a stacked oil cooler will also spoil the air flow through the intercooler, which isn't great to begin with. What do you think about all this? BTW, I still have no luck with the intercooler. Airbox temperature is still high. Optimizing the air flow through the intercooler is one of my other winter projects. ;-) Frans


    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
    Time: 09:03:41 AM PST US
    From: "David Joyce" <davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk>
    Subject: Re: 82 UL MOGAS
    Remi/Tim, For what it's worth the LAA website seems to call for 95RON mogas for 912 as well as 912S & 914. I can't say I have ever come across 82UL, and would certainly be reluctant to feed it to my 914! Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guerner Remi" <air.guerner@orange.fr> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 11:07 AM Subject: Europa-List: 82 UL MOGAS > > > Hi all, > > Landing at Sywell last September for the LAA rally, I was surprised they > had both 100LL Avgas and 82UL Mogas. I decided to take 20 liters of > this -unknown to me- 82UL. This small quantity being mixed with about 50 > liters of the fuel remaining, I thought I was not taking a big risk. > Later I did some research on the internet and among available > publications. This is what I found: > 82UL has a MON (Motor Octane Number) of 82 and AKI (Anti Knock Index) of > 87, which translate into a RON (Research Octane Number) of 92, as > AKI=(RON+MON)/2. > In their Operator's Manuals and applicable SI, Rotax provides the > following instructions regarding the suitable fuels: > 912 UL: minimum RON: 90 or minimum AKI: 87 > 912 ULS and 914UL: minimum RON: 95 or minimum AKI: 91 > So it is clear that 82UL is not suitable for the 912 ULS and 914. > In order to confirm this conclusion, could anyone provide a detailed > specification of this 82UL Mogas as supplied in the UK? > Other questions: is there any ethanol in this fuel? Why they do not > supply Premium or Premium Plus / Super, whatever they call it, which > would offer the higher octane rating we need for the 912S and 914, with > only a slight cost increase? > > Comments please! > > Regards > Remi Guerner > F-PGKL > > >


    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
    Time: 11:32:33 AM PST US
    From: "Bud Yerly" <budyerly@msn.com>
    Subject: Re: Fwd: Cooling modifications
    Frans, One note though on ram air to the engine, please see the Rotax specifications for that need. It is hard for me not to do as the manufacturer recommends. On a personal note, I have operated N12AY for 40 hours with the Evans coolant (I'll be changing that out soon) and all temps even in full turbo climbs for 3-4 minutes are fine. My oil in cruise does run a bit cooler than I prefer (175F on a 95F day). Even I have thought about a glycol to oil heat exchanger for a time when I have nothing to do but tinker on her. We will all be interested in your data... Best Wishes Bud Yerly ----- Original Message ----- From: Frans Veldman<mailto:frans@privatepilots.nl> To: europa-list@matronics.com<mailto:europa-list@matronics.com> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 11:40 AM Subject: Europa-List: Fwd: Cooling modifications <frans@privatepilots.nl<mailto:frans@privatepilots.nl>> Hi everyone, The message below was my reply in a private discussion regarding cooling of the Rotax 914. I thought that maybe some other people are interested in this as well, so I decided to share this contribution on the list. Just a reminder: After initial problems with the cooling of the 914 in my Europa, I decided (after many hints from other list members to lower the oil cooler) to take the oil cooler completely out of the cooling duct. At the moment I have flown 50+ hours with the oil cooler on the passenger foot well, fed via a 2 inch air opening next to one of the original 3 inch openings. The 3 inch openings are closed. That solved most of my problems. The discussion below is about a further optimization of the cooling, what I consider the ultimate cooling solution. Ultimate, because it offers good temperature control in all circumstances, in summer and winter, and comes with the least "air consumption". The less air is taken in for cooling, the less cooling drag. Cooling drag is one of the major sources of drag of the Europa. == Hi Paul, > Well I test flew my airplane this evening and disappointingly, my set up > over heats as well. Yep, I feared that this was going to be the case. The stacked radiator setup reduces the air flow too much, no inlet or diffuser can change this. I have now flown quite a lot with my split radiator setup, including in mediterran countries with temperatures around 100F and prolonged climb outs. My findings are: 1) The water temperature is no longer an issue. Never. Can't get it over 100 Celcius no matter what I try. This includes long slow speed climbs in high ambient temperatures with the cowl flap closed! It is a dramatic difference. Before I splitted the radiators, the water had a tendency to reach the boiling point, even in low power level flight. As I did not change anything else regarding the water cooling, it is an obvious conclusion that the oil radiator was just blocking the air stream too much. With the oil radiator out of the way, the water radiator gets enough air flow and even appears to be oversized. I fear that in the winter I won't be able to get the water temp up high enough, unless I change my cowl flap design. 2) The oil temperature takes a long time to climb up high enough to allow me to take off. Far too long. I have to wait for a long time, and take off as soon as the oil finally reaches 60 degrees Celcius. (which is much lower than I actually want, but I can't get the oil temp up higher than that in a reasonable time. Off course, once take off power is applied, the oil temp comes up in a short time). Water temp comes up almost instantly after starting, but oil temp takes a very very long time. It is obvious that I won't be able to fly this winter, unless I find out a way to heat up the oil. Again, it is obvious that impeded air flow was the problem in the stacked radiator design. The stacked radiator design had one advantage though: the oil radiator was receiving pre-heated air, allowing for a reasonable warm up time. 3) The oil temperature still climbs too high in prolonged climbs. It more or less stabilises just a tad before the red line, in warm weather. This indicates that the oil cooler is not setup efficiently enough. The air inlet is a meager 2 inch via a scat tube, and the diffuser is a simple wedge shape, and testing shows that most of the air leaves the radiator near the far end, and the front end is not doing much. Still, it is impressive that an air inlet of just 2 inches provides better cooling than the standard huge XS "mouth". 4) Forget about directing air through the cowling. The cylinders / engine core are not a great heat source. I have completely closed off the round air inlets since I splitted the radiators. All mentioned testing has been done with these inlets sealed. Attempts from other people to solve the cooling problem by increasing the air flow over the engine are just ill attempts to air cool an engine which is designed to be cooled by liquids instead, just like a car engine. Blowing loads of air over it might work but it is inefficient and comes with a lot of cooling drag. It is simply the wrong route. Needless to say, with 85 hours on the hobbs, I have no signs of elevated cowling temperatures. The spark plug labels are still bright yellow, cable ties have not melted, there is just nothing wrong with the cowling temperature. Note that I still have the Naca ducts in the top cowling, which are my only cowling air sources. Gills were never opened at all. I have no shroud over the cylinders. Keep in mind that I have the oil cooler mounted on the foot well. All hot air from the oil cooler is dumped inside the cowling without any routing. If I optimize this, cowling temperature will drop even further. Cooling air for the cowling is just not an issue once the radiators are de-stacked. So.... After thinking a while about it, I'm going to try the following solution: I will reduce the oil cooler radiator to a fairly small size. Yes, something that has equal dimensions as the intercooler would be sufficient, although my intention is to put the oil rad somewhere on the port side. This allows for an easier routing of oil and air. Then, the oil that leaves the radiator is fed through an oil-to-water heat exchanger, fitted in the hot side of the water radiator hose. I figure that this will give me optimal performance in all situations: 1) During startup, the oil radiator isn't doing much as there is hardly any air flow, so the oil temperature is dominated by the heat exchanger. The warm water is heating up the oil, so it will reach take off temperature much sooner. 2) During slow hot climbs, the oil radiator is probably not sufficient to keep the oil cool. Here, the excess heat is transferred to the water, and as the water radiator has now surpluss capacity, I have no doubt that this isn't going to have a bad influence on the water temperature. (Remember, max heat dissipation of the oil is 7kW, while the max heat dissipation of the water is over 30kW. The pre-cooled oil maybe needs to exchange just an additional 3 kW or so to the water, which is only 10% of the water cooling capacity. ) This setup also prevents over cooling of the oil. The water stabilizes the oil temperature to a comfortable 100 to 110 degrees Celcius. 3) During the cruise in winter time, the heat exchanger prevents the oil from cooling down too much. Several people have reported a problem with the oil temp in winter, and I can easily believe it from what I have seen now. Of course I have to close the cowl flap to prevent the water temperature going down too much. 4) This setup eliminates the need for an oil thermostat. I hate oil thermostats with their complicated routing, lots of connections, and valves waiting to fail. Coupling the oil temp to the water temp is a more elegant solution, and allows for a faster warming up of the oil than a thermostat could achieve. Of course I have to change my water radiator inlet and outlet once again. The whole duct has previously been optimized for more and more cooling, and with the oil radiator out of the way, the thing simply cools too much and the cowl flap can not be closed far enough. I foresee a reduction in cooling drag as well with my new setup. :-) Maybe you wonder why I still want to have a small oil radiator, as the whole setup is going to work probably well enough with the heat exchanger alone. There are a few reasons for this: 1) reduncancy. I don't want to fry my entire engine if I loose the water cooling, because of a coolant leak or whatever. It is acceptable if I bake my cylinder heads, but as long as I keep some oil cooling I can spare the rest of the engine during the flight to the forced landing spot. 2) I'm not sure how high the oil temperature is at the exit of the engine. Oil temperature is measured at the oil inlet, AFTER cooling, so I don't know what it is before the radiator. At least I want to get the oil temperature down to 130 Celcius before it is allowed to go the heat exchanger, to prevent localised boiling of the water. I know, some Finnish folks fly with the heat exchanger alone and report good results, even in hot weather, but I think it is safer to pre-cool the oil a bit. I figure that a small radiator is enough to get the oil temp down just a tad, as the temperature difference between oil and air is very large at that point. The water takes then care of cooling the oil further down. > I have a TIG welder and I can custom make my own but I have not had any > luck finding a suppler for blank cores. Have you had any luck in > finding different radiator cores ? No, but I haven't tried very hard, as it is not my goal to get the radiator stacked with the intercooler. This would make routing of the oil line too long, given the fact that it has to be routed back to the in line heat exchanger as well. And I have developed an aversion against stacked radiators. ;-) It didn't do much good for the water cooler, and I fear that a stacked oil cooler will also spoil the air flow through the intercooler, which isn't great to begin with. What do you think about all this? BTW, I still have no luck with the intercooler. Airbox temperature is still high. Optimizing the air flow through the intercooler is one of my other winter projects. ;-) Frans http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List<http://www.matronics.com/N avigator?Europa-List> http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi on>


    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
    Time: 12:14:29 PM PST US
    From: Frans Veldman <frans@privatepilots.nl>
    Subject: Re: Fwd: Cooling modifications
    On 08/29/2010 08:28 PM, Bud Yerly wrote: > One note though on ram air to the engine, please see the Rotax > specifications for that need. It is hard for me not to do as the > manufacturer recommends. I do that to. I have naca ducts in the top cowling. This probably is more efficient than the Europa round inlets, while it consumes less air at the same time. I have never calculated how large (small?) the air inlets need to be to conform to the Rotax specifications. Did you? Commercial aircraft with the Rotax 914 have even less cowling ventilation. The main point I want to make is that the solution for the cooling problem needs to be sought by optimizing the cooling of the water and oil, and not so much by cooling the engine core. It collects surprisingly little heat once the water cooling and oil cooling are working ok. In fact, I can't think of many reasons why the engine block would heat up. Combustion takes place in the cylinder heads, and the oil takes away all friction heat. The engine block itself is just a holder for the various components and has no reason to heat up by itself. > We will all be interested in your data... I will keep you updated, although it will take a while before this is finished and tested in both winter and summer temperatures. Frans


    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
    Time: 06:05:41 PM PST US
    From: "Troy Maynor" <wingnut54@charter.net>
    Subject: Europa Sounds in Flight
    Hi All, Long ago in the original Europa factory video, there is a segment where the two factory planes do a low pass. When they pull up and bank you can hear a whirring sound or a cry similar to the sound a bird or something. I know this may sound ridiculous but maybe some of you have heard it yourself. I watched a short clip of my Europa do a fast low pass last Thursday and heard it coming from mine also. You can't detect anything inside the cockpit that I'm aware of, and I'm certain I didn't go supersonic. The first time I flew over my brothers home a couple months ago his wife later said (with an unknowing worried look on her face) that she had heard a screaking sound. At the time I didn't lend much creedance to her comment. It happened again while flying over another friends house, so now I am curious. Has anyone else experienced this? Is it coming from the engine? Prop? Somewhere along the airframe? I don't think it's anything to worry about but I just want to know if others have heard this. On all occasions, the aircraft was in a banking climb. It actually sounded pretty cool. Just wondering.... Troy Maynor Monowheel Classic UK120 47 fun hours so far!


    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
    Time: 06:15:13 PM PST US
    From: JEFF ROBERTS <jeff@rmmm.net>
    Subject: Rough River Up-Date # 9
    Hello All, I've been out of state at my sons graduation from the Army basic and AIT training. I was away from my computer so haven't had a chance to up-date the list. Looks like this will be the place to be for any Europa builder / flyer in north America. 15 and possible 16 Europas! Now this is going to be FUN! If anyone is missing from this list or wants to be added to it let me know. Best regards, Jeff R. Jeff & Mary Buhrans - N55XS Flying Baby Blue in. Jeff & Karen Roberts - N128LJ Gold Rush Flying In Troy & Donna Maynor - Flying his brand new Mono Classic ;o).. Jim & Lynne Puglise - Driving the air conditioned control tower, beer bar, meeting place/motor home. ;o) Fred Kline.... All the way from Orcas Island, WA John & Susan Lawton - N245E Flying his Jab powered Europa Bob & Maureen Borger N914XL Flying In from Texas in... Little Dragon Lady. Paul McAllister... N378PJ Back in the country and getting new cowl mods ready. Jim & Heather Butcher - Flying in Bud Yearly - N12AY Flying in... Yea Bud! Jim Brown - N398JB - AKA JimBob. Flying up with Bud in formation. Keep em separate boys! John & Paddy Wigney - Flying in the good ship N262WF Plus as you all know here are some fun loving, die hard, Europa owners / fans / previous dealer from California! Bring em on boys! Bob Lindsay - Flying in N77EU Turbo Toy. Flight of 3 maybe 4 Erich Trombley - Flying in N28ET Classic mono 914. Flight of 3 maybe 4 Kim Prout - Flying in N111EU The classic mono featured in July Kit Planes Magazine Flight of 3 maybe 4 And Here's to Kevin Klinefelter N211KA getting in on the fun!! Let us know Kevin when you can... Maybe the 4th of the 3 ;0) Annual Rough River Fly In. September 17th & 18th 2010 and beyond!


    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
    Time: 07:36:14 PM PST US
    From: "Tim Ward" <ward.t@xtra.co.nz>
    Subject: Re: Europa Sounds in Flight
    Troy, Airbus wings do the same thing compared to the Boeing wing. Always tell, without looking, whether it is an Airbus flying overhead by the noise of the wings. My children can tell me!! Maybe Mr Dykins got it "perfect" after all. Just a thought in my jetlagged state, back from Perth flying all night!! Tim Tim Ward 12 Waiwetu Street' Fendalton, Christchurch. NEW ZEALAND Ph. 64 3 3515166 Mob 021 0640221 Email ward.t@xtra.co.nz ----- Original Message ----- From: Troy Maynor To: europa-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 1:04 PM Subject: Europa-List: Europa Sounds in Flight Hi All, Long ago in the original Europa factory video, there is a segment where the two factory planes do a low pass. When they pull up and bank you can hear a whirring sound or a cry similar to the sound a bird or something. I know this may sound ridiculous but maybe some of you have heard it yourself. I watched a short clip of my Europa do a fast low pass last Thursday and heard it coming from mine also. You can't detect anything inside the cockpit that I'm aware of, and I'm certain I didn't go supersonic. The first time I flew over my brothers home a couple months ago his wife later said (with an unknowing worried look on her face) that she had heard a screaking sound. At the time I didn't lend much creedance to her comment. It happened again while flying over another friends house, so now I am curious. Has anyone else experienced this? Is it coming from the engine? Prop? Somewhere along the airframe? I don't think it's anything to worry about but I just want to know if others have heard this. On all occasions, the aircraft was in a banking climb. It actually sounded pretty cool. Just wondering.... Troy Maynor Monowheel Classic UK120 47 fun hours so far!




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   europa-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Europa-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/europa-list
  • Browse Europa-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/europa-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    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! --