Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:41 AM - Re: Wing missing mass balance reassess (jonathanmilbank)
2. 05:24 AM - Re: Wing missing mass balance reassess (tonyvaccarella)
3. 06:59 AM - Re: Wing missing mass balance reassess (tonyvaccarella)
4. 08:07 AM - Re: Re: Wing missing mass balance reassess (Rowland Carson)
5. 08:17 AM - Re: Re: Wing missing mass balance reassess (Nigel Graham)
6. 08:27 AM - Re: Re: Wing missing mass balance reassess (David Joyce)
7. 08:40 AM - Re: Re: Wing missing mass balance reassess (Pete Lawless)
8. 09:13 AM - Re: Wing missing mass balance reassess (jonathanmilbank)
9. 11:37 AM - C of G ()
10. 02:24 PM - Re: C of G (David Joyce)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Wing missing mass balance reassess |
Tony,
I can't add much to the advice of others and my wings are the Classic early foam-cored
type, so what I'm about to say may be irrelevant for XS wings. It is important
to keep constantly in mind when creating the recesses that when the ailerons
eventually get attached, their trailing edge downward deflection is limited
by the mass balance weights touching the underside of the wing top surface.
You need enough deflection for rigging adjustments.
In the Classic the tolerance for downward aileron deflection is very tight and
so it was imperative not to add too much thickness under the wing upper surface
by adding unnecessary extra layers of anything. After attaching the aileron
hinges to the wings, I was careful with temporarily attaching the mass balance
foam arms and lead weights using 5 minute epoxy to ensure that the arms weren't
angled too much upwards from the leading edges of the ailerons. Also allow
a millimetre or so for the thickness of the "uni" glass straps which eventually
get wrapped around the mass balance arms and their weights.
What the others have already advised you all seems like good stuff to me.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430556#430556
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: Wing missing mass balance reassess |
Thank you to all the people who have posted a reply to my post. I will be making
a close inspection of the aircraft with my technical adviser tomorrow and hopefully
some information will come from that meeting.
Thank you all once again.
Tony
--------
Tony Vaccarella
Mascot NSW 2020
Sydney Australia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430557#430557
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: Wing missing mass balance reassess |
Hello again,
Well I think I have finally worked out what's happened. I only took possession
of this aircraft 2 weeks ago and been busy reviewing what I have and what is missing.
The aircraft was sold to me as an XS and came from the USA s/n A011 but on closer
inspection of the wings seemed to show that they are foam core. So I think
I was sold a Europa Classic. It is for this reason that the mass-balance reassesses
are missing at that they are not cut out. In reviewing the Builders Manual
for the Classic Wing, the mass balance boxes are not provided and need to be
build. Also the reassess is constructed AFTER the wing is closed.
I feel releaved in one way but annoyed in another that I was sold a Classic when
I was assured it was an XS.
Has anyone heard of this happening before - should I be concerned with the Classic
as compared to the XS?
Thanks once again..
Tony
--------
Tony Vaccarella
Mascot NSW 2020
Sydney Australia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430565#430565
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: Wing missing mass balance reassess |
On 15 Sep 2014, at 14:59, tonyvaccarella <tony@weimagine.com.au> wrote:
> The aircraft was sold to me as an XS and came from the USA s/n A011 but on closer
inspection of the wings seemed to show that they are foam core. So I think
I was sold a Europa Classic. It is for this reason that the mass-balance reassesses
are missing at that they are not cut out. In reviewing the Builders Manual
for the Classic Wing, the mass balance boxes are not provided and need to
be build. Also the reassess is constructed AFTER the wing is closed.
>
> I feel releaved in one way but annoyed in another that I was sold a Classic when
I was assured it was an XS.
>
> Has anyone heard of this happening before - should I be concerned with the Classic
as compared to the XS?
Tony - it appears that kit A011 was sold by the factory in 1995 so its pretty certain
to be a Classic, as the XS didnt come along until about 2000.
No doubt opinions will vary, but I wouldnt worry too much about the difference
between the XS and Classic wings. There are also differences in the fuselage (eg
XS has larger baggage bay) but having flown in both models, I dont feel the
differences are enough to get hot under the collar about.
There are examples of combinations of XS and Classic parts - I think some Classic
wings are flying on an XS fuselage, and some Classic fuselages have XS firewall-forward
stuff.
Did you get the build manuals as issued by the factory with that kit? Did you get
any construction and/or inspection documentation from the original builder(s)?
in friendship
Rowland
| Rowland Carson ... that's Rowland with a 'w' ...
| <rowlandcarson@gmail.com> http://www.rowlandcarson.org.uk
| Skype, Twitter: rowland_carson Facebook: Rowland Carson
| pictures: http://picasaweb.google.com/rowlandcarson
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Wing missing mass balance reassess |
Tony,
The original "classic" kits were sold in three phases, Kit one was tail
planes with rudder, fin, flaps and ailerons. Kit two was the blue foam
wings and kit three was the fuselage.
There are many Europas out there that started life with "Classic" blue
foam wings, but by the time their builders were ready for the fuselage
kit, the "New" XS was available, so many of them ended up as hybrids.
The good thing is that there is absolutely nothing "second rate" about
the earlier wings. They are slightly shorter than the XS and have
shorter but deeper ailerons and are reputed to weigh less (I haven't
weighed mine to check), but fly just as well.
The XS fuselage had a 2" deeper left hand footwell to address complaints
from early flyers that the legroom was a bit lacking (why Europa didn't
extend both footwells I have no idea), so a quick check to see it you
have an XS fuselage is to see if these are the same depth or not.
Other XS differences include an integrated fin (no longer a need to make
the blue foam fin and stick it on), pre-moulded fuel drain cut-outs
under the fuel tank and slightly different foam reinforcement around the
rear of the cockpit module by the rear "D" bulkhead.
If you do have this combination of foam wings with XS fus, you can feel
happy that it is XS'ish. If however, the fus is the earlier "Classic"
then you may be justified contacting the seller for a "robust" discussion.
Either way, you have it now and I doubt you are going to ship it back to
the States. Just get to grips with the build and have some fun, you'll
end up with a fantastic little plane.
I have copies of all of the original Blue Foam build manuals in pdf
format. If you would like a copy, email me off list and I'll send them on.
Nigel
On 15/09/2014 14:59, tonyvaccarella wrote:
>
> Hello again,
>
> Well I think I have finally worked out what's happened. I only took possession
of this aircraft 2 weeks ago and been busy reviewing what I have and what is
missing.
>
> The aircraft was sold to me as an XS and came from the USA s/n A011 but on closer
inspection of the wings seemed to show that they are foam core. So I think
I was sold a Europa Classic. It is for this reason that the mass-balance reassesses
are missing at that they are not cut out. In reviewing the Builders Manual
for the Classic Wing, the mass balance boxes are not provided and need to
be build. Also the reassess is constructed AFTER the wing is closed.
>
> I feel releaved in one way but annoyed in another that I was sold a Classic when
I was assured it was an XS.
>
> Has anyone heard of this happening before - should I be concerned with the Classic
as compared to the XS?
>
> Thanks once again..
>
> Tony
>
> --------
> Tony Vaccarella
> Mascot NSW 2020
> Sydney Australia
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430565#430565
>
>
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Wing missing mass balance reassess |
Tony, The XS is a superior plane but not by a lot and the
Classic still outperforms most other small aircraft. There
are a number of modifications that are applicable to the
Classic which give it most of the advantages of the XS.
Principle amongst these are a strengthening bar between
the rear lift pins to allow the Max All Up Wt to be
increased to that of the XS (ie from memory to 1370lbs), A
new design of baggage bay to give much more room for
luggage and moving the rear wheel back from its original
Classic position under the rear fuselage to sit on a tail
spring extension a foot or so behind the back of the fus,
with this significantly improving ground handling. If all
these are incorporated then one could say more or le3ss
honestly that it had been uprated to XS spec. If not
already incorporated then it is a smart move to plan to do
so.
Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 06:59:11 -0700
"tonyvaccarella" <tony@weimagine.com.au> wrote:
><tony@weimagine.com.au>
>
> Hello again,
>
> Well I think I have finally worked out what's happened.
>I only took possession of this aircraft 2 weeks ago and
>been busy reviewing what I have and what is missing.
>
> The aircraft was sold to me as an XS and came from the
>USA s/n A011 but on closer inspection of the wings seemed
>to show that they are foam core. So I think I was sold a
>Europa Classic. It is for this reason that the
>mass-balance reassesses are missing at that they are not
>cut out. In reviewing the Builders Manual for the Classic
>Wing, the mass balance boxes are not provided and need to
>be build. Also the reassess is constructed AFTER the
>wing is closed.
>
> I feel releaved in one way but annoyed in another that I
>was sold a Classic when I was assured it was an XS.
>
> Has anyone heard of this happening before - should I be
>concerned with the Classic as compared to the XS?
>
> Thanks once again..
>
> Tony
>
> --------
> Tony Vaccarella
> Mascot NSW 2020
> Sydney Australia
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430565#430565
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Un/Subscription,
>Forums!
>Admin.
>
>
>
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Wing missing mass balance reassess |
Hi Tony
Have a look in the wing root where the aileron push rod goes in. You
will be able to see the blue foam in there.
Just need to be careful of the stall characteristics if the wing is
foam, as the original leading edge profile can get screwed up by the
filling and sanding. Can all be sorted out easily by fitting short
stall strips to the root end of the leading edge.
Regards
Pete
PS Kit one was fin, rudder, stabiliser. Flaps and ailerons came with
the wings.
G-RMAC #109 very definitely not XS with foam wing!
On 15/09/14 16:17, Nigel Graham wrote:
> <nigel_graham@m-tecque.co.uk>
>
> Tony,
>
> The original "classic" kits were sold in three phases, Kit one was
> tail planes with rudder, fin, flaps and ailerons. Kit two was the blue
> foam wings and kit three was the fuselage.
>
> There are many Europas out there that started life with "Classic" blue
> foam wings, but by the time their builders were ready for the fuselage
> kit, the "New" XS was available, so many of them ended up as hybrids.
> The good thing is that there is absolutely nothing "second rate" about
> the earlier wings. They are slightly shorter than the XS and have
> shorter but deeper ailerons and are reputed to weigh less (I haven't
> weighed mine to check), but fly just as well.
> The XS fuselage had a 2" deeper left hand footwell to address
> complaints from early flyers that the legroom was a bit lacking (why
> Europa didn't extend both footwells I have no idea), so a quick check
> to see it you have an XS fuselage is to see if these are the same
> depth or not.
> Other XS differences include an integrated fin (no longer a need to
> make the blue foam fin and stick it on), pre-moulded fuel drain
> cut-outs under the fuel tank and slightly different foam reinforcement
> around the rear of the cockpit module by the rear "D" bulkhead.
>
> If you do have this combination of foam wings with XS fus, you can
> feel happy that it is XS'ish. If however, the fus is the earlier
> "Classic" then you may be justified contacting the seller for a
> "robust" discussion.
>
> Either way, you have it now and I doubt you are going to ship it back
> to the States. Just get to grips with the build and have some fun,
> you'll end up with a fantastic little plane.
> I have copies of all of the original Blue Foam build manuals in pdf
> format. If you would like a copy, email me off list and I'll send them
> on.
>
> Nigel
>
>
> On 15/09/2014 14:59, tonyvaccarella wrote:
>> <tony@weimagine.com.au>
>>
>> Hello again,
>>
>> Well I think I have finally worked out what's happened. I only took
>> possession of this aircraft 2 weeks ago and been busy reviewing what
>> I have and what is missing.
>>
>> The aircraft was sold to me as an XS and came from the USA s/n A011
>> but on closer inspection of the wings seemed to show that they are
>> foam core. So I think I was sold a Europa Classic. It is for this
>> reason that the mass-balance reassesses are missing at that they are
>> not cut out. In reviewing the Builders Manual for the Classic Wing,
>> the mass balance boxes are not provided and need to be build. Also
>> the reassess is constructed AFTER the wing is closed.
>>
>> I feel releaved in one way but annoyed in another that I was sold a
>> Classic when I was assured it was an XS.
>>
>> Has anyone heard of this happening before - should I be concerned
>> with the Classic as compared to the XS?
>>
>> Thanks once again..
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> --------
>> Tony Vaccarella
>> Mascot NSW 2020
>> Sydney Australia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430565#430565
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Wing missing mass balance reassess |
The foam filled Classic wings are definitely lighter by something like 10 lbs each.
As regards the extended spring-arm tail wheel, I'll go to my grave insisting
that the original tail wheel (direct cable linkage and no springs) is better
with far less propensity to ground looping. I have about 700 hours in my own
original tail wheeled aircraft and did the test flying of my friends aircraft
with extended tail wheel for the initial permit issue.
No, it isn't that I'm more accustomed to my own aircraft which causes me difficulty
in keeping straight after landing in his machine. I have no doubt after several
hours in his and I'm certain that the springs built into the linkage cause
a lag in response whenever anyone applies pedal either way.
These springs are a feature of both the factory extended tail wheel modification
and the more tidy-looking extended tail wheel design by Graham Singleton. I'd
be interested to hear from anyone who has experience with both the factory-
and the Singleton tail wheel designs.
I understand why the factory saw fit to redesign the tail wheel arrangement and
I accept that it probably helps during take off in a crosswind, but I believe
that it makes matters worse for landing in a crosswind. I look forward to a reply
from Graham perhaps to offer any suggestion as to what, if anything, might
be done to improve tail responsiveness particularly after landing. Perhaps tighten
the springs?
In the meantime, I strongly recommend that Tony should fit a tricycle undercarriage,
as I have recently done and enjoy stress-free landings.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430575#430575
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 |
|
Good day
I'm having catnips about the Above topic. The thing is, the C of G is too
far back. Because I opted for the 914 and a heavier prop (many Canadian
strips are in the woods), I attempted to counter this extra forward moment
by early digital dials and accepting extra weights aft - at the expense of
some performance in cruise.
I did not add much to the aft weights mainly because of the large arm
but was stunned to find it tail heavy. For this reason I appeal to early 914
mono drivers who have extended the tail wheel per the mod.
The extended arm prompted me to apply to the master who painted her to
see if perhaps there were fifty coats on her back. To that end, I have
detached and weighed each stab: port = 12.0 lb, starboard = 11.8.
If you have the above configuration Europa, and can handily measure
the stabs, (or have such figures on record) I would appreciate the details.
It might hint at a possible cause. Funny thing is, if I applied the 63lb
tail weight to the arm which applies to the original tailwheel site under
the stabs, the C ofG is happy....
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 |
|
Ferg, can't give you an immediate answer to that but will
in a day or two if nobody comes up with an answer sooner.
Is your battery in the back? If not that would be a
solution. Mine is in the front + 914 + wobbly prop +
digital instruments and I needed 3lb of lead bolted to the
fin bulkhead (accessed through the Trim slots) to give me
what I consider to be the ideal APS C of G position of
58.5". You incidentally save quite a bit of weight in
heavy duty cable and battery box since you can simply
strap it on the bulkhead above pax feet with a 1" fence
around its bottom.
Regards, David
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:38:43 -0400
<f.kyle@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Good day
>
> I'm having catnips about the Above topic. The thing is,
>the C of G is too
> far back. Because I opted for the 914 and a heavier prop
>(many Canadian
> strips are in the woods), I attempted to counter this
>extra forward moment
> by early digital dials and accepting extra weights aft -
>at the expense of
> some performance in cruise.
>
> I did not add much to the aft weights mainly because
>of the large arm
> but was stunned to find it tail heavy. For this reason I
>appeal to early 914
> mono drivers who have extended the tail wheel per the
>mod.
>
> The extended arm prompted me to apply to the master
>who painted her to
> see if perhaps there were fifty coats on her back. To
>that end, I have
> detached and weighed each stab: port = 12.0 lb,
>starboard = 11.8.
>
> If you have the above configuration Europa, and
>can handily measure
> the stabs, (or have such figures on record) I would
> appreciate the details.
> It might hint at a possible cause. Funny thing is, if I
>applied the 63lb
> tail weight to the arm which applies to the original
>tailwheel site under
> the stabs, the C ofG is happy....
>
>
>
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! --
|