Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:41 AM - Popham Europa International Fly in (Steven Pitt)
2. 01:28 AM - Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (houlihan)
3. 01:34 AM - Re: Re: Best device to ratify the Actual Fuel Flow on a 914 (G-IANI)
4. 02:15 AM - Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (David Joyce)
5. 02:56 AM - Another Propeller Question (Kingsley Hurst)
6. 04:02 AM - Re: Another Propeller Question (Pete Lawless)
7. 04:02 AM - Europa XS monowheel 3D dxf file (smartieb)
8. 04:04 AM - ULPower 260i in Europa (smartieb)
9. 04:37 AM - Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (Jos Okhuijsen)
10. 04:58 AM - Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (David Lewendon)
11. 05:13 AM - Woodcomp after Sales Service (Guerner Remi)
12. 06:12 AM - Woodcomp after sales service (Fergus Kyle)
13. 06:54 AM - Re: Woodcomp after sales service (Jos Okhuijsen)
14. 06:57 AM - Re: Europa XS monowheel 3D dxf file (Paul McAllister)
15. 07:22 AM - Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (PHILLIPS I)
16. 07:33 AM - Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (PHILLIPS I)
17. 07:38 AM - Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (Mark Burton)
18. 08:13 AM - Re: Europa XS monowheel 3D dxf file (G-IANI)
19. 10:43 AM - Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (David Joyce)
20. 12:23 PM - Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (Stephan Cassel)
21. 12:42 PM - Re: Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (Jos Okhuijsen)
22. 01:09 PM - Re: Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (nigel henry)
23. 01:46 PM - Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (kees de bussy)
24. 02:20 PM - Re: Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (Karl Heindl)
25. 02:29 PM - Re: Another Propeller Question (glenn crowder)
26. 02:42 PM - Re: Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (Frans Veldman)
27. 02:48 PM - Re: Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (Robert Borger)
28. 04:12 PM - Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (Mark Burton)
29. 04:15 PM - Re: Another Propeller Question (JR Gowing)
30. 04:27 PM - Re: Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (Jos Okhuijsen)
31. 05:13 PM - Re: Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service (Jos Okhuijsen)
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: | Popham Europa International Fly in |
Just over a week to go for our second International fly in at Popham
starting Friday 8th July.
A hog roast has been ordered for Saturday after the AGM so all are
welcome to join in the fun.
Space is available for tents either with or without your aircraft (but
preferably with!!)
Lets see if we can get over 50 Europas together this year.
It is hoped that we can carry out some trial flights for prospective
purchasers and friends over the weekend so if anyone is happy to
volunteer can they let me know off list please.
Regards
Steve Pitt, Dave Bosomworth and the Committee of the Europa Club
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: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
Hi Jos.
Thanks for your prompt reply.
I think you have cleared up my problem I could not see how a limit switch
failure could cause the blade angle to change if the blade was within its
normal operating range. Yes a limit switch failure could allow the blade
to travel beyond its normal limit but the pitch change motor would still
have to be driven ( commanded or uncommanded ) to move the blades beyond
their normal range. This was the part I did not understand. As the Smart
controller in its normal ie not in manual control, acts as a closed loop
servo system with a given engine RPM as its target it should have increased
the pitch as the RPM approached the target, I may be wrong but I would NOT
have expected the blades to reach their fine pitch limit at that phase in
the flight .
As to my expertise I do not claim to be an expert in anything at all. But I
do have experience, I was trained by the Royal Air Force as an airborne
radar technician and spent ten years ( admittedly forty years ago !)
working in what was then Signals Command on a electronic counter measures
squadron. On leaving the Air Force I was for seven years a Flight Trials
Engineer with British Aerospace military aircraft division commissioning
developing and maintaining what was then the worlds first digital airborne
data acquisition system. In later years I worked on large format printing
systems using both analogue and digital servo systems.
We have to accept that homebuilt aircraft are not as reliable and safe as a
fully certified one and we therefore take on extra risk with our types of
aircraft. In the UK we try minimise the risk by having our association
double check that our alterations from the standard design appear to be safe
and the changes are justified.
You mention the RPM reached 6,200 just a little story I was told by a friend
who is no longer with us. He operated out of a small strip and set his
propeller to reach max RPM of 5,800 and flew it like that for some years he
then had reason to have his RPM gauge calibrated and found that what he
thought was 5,800 was actually 6,200. his gauge had never been calibrated
and was under reading
Enjoy your second life Jos
best regards
Tim H
On 26 June 2011 23:46, josok-e <josok-e@ukolo.fi> wrote
> Tim,
>
> I've sent the report to somebody who is German en fluently in English, on
> his offer to translate. This translation takes an incredible amount of time
> obviously.
> But, as a matter of fact, the investigator thanks me for diverting from my
> line of descent into an occupied office building to trees. The wreckage was
> badly burnt. He also reports that he had Woodcomp check the remains of the
> propellor, and that they stated that the blades "must have been at a flyable
> angle" Also there was no obvious fault with the engine. It has not been
> possible to determine what the cause of the accident was. You may doubt of
> course that i have summarized properly as well.
> Significant might be also that after the accident Rotax was the first to
> talk to me, smartavionics next, the factory was very interested also. But no
> question, no word from Woodcomp.
>
> I find it strange that you start an argument by telling us that you are not
> an expert. And reach a conclusion, which is false. I am an expert,
> electricity, electronics have been my profession and hobby. I know
> microswitches and diodes, and if i tell you they are grossly underrated and
> not up wet conditions, you can take my word for it.
>
> My only interest is to save your lives. If you don't want it, please let me
> know.
>
> So, let me explain how the prop ended in a non-flyable position, so simple
> that a non-expert can understand. I commanded via the controller to go
> finer. That makes the motor run the blades to fine. The motor runs then as
> long as the controller command it to go finer or the fine limit switch cuts
> the current. In this case, because the desired rpm was high, and i was
> climbing, the fine limit switch should cut in. But it didn't because it was
> burnt, and short circuited to earth. The controller reversed it voltage to
> increase pitch and we had a short circuit on the plus now. The
> circuitbreaker popped. The revs went to 6200, with no pull. Attempting to
> reset it booted the controller. Which proved it was still working, And after
> the boot it popped again, The accident conditions were there, low on
> altitude, low on speed.
>
> I find it amazing that people defend such a product. Everybody i spoke to
> privatly admids there have been problems with communication, with quality of
> parts, with forgotten or loose parts, splitting blades, whatever. Oh, of
> course, they will cut the blades in a banana form, or apple, or anything
> else you fancy as fast. Very flexible indeed.
>
> There is a good working product available, has been for years, factory
> choice, with only plusses but the price.
> Everybody makes a mistake, and i can admit it was my mistake to go on the
> cheap and settle for a Woodcomp.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jos
>
>
> 27.6.2011 0:25, houlihan kirjoitti:
>
>> Hi
>> Further to Jos's comments about his very serious accident I seem to recall
>> that the Austrian authorities planned to issue a report regarding the
>> possible cause. I may have missed it so can anyone let me know what it
>> contained, preferably in English.
>> Not being an expert in these things I find I have problems linking the
>> limit switch failure Jos talks about to the fact that for the propeller to
>> go to fully fine or even beyond fully fine to a beta state requires the
>> motor to be powered to drive it there. I am sure there may be a mechanism
>> that will make that happen but I cannot see how it can do that just because
>> a limit switch fails.
>> Also my understanding is that Woodcomp do not support the Smartavioncs
>> controller not surprising really as it is not their product and it is in
>> competition with them but " banning" it is beyond their remit.
>> Tim H
>>
>> On 26 June 2011 20:10, Jos Okhuijsen <josok-e@ukolo.fi <mailto:
>> josok-e@ukolo.fi>> wrote:
>>
>> <josok-e@ukolo.fi>Hi <mailto:josok-e@ukolo.fi%3EHi>
>>
>>
>> Sorry to remember you all that my Woodcomp prop nearly took my life.
>>
>> I hate to repeat my words, but memories seem to be short.
>> The propeller i had was equipped with microswitches, which were
>> and ,after a change, still are not designed for outside use.
>> Nethertheless these switches are mounted on the backplate, open
>> for weather.
>> These switches are designed for AC 240 V, not for DC 12 V, and the
>> Amp rating is way below the current going through them.
>> The cross-over diodes are specified for less then half the current
>> drawn.
>> Even when activated only occasionally, it's a design flaw.
>>
>> Know to me are 3 incidents with short circuiting micro-switches,
>> both other pilots could land their plane without damage to their
>> plane or themselves. An incident with a loose gear, causing one
>> of the blades at a totally diffent angle then the others was
>> reported to me, and never made it to this forum. This seems to be
>> the happy family show, which i am now spoiling. :-(
>> It may well be that there are others, or people never fly in rain.
>> or are just very lucky.
>>
>> In my case, to the best of my knowledge, a microswitch short
>> circuited, taking the prop to a feather situation, shortly after
>> take-off. I had been flying in heavy rain for hours the other day.
>>
>> Unless thing have changed is Jyrki the only one who understands
>> English, if he's not available you are on your own.
>>
>> After my incident Woodcomp banned the Smart Avionic controller.
>> What that means is unclear to me. As far as i know, they never got
>> there own controller working decently.
>>
>> As for the figures, i've had trouble to keep up with a 912 with a
>> fixed prop and i was flying with a 914 and a Woodcomp 3000. The
>> only good figure seems to be the price.
>>
>> So in short: Save a few, risk your plane and life.
>> The choice is yours....
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jos Okhuijsen
>> (enjoying his second life :-)
>>
>> . 26.6.2011 19:16, Frans Veldman kirjoitti:
>>
>> --> Europa-List message posted by: Frans
>> Veldman<frans@privatepilots.nl <mailto:frans@privatepilots.nl**>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/26/2011 04:02 PM, Paul McAllister wrote:
>>
>> I was very impressed with the results that David Joyce got
>> with his SR
>> 3000W propeller from Woodcomp. I would like to some
>> feedback from the
>> forum about there after sales experience from Woodcomp.
>> Please give me
>> the 'good, the bad and the ugly'
>>
>> I got excellent support and advice when I was ordering the
>> propeller
>> from Woodcomp directly and delivery was prompt. After that I
>> had no
>> reason to contact them again as the prop works flawlessly and
>> performs
>> better than expected. Had to service it at 50 hours and did
>> that at a
>> local Woodcomp dealer. Found that one spinner screw was
>> missing and got
>> a complete new spinner fastening set free of charge. Ordered spare
>> brushes, but at the 100 hour check I discovered that the
>> brushes were
>> almost like new and it looks like it is going to take a long while
>> before I have to replace them.
>>
>> Have now 100+ hours but have had no issues with the prop.
>> A few notes though:
>> 1) I'm using the controller from Smart Avionics which is very
>> configurable and able to match the prop exactly to the
>> engine/airframe
>> characteristics.
>> 2) I have a prop with feather capability (to anticipate a
>> potential
>> future use of the glider wings). The props with feather
>> capability have
>> a stronger and faster motor. Maybe this is the reason why the
>> Woodcomp
>> prop behaves like a hydraulic prop and reacts so fast that it
>> never
>> allows the RPM to surge off its target.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>>
>> Frans
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================**=====
>> target="_blank">http://www.**matronics.com/Navigator?**Europa-List<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List>
>> ==============================**=====
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==============================**=====
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.**matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>> ==============================**=====
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>
>
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: Best device to ratify the Actual Fuel Flow on a 914 |
Scott
Thank you for bring this to my attention.
I have been waiting 3 months for an MGL FF1 with the FT60 sensors. I
e-mailed the UK agent yesterday to ask again about progress. On my last
enquiry (about 6 weeks ago) the reply was he was waiting for a reply from
the manufacturer.
Your note probably explains the delay as they are probably having to revise
the software/hardware to fix the problem
I will let you know why I hear more
Ian Rickard G-IANI XS Trigear, 300hours
Europa Club Mods Specialist
e-mail g-iani@ntlworld.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of sblack
Sent: 27 June 2011 05:07
Subject: Europa-List: Re: Best device to ratify the Actual Fuel Flow on a
914
I have the mgl ff1 and the ft60 red cube and there is a snag. The ft60 has a
k factor of 68000 but the ff1 only allows k factors up to 60000! Have you
dealt with this Ian?
Thanks
Scott
--------
Scott Black
Montreal
Jodel F11 O-200
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=344189#344189
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: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
Jos, I count you as a good friend but have to dispute many of your
statements. I also will state that I am no expert, but nevertheless am a
very interested amateur prepared to go to great lengths to get to the bottom
of something that affects my safety, ( and having said that Tim did spend a
lot of years as a radar/ electronics technician in the RAF). I have on the
other hand been a sort of unofficial (but unpaid I hasten to add) Woodcomp
agent in the UK having brought (and bought) the first Woodcomp prop into the
UK and then pursued the very lengthy process of getting it fully accepted by
the PFA.
As you know I was there at the accident, with the same plane and
the same controller and the same SR3000 (albeit without the reverse option).
I flew back to try to help you and subsequently examined the wreckage and
spent some time helping the Austrian AAIB man. As the accident happened
flying out of the Rotax Factory Flyin it's not surprising that they were
quickly able to help. Secondly since Mark Burton, owner of Smart
Avionics,was flying with us he was quick to talk to the investigator. I may
say that I gave the investigator my copies of the Smart Avionics controller
and SR3000 handbooks and allowed him to look at the complete workings of my
set up which was the official factory set up of an SR3000 without the
reverse option that you had and without the non Woodcomp/personal
simplifications to the wiring system that you had incorporated into the
circuitry. There wasn't too much left of the plane after the fire but the
prop hub was there and it was apparent that the blades were close to zero
pitch, so that regardless of how they got there it would be safe to say that
a similar accident could not happen with an SR3000 that does not have the
reverse option (which is not accepted by the LAA following your accident),
as the standard props have not only electronic stops at the fine limits but
also mechanical ones.
My understanding of the investigation was that no prime cause
could be positively identified, and if I do not misquote him I believe this
is also Mark Burton's view (who is also of course an electronics
professional.)
The microswitches have changed over the years largely to improve
their mechanical security but whether they are waterproof or not seems a bit
irrelevant. I have flown through prolonged rain and found no problems, and
you would expect that any water finding its way into a structure rotating at
2000+ rpm would very rapidly find its way out again. If you had parked the
plane under a waterfall and the spinner was full of water before start up
you might expect to notice problems when you switched on and went though the
recommended pitch change check.
You refer to the problem experienced by someone having some teeth
break on the gearing that determines the pitch angle of each blade and this
was promptly dealt with by Woodcomp replacing it both on new models and
retrospectively with a slightly heavier version of the gears. Woodcomp
certainly have no problem about the Smartavionics controller which is the
choice of the majority o f the substantial number of UK Woodcomp owners.
Apart from your problem I have not come across problems that were
not of the failsafe variety, and feel that describing the prop as a
deathtrap is entirely unwarranted
Regards and best wishes David, G-XSDJ
You mention
----- Original Message -----
From: "josok-e" <josok-e@ukolo.fi>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Woodcomp after Sales Service
> Tim,
>
> I've sent the report to somebody who is German en fluently in English,
> on his offer to translate. This translation takes an incredible amount
> of time obviously.
> But, as a matter of fact, the investigator thanks me for diverting from
> my line of descent into an occupied office building to trees. The
> wreckage was badly burnt. He also reports that he had Woodcomp check the
> remains of the propellor, and that they stated that the blades "must
> have been at a flyable angle" Also there was no obvious fault with the
> engine. It has not been possible to determine what the cause of the
> accident was. You may doubt of course that i have summarized properly as
> well.
> Significant might be also that after the accident Rotax was the first to
> talk to me, smartavionics next, the factory was very interested also.
> But no question, no word from Woodcomp.
>
> I find it strange that you start an argument by telling us that you are
> not an expert. And reach a conclusion, which is false. I am an expert,
> electricity, electronics have been my profession and hobby. I know
> microswitches and diodes, and if i tell you they are grossly underrated
> and not up wet conditions, you can take my word for it.
>
> My only interest is to save your lives. If you don't want it, please let
> me know.
>
> So, let me explain how the prop ended in a non-flyable position, so
> simple that a non-expert can understand. I commanded via the controller
> to go finer. That makes the motor run the blades to fine. The motor runs
> then as long as the controller command it to go finer or the fine limit
> switch cuts the current. In this case, because the desired rpm was high,
> and i was climbing, the fine limit switch should cut in. But it didn't
> because it was burnt, and short circuited to earth. The controller
> reversed it voltage to increase pitch and we had a short circuit on the
> plus now. The circuitbreaker popped. The revs went to 6200, with no
> pull. Attempting to reset it booted the controller. Which proved it was
> still working, And after the boot it popped again, The accident
> conditions were there, low on altitude, low on speed.
>
> I find it amazing that people defend such a product. Everybody i spoke
> to privatly admids there have been problems with communication, with
> quality of parts, with forgotten or loose parts, splitting blades,
> whatever. Oh, of course, they will cut the blades in a banana form, or
> apple, or anything else you fancy as fast. Very flexible indeed.
>
> There is a good working product available, has been for years, factory
> choice, with only plusses but the price.
> Everybody makes a mistake, and i can admit it was my mistake to go on
> the cheap and settle for a Woodcomp.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jos
>
>
> 27.6.2011 0:25, houlihan kirjoitti:
>> Hi
>> Further to Jos's comments about his very serious accident I seem to
>> recall that the Austrian authorities planned to issue a report
>> regarding the possible cause. I may have missed it so can anyone let
>> me know what it contained, preferably in English.
>> Not being an expert in these things I find I have problems linking the
>> limit switch failure Jos talks about to the fact that for the
>> propeller to go to fully fine or even beyond fully fine to a beta
>> state requires the motor to be powered to drive it there. I am sure
>> there may be a mechanism that will make that happen but I cannot see
>> how it can do that just because a limit switch fails.
>> Also my understanding is that Woodcomp do not support the Smartavioncs
>> controller not surprising really as it is not their product and it is
>> in competition with them but " banning" it is beyond their remit.
>> Tim H
>>
>> On 26 June 2011 20:10, Jos Okhuijsen <josok-e@ukolo.fi
>> <mailto:josok-e@ukolo.fi>> wrote:
>>
>> <josok-e@ukolo.fi>Hi <mailto:josok-e@ukolo.fi%3EHi>
>>
>> Sorry to remember you all that my Woodcomp prop nearly took my life.
>>
>> I hate to repeat my words, but memories seem to be short.
>> The propeller i had was equipped with microswitches, which were
>> and ,after a change, still are not designed for outside use.
>> Nethertheless these switches are mounted on the backplate, open
>> for weather.
>> These switches are designed for AC 240 V, not for DC 12 V, and the
>> Amp rating is way below the current going through them.
>> The cross-over diodes are specified for less then half the current
>> drawn.
>> Even when activated only occasionally, it's a design flaw.
>>
>> Know to me are 3 incidents with short circuiting micro-switches,
>> both other pilots could land their plane without damage to their
>> plane or themselves. An incident with a loose gear, causing one
>> of the blades at a totally diffent angle then the others was
>> reported to me, and never made it to this forum. This seems to be
>> the happy family show, which i am now spoiling. :-(
>> It may well be that there are others, or people never fly in rain.
>> or are just very lucky.
>>
>> In my case, to the best of my knowledge, a microswitch short
>> circuited, taking the prop to a feather situation, shortly after
>> take-off. I had been flying in heavy rain for hours the other day.
>>
>> Unless thing have changed is Jyrki the only one who understands
>> English, if he's not available you are on your own.
>>
>> After my incident Woodcomp banned the Smart Avionic controller.
>> What that means is unclear to me. As far as i know, they never got
>> there own controller working decently.
>>
>> As for the figures, i've had trouble to keep up with a 912 with a
>> fixed prop and i was flying with a 914 and a Woodcomp 3000. The
>> only good figure seems to be the price.
>>
>> So in short: Save a few, risk your plane and life.
>> The choice is yours....
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jos Okhuijsen
>> (enjoying his second life :-)
>>
>> . 26.6.2011 19:16, Frans Veldman kirjoitti:
>>
>> --> Europa-List message posted by: Frans
>> Veldman<frans@privatepilots.nl <mailto:frans@privatepilots.nl>>
>>
>> On 06/26/2011 04:02 PM, Paul McAllister wrote:
>>
>> I was very impressed with the results that David Joyce got
>> with his SR
>> 3000W propeller from Woodcomp. I would like to some
>> feedback from the
>> forum about there after sales experience from Woodcomp.
>> Please give me
>> the 'good, the bad and the ugly'
>>
>> I got excellent support and advice when I was ordering the
>> propeller
>> from Woodcomp directly and delivery was prompt. After that I
>> had no
>> reason to contact them again as the prop works flawlessly and
>> performs
>> better than expected. Had to service it at 50 hours and did
>> that at a
>> local Woodcomp dealer. Found that one spinner screw was
>> missing and got
>> a complete new spinner fastening set free of charge. Ordered
>> spare
>> brushes, but at the 100 hour check I discovered that the
>> brushes were
>> almost like new and it looks like it is going to take a long
>> while
>> before I have to replace them.
>>
>> Have now 100+ hours but have had no issues with the prop.
>> A few notes though:
>> 1) I'm using the controller from Smart Avionics which is very
>> configurable and able to match the prop exactly to the
>> engine/airframe
>> characteristics.
>> 2) I have a prop with feather capability (to anticipate a
>> potential
>> future use of the glider wings). The props with feather
>> capability have
>> a stronger and faster motor. Maybe this is the reason why the
>> Woodcomp
>> prop behaves like a hydraulic prop and reacts so fast that it
>> never
>> allows the RPM to surge off its target.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>>
>> Frans
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ===================================
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
>> ===================================
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ===================================
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ===================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
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: | Another Propeller Question |
Is there anybody out there who has an NSI VP propeller with a constant speed
controller of any sort?
OR
does anybody know what sort of CS controller would work on an NSI VP prop?
Any comments most welcome.
Thanks
Kingsley in Oz.
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: | Another Propeller Question |
Hi Kingsley
Mark Burton, Smartavionics, has a generic version of his cs unit that he
says should work with an NSI. I talked to him about it a year or two back
when I was thinking of adding CS.
Regards
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kingsley Hurst
Sent: 27 June 2011 10:53
Subject: Europa-List: Another Propeller Question
<kingsnjan@westnet.com.au>
Is there anybody out there who has an NSI VP propeller with a constant speed
controller of any sort?
OR
does anybody know what sort of CS controller would work on an NSI VP prop?
Any comments most welcome.
Thanks
Kingsley in Oz.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
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: | Europa XS monowheel 3D dxf file |
Does anyone out there have a 3D dxf file of a Europa XS monowheel?
kit #561
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=344213#344213
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: | ULPower 260i in Europa |
I have purchased a UL260i and intend fitting to my Europa XS monowheel. Has any
one had any experience and lessons learnt that they may care to share?
Martin, kit #561
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=344214#344214
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
David, good friend,
Thanks for your honest explanation of your bias towards Woodcomp. Your
position, as their unpaid salesman must be awkward, and it must be very
difficult to change your position.
I on my turn have to admit that it has taken a long time to recover
mentally and be able to reason clearly and stronly about the accident.
Your next quote takes us to the cultprit of our difference of
interpretation of the facts.
"and it was apparent that the blades were close to zero pitch, so that
regardless of how they got there it would be safe to say that a similar
accident could not happen with an SR3000 that does not have the reverse
option (which is not accepted by the LAA following your accident), as
the standard props have not only electronic stops at the fine limits but
also mechanical ones. "
According to woodcomp, invited by the inspector, the blades were at a
flyable pitch. Remembering the lack of thrust, and the overrevving, they
must have been at a positive angle, NOT REVERSE, but with a pitch not
enough to stay airborne.
Why stopped the motor at that blade position and not later or sooner?
Because, at the same moment the microswitch should cut in, it burned
with a short circuit to ground, defying it's purpose and allowing the
motor to run further. Next, adding throttle, the controller jumped in,
reversing the polarity of the motor. The voltage now came direct, not
anymore over the motor, on the microswitch and the breaker popped.
Blaming the accident on the reversbility of the prop, thus assuming that
a mechanical endstop makes it impossible for the prop to turn too fine
to fly is mute as long nobody ever has checked that mechanical endstop.
Sofar i have not heard of anybody who has checked this mechanical
endstop on the non-reversable prop. Unless somebody, preferrably you,
shorts or otherwise disables the end switches, and runs the motor till
it jams, relying on the mechanical stop is not very wise to say the
least. It would be also interesting to know if the gears would survive
such a try.
Has the LAA approved the feathering version? There is no mechanical
endstop on the course side. Even more people will be relying on non
reliable microswitches.
I think it was Mark of Smartavionics who told be about Woodcomp banning
its product. Mark, correct me if i am wrong.
Next one:
"The microswitches have changed over the years largely to improve their
mechanical security but whether they are waterproof or not seems a bit
irrelevant. I have flown through prolonged rain and found no problems,
and you would expect that any water finding its way into a structure
rotating at 2000+ rpm would very rapidly find its way out again. If you
had parked the plane under a waterfall and the spinner was full of water
before start up you might expect to notice problems when you switched on
and went though the recommended pitch change check. "
I read that as "there have been problems with the microswitches over the
years". I challenge you to find any application were microswitches are
used in open air. None are to be found in cars for example. As for
flying in rain, and the behavior of water and air on a spinning service,
have a look at any centrifugal pump. The backplate of the spinner, where
the switches are and the big end opening in the cowl form such a pump.
The rotating plate sheds water and air from it's side and sucks more
in..... As for the pitch range check: The only thing you do is check
that at that moment things are ok. It does not improve the quality of
these switches.
Apart from that everybody will hopefully understand the importance of
using weatherproof components in weather. There are classes for humidity
for electrical components and appliances. Those microswitches are
manufactured for dry room use. And, let's not forget, they are heavily
underrated in current as well. Proper switches for the application
would physically never fit on that backplate.
I hope the LAA will review its approval. I don't quite understand how
this item passed in the first place.
Regards,
Jos
27.6.2011 12:12, David Joyce kirjoitti:
> <davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk>
>
> Jos, I count you as a good friend but have to dispute many of your
> statements. I also will state that I am no expert, but nevertheless am
> a very interested amateur prepared to go to great lengths to get to
> the bottom of something that affects my safety, ( and having said that
> Tim did spend a lot of years as a radar/ electronics technician in
> the RAF). I have on the other hand been a sort of unofficial (but
> unpaid I hasten to add) Woodcomp agent in the UK having brought (and
> bought) the first Woodcomp prop into the UK and then pursued the very
> lengthy process of getting it fully accepted by the PFA.
> As you know I was there at the accident, with the same plane
> and the same controller and the same SR3000 (albeit without the
> reverse option). I flew back to try to help you and subsequently
> examined the wreckage and spent some time helping the Austrian AAIB
> man. As the accident happened flying out of the Rotax Factory Flyin
> it's not surprising that they were quickly able to help. Secondly
> since Mark Burton, owner of Smart Avionics,was flying with us he was
> quick to talk to the investigator. I may say that I gave the
> investigator my copies of the Smart Avionics controller and SR3000
> handbooks and allowed him to look at the complete workings of my set
> up which was the official factory set up of an SR3000 without the
> reverse option that you had and without the non Woodcomp/personal
> simplifications to the wiring system that you had incorporated into
> the circuitry. There wasn't too much left of the plane after the fire
> but the prop hub was there and it was apparent that the blades were
> close to zero pitch, so that regardless of how they got there it would
> be safe to say that a similar accident could not happen with an SR3000
> that does not have the reverse option (which is not accepted by the
> LAA following your accident), as the standard props have not only
> electronic stops at the fine limits but also mechanical ones.
> My understanding of the investigation was that no prime cause
> could be positively identified, and if I do not misquote him I believe
> this is also Mark Burton's view (who is also of course an electronics
> professional.)
> The microswitches have changed over the years largely to
> improve their mechanical security but whether they are waterproof or
> not seems a bit irrelevant. I have flown through prolonged rain and
> found no problems, and you would expect that any water finding its way
> into a structure rotating at 2000+ rpm would very rapidly find its way
> out again. If you had parked the plane under a waterfall and the
> spinner was full of water before start up you might expect to notice
> problems when you switched on and went though the recommended pitch
> change check.
> You refer to the problem experienced by someone having some
> teeth break on the gearing that determines the pitch angle of each
> blade and this was promptly dealt with by Woodcomp replacing it both
> on new models and retrospectively with a slightly heavier version of
> the gears. Woodcomp certainly have no problem about the Smartavionics
> controller which is the choice of the majority o f the substantial
> number of UK Woodcomp owners.
> Apart from your problem I have not come across problems that
> were not of the failsafe variety, and feel that describing the prop as
> a deathtrap is entirely unwarranted
> Regards and best wishes David, G-XSDJ
> You mention
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "josok-e" <josok-e@ukolo.fi>
> To: <europa-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Europa-List: Woodcomp after Sales Service
>
>
>> Tim,
>>
>> I've sent the report to somebody who is German en fluently in English,
>> on his offer to translate. This translation takes an incredible amount
>> of time obviously.
>> But, as a matter of fact, the investigator thanks me for diverting from
>> my line of descent into an occupied office building to trees. The
>> wreckage was badly burnt. He also reports that he had Woodcomp check the
>> remains of the propellor, and that they stated that the blades "must
>> have been at a flyable angle" Also there was no obvious fault with the
>> engine. It has not been possible to determine what the cause of the
>> accident was. You may doubt of course that i have summarized properly as
>> well.
>> Significant might be also that after the accident Rotax was the first to
>> talk to me, smartavionics next, the factory was very interested also.
>> But no question, no word from Woodcomp.
>>
>> I find it strange that you start an argument by telling us that you are
>> not an expert. And reach a conclusion, which is false. I am an expert,
>> electricity, electronics have been my profession and hobby. I know
>> microswitches and diodes, and if i tell you they are grossly underrated
>> and not up wet conditions, you can take my word for it.
>>
>> My only interest is to save your lives. If you don't want it, please let
>> me know.
>>
>> So, let me explain how the prop ended in a non-flyable position, so
>> simple that a non-expert can understand. I commanded via the controller
>> to go finer. That makes the motor run the blades to fine. The motor runs
>> then as long as the controller command it to go finer or the fine limit
>> switch cuts the current. In this case, because the desired rpm was high,
>> and i was climbing, the fine limit switch should cut in. But it didn't
>> because it was burnt, and short circuited to earth. The controller
>> reversed it voltage to increase pitch and we had a short circuit on the
>> plus now. The circuitbreaker popped. The revs went to 6200, with no
>> pull. Attempting to reset it booted the controller. Which proved it was
>> still working, And after the boot it popped again, The accident
>> conditions were there, low on altitude, low on speed.
>>
>> I find it amazing that people defend such a product. Everybody i spoke
>> to privatly admids there have been problems with communication, with
>> quality of parts, with forgotten or loose parts, splitting blades,
>> whatever. Oh, of course, they will cut the blades in a banana form, or
>> apple, or anything else you fancy as fast. Very flexible indeed.
>>
>> There is a good working product available, has been for years, factory
>> choice, with only plusses but the price.
>> Everybody makes a mistake, and i can admit it was my mistake to go on
>> the cheap and settle for a Woodcomp.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jos
>>
>>
>>
>> 27.6.2011 0:25, houlihan kirjoitti:
>>> Hi
>>> Further to Jos's comments about his very serious accident I seem to
>>> recall that the Austrian authorities planned to issue a report
>>> regarding the possible cause. I may have missed it so can anyone let
>>> me know what it contained, preferably in English.
>>> Not being an expert in these things I find I have problems linking the
>>> limit switch failure Jos talks about to the fact that for the
>>> propeller to go to fully fine or even beyond fully fine to a beta
>>> state requires the motor to be powered to drive it there. I am sure
>>> there may be a mechanism that will make that happen but I cannot see
>>> how it can do that just because a limit switch fails.
>>> Also my understanding is that Woodcomp do not support the Smartavioncs
>>> controller not surprising really as it is not their product and it is
>>> in competition with them but " banning" it is beyond their remit.
>>> Tim H
>>>
>>> On 26 June 2011 20:10, Jos Okhuijsen <josok-e@ukolo.fi
>>> <mailto:josok-e@ukolo.fi>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <josok-e@ukolo.fi>Hi <mailto:josok-e@ukolo.fi%3EHi>
>>>
>>> Sorry to remember you all that my Woodcomp prop nearly took my
>>> life.
>>>
>>> I hate to repeat my words, but memories seem to be short.
>>> The propeller i had was equipped with microswitches, which were
>>> and ,after a change, still are not designed for outside use.
>>> Nethertheless these switches are mounted on the backplate, open
>>> for weather.
>>> These switches are designed for AC 240 V, not for DC 12 V, and the
>>> Amp rating is way below the current going through them.
>>> The cross-over diodes are specified for less then half the current
>>> drawn.
>>> Even when activated only occasionally, it's a design flaw.
>>>
>>> Know to me are 3 incidents with short circuiting micro-switches,
>>> both other pilots could land their plane without damage to their
>>> plane or themselves. An incident with a loose gear, causing one
>>> of the blades at a totally diffent angle then the others was
>>> reported to me, and never made it to this forum. This seems to be
>>> the happy family show, which i am now spoiling. :-(
>>> It may well be that there are others, or people never fly in rain.
>>> or are just very lucky.
>>>
>>> In my case, to the best of my knowledge, a microswitch short
>>> circuited, taking the prop to a feather situation, shortly after
>>> take-off. I had been flying in heavy rain for hours the other day.
>>>
>>> Unless thing have changed is Jyrki the only one who understands
>>> English, if he's not available you are on your own.
>>>
>>> After my incident Woodcomp banned the Smart Avionic controller.
>>> What that means is unclear to me. As far as i know, they never got
>>> there own controller working decently.
>>>
>>> As for the figures, i've had trouble to keep up with a 912 with a
>>> fixed prop and i was flying with a 914 and a Woodcomp 3000. The
>>> only good figure seems to be the price.
>>>
>>> So in short: Save a few, risk your plane and life.
>>> The choice is yours....
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jos Okhuijsen
>>> (enjoying his second life :-)
>>>
>>> . 26.6.2011 19:16, Frans Veldman kirjoitti:
>>>
>>> --> Europa-List message posted by: Frans
>>> Veldman<frans@privatepilots.nl <mailto:frans@privatepilots.nl>>
>>>
>>> On 06/26/2011 04:02 PM, Paul McAllister wrote:
>>>
>>> I was very impressed with the results that David Joyce got
>>> with his SR
>>> 3000W propeller from Woodcomp. I would like to some
>>> feedback from the
>>> forum about there after sales experience from Woodcomp.
>>> Please give me
>>> the 'good, the bad and the ugly'
>>>
>>> I got excellent support and advice when I was ordering the
>>> propeller
>>> from Woodcomp directly and delivery was prompt. After that I
>>> had no
>>> reason to contact them again as the prop works flawlessly and
>>> performs
>>> better than expected. Had to service it at 50 hours and did
>>> that at a
>>> local Woodcomp dealer. Found that one spinner screw was
>>> missing and got
>>> a complete new spinner fastening set free of charge. Ordered
>>> spare
>>> brushes, but at the 100 hour check I discovered that the
>>> brushes were
>>> almost like new and it looks like it is going to take a long
>>> while
>>> before I have to replace them.
>>>
>>> Have now 100+ hours but have had no issues with the prop.
>>> A few notes though:
>>> 1) I'm using the controller from Smart Avionics which is very
>>> configurable and able to match the prop exactly to the
>>> engine/airframe
>>> characteristics.
>>> 2) I have a prop with feather capability (to anticipate a
>>> potential
>>> future use of the glider wings). The props with feather
>>> capability have
>>> a stronger and faster motor. Maybe this is the reason why the
>>> Woodcomp
>>> prop behaves like a hydraulic prop and reacts so fast that it
>>> never
>>> allows the RPM to surge off its target.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps,
>>>
>>> Frans
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ===================================
>>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
>>> ===================================
>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ===================================
>>> le, List Admin.
>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ===================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>
>
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: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
Ooh now come on ladies put those handbags away! It's getting more and
more like Prime Ministers questions.
On 27 juin 11, at 13:34, Jos Okhuijsen wrote:
>
> David, good friend,
>
> Thanks for your honest explanation of your bias towards Woodcomp.
> Your position, as their unpaid salesman must be awkward, and it must
> be very difficult to change your position.
> I on my turn have to admit that it has taken a long time to recover
> mentally and be able to reason clearly and stronly about the accident.
> Your next quote takes us to the cultprit of our difference of
> interpretation of the facts.
>
> "and it was apparent that the blades were close to zero pitch, so
> that regardless of how they got there it would be safe to say that a
> similar accident could not happen with an SR3000 that does not have
> the reverse option (which is not accepted by the LAA following your
> accident), as the standard props have not only electronic stops at
> the fine limits but also mechanical ones. "
>
> According to woodcomp, invited by the inspector, the blades were at
> a flyable pitch. Remembering the lack of thrust, and the
> overrevving, they must have been at a positive angle, NOT REVERSE,
> but with a pitch not enough to stay airborne.
> Why stopped the motor at that blade position and not later or sooner?
> Because, at the same moment the microswitch should cut in, it burned
> with a short circuit to ground, defying it's purpose and allowing
> the motor to run further. Next, adding throttle, the controller
> jumped in, reversing the polarity of the motor. The voltage now came
> direct, not anymore over the motor, on the microswitch and the
> breaker popped.
>
> Blaming the accident on the reversbility of the prop, thus assuming
> that a mechanical endstop makes it impossible for the prop to turn
> too fine to fly is mute as long nobody ever has checked that
> mechanical endstop.
>
> Sofar i have not heard of anybody who has checked this mechanical
> endstop on the non-reversable prop. Unless somebody, preferrably
> you, shorts or otherwise disables the end switches, and runs the
> motor till it jams, relying on the mechanical stop is not very wise
> to say the least. It would be also interesting to know if the gears
> would survive such a try.
>
> Has the LAA approved the feathering version? There is no mechanical
> endstop on the course side. Even more people will be relying on non
> reliable microswitches.
>
> I think it was Mark of Smartavionics who told be about Woodcomp
> banning its product. Mark, correct me if i am wrong.
>
> Next one:
> "The microswitches have changed over the years largely to improve
> their mechanical security but whether they are waterproof or not
> seems a bit irrelevant. I have flown through prolonged rain and
> found no problems, and you would expect that any water finding its
> way into a structure rotating at 2000+ rpm would very rapidly find
> its way out again. If you had parked the plane under a waterfall and
> the spinner was full of water before start up you might expect to
> notice problems when you switched on and went though the recommended
> pitch change check. "
>
> I read that as "there have been problems with the microswitches over
> the years". I challenge you to find any application were
> microswitches are used in open air. None are to be found in cars for
> example. As for flying in rain, and the behavior of water and air on
> a spinning service, have a look at any centrifugal pump. The
> backplate of the spinner, where the switches are and the big end
> opening in the cowl form such a pump. The rotating plate sheds water
> and air from it's side and sucks more in..... As for the pitch
> range check: The only thing you do is check that at that moment
> things are ok. It does not improve the quality of these switches.
>
> Apart from that everybody will hopefully understand the importance
> of using weatherproof components in weather. There are classes for
> humidity for electrical components and appliances. Those
> microswitches are manufactured for dry room use. And, let's not
> forget, they are heavily underrated in current as well. Proper
> switches for the application would physically never fit on that
> backplate.
>
> I hope the LAA will review its approval. I don't quite understand
> how this item passed in the first place.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jos
>
>
> 27.6.2011 12:12, David Joyce kirjoitti:
>> >
>>
>> Jos, I count you as a good friend but have to dispute many of your
>> statements. I also will state that I am no expert, but nevertheless
>> am a very interested amateur prepared to go to great lengths to get
>> to the bottom of something that affects my safety, ( and having
>> said that Tim did spend a lot of years as a radar/ electronics
>> technician in the RAF). I have on the other hand been a sort of
>> unofficial (but unpaid I hasten to add) Woodcomp agent in the UK
>> having brought (and bought) the first Woodcomp prop into the UK and
>> then pursued the very lengthy process of getting it fully accepted
>> by the PFA.
>> As you know I was there at the accident, with the same
>> plane and the same controller and the same SR3000 (albeit without
>> the reverse option). I flew back to try to help you and
>> subsequently examined the wreckage and spent some time helping the
>> Austrian AAIB man. As the accident happened flying out of the Rotax
>> Factory Flyin it's not surprising that they were quickly able to
>> help. Secondly since Mark Burton, owner of Smart Avionics,was
>> flying with us he was quick to talk to the investigator. I may say
>> that I gave the investigator my copies of the Smart Avionics
>> controller and SR3000 handbooks and allowed him to look at the
>> complete workings of my set up which was the official factory set
>> up of an SR3000 without the reverse option that you had and without
>> the non Woodcomp/personal simplifications to the wiring system that
>> you had incorporated into the circuitry. There wasn't too much left
>> of the plane after the fire but the prop hub was there and it was
>> apparent that the blades were close to zero pitch, so that
>> regardless of how they got there it would be safe to say that a
>> similar accident could not happen with an SR3000 that does not have
>> the reverse option (which is not accepted by the LAA following your
>> accident), as the standard props have not only electronic stops at
>> the fine limits but also mechanical ones.
>> My understanding of the investigation was that no prime
>> cause could be positively identified, and if I do not misquote him
>> I believe this is also Mark Burton's view (who is also of course an
>> electronics professional.)
>> The microswitches have changed over the years largely to
>> improve their mechanical security but whether they are waterproof
>> or not seems a bit irrelevant. I have flown through prolonged rain
>> and found no problems, and you would expect that any water finding
>> its way into a structure rotating at 2000+ rpm would very rapidly
>> find its way out again. If you had parked the plane under a
>> waterfall and the spinner was full of water before start up you
>> might expect to notice problems when you switched on and went
>> though the recommended pitch change check.
>> You refer to the problem experienced by someone having some
>> teeth break on the gearing that determines the pitch angle of each
>> blade and this was promptly dealt with by Woodcomp replacing it
>> both on new models and retrospectively with a slightly heavier
>> version of the gears. Woodcomp certainly have no problem about the
>> Smartavionics controller which is the choice of the majority o f
>> the substantial number of UK Woodcomp owners.
>> Apart from your problem I have not come across problems
>> that were not of the failsafe variety, and feel that describing the
>> prop as a deathtrap is entirely unwarranted
>> Regards and best wishes David, G-XSDJ
>> You mention
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "josok-e" <josok-e@ukolo.fi>
>> To: <europa-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:46 PM
>> Subject: Re: Europa-List: Woodcomp after Sales Service
>>
>>
>>> Tim,
>>>
>>> I've sent the report to somebody who is German en fluently in
>>> English,
>>> on his offer to translate. This translation takes an incredible
>>> amount
>>> of time obviously.
>>> But, as a matter of fact, the investigator thanks me for diverting
>>> from
>>> my line of descent into an occupied office building to trees. The
>>> wreckage was badly burnt. He also reports that he had Woodcomp
>>> check the
>>> remains of the propellor, and that they stated that the blades "must
>>> have been at a flyable angle" Also there was no obvious fault with
>>> the
>>> engine. It has not been possible to determine what the cause of the
>>> accident was. You may doubt of course that i have summarized
>>> properly as
>>> well.
>>> Significant might be also that after the accident Rotax was the
>>> first to
>>> talk to me, smartavionics next, the factory was very interested
>>> also.
>>> But no question, no word from Woodcomp.
>>>
>>> I find it strange that you start an argument by telling us that
>>> you are
>>> not an expert. And reach a conclusion, which is false. I am an
>>> expert,
>>> electricity, electronics have been my profession and hobby. I know
>>> microswitches and diodes, and if i tell you they are grossly
>>> underrated
>>> and not up wet conditions, you can take my word for it.
>>>
>>> My only interest is to save your lives. If you don't want it,
>>> please let
>>> me know.
>>>
>>> So, let me explain how the prop ended in a non-flyable position, so
>>> simple that a non-expert can understand. I commanded via the
>>> controller
>>> to go finer. That makes the motor run the blades to fine. The
>>> motor runs
>>> then as long as the controller command it to go finer or the fine
>>> limit
>>> switch cuts the current. In this case, because the desired rpm was
>>> high,
>>> and i was climbing, the fine limit switch should cut in. But it
>>> didn't
>>> because it was burnt, and short circuited to earth. The controller
>>> reversed it voltage to increase pitch and we had a short circuit
>>> on the
>>> plus now. The circuitbreaker popped. The revs went to 6200, with no
>>> pull. Attempting to reset it booted the controller. Which proved
>>> it was
>>> still working, And after the boot it popped again, The accident
>>> conditions were there, low on altitude, low on speed.
>>>
>>> I find it amazing that people defend such a product. Everybody i
>>> spoke
>>> to privatly admids there have been problems with communication, with
>>> quality of parts, with forgotten or loose parts, splitting blades,
>>> whatever. Oh, of course, they will cut the blades in a banana
>>> form, or
>>> apple, or anything else you fancy as fast. Very flexible indeed.
>>>
>>> There is a good working product available, has been for years,
>>> factory
>>> choice, with only plusses but the price.
>>> Everybody makes a mistake, and i can admit it was my mistake to go
>>> on
>>> the cheap and settle for a Woodcomp.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jos
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 27.6.2011 0:25, houlihan kirjoitti:
>>>> Hi
>>>> Further to Jos's comments about his very serious accident I seem to
>>>> recall that the Austrian authorities planned to issue a report
>>>> regarding the possible cause. I may have missed it so can anyone
>>>> let
>>>> me know what it contained, preferably in English.
>>>> Not being an expert in these things I find I have problems
>>>> linking the
>>>> limit switch failure Jos talks about to the fact that for the
>>>> propeller to go to fully fine or even beyond fully fine to a beta
>>>> state requires the motor to be powered to drive it there. I am sure
>>>> there may be a mechanism that will make that happen but I cannot
>>>> see
>>>> how it can do that just because a limit switch fails.
>>>> Also my understanding is that Woodcomp do not support the
>>>> Smartavioncs
>>>> controller not surprising really as it is not their product and
>>>> it is
>>>> in competition with them but " banning" it is beyond their remit.
>>>> Tim H
>>>>
>>>> On 26 June 2011 20:10, Jos Okhuijsen <josok-e@ukolo.fi
>>>> <mailto:josok-e@ukolo.fi>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <josok-e@ukolo.fi>Hi <mailto:josok-e@ukolo.fi%3EHi>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to remember you all that my Woodcomp prop nearly took my
>>>> life.
>>>>
>>>> I hate to repeat my words, but memories seem to be short.
>>>> The propeller i had was equipped with microswitches, which were
>>>> and ,after a change, still are not designed for outside use.
>>>> Nethertheless these switches are mounted on the backplate, open
>>>> for weather.
>>>> These switches are designed for AC 240 V, not for DC 12 V, and
>>>> the
>>>> Amp rating is way below the current going through them.
>>>> The cross-over diodes are specified for less then half the
>>>> current
>>>> drawn.
>>>> Even when activated only occasionally, it's a design flaw.
>>>>
>>>> Know to me are 3 incidents with short circuiting micro-switches,
>>>> both other pilots could land their plane without damage to their
>>>> plane or themselves. An incident with a loose gear, causing one
>>>> of the blades at a totally diffent angle then the others was
>>>> reported to me, and never made it to this forum. This seems to
>>>> be
>>>> the happy family show, which i am now spoiling. :-(
>>>> It may well be that there are others, or people never fly in
>>>> rain.
>>>> or are just very lucky.
>>>>
>>>> In my case, to the best of my knowledge, a microswitch short
>>>> circuited, taking the prop to a feather situation, shortly after
>>>> take-off. I had been flying in heavy rain for hours the other
>>>> day.
>>>>
>>>> Unless thing have changed is Jyrki the only one who understands
>>>> English, if he's not available you are on your own.
>>>>
>>>> After my incident Woodcomp banned the Smart Avionic controller.
>>>> What that means is unclear to me. As far as i know, they never
>>>> got
>>>> there own controller working decently.
>>>>
>>>> As for the figures, i've had trouble to keep up with a 912
>>>> with a
>>>> fixed prop and i was flying with a 914 and a Woodcomp 3000. The
>>>> only good figure seems to be the price.
>>>>
>>>> So in short: Save a few, risk your plane and life.
>>>> The choice is yours....
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jos Okhuijsen
>>>> (enjoying his second life :-)
>>>>
>>>> . 26.6.2011 19:16, Frans Veldman kirjoitti:
>>>>
>>>> --> Europa-List message posted by: Frans
>>>> Veldman<frans@privatepilots.nl <mailto:frans@privatepilots.nl
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> On 06/26/2011 04:02 PM, Paul McAllister wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I was very impressed with the results that David Joyce
>>>> got
>>>> with his SR
>>>> 3000W propeller from Woodcomp. I would like to some
>>>> feedback from the
>>>> forum about there after sales experience from Woodcomp.
>>>> Please give me
>>>> the 'good, the bad and the ugly'
>>>>
>>>> I got excellent support and advice when I was ordering the
>>>> propeller
>>>> from Woodcomp directly and delivery was prompt. After that I
>>>> had no
>>>> reason to contact them again as the prop works flawlessly
>>>> and
>>>> performs
>>>> better than expected. Had to service it at 50 hours and did
>>>> that at a
>>>> local Woodcomp dealer. Found that one spinner screw was
>>>> missing and got
>>>> a complete new spinner fastening set free of charge.
>>>> Ordered spare
>>>> brushes, but at the 100 hour check I discovered that the
>>>> brushes were
>>>> almost like new and it looks like it is going to take a
>>>> long while
>>>> before I have to replace them.
>>>>
>>>> Have now 100+ hours but have had no issues with the prop.
>>>> A few notes though:
>>>> 1) I'm using the controller from Smart Avionics which is
>>>> very
>>>> configurable and able to match the prop exactly to the
>>>> engine/airframe
>>>> characteristics.
>>>> 2) I have a prop with feather capability (to anticipate a
>>>> potential
>>>> future use of the glider wings). The props with feather
>>>> capability have
>>>> a stronger and faster motor. Maybe this is the reason why
>>>> the
>>>> Woodcomp
>>>> prop behaves like a hydraulic prop and reacts so fast that
>>>> it
>>>> never
>>>> allows the RPM to surge off its target.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps,
>>>>
>>>> Frans
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ===================================
>>>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
>>>> ===================================
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>>> ===================================
>>>> le, List Admin.
>>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> ===================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Woodcomp after Sales Service |
Carl,
I will not comment on Woodcomp as I am using an Airmaster. Note that
the Airmaster Is accepted by the LAA in spite of having no coarse
pitch physical (I mean mechanical) stop due to the feathering feature.
Moreover the fine pitch mechanical stop (not adjustable) is at 2
degree blade tip angle which is useless as it is way too low to allow
horizontal flight with the Europa.
Remi Guerner
<<<<<< In the UK the LAA won't allow a CS prop without physical limit
stops for that
very reason.>>>>>>>>
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: | Woodcomp after sales service |
Jos,
I am sorry for your accident and was careful to Google Earth your
flight path - amazed at your survival in view of the circumstances.
Naturally like most of us I can see why you would be angry at the outcome.
Nevertheless, because I ahve a Woodcomp (as yet untested) I am
interested in any and all discussions regarding it. I researched the company
and am aware of its foundation in a healthy (if socialist) industry - at
which they were fairly productive. Content with their family tree, I
consulted a number of buyers, all of whom appeared content with the firm. I
then visited Woodcomp north of Prague and was satisfied with the plant and
its resources - modern, clean and efficient - four hours.
In the process of installation, I managed to snap off one of the
sintered brushes which transfer the energy to the rotating prop - and sent
off a request for a replacement. It was not a design fault - I just had
little room to manoeuvre in my spare bedroom and whacked it in passing. Jiri
Holoubek didn't reply, so I sent a chaser. Apparently he was away and when
he returned, I got an email requesting clarification. On receipt of my
reply, along came two brushes in the mail - no charge.
I am a licensed amateur builder but no electronic expert as you are
apparently, but I assembled the prop and its controls without difficulty and
ran the tests with no trouble.
The faults you ascribe to the design were there when you assembled
it, yet we got no complaint then in spite of what appears to an expert to be
obvious failings. So my question is: Did you modify the system at all prior
to the accident?
Regards, Ferg
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Woodcomp after sales service |
Hi Ferg,
No, the prop was as received -assembled- by woodcomp. No modifications.
But you seem to miss the point Ferg, i am not complaining about their
history, or their family tree. I have serious complaints about their
inplantation of components not designed and not suitable for the job
being asked from them.
The result of that poor design caused my accident.
If then folks, who are protecting their investment over their safety,
are trying to convince others that business is as usual, i get really
upset. Lack of knowledge is forgiveable. Not accepting facts or reducing
their importance is not, especially if others are possibly getting
involved.
Regards,
Jos
27.6.2011 16:09, Fergus Kyle kirjoitti:
>
> Jos,
>
> I am sorry for your accident and was carefulto Google Earth your
> flight path--amazed at your survival in view of the circumstances.
> Naturally like most of usI can see why you would be angry at the outcome.
>
> Nevertheless, because I ahve a Woodcomp (as yet untested)I am
> interested in any and all discussions regarding it. I researched the
> company and am aware of its foundation in a healthy (ifsocialist)
> industry--at which they were fairly productive. Content with their
> family tree, I consulted a number of buyers, all of whom appeared
> content with the firm.I then visited Woodcomp north of Prague and was
> satisfied with the plant and its resources--modern, clean and
> efficient--four hours.
>
> In the process of installation, I managed to snap off one of the
> sintered brushes whichtransfer the energyto the rotating prop--and
> sent off a request for a replacement.It was not a design fault--I just
> had little room to manoeuvre in my spare bedroom and whacked itin
> passing.JiriHoloubekdidn't reply, so I sent a chaser. Apparently he
> was away and when he returned,Igot an email requesting clarification.
> On receipt of my reply, along came two brushes in the mail--no charge.
>
> I ama licensed amateur builder butno electronicexpertas you are
> apparently,but I assembled the prop and its controls without
> difficulty and ran the testswith no trouble.
>
> The faults you ascribe to the design were there when you assembled it,
> yet we got no complaintthen in spite of what appears to an expert to
> be obvious failings.So my question is: Did you modify the system at
> all prior to the accident?
>
> Regards, Ferg
>
> *
>
>
> *
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 XS monowheel 3D dxf file |
Hi All,
I would also be interested in *any* .dxf files that folks have. of the
Europa . Thanks, Paul
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:56 AM, smartieb <smartieb@bigpond.com> wrote:
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: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
Hi Guys
*Woodcomp SR3000 with reverse only*
Last year flying from Prestwick to Lydd in rain and very gusty conditions
I had my SR3000 motor burn out which took my pitch to fully fine and on to
the stops,
It was very sudden and certainly got my attention, but unlike Jos I had bee
n
in the cruise
120 kts and had time and speed to realise that I could keep the aircraft
flying,
Yes the Tachometer went into the red at first but as my airspeed dropped to
70 kts
I could maintain height at 5500 rpm, I made a precautionary landing at
headcorn,
The complete Propeller was sent the my local Woodcomp agent, asking them to
carefully
Check the limit switches, it turned out the switches and diodes were fine
but the motor
Had burnt out, this was subsequently changed, I had done 300 hours before
this incident
And assumed because I always used auto when flying this had over worked th
e
pitch motor, especially in gusty wind conditions, since my propeller return
to service I make a point of flying it manually if the conditions are poor
,
I have another 100 hours on the new motor and so far it is performing very
well
I also have the knowledge that a repeat of the problem would not mean an of
f
airfield landing,
Mark at Smart avionics couldn=92t have been more helpful, while waiting for
the new motor he heat soaked and bench tested my controller with not faults
found,
With a offer of a complete replacement unit if I wasn=92t happy,
My original controller is still working flawlessly and I have a 100%
confidence
In its construction and software,
Ivor
G-IVER
On 26 June 2011 15:02, Paul McAllister <paul.the.aviator@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I was very impressed with the results that David Joyce got with his SR
> 3000W propeller from Woodcomp. I would like to some feedback from the fo
rum
> about there after sales experience from Woodcomp. Please give me the 'go
od,
> the bad and the ugly'
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
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: | Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
Amend the the first sentence to read
*Woodcomp SR3000 with feather only,*
fast finger freddie to blame [?]
regards
Ivor
G-IVER
On 27 June 2011 15:19, PHILLIPS I <ivor.phillips@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Hi Guys
>
> *Woodcomp SR3000 with reverse only*
>
>
> Last year flying from Prestwick to Lydd in rain and very gusty conditions
>
> I had my SR3000 motor burn out which took my pitch to fully fine and on t
o
> the stops,
>
> It was very sudden and certainly got my attention, but unlike Jos I had
> been in the cruise
>
> 120 kts and had time and speed to realise that I could keep the aircraft
> flying,
>
>
> Yes the Tachometer went into the red at first but as my airspeed dropped
to
> 70 kts
>
> I could maintain height at 5500 rpm, I made a precautionary landing at
> headcorn,
>
>
> The complete Propeller was sent the my local Woodcomp agent, asking them
to
> carefully
>
> Check the limit switches, it turned out the switches and diodes were fin
e
> but the motor
>
> Had burnt out, this was subsequently changed, I had done 300 hours before
> this incident
>
> And assumed because I always used auto when flying this had over worked
> the pitch motor, especially in gusty wind conditions, since my propeller
> return to service I make a point of flying it manually if the conditions
> are poor,
>
>
> I have another 100 hours on the new motor and so far it is performing ver
y
> well
>
> I also have the knowledge that a repeat of the problem would not mean an
> off airfield landing,
>
>
> Mark at Smart avionics couldn=92t have been more helpful, while waiting f
or
> the new motor he heat soaked and bench tested my controller with not faul
ts
> found,
>
> With a offer of a complete replacement unit if I wasn=92t happy,
>
>
> My original controller is still working flawlessly and I have a 100%
> confidence
>
> In its construction and software,
>
>
> Ivor
>
> G-IVER
>
>
> On 26 June 2011 15:02, Paul McAllister <paul.the.aviator@gmail.com> wrote
:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I was very impressed with the results that David Joyce got with his SR
>> 3000W propeller from Woodcomp. I would like to some feedback from the f
orum
>> about there after sales experience from Woodcomp. Please give me the 'g
ood,
>> the bad and the ugly'
>>
>> Thanks, Paul
>>
>> *
>>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>> *
>>
>>
>
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: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
Hi,
I have nothing to say re the suitability of the microswitches/diodes used by Woodcomp
in the SR3000. However, from what I know about the characteristics of the
scimitar bladed SR3000 fitted with either the reversing or feathering options,
I feel that they are unlikely to have been the cause of Jos' accident.
Let's consider some facts:
Fact #1 - Woodcomp specified that a 10A circuit breaker should be used with that
propeller and I believe that's what was fitted to Jos's aircraft.
Fact #2 - under heavy load (high engine power, pitch motor stalled or moving very
slowly), the SR3000 pitch motor is capable of drawing more than 10A.
Fact #3 - Jos's propeller had recently returned from the factory and (Jos, please
correct me if I am wrong), had not been checked to see that the fine limit
microswitches were correctly set so that the aircraft would be flyable with the
pitch stuck on fully fine.
Therefore, it's possible for the C/B to pop simply by applying enough load to the
pitch motor. If it pops when the prop is fully fine, expect trouble.
Regards,
Mark
PS - I informed the factory in 2007 that the scimitar bladed SR3000 required an
excessive amount of current to go coarse . Nothing came of it.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=344245#344245
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: | Europa XS monowheel 3D dxf file |
Martin & Paul.
Due to the developments that I have been involved with I have many 2D
drawings of the Europa all in AutoCad (DWG) which I can easily provide as
DXF (but then the files are much larger). These are for the monowheel,
Trigear and taildragger and range from the general layout drawings to
specific component details. Generally I have both inch and metric versions.
Accuracy varies depending on the source, whether they have been converted to
metric and whether specific dimensions have been checked because they were
relevant to what I was working on. It is also worth noting that some
drawings, such as the fuselage mould lines, I have never found and probably
never existed in a CAD form.
So it is not a simple question.
I will contact Martin, off line, about the UL Power installation.
Paul if you would let me know what you are looking for I may be able to
help.
Ian Rickard G-IANI XS Trigear, 300hours
Europa Club Mods Specialist
e-mail g-iani@ntlworld.com
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: | Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
Jos, I am not sure it is helpful to prolong this, but yes I have tested my
mechanical stop It is strong enough to stop a runaway electric motor I guess
100hp more powerful than the fitted one and comes into action a degree or
two past the usual position so still capable of producing reasonable thrust.
(For those who want to try it is necessary to isolate the wires to the
motor by unsoldering them.)
The microswitch problem was as far as I am aware simply mine. It
was reported to LAA and to Woodcomp and indeed to you and the europa list,
and no other such incidents had (or have since as far as I am aware)been
reported. The side wall of the microswitch parted company because of a
strange design and this could allow failure of the switch. Newer versions
have the side wall integral with the entire structure.
I have nothing to add to my views on the rain worthiness or the
general reliability of the design. Regards, David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jos Okhuijsen" <josok-e@ukolo.fi>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Woodcomp after Sales Service
>
> David, good friend,
>
> Thanks for your honest explanation of your bias towards Woodcomp. Your
> position, as their unpaid salesman must be awkward, and it must be very
> difficult to change your position.
> I on my turn have to admit that it has taken a long time to recover
> mentally and be able to reason clearly and stronly about the accident.
> Your next quote takes us to the cultprit of our difference of
> interpretation of the facts.
>
> "and it was apparent that the blades were close to zero pitch, so that
> regardless of how they got there it would be safe to say that a similar
> accident could not happen with an SR3000 that does not have the reverse
> option (which is not accepted by the LAA following your accident), as the
> standard props have not only electronic stops at the fine limits but also
> mechanical ones. "
>
> According to woodcomp, invited by the inspector, the blades were at a
> flyable pitch. Remembering the lack of thrust, and the overrevving, they
> must have been at a positive angle, NOT REVERSE, but with a pitch not
> enough to stay airborne.
> Why stopped the motor at that blade position and not later or sooner?
> Because, at the same moment the microswitch should cut in, it burned with
> a short circuit to ground, defying it's purpose and allowing the motor to
> run further. Next, adding throttle, the controller jumped in, reversing
> the polarity of the motor. The voltage now came direct, not anymore over
> the motor, on the microswitch and the breaker popped.
>
> Blaming the accident on the reversbility of the prop, thus assuming that a
> mechanical endstop makes it impossible for the prop to turn too fine to
> fly is mute as long nobody ever has checked that mechanical endstop.
>
> Sofar i have not heard of anybody who has checked this mechanical endstop
> on the non-reversable prop. Unless somebody, preferrably you, shorts or
> otherwise disables the end switches, and runs the motor till it jams,
> relying on the mechanical stop is not very wise to say the least. It would
> be also interesting to know if the gears would survive such a try.
>
> Has the LAA approved the feathering version? There is no mechanical
> endstop on the course side. Even more people will be relying on non
> reliable microswitches.
>
> I think it was Mark of Smartavionics who told be about Woodcomp banning
> its product. Mark, correct me if i am wrong.
>
> Next one:
> "The microswitches have changed over the years largely to improve their
> mechanical security but whether they are waterproof or not seems a bit
> irrelevant. I have flown through prolonged rain and found no problems, and
> you would expect that any water finding its way into a structure rotating
> at 2000+ rpm would very rapidly find its way out again. If you had parked
> the plane under a waterfall and the spinner was full of water before start
> up you might expect to notice problems when you switched on and went
> though the recommended pitch change check. "
>
> I read that as "there have been problems with the microswitches over the
> years". I challenge you to find any application were microswitches are
> used in open air. None are to be found in cars for example. As for flying
> in rain, and the behavior of water and air on a spinning service, have a
> look at any centrifugal pump. The backplate of the spinner, where the
> switches are and the big end opening in the cowl form such a pump. The
> rotating plate sheds water and air from it's side and sucks more in.....
> As for the pitch range check: The only thing you do is check that at that
> moment things are ok. It does not improve the quality of these switches.
>
> Apart from that everybody will hopefully understand the importance of
> using weatherproof components in weather. There are classes for humidity
> for electrical components and appliances. Those microswitches are
> manufactured for dry room use. And, let's not forget, they are heavily
> underrated in current as well. Proper switches for the application would
> physically never fit on that backplate.
>
> I hope the LAA will review its approval. I don't quite understand how this
> item passed in the first place.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jos
>
>
> 27.6.2011 12:12, David Joyce kirjoitti:
>> <davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk>
>>
>> Jos, I count you as a good friend but have to dispute many of your
>> statements. I also will state that I am no expert, but nevertheless am a
>> very interested amateur prepared to go to great lengths to get to the
>> bottom of something that affects my safety, ( and having said that Tim
>> did spend a lot of years as a radar/ electronics technician in the RAF).
>> I have on the other hand been a sort of unofficial (but unpaid I hasten
>> to add) Woodcomp agent in the UK having brought (and bought) the first
>> Woodcomp prop into the UK and then pursued the very lengthy process of
>> getting it fully accepted by the PFA.
>> As you know I was there at the accident, with the same plane
>> and the same controller and the same SR3000 (albeit without the reverse
>> option). I flew back to try to help you and subsequently examined the
>> wreckage and spent some time helping the Austrian AAIB man. As the
>> accident happened flying out of the Rotax Factory Flyin it's not
>> surprising that they were quickly able to help. Secondly since Mark
>> Burton, owner of Smart Avionics,was flying with us he was quick to talk
>> to the investigator. I may say that I gave the investigator my copies of
>> the Smart Avionics controller and SR3000 handbooks and allowed him to
>> look at the complete workings of my set up which was the official factory
>> set up of an SR3000 without the reverse option that you had and without
>> the non Woodcomp/personal simplifications to the wiring system that you
>> had incorporated into the circuitry. There wasn't too much left of the
>> plane after the fire but the prop hub was there and it was apparent that
>> the blades were close to zero pitch, so that regardless of how they got
>> there it would be safe to say that a similar accident could not happen
>> with an SR3000 that does not have the reverse option (which is not
>> accepted by the LAA following your accident), as the standard props have
>> not only electronic stops at the fine limits but also mechanical ones.
>> My understanding of the investigation was that no prime cause
>> could be positively identified, and if I do not misquote him I believe
>> this is also Mark Burton's view (who is also of course an electronics
>> professional.)
>> The microswitches have changed over the years largely to improve
>> their mechanical security but whether they are waterproof or not seems a
>> bit irrelevant. I have flown through prolonged rain and found no
>> problems, and you would expect that any water finding its way into a
>> structure rotating at 2000+ rpm would very rapidly find its way out
>> again. If you had parked the plane under a waterfall and the spinner was
>> full of water before start up you might expect to notice problems when
>> you switched on and went though the recommended pitch change check.
>> You refer to the problem experienced by someone having some
>> teeth break on the gearing that determines the pitch angle of each blade
>> and this was promptly dealt with by Woodcomp replacing it both on new
>> models and retrospectively with a slightly heavier version of the gears.
>> Woodcomp certainly have no problem about the Smartavionics controller
>> which is the choice of the majority o f the substantial number of UK
>> Woodcomp owners.
>> Apart from your problem I have not come across problems that
>> were not of the failsafe variety, and feel that describing the prop as a
>> deathtrap is entirely unwarranted
>> Regards and best wishes David, G-XSDJ
>> You mention
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "josok-e" <josok-e@ukolo.fi>
>> To: <europa-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:46 PM
>> Subject: Re: Europa-List: Woodcomp after Sales Service
>>
>>
>>> Tim,
>>>
>>> I've sent the report to somebody who is German en fluently in English,
>>> on his offer to translate. This translation takes an incredible amount
>>> of time obviously.
>>> But, as a matter of fact, the investigator thanks me for diverting from
>>> my line of descent into an occupied office building to trees. The
>>> wreckage was badly burnt. He also reports that he had Woodcomp check the
>>> remains of the propellor, and that they stated that the blades "must
>>> have been at a flyable angle" Also there was no obvious fault with the
>>> engine. It has not been possible to determine what the cause of the
>>> accident was. You may doubt of course that i have summarized properly as
>>> well.
>>> Significant might be also that after the accident Rotax was the first to
>>> talk to me, smartavionics next, the factory was very interested also.
>>> But no question, no word from Woodcomp.
>>>
>>> I find it strange that you start an argument by telling us that you are
>>> not an expert. And reach a conclusion, which is false. I am an expert,
>>> electricity, electronics have been my profession and hobby. I know
>>> microswitches and diodes, and if i tell you they are grossly underrated
>>> and not up wet conditions, you can take my word for it.
>>>
>>> My only interest is to save your lives. If you don't want it, please let
>>> me know.
>>>
>>> So, let me explain how the prop ended in a non-flyable position, so
>>> simple that a non-expert can understand. I commanded via the controller
>>> to go finer. That makes the motor run the blades to fine. The motor runs
>>> then as long as the controller command it to go finer or the fine limit
>>> switch cuts the current. In this case, because the desired rpm was high,
>>> and i was climbing, the fine limit switch should cut in. But it didn't
>>> because it was burnt, and short circuited to earth. The controller
>>> reversed it voltage to increase pitch and we had a short circuit on the
>>> plus now. The circuitbreaker popped. The revs went to 6200, with no
>>> pull. Attempting to reset it booted the controller. Which proved it was
>>> still working, And after the boot it popped again, The accident
>>> conditions were there, low on altitude, low on speed.
>>>
>>> I find it amazing that people defend such a product. Everybody i spoke
>>> to privatly admids there have been problems with communication, with
>>> quality of parts, with forgotten or loose parts, splitting blades,
>>> whatever. Oh, of course, they will cut the blades in a banana form, or
>>> apple, or anything else you fancy as fast. Very flexible indeed.
>>>
>>> There is a good working product available, has been for years, factory
>>> choice, with only plusses but the price.
>>> Everybody makes a mistake, and i can admit it was my mistake to go on
>>> the cheap and settle for a Woodcomp.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jos
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 27.6.2011 0:25, houlihan kirjoitti:
>>>> Hi
>>>> Further to Jos's comments about his very serious accident I seem to
>>>> recall that the Austrian authorities planned to issue a report
>>>> regarding the possible cause. I may have missed it so can anyone let
>>>> me know what it contained, preferably in English.
>>>> Not being an expert in these things I find I have problems linking the
>>>> limit switch failure Jos talks about to the fact that for the
>>>> propeller to go to fully fine or even beyond fully fine to a beta
>>>> state requires the motor to be powered to drive it there. I am sure
>>>> there may be a mechanism that will make that happen but I cannot see
>>>> how it can do that just because a limit switch fails.
>>>> Also my understanding is that Woodcomp do not support the Smartavioncs
>>>> controller not surprising really as it is not their product and it is
>>>> in competition with them but " banning" it is beyond their remit.
>>>> Tim H
>>>>
>>>> On 26 June 2011 20:10, Jos Okhuijsen <josok-e@ukolo.fi
>>>> <mailto:josok-e@ukolo.fi>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <josok-e@ukolo.fi>Hi <mailto:josok-e@ukolo.fi%3EHi>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to remember you all that my Woodcomp prop nearly took my
>>>> life.
>>>>
>>>> I hate to repeat my words, but memories seem to be short.
>>>> The propeller i had was equipped with microswitches, which were
>>>> and ,after a change, still are not designed for outside use.
>>>> Nethertheless these switches are mounted on the backplate, open
>>>> for weather.
>>>> These switches are designed for AC 240 V, not for DC 12 V, and the
>>>> Amp rating is way below the current going through them.
>>>> The cross-over diodes are specified for less then half the current
>>>> drawn.
>>>> Even when activated only occasionally, it's a design flaw.
>>>>
>>>> Know to me are 3 incidents with short circuiting micro-switches,
>>>> both other pilots could land their plane without damage to their
>>>> plane or themselves. An incident with a loose gear, causing one
>>>> of the blades at a totally diffent angle then the others was
>>>> reported to me, and never made it to this forum. This seems to be
>>>> the happy family show, which i am now spoiling. :-(
>>>> It may well be that there are others, or people never fly in rain.
>>>> or are just very lucky.
>>>>
>>>> In my case, to the best of my knowledge, a microswitch short
>>>> circuited, taking the prop to a feather situation, shortly after
>>>> take-off. I had been flying in heavy rain for hours the other day.
>>>>
>>>> Unless thing have changed is Jyrki the only one who understands
>>>> English, if he's not available you are on your own.
>>>>
>>>> After my incident Woodcomp banned the Smart Avionic controller.
>>>> What that means is unclear to me. As far as i know, they never got
>>>> there own controller working decently.
>>>>
>>>> As for the figures, i've had trouble to keep up with a 912 with a
>>>> fixed prop and i was flying with a 914 and a Woodcomp 3000. The
>>>> only good figure seems to be the price.
>>>>
>>>> So in short: Save a few, risk your plane and life.
>>>> The choice is yours....
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jos Okhuijsen
>>>> (enjoying his second life :-)
>>>>
>>>> . 26.6.2011 19:16, Frans Veldman kirjoitti:
>>>>
>>>> --> Europa-List message posted by: Frans
>>>> Veldman<frans@privatepilots.nl <mailto:frans@privatepilots.nl>>
>>>>
>>>> On 06/26/2011 04:02 PM, Paul McAllister wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I was very impressed with the results that David Joyce got
>>>> with his SR
>>>> 3000W propeller from Woodcomp. I would like to some
>>>> feedback from the
>>>> forum about there after sales experience from Woodcomp.
>>>> Please give me
>>>> the 'good, the bad and the ugly'
>>>>
>>>> I got excellent support and advice when I was ordering the
>>>> propeller
>>>> from Woodcomp directly and delivery was prompt. After that I
>>>> had no
>>>> reason to contact them again as the prop works flawlessly and
>>>> performs
>>>> better than expected. Had to service it at 50 hours and did
>>>> that at a
>>>> local Woodcomp dealer. Found that one spinner screw was
>>>> missing and got
>>>> a complete new spinner fastening set free of charge. Ordered
>>>> spare
>>>> brushes, but at the 100 hour check I discovered that the
>>>> brushes were
>>>> almost like new and it looks like it is going to take a long
>>>> while
>>>> before I have to replace them.
>>>>
>>>> Have now 100+ hours but have had no issues with the prop.
>>>> A few notes though:
>>>> 1) I'm using the controller from Smart Avionics which is very
>>>> configurable and able to match the prop exactly to the
>>>> engine/airframe
>>>> characteristics.
>>>> 2) I have a prop with feather capability (to anticipate a
>>>> potential
>>>> future use of the glider wings). The props with feather
>>>> capability have
>>>> a stronger and faster motor. Maybe this is the reason why the
>>>> Woodcomp
>>>> prop behaves like a hydraulic prop and reacts so fast that it
>>>> never
>>>> allows the RPM to surge off its target.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps,
>>>>
>>>> Frans
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ===================================
>>>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
>>>> ===================================
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>>> ===================================
>>>> le, List Admin.
>>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> ===================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
Hi,
I am very pleased with my SR2000 approaching 300 hours. I have one
failure though.
The company (Jiri) is very supportive. I ordered spare parts in order to
repair the gear box.
Within 3 days the parts arrived and the prop was back in service 3 days
later.
When or if I need to buy a new prop it will be a WoodComp. Wood and
composite is great combination.
Low vibration due different material=99s resonance and will save
the engine in event of a prop strike.
It is important to regular service. As it is for all variable pitch
props.
Regards
Stephan
LN-STE mono
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: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
Hi Mark,
It's a pity Mark, that you have not checked the max DC specification of
those microswitches. I am afraid they are even more underrated as their
circuit breaker specification. I am also disappointed that you are not
willing to comment on my "indoor use only" comment for these switches.
I had tested the prop before when new, and did not test it after the
repair. Maybe i was convinced that Woodcomp would have done a proper
job. My mistake. Your scenario of the fatal flight could be possible, or
not because your controller's pulse ratio would limit the max energy the
motor would pull on full power.
I think that Paul has now a good picture of the quality of the Woodcomp
after sales service now. My god, you will need it. When ordering the
prop from them do not forget to order spare microswitches, spare gears,
a spare motor spare diodes and ask them if you may change their
specification to a 20 A circuitbreaker.
Add a full fine to coarse excercise to your checklist, and check before
every flight that the microswitches are still in one piece. It's a pity
you will have to unbolt the prop for that, but hey, you have saved a
couple of thousand.:-)
Regards,
Jos Okhuijsen
27.6.2011 17:35, Mark Burton kirjoitti:
> --> Europa-List message posted by: "Mark Burton"<markb@ordern.com>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have nothing to say re the suitability of the microswitches/diodes used by
Woodcomp in the SR3000. However, from what I know about the characteristics of
the scimitar bladed SR3000 fitted with either the reversing or feathering options,
I feel that they are unlikely to have been the cause of Jos' accident.
>
> Let's consider some facts:
>
> Fact #1 - Woodcomp specified that a 10A circuit breaker should be used with that
propeller and I believe that's what was fitted to Jos's aircraft.
>
> Fact #2 - under heavy load (high engine power, pitch motor stalled or moving
very slowly), the SR3000 pitch motor is capable of drawing more than 10A.
>
> Fact #3 - Jos's propeller had recently returned from the factory and (Jos, please
correct me if I am wrong), had not been checked to see that the fine limit
microswitches were correctly set so that the aircraft would be flyable with
the pitch stuck on fully fine.
>
> Therefore, it's possible for the C/B to pop simply by applying enough load to
the pitch motor. If it pops when the prop is fully fine, expect trouble.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
> PS - I informed the factory in 2007 that the scimitar bladed SR3000 required
an excessive amount of current to go coarse . Nothing came of it.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=344245#344245
>
>
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: | Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
Well Guys=2C do we fit a plank of wood to the front of the R
otax or are there other options I thought it was the prop of chose ? who's
next and why do the manufactures not take notice of the pilots in the seat
it all seems to work well tillll ..... and not enough safety margin Option
s Guys |Options ?
> Date: Mon=2C 27 Jun 2011 22:38:02 +0300
> From: josok-e@ukolo.fi
> To: europa-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Europa-List: Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service
>
>
> Hi Mark=2C
>
> It's a pity Mark=2C that you have not checked the max DC specification of
> those microswitches. I am afraid they are even more underrated as their
> circuit breaker specification. I am also disappointed that you are not
> willing to comment on my "indoor use only" comment for these switches.
> I had tested the prop before when new=2C and did not test it after the
> repair. Maybe i was convinced that Woodcomp would have done a proper
> job. My mistake. Your scenario of the fatal flight could be possible=2C o
r
> not because your controller's pulse ratio would limit the max energy the
> motor would pull on full power.
>
> I think that Paul has now a good picture of the quality of the Woodcomp
> after sales service now. My god=2C you will need it. When ordering the
> prop from them do not forget to order spare microswitches=2C spare gears
=2C
> a spare motor spare diodes and ask them if you may change their
> specification to a 20 A circuitbreaker.
> Add a full fine to coarse excercise to your checklist=2C and check before
> every flight that the microswitches are still in one piece. It's a pity
> you will have to unbolt the prop for that=2C but hey=2C you have saved a
> couple of thousand.:-)
>
> Regards=2C
>
> Jos Okhuijsen
>
>
>
>
> 27.6.2011 17:35=2C Mark Burton kirjoitti:
> > --> Europa-List message posted by: "Mark Burton"<markb@ordern.com>
> >
> > Hi=2C
> >
> > I have nothing to say re the suitability of the microswitches/diodes us
ed by Woodcomp in the SR3000. However=2C from what I know about the charact
eristics of the scimitar bladed SR3000 fitted with either the reversing or
feathering options=2C I feel that they are unlikely to have been the cause
of Jos' accident.
> >
> > Let's consider some facts:
> >
> > Fact #1 - Woodcomp specified that a 10A circuit breaker should be used
with that propeller and I believe that's what was fitted to Jos's aircraft.
> >
> > Fact #2 - under heavy load (high engine power=2C pitch motor stalled or
moving very slowly)=2C the SR3000 pitch motor is capable of drawing more t
han 10A.
> >
> > Fact #3 - Jos's propeller had recently returned from the factory and (J
os=2C please correct me if I am wrong)=2C had not been checked to see that
the fine limit microswitches were correctly set so that the aircraft would
be flyable with the pitch stuck on fully fine.
> >
> > Therefore=2C it's possible for the C/B to pop simply by applying enough
load to the pitch motor. If it pops when the prop is fully fine=2C expect
trouble.
> >
> > Regards=2C
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > PS - I informed the factory in 2007 that the scimitar bladed SR3000 req
uired an excessive amount of current to go coarse . Nothing came of it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=344245#344245
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
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: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
Hi all,
I haven flown my Europa with the Woodcomp SR 3000 (with reverse option which is
not wired) in many conditions, several times in heavy rain too. Up to now I have
not met any problems (prop has approx 220 hrs.) To avoid problems as much
as possible I always switch to manual before take-off and landing. This way never
a signal will be given to change the pitch in the most critical phases of
flight. I feel this way it makes it safer to operate this kind of prop (not only
Woodcomp). Back on topic, I only had it checked once by a local dealer because
of some play of the blades.
Regards,
Kees de Bussy
Europa XS TG, PH-SBR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=344288#344288
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: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
Kees=2C
You are a very wise man. Forget about automatic pitch control below 1000 fe
et. I have been doing the same after my own and Jos's experience. I will ne
ver trust an electric prop again. But I wanted variable pitch and featherin
g for gliding mode. But the original question from Paul was about support
=2C not whether the make was any good. That seems to have improved=2C at le
ast in Europe=2C but the problem I pointed out is still there: There is onl
y one person to talk to. If he is not there and he goes on frequent sales t
rips and there are long holidays=2C not to mention sick leave=2C then your
support is one big zero.And I still say that the pitch motor is not up to t
he job after two failures. An electric motor should never fail.They are off
-the-shelf items from another company and were designed to power electric t
ools for Bosch and Dremel etc.
Karl
> Subject: Europa-List: Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service
> From: keesdebussy@hotmail.com
> Date: Mon=2C 27 Jun 2011 13:42:52 -0700
> To: europa-list@matronics.com
>
om>
>
> Hi all=2C
>
> I haven flown my Europa with the Woodcomp SR 3000 (with reverse option wh
ich is not wired) in many conditions=2C several times in heavy rain too. Up
to now I have not met any problems (prop has approx 220 hrs.) To avoid pro
blems as much as possible I always switch to manual before take-off and lan
ding. This way never a signal will be given to change the pitch in the most
critical phases of flight. I feel this way it makes it safer to operate th
is kind of prop (not only Woodcomp). Back on topic=2C I only had it checked
once by a local dealer because of some play of the blades.
>
> Regards=2C
>
> Kees de Bussy
> Europa XS TG=2C PH-SBR
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=344288#344288
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
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: | Another Propeller Question |
Sorry guys=2C I sent the one good controller I had to Jean Phillipe in Fran
ce a while back. I still have the hub and
digital prop pitch guage if anyone needs one.
Glenn
> CC: gcrowder2@hotmail.com
> From: fklein@orcasonline.com
> To: kingsnjan@westnet.com.au
> Subject: Re: Europa-List: Another Propeller Question
> Date: Mon=2C 27 Jun 2011 10:16:05 -0700
>
> Hi Kingsley...Glenn Crowder may be the guy you're looking for...
>
> gcrowder2@hotmail.com
>
> Fred
>
com.au
> > >
> >
> > Is there anybody out there who has an NSI VP propeller with a
> > constant speed controller of any sort?
> >
> > OR
> >
> > does anybody know what sort of CS controller would work on an NSI VP
> > prop?
> >
> > Any comments most welcome.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Kingsley in Oz.
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: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
On 06/27/2011 09:38 PM, Jos Okhuijsen wrote:
> It's a pity Mark, that you have not checked the max DC specification of
> those microswitches.
The max DC specification of the switches is of little value. Max DC is
mainly limited by the opening arc of the switches under load. In normal
situations, the limit switches are never opened as the controller cuts
the power long before the limit is reached. These switches are just
sitting there all their life closed, waiting for a controller failure
which is unlikely to happen anyway.
In a previous statement you claimed that the run away was caused by
failed micro switches. This is similar as claiming that you have had a
trim servo run away because of a failing end stop in the trim servo.
Such a claim would ignore the fact that the trim servo can only run
away, with or without end stop, if something keeps feeding power to it
after it reached the desired position. It would require a faulty cockpit
switch or faulty pilot in addition. Similary: Your situation, even with
shorted micro switches, could only occur if the controller or some other
circuitry was failing at the same time: something was delivering power
to the prop while it was already over the target RPM. Even then, this
would never let the CB pop. There is only one controller and it can not
give power to two opposite directions at the same time whatever failure
mode you can devise.
Someone asked whether you had modified the circuitry and you denied
that. However in the archive (before the accident) I found a message
where you wrote that you had the reverse circuitry modified to simplify
the process of entering reverse (which is cumbersome in the original
setup but maybe there was a reason for that), and if I recall it
correctly a relay was used to switch the controller and feed power to
the reverse ring of the prop at the same time.
If this modified circuitry failed, it would explain fully what happened:
While feeding unwanted power to the reverse ring of the prop the prop
could reach 0 or negative angle because the reverse slip ring bypasses
the limit switches (for logical reasons) AND the controller at the same
time, and the CB would pop if the controller tried to reverse the engine
polarity.
The whole story of short circuited limit switches does not explain the
problems in any way. I would be confident to operate the airplane with
shorted limit switches AND shorted or busted diodes, as these items are
never used while the controller is working properly.
The function of the diodes is to allow the motor to run in the other
direction once one of the limit switches opened (otherwise you could
never recover from reaching the prop limit as the limit switch cuts ALL
power to the prop). In normal operation the diodes are never used.
Neither shorting them or opening them would affect the normal operation
of the prop. Again, whether these diodes are fully up to specs wouldn't
matter at all in normal situations as it is unlikely that any current
will ever flow through them.
Your situation further differs from standard configurations by using the
scimitar blades, which are not pitch bias neutral under load but have
strong aerodynamic resistance in one pitch direction. It could well be
possible that changing the pitch in one way caused excessive current,
while in the other direction the aerodynamic loads would try to changing
the pitch even further, and maybe drive the blades over the limit
causing the limit switches to open. And in such a situation it might be
possible that the limit switches finally give up the ghost (but
logically they would burn through and open up, making it impossible to
change the pitch from there). Again, even in this scenario it would not
lead to pitch run aways and popping CB's, but just to a prop which
doesn't respond anymore to pitch change commands.
Frans
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: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
Richard,
If you want a constant speed prop, the prop of choice for many folks is the Airmaster
propeller with their AC200F controller as recommended by Europa. It's
not perfect but it does extremely well and they are always working to improve
on it. They have their original 3 blade system with Warp Drive blades for either
the 80/100 HP or 115+ HP engines as well as their new 2 blade system with
blades from Sensenich. Their own controller works quite well. They have hub
configurations available for most engines that folks stuff in the front of their
Europas (Europii?) They have a long history of working with Europa and Europa
builders. I find them most responsive and supportive of their products.
Unfortunately, they are located in New Zealand which is on the other side of the
earth, quite literally, from the U.K. and most of the remaining Europa population.
Shipping back and forth is a bugger. Local reps, like Europa in the U.K.
and Bud Yerly in the U.S.A. can help.
In most cases their props seem a bit under-bladed for our application, so they
might not wring out the last HP of efficiency but they used to push my Europa,
back when it was still a monowheel, along at a solid 140 kts TAS @ 4.0 - 4.5
gph at about a 75% cruise power setting. I'm still about a week from flying the
tri-gear conversion so I can't speak for it at this time.
A final issue is the response time of the prop to a rapid throttle advance. It
can be slower than desired producing a momentary exceed of the takeoff RPM.
You can soon learn to compensate for this simply by not advancing the throttle
as rapidly allowing the prop to keep up.
They have an excellent web site at http://www.airmasterpropellers.com/Products.aspx with support and information on their AP332 and AP420 prop packages as well as hubs, blades, Controllers, spinners, extensions & hardware. Should you have any questions Martin, the owner, is the guy on the other end who will respond.
I suggest you look into Airmaster before you commit to another prop manufacturer.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa Kit #A221 N914XL, XS Tri-Gear, Intercooled 914, Airmaster C/S Prop
http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=60232
http://www.biplaneforumgallery.com/index.php?cat=10046
Europa Flying!
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208
Home: 940-497-2123
Cel: 817-992-1117
On Jun 27, 2011, at 15:06, nigel henry wrote:
> Well Guys,
> do we fit a plank of wood to the front of the Rotax or are there
other options I thought
> it was the prop of chose ? who's next and why do the manufactures not take notice
of the pilots in the seat
> it all seems to work well tillll ..... and not enough safety margin Options Guys
|Options ?
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: | Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
OK, let's put our thinking caps on and ponder switches and diodes.
We're only concerned here with the operation of the fine pitch limit switch and
its associated diode (incidentally, the SR3000 has two fine limit switches and
diodes in series so failures 1-4 described below have to occur to both switches/diodes,
likely?)
When the pitch is being reduced, the switch is carrying the current and the diode
is reverse biased. The current level is not high and well within the breaking
capability of the switch so it should open as expected and the pitch freezes
on the fine limit (+ some overrun).
Assuming that the switch has operated as it should, the pitch will now be fully
fine. When the controller next commands the pitch to go coarse, the switch is
already open so the diode will have to carry the current. That current can be
large as it's basically the pitch motor stall current (initially around 25-30A,
falling quickly as the motor spins up). Now the diode is only rated for 5A
continuous current but it has a good pulse capability (check the data sheet) so
it probably won't fail (we will talk about what happens if the diode fails next)
- assuming the diode did not fail and the pitch motor is actually moving,
the switch will close shortly afterwards. Exactly how much current will flow
through the switch is difficult to predict because we don't know how much the
motor has spun up so it could be quite a lot - mind you, there's only around 1V
across the switch (the diode drop) so I should think the switch could hack it
OK (perhaps with a reduced life).
Now, let's consider some failure modes:
1 - the diode fails open circuit - in this case, when the switch opens as the pitch
goes fully fine the pitch will freeze at that point (+ some overrun) and
when the controller tries to coarsen the pitch nothing will happen because the
switch is open and the diode is open too. Therefore, the end result will be the
prop will be stuck in fully fine. But, this would not cause the C/B to pop.
2 - the diode fails short circuit - in this case when the switch opens as the prop
reaches fully fine, the pitch motor keeps going and will drive the pitch all
the way to reverse position (and the reverse switch would operate). If the
controller subsequently tried to coarsen the pitch, it would succeed unless the
diode decided the current was too much and died in which case the pitch would
freeze. Now as it has been reported that the pitch of the prop was not in the
reverse position this probably didn't happen. Again, the C/B would not blow.
3 - the switch fails open circuit - the pitch will not be able to reduce, only
coarsen. C/B still intact.
4 - the switch fails short circuit - similar to 2 above, pitch could go to reverse.
C/B still a happy bunny.
5 - there is a short circuit from one of the switches/diodes/wires to ground -
now this is interesting: it could make the pitch go to the reverse position and
then when the controller tried to move the pitch the other way it would blow
the C/B. But as it's already been stated that the pitch was near the flyable
region that makes this scenario unlikely but not impossible.
So, from what we know about the accident, the only one of these failures that could
have occurred is a short from one of the pitch motor drive wires to ground
(either the wire itself or a switch/diode/motor failure). Is that likely, I
don't know, but I reckon you could poor a bucket of water into a microswitch and
it's not going to conduct substantial amounts of current to ground (sea water
would conduct better).
So, Jos, that's why I don't have much to say about the quality of the diodes and
switches because apart from them physically flying apart and causing a short
circuit to ground, I can't see how they could be responsible for the reported
chain of events.
Regards,
Mark
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=344300#344300
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: | Another Propeller Question |
What are you up to now?
JR
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kingsley Hurst
Sent: Monday, 27 June 2011 7:53 PM
Subject: Europa-List: Another Propeller Question
--> <kingsnjan@westnet.com.au>
Is there anybody out there who has an NSI VP propeller with a constant speed
controller of any sort?
OR
does anybody know what sort of CS controller would work on an NSI VP prop?
Any comments most welcome.
Thanks
Kingsley in Oz.
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.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: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
Hi Frans
As usual, you haven't got a clue, and your arguments limp.
In your explanation you could do away with a lot of things around your
airplane, because if everyting goes well, you will not need them. Like
fuses, circuitbrakers, a second fuel pump, not needed in normal
circimstances. Maybe toys instead.
In very normal life the controller will run until the limit switches are
opened. Thats why they are there. If you don't understand that go and
ask somebody, i am tired of explaning basic stuff to somebody who is not
interested anyway.
The rest of your answer is total rubbish, can't even bother.
Is there somebody out there who can explain to this poor soul how it is
supposed to work?
Regards,
Jos
28.6.2011 0:39, Frans Veldman kirjoitti:
> --> Europa-List message posted by: Frans Veldman<frans@privatepilots.nl>
>
> On 06/27/2011 09:38 PM, Jos Okhuijsen wrote:
>> It's a pity Mark, that you have not checked the max DC specification of
>> those microswitches.
> The max DC specification of the switches is of little value. Max DC is
> mainly limited by the opening arc of the switches under load. In normal
> situations, the limit switches are never opened as the controller cuts
> the power long before the limit is reached. These switches are just
> sitting there all their life closed, waiting for a controller failure
> which is unlikely to happen anyway.
>
> In a previous statement you claimed that the run away was caused by
> failed micro switches. This is similar as claiming that you have had a
> trim servo run away because of a failing end stop in the trim servo.
> Such a claim would ignore the fact that the trim servo can only run
> away, with or without end stop, if something keeps feeding power to it
> after it reached the desired position. It would require a faulty cockpit
> switch or faulty pilot in addition. Similary: Your situation, even with
> shorted micro switches, could only occur if the controller or some other
> circuitry was failing at the same time: something was delivering power
> to the prop while it was already over the target RPM. Even then, this
> would never let the CB pop. There is only one controller and it can not
> give power to two opposite directions at the same time whatever failure
> mode you can devise.
>
> Someone asked whether you had modified the circuitry and you denied
> that. However in the archive (before the accident) I found a message
> where you wrote that you had the reverse circuitry modified to simplify
> the process of entering reverse (which is cumbersome in the original
> setup but maybe there was a reason for that), and if I recall it
> correctly a relay was used to switch the controller and feed power to
> the reverse ring of the prop at the same time.
>
> If this modified circuitry failed, it would explain fully what happened:
> While feeding unwanted power to the reverse ring of the prop the prop
> could reach 0 or negative angle because the reverse slip ring bypasses
> the limit switches (for logical reasons) AND the controller at the same
> time, and the CB would pop if the controller tried to reverse the engine
> polarity.
>
> The whole story of short circuited limit switches does not explain the
> problems in any way. I would be confident to operate the airplane with
> shorted limit switches AND shorted or busted diodes, as these items are
> never used while the controller is working properly.
>
> The function of the diodes is to allow the motor to run in the other
> direction once one of the limit switches opened (otherwise you could
> never recover from reaching the prop limit as the limit switch cuts ALL
> power to the prop). In normal operation the diodes are never used.
> Neither shorting them or opening them would affect the normal operation
> of the prop. Again, whether these diodes are fully up to specs wouldn't
> matter at all in normal situations as it is unlikely that any current
> will ever flow through them.
>
> Your situation further differs from standard configurations by using the
> scimitar blades, which are not pitch bias neutral under load but have
> strong aerodynamic resistance in one pitch direction. It could well be
> possible that changing the pitch in one way caused excessive current,
> while in the other direction the aerodynamic loads would try to changing
> the pitch even further, and maybe drive the blades over the limit
> causing the limit switches to open. And in such a situation it might be
> possible that the limit switches finally give up the ghost (but
> logically they would burn through and open up, making it impossible to
> change the pitch from there). Again, even in this scenario it would not
> lead to pitch run aways and popping CB's, but just to a prop which
> doesn't respond anymore to pitch change commands.
>
> Frans
>
>
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: | Re: Woodcomp after Sales Service |
Hi Mark,
Excellent work.
And probably more understandable for the crowd then what i manage to
explain.
My guess is number 5, and i think i can make that plausible.
I have been finding and replacing faulty microswitches in an industrial
environment, and the cause of the failure was usually water ingress in
the switches. What happens is that the water, which only has to be one
drop, boils between the contacts in a flash. The metal vaporizes and
forms a conductor on the insulation. The steam breaks the housing, with
could then hang the contacts up the mounting. Very much like the
microswith David describes. It sounds like you would need a lot of power
for that, but don't forget, these are microswitches, it's all very light
and feeble. An open contact could be 0.1 of a mil.
I think what happened is that the controller run the prop fine. The fine
limit microswitch(es) opened, exploded and shorted to ground. The
controller reversed to increase pitch and the breaker popped.
You don't mention Ivor's narrow escape with a broken motor, which looks
a lot like mine, with the difference that he had speed and altitude. The
investigator told me that the motor was loose in the spinner but he
blames that to the impact.
I still don't understand your willingsness to accept a 5 A diode, which
has to endure regularly 15 A. It could work in a toy car, but is not
acceptable in an airplane. You a talking about pulse load, In my book a
pulse is microseconds, a reversing motor will take considerately more
time. Does somebody have the typenumbers of the old and newer
microswitches? From memory the AC to DC max current is about 5 to one,
which would ask for 75 AC switches. I bet they are 6 A :-)
Regards,
Jos
28.6.2011 2:09, Mark Burton kirjoitti:
> --> Europa-List message posted by: "Mark Burton"<markb@ordern.com>
>
> OK, let's put our thinking caps on and ponder switches and diodes.
>
> We're only concerned here with the operation of the fine pitch limit switch and
its associated diode (incidentally, the SR3000 has two fine limit switches
and diodes in series so failures 1-4 described below have to occur to both switches/diodes,
likely?)
>
> When the pitch is being reduced, the switch is carrying the current and the diode
is reverse biased. The current level is not high and well within the breaking
capability of the switch so it should open as expected and the pitch freezes
on the fine limit (+ some overrun).
>
> Assuming that the switch has operated as it should, the pitch will now be fully
fine. When the controller next commands the pitch to go coarse, the switch
is already open so the diode will have to carry the current. That current can
be large as it's basically the pitch motor stall current (initially around 25-30A,
falling quickly as the motor spins up). Now the diode is only rated for 5A
continuous current but it has a good pulse capability (check the data sheet)
so it probably won't fail (we will talk about what happens if the diode fails
next) - assuming the diode did not fail and the pitch motor is actually moving,
the switch will close shortly afterwards. Exactly how much current will flow
through the switch is difficult to predict because we don't know how much the
motor has spun up so it could be quite a lot - mind you, there's only around
1V across the switch (the diode drop) so I should think the switch could hack
it OK (perhaps with a reduced life).
>
> Now, let's consider some failure modes:
>
> 1 - the diode fails open circuit - in this case, when the switch opens as the
pitch goes fully fine the pitch will freeze at that point (+ some overrun) and
when the controller tries to coarsen the pitch nothing will happen because the
switch is open and the diode is open too. Therefore, the end result will be
the prop will be stuck in fully fine. But, this would not cause the C/B to pop.
>
> 2 - the diode fails short circuit - in this case when the switch opens as the
prop reaches fully fine, the pitch motor keeps going and will drive the pitch
all the way to reverse position (and the reverse switch would operate). If the
controller subsequently tried to coarsen the pitch, it would succeed unless
the diode decided the current was too much and died in which case the pitch would
freeze. Now as it has been reported that the pitch of the prop was not in
the reverse position this probably didn't happen. Again, the C/B would not blow.
>
> 3 - the switch fails open circuit - the pitch will not be able to reduce, only
coarsen. C/B still intact.
>
> 4 - the switch fails short circuit - similar to 2 above, pitch could go to reverse.
C/B still a happy bunny.
>
> 5 - there is a short circuit from one of the switches/diodes/wires to ground
- now this is interesting: it could make the pitch go to the reverse position
and then when the controller tried to move the pitch the other way it would blow
the C/B. But as it's already been stated that the pitch was near the flyable
region that makes this scenario unlikely but not impossible.
>
> So, from what we know about the accident, the only one of these failures that
could have occurred is a short from one of the pitch motor drive wires to ground
(either the wire itself or a switch/diode/motor failure). Is that likely,
I don't know, but I reckon you could poor a bucket of water into a microswitch
and it's not going to conduct substantial amounts of current to ground (sea water
would conduct better).
>
> So, Jos, that's why I don't have much to say about the quality of the diodes
and switches because apart from them physically flying apart and causing a short
circuit to ground, I can't see how they could be responsible for the reported
chain of events.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=344300#344300
>
>
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! --
|