Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:58 AM - MAUW Increase (Nigel Graham)
2. 04:44 AM - Re: MAUW Increase (Nigel Graham)
3. 05:32 AM - Re: MAUW Increase (jonathanmilbank)
4. 07:56 AM - Re: MAUW Increase (spcialeffects)
5. 09:45 AM - Re: MAUW Increase (jonathanmilbank)
6. 12:06 PM - Re: Re: MAUW Increase (Robert Borger)
7. 02:49 PM - Re: Re: MAUW Increase (Timward)
8. 03:19 PM - Re: MAUW Increase (pestar)
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 |
|
Steve,
FYI
I have just received a reply from John Tempest at the LAA regarding my
Callisto mod submission.
Reproduced below is his (predictably conservative) response to the MAUW
increase proposal.
I await with eager anticipation, his response to your mod!
Nigel
/Initial comments are (for discussion):///
/1.//The MTOW of 1370 lb for the Europa was based on a number of
analysis reports and load tests and was limited by a number of issues,
for example, required composite special factors, stresses on the wing
root pins, and no doubt other issues, and it is therefore going to
require a considerable amount of thought to give any additional weight
increase over this figure, if indeed it is possible at all. The use of
in-service experience to justify operating at weights higher that the
designers intentions is fraught with problems and at the moment this is
a major hurdle. I am not sure how remaining at 1370 lb will affect the
practicality of your aircraft./
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: MAUW Increase |
Sorry chaps, Finger trouble!
This was supposed to go to Steve Pitt .
But at least you UK flyers now know that we are working on a MTOW
upgrade proposal for the Europa.
Nigel
On 30/05/2015 09:56, Nigel Graham wrote:
> Steve,
>
> FYI
>
> I have just received a reply from John Tempest at the LAA regarding my
> Callisto mod submission.
> Reproduced below is his (predictably conservative) response to the
> MAUW increase proposal.
> I await with eager anticipation, his response to your mod!
>
> Nigel
>
> /Initial comments are (for discussion):///
>
> /1.//The MTOW of 1370 lb for the Europa was based on a number of
> analysis reports and load tests and was limited by a number of issues,
> for example, required composite special factors, stresses on the wing
> root pins, and no doubt other issues, and it is therefore going to
> require a considerable amount of thought to give any additional weight
> increase over this figure, if indeed it is possible at all. The use of
> in-service experience to justify operating at weights higher that the
> designers intentions is fraught with problems and at the moment this
> is a major hurdle. I am not sure how remaining at 1370 lb will affect
> the practicality of your aircraft./
> *
>
>
> *
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: MAUW Increase |
Well my knee-jerk response is that whatever our American cousins are using for
the max.mass of their Europa fleet is what we should be allowed, assuming that
they haven't suffered mishaps due to overloading and aren't seeing evidence of
structural failures developing.
An increase to 1420 lbs (645 kg) seems reasonable to me, for Europas with 100hp
or more powerful engines and/or VP propellers.
In my former commercial career I saw one 19 pax seat aircraft given a 7.8% increase
of max.mass, without any structural strengthening. Just the performance graphs
were altered to show things like increased take-off distance and reject
area requirements and of course reduced single engine climb rates.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442800#442800
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: MAUW Increase |
>From what Iv read and seen on the Internet the Americans operate their europa's
at 1450lbs which in Church of England is another 5 and a half stone! A light
passenger! However in order to fly at thet weight they have to pre load their
planes (wings) with weight
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442806#442806
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: MAUW Increase |
Well, here's a bit more subjective waffling from me then! I don't think that most
Europae would need that much of an increase. How about this? Most of us would
like the capability to take off with two 15 stone (210 lbs to our USA cousins,
95,25 kg to our EU neighbours) blokes and a full tank 110 lbs, plus a bit
of baggage e.g. 10 lbs.
That leaves 880 lbs which might be a fairly representative average empty weight
(mass for EU neighbours) across the fleet.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442810#442810
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: MAUW Increase |
Here in the USA, because we are the manufacturer of the aircraft, we may set some
of the specs of our aircraft. I set my max gross weight to be 1450 lbs as
suggested. I also have restricted the CG range to 59-61.5 for weight over 1370
lbs. as suggested. There was no need to do any further testing or weighting
of the wings. I find that, at max gross weight, the aircraft still climbs at
almost 1000 fpm to pattern altitude of 1500 ft. Cruise climb at 100 kts is over
500 fpm. If stall speed was increased, it isnt enough to see in the ASI at
those low speeds.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (75 hrs).
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger@mac.com
On May 30, 2015, at 9:55 AM, spcialeffects <spcialeffects@aol.com> wrote:
> From what Iv read and seen on the Internet the Americans operate their europa's
at 1450lbs which in Church of England is another 5 and a half stone! A light
passenger! However in order to fly at thet weight they have to pre load their
planes (wings) with weight
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: MAUW Increase |
While flying the 747-400 our MAUW was changed from 398 tones to 405 tones. I asked
the Technical skipper what we had to do to qualify for that increase, difference
tyres, undercarriage oleos, tweak up the engine power etc. Answer: NOTHING,
except pay Boeing $1,000,000 per aircraft to be certified!
So be it.
Tim
Tim Ward
12 Waiwetu Street
Fendalton,
Christchurch, 8052
New Zealand.
ward.t@xtra.co.nz
Ph 64 3 3515166
Mob 0210640221
> On 31/05/2015, at 12:31 am, jonathanmilbank <jdmilbank@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Well my knee-jerk response is that whatever our American cousins are using for
the max.mass of their Europa fleet is what we should be allowed, assuming that
they haven't suffered mishaps due to overloading and aren't seeing evidence
of structural failures developing.
> An increase to 1420 lbs (645 kg) seems reasonable to me, for Europas with 100hp
or more powerful engines and/or VP propellers.
> In my former commercial career I saw one 19 pax seat aircraft given a 7.8% increase
of max.mass, without any structural strengthening. Just the performance
graphs were altered to show things like increased take-off distance and reject
area requirements and of course reduced single engine climb rates.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442800#442800
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: MAUW Increase |
Tim
I did not know that you were that heavy that Air New Zealand had to increase the
747-400 MAUW when you had to fly it.
Cheers Peter [Laughing]
--------
Peter Armstrong
Auckland, New Zealand
DynAero MCR-4S (Do not shoot me :) ).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442825#442825
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! --
|