Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:54 AM - Re: PV 50 Prop. (Peter Jeffers)
2. 04:29 AM - Re: PV 50 Prop. (Alan Carter)
3. 07:45 AM - Re: Performance chart Europa CLASSIC C-GPEL (David Joyce)
4. 09:04 AM - Re: Performance chart Europa CLASSIC C-GPEL (Christoph Both)
5. 12:12 PM - Rotax 912 S performances (Guerner Remi)
6. 08:11 PM - Re: Performance chart Europa CLASSIC C-GPEL (Bud Yerly)
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 |
|
Hi,
Arplast is the firm that makes the PV 50 prop. They are French and are not
good at communicating with non French speakers. To my knowledge there is no
MM or life recommendations.
I have operated a PV50 for about 1500hrs now over a period of about 15 years
and can report the following problems I have had or come across during that
period.
1 Using the original manual in flight pitch controller (yours maybe this
type or either a Smart controller or Arplast electronic auto controller)
The former suffers from re-chargeable battery pack failure resulting in
failure to run fine. The other two seem to work OK but if used in auto all
the time will b----ger the pitch change motor in about 200 to 300 hrs. When
used in auto only for take off and landing the motor will have a
considerably longer life.
Having a spare motor is a good idea as they are usually on 6 week lead time
from France. They also cost much money, 200 at last purchase. (It is
possible to manually adjust the prop to a compromise pitch if you get stuck
with the pitch change inoperative.
2 The prop hub suffers from moisture corrosion which manifests itself as
corrosion of the blade pitch change bearings.
I dismantle clean and re lubricate the hub on an annual basis to help
alleviate this problem. I use a water proof grease for this purpose. Best
to obtain from marine outlets and normally recommended for submersible
components of boat prop shafts. If the bearings do get corroded they will
need replacement. The bearings are standard and easily obtained but fitting
them is a different matter all together, as a jig is required to refit the
pitch drive dogs.
3 The crappy little pitch limit switches sometimes fall apart. They can be
obtained from Maplin.
4 There is one AD issued by the LAA re fine pitch limit stop. Without this
mod and with certain electrical failures the prop can run to zero pitch in
flight. Not good. Re this last mod I have come across at least one
instance where the mod has been removed by Arplast during their overhauling
process.
5 Being as no special protection is provided for L/E's of the blades they
can become quite badly damaged by stones. Limited repair work can be
achieved by the use of ARALDITE RAPID ie the ordinary stuff you can buy for
domestic purposes (NOT ARALDITE 320 the Blue Stuff supplied by Europa
Aircraft).
Apart from the above the prop works quite well for the price. It is also the
lightest VP on the market hence a bit fragile. I have come across one
cracked hub caused probably by prop strike that did not even brake a blade.
Pete Jeffers LAA Insp. Rep
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan Carter
Sent: 21 September 2014 20:54
Subject: Europa-List: PV 50 Prop.
--> <alancarteresq@onetel.net>
Hi, All. or
I have a Arblast PV 50 Prop. and find in difficult to get any information
on this prop.
I know other Europa,s have this prop fitted, and there is no dealer in the
UK.
Servicing, all I know is to grease the jack screw.
is there anything else to check, measure or inspect.
Should one have a spare electric pitch motor, as failure would ground the
plane.
What is the tt to major overhaul,
Regards,
Alan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430886#430886
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 |
|
Hi Peter.
Many thanks for posting such a comprehensive detail on the PV 50.
As you know I an not a builder, but I find the PV 50 a nice looking prop and seems
to work fine.
Problem as you said ,difficult to communicate with, ( If they where based near
Calais I could understand why.)
I have the Smart controller, it needs a software update so to incorporate the new
Take Off mode, done free of charge. just pay 10 postage.
I like the idea of marine grease, sorry to have to ask, But what do I look for
to check if my stop has this mod,
And if possible a run through on how to remove and grease the hub, would be most
useful to me and probably other PV 50 users.
Regards
Alan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430906#430906
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: Performance chart Europa CLASSIC C-GPEL |
Christopher, Although not directly comparable, you may be
interested in the following figures for my XS mono G-XSDJ
with 914, Woodcomp SR3000/3/W, Smart controller and speed
kit at 90% MAUW and 2000 ft unless stated otherwise:
Max speed at 100% power (ie not using the extra 15%
available for 5 mins only) TAS 156kts (164 at 6500ft)
Fuel flow:
100kts 12 l/hr
110 13
120 14
130 19
140 23
At 10,000ft 150kts TAS (129kts IAS) 21 l/hr
These figures came from a comparison I did between the low
twist Sr2000 prop and the high twist SR 3000W prop, which
showed the latter gave appreciably better performance with
max speed being 4kts higher at various altitudes, fuel
flow being on average 0.6 l/hr better, climb rate improved
and cooling problems transformed. The increased top speed
according to CAFE calculations was the equivalent of
having an extra 4 hp!
Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 02:03:46 +0000
Christoph Both <christoph.both@acadiau.ca> wrote:
> Dear Europa Community:
> I thought you might find the following comments and
>attached spreadsheet of interest.
> I tested and tabulated fly data for Canadian C-GPEL on
>SEPT 17-2014. You might be interested to see where the
>most gain is for C-GPEL Classic 912S, Woodcomp 3000 two
>blade propellor, Smart Avionic Prop Control. The data
>collected, for 4950RPM where possible, is denoted
>separately for fuel efficiency and speed with a linear
>increase in MAP from minimum required power to keep the
>plane at altitude, all the way to WOT, measured at 2500
>feet. There are some interesting jumps in the graphic
>curves, most noticeable around the (EGT) point, where all
>4 cylinders turned out to be exactly the same EGT within
>10 degrees Celsius on a GRT graphic analyzer (meaning:
>most effective combustion=best torque). So for most
>efficiently butting into headwind best suggested would be
>27.5MAP (115 IAS) while most efficient tailwind use
>would suggest 24.5MAP (95 IAS) or even 23.5 MAP (91 IAS)
>with a fuel burn of only 9.4 litres/hour (or 2.5 GAL/hr)
>exactly as the book says. Endurance can be chosen at
>22.5MAP with a fuel flow of only 8.1 litres/hr (2.16
>GAL/hr), magically arriving at 87 IAS, empirically found
>to be the most efficient climb speed. Quite a magic
>square this little airplane. This is all without any
>speed kit or wheel pants.
> Chris
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: Performance chart Europa CLASSIC C-GPEL |
Thanks, David!
This confirms that the TURBO 914 is probably the best matched engine for
this capable airframe.
Christoph
On 2014-09-22, 11:44 AM, "David Joyce" <davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk> wrote:
><davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk>
>
>Christopher, Although not directly comparable, you may be
>interested in the following figures for my XS mono G-XSDJ
>with 914, Woodcomp SR3000/3/W, Smart controller and speed
>kit at 90% MAUW and 2000 ft unless stated otherwise:
>Max speed at 100% power (ie not using the extra 15%
>available for 5 mins only) TAS 156kts (164 at 6500ft)
>Fuel flow:
> 100kts 12 l/hr
> 110 13
> 120 14
> 130 19
> 140 23
> At 10,000ft 150kts TAS (129kts IAS) 21 l/hr
>These figures came from a comparison I did between the low
>twist Sr2000 prop and the high twist SR 3000W prop, which
>showed the latter gave appreciably better performance with
>max speed being 4kts higher at various altitudes, fuel
>flow being on average 0.6 l/hr better, climb rate improved
>and cooling problems transformed. The increased top speed
>according to CAFE calculations was the equivalent of
>having an extra 4 hp!
>Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ
>
>
>On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 02:03:46 +0000
> Christoph Both <christoph.both@acadiau.ca> wrote:
>> Dear Europa Community:
>> I thought you might find the following comments and
>>attached spreadsheet of interest.
>> I tested and tabulated fly data for Canadian C-GPEL on
>>SEPT 17-2014. You might be interested to see where the
>>most gain is for C-GPEL Classic 912S, Woodcomp 3000 two
>>blade propellor, Smart Avionic Prop Control. The data
>>collected, for 4950RPM where possible, is denoted
>>separately for fuel efficiency and speed with a linear
>>increase in MAP from minimum required power to keep the
>>plane at altitude, all the way to WOT, measured at 2500
>>feet. There are some interesting jumps in the graphic
>>curves, most noticeable around the (EGT) point, where all
>>4 cylinders turned out to be exactly the same EGT within
>>10 degrees Celsius on a GRT graphic analyzer (meaning:
>>most effective combustion=best torque). So for most
>>efficiently butting into headwind best suggested would be
>>27.5MAP (115 IAS) while most efficient tailwind use
>>would suggest 24.5MAP (95 IAS) or even 23.5 MAP (91 IAS)
>>with a fuel burn of only 9.4 litres/hour (or 2.5 GAL/hr)
>>exactly as the book says. Endurance can be chosen at
>>22.5MAP with a fuel flow of only 8.1 litres/hr (2.16
>>GAL/hr), magically arriving at 87 IAS, empirically found
>>to be the most efficient climb speed. Quite a magic
>>square this little airplane. This is all without any
>>speed kit or wheel pants.
>> Chris
>
>
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: | Rotax 912 S performances |
Jim and Heather,
I am surprised by your reading of those Rotax curves as my own reading is very
different. This is what I read:
You can develop 75% power (51KW) with WOT up to 2300 ft. at 5000 RPM. You can
develop 65% power (45 KW) with WOT up to 5700 ft at 5000 RPM.
According to those curves, to get 75% power at higher altitudes, you need to run
the engine at a higher RPM: for example, WOT at 5500 RPM gives 75% at 8000 ft,
WOT at 5500 RPM gives 65% at 11700 ft.
Regards
Remi
<<<<<<A normally aspirated engine (912S) loses power at higher altitude because
the air
becomes less dense so manifold pressure decreases. There is a graph in the
912S OM that shows this. You can develop 75% power (51KW) with WOT up to 2300
m (7000 ft) at 5000 RPM. You can develop 65% power (45 KW) with WOT up to 3500
m (10500) at 5000 RPM>>>>>>>>
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: Performance chart Europa CLASSIC C-GPEL |
To all performance seekers.
It would be beneficial to all of us owners whether we are equipped with a,
fixed pitch, constant speed, 912/912S/914 owners trigear or mono to compare
apples to apples as much as we can.
Speed kits, attention to detail, CG, altitude, engine type, MP setting, Prop
type, are all factors affecting our aircraft. Weight is not a huge variable
on average cruise speed but it does affect the low speed end much more.
I decided to do a drag polar and plot my performance over the recommended
power ranges. (See Attached Spreadsheets of my first two days of testing at
1300lbs.)
It is not terribly hard to do if your aircraft is equipped with MP gauge,
fuel flow, and is capable of gliding with the prop stopped or better yet
feathered. Start above your target altitude and pick a range of trimmed
airspeeds on a smooth day. (With the engine off, practice over a landing
area unless you are really confident in your restart.) Climb up and repeat
over and over. Exciting stuff eh?
In my personal data collection I chose to do the following:
Drag polar was with a feathered prop at both 10,000 and 2500. Cruise was
from 1000 to 10,000 as I really don't like flying higher (I have a great
oxygen bottle, but hate to carry it). Unfortunately, too many years at sea
level shows up when I am trying to do math in public above 10K without
oxygen. My IQ goes from two to one.
I am sure you can see from the drag polar the min point on the curve and
note the power required for Max Endurance or L/D max is only 25 HP. Too bad
the 914 loads up at 3500 RPM and 22 inches at that power setting (See your
Rotax Operators Manual). For max range you guys have already figured out
that you have to slow down to intolerable speeds of 95 Knots at 27 1/2 HP
(point of a line from the origin to a tangent on the power curve). The RPM
and MP again are well below clean plug running in my bird.
You can also see the difference between the AP420 and AP332 on N12AY's
cruise and climb performance. Best speed at max continuous is at about
7500MSL.
The wide chord Sensenich gives better speed at 7500 MSL and is only slightly
better in climb. I'm sure if I continued up to 15K I could get a bit more
speed, but higher power means more fuel burn and it takes longer to get to
15K. (That's a different chart on optimum climb vs. range.)
As one can see, I fly no lower than 4800 and 28 inches which is roughly 120
knots TAS which keeps the plugs clean without running up once in a while to
clear the carbon.
Flaw in my character. I just don't like going below 120 at cruise. ( My
gas milage is lower at around 25-27). I have tried cruising at 4300/28
while flying in formation with a crippled bird. My MPG was awesome at over
30 MPG but again I was only going about 90KIAS at 4500 MSL. The engine
after about an hour starts to miss, and requires me to run up to 5500 for a
few minutes to clear the carbon.
Get your bird tuned up and pick a nice fall day to do some performance data
collection. I use my Go Pro camera to record things for me. Then sit down
with the laptop and pull data down from the video.
Regards,
Bud Yerly
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Christoph Both" <christoph.both@acadiau.ca>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Performance chart Europa CLASSIC C-GPEL
> <christoph.both@acadiau.ca>
>
> Thanks, David!
> This confirms that the TURBO 914 is probably the best matched engine for
> this capable airframe.
> Christoph
>
> On 2014-09-22, 11:44 AM, "David Joyce" <davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk> wrote:
>
>><davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk>
>>
>>Christopher, Although not directly comparable, you may be
>>interested in the following figures for my XS mono G-XSDJ
>>with 914, Woodcomp SR3000/3/W, Smart controller and speed
>>kit at 90% MAUW and 2000 ft unless stated otherwise:
>>Max speed at 100% power (ie not using the extra 15%
>>available for 5 mins only) TAS 156kts (164 at 6500ft)
>>Fuel flow:
>> 100kts 12 l/hr
>> 110 13
>> 120 14
>> 130 19
>> 140 23
>> At 10,000ft 150kts TAS (129kts IAS) 21 l/hr
>>These figures came from a comparison I did between the low
>>twist Sr2000 prop and the high twist SR 3000W prop, which
>>showed the latter gave appreciably better performance with
>>max speed being 4kts higher at various altitudes, fuel
>>flow being on average 0.6 l/hr better, climb rate improved
>>and cooling problems transformed. The increased top speed
>>according to CAFE calculations was the equivalent of
>>having an extra 4 hp!
>>Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ
>>
>>
>>On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 02:03:46 +0000
>> Christoph Both <christoph.both@acadiau.ca> wrote:
>>> Dear Europa Community:
>>> I thought you might find the following comments and
>>>attached spreadsheet of interest.
>>> I tested and tabulated fly data for Canadian C-GPEL on
>>>SEPT 17-2014. You might be interested to see where the
>>>most gain is for C-GPEL Classic 912S, Woodcomp 3000 two
>>>blade propellor, Smart Avionic Prop Control. The data
>>>collected, for 4950RPM where possible, is denoted
>>>separately for fuel efficiency and speed with a linear
>>>increase in MAP from minimum required power to keep the
>>>plane at altitude, all the way to WOT, measured at 2500
>>>feet. There are some interesting jumps in the graphic
>>>curves, most noticeable around the (EGT) point, where all
>>>4 cylinders turned out to be exactly the same EGT within
>>>10 degrees Celsius on a GRT graphic analyzer (meaning:
>>>most effective combustion=best torque). So for most
>>>efficiently butting into headwind best suggested would be
>>>27.5MAP (115 IAS) while most efficient tailwind use
>>>would suggest 24.5MAP (95 IAS) or even 23.5 MAP (91 IAS)
>>>with a fuel burn of only 9.4 litres/hour (or 2.5 GAL/hr)
>>>exactly as the book says. Endurance can be chosen at
>>>22.5MAP with a fuel flow of only 8.1 litres/hr (2.16
>>>GAL/hr), magically arriving at 87 IAS, empirically found
>>>to be the most efficient climb speed. Quite a magic
>>>square this little airplane. This is all without any
>>>speed kit or wheel pants.
>>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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! --
|