Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:41 AM - Re: Oshkosh 2019 (h&jeuropa)
2. 10:37 AM - Re: Rotax 912ULS (William Daniell)
3. 11:02 AM - Re: Rotax 912ULS (Peter Zutrauen)
4. 02:10 PM - XS mono max gross weight (Fred Klein)
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: Oshkosh 2019 |
Just a reminder to those of you coming to Oshkosh, the Europa Owner/Builder forum
is scheduled for Tuesday 7/23 at 8:30 am in the Homebuilders Hangar. As usual,
its basically a chance to meet and chat.
I will have a limited supply of both of Don Dykins booklets concerning the design
of our Europas. Theyre quite interesting and FREE!
I will also show the new hyperlink feature for the website Europa Flyer/TechTalk
article index.
Ive invited Sky Smith to make a few comments about insurance and our Europas.
Were looking forward to seeing you.
Jim & Heather
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490302#490302
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: Rotax 912ULS |
Sadly I am still in the test period and con not leave the test area....:-(
William Daniell
LONGPORT
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:55 PM Pete <peterz@zutrasoft.com> wrote:
> Great info Will! Thx!
>
> How bout a show and tell osh next week? ;-)
>
> On Jul 14, 2019, at 3:05 PM, William Daniell <wdaniell.longport@gmail.com
>
> wrote:
>
> Just to follow up the last para of Buds email - I have flown Colombian
> turbo since 2004 with zero issues - as bud says I only use 33".
> I can put you in touch with the man in Colombia (the Colombian
> Connection!) - he'll make a kit and come fit it or you can fit it
> yourself. Mine complete mod cost about USD4k including new exhaust,
> airbox, oil scavenge tank, jets and mounting brackets and I think that
> included the turbo. You have to use a stock 80 horse - the high
> compression of the ULS causes detonation. The only mod to the engine is
> something done to the oil pump to make sure that the oil is scavenged.
>
> The Colombian guy doesnt speak English which will make for some
> interesting interactions....he's a great bloke by the way.
>
> Happy to show and tell if anyone is in the area.
>
> Will
> N460HJ
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 1:50 PM Bud Yerly <budyerly@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Martin,
>>
>> I know the XS uses a Rotax ring mount and changing engines from the UL t
o
>> the ULS or 914 basically fits on any XS existing Fire Wall Forward (FWF)
,
>> but the exhaust bends may be close to the cowl front and the ULS new fue
l
>> pump gets pretty close to the cowl also. So some fiddling required.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Classic is somewhat different because of the shorter nose and exhaus
t
>> systems changed slightly between the UL and ULS. The 914 on the Classic
>> during an engine upgrade was a pain. Frankly, I just installed a whole
new
>> XS FWF on my Classic and it was worth every penny. The high torque star
ter
>> Rotax provides is a bit long for the Classic. Consider the aftermarket
>> Sky-Tec starter as it appears to fit and is roughly half the cost and th
e
>> same size as the original Rotax low torque starter.
>>
>>
>>
>> I didn=99t recommend any 912ULS at Custom Flight until after 2006.
Hard
>> starting, poor starters needing 12.5 volts to start, kick back on start,
>> sprag clutch issues, case cracking, horrible shutdown and start up shaki
ng,
>> etc. just sowered me to recommending the engine. After 2006, Rotax fina
lly
>> made adjustments that addressed these issues. Although they never admit
ted
>> to what they had to do it was obvious when the new engines came out. Fi
eld
>> reports indicate the 912ULS (post 2006) are as reliable as the 80HP UL.
>>
>>
>>
>> The 912ULS new case is stronger, the ignition timing and boxes are
>> optimized for smooth starts and running, it is equipped with a high torq
ue
>> starter standard, and many other little touches that have completely
>> changed my outlook on the 912ULS. The purchase price is very near that
of
>> a rebuild 912UL that is 1000 plus hours old. I can do carbs, so the 912
ULS
>> is actually more appealing to me than a 912iS fuel injected engine as it
s
>> fuel economy does not completely trump the maintenance complexity and co
st
>> over the short term.
>>
>>
>>
>> Don=99t get me wrong. The iS engine starts and runs smooth, is ve
ry
>> economical, and very complex. Your ability to maintain the
>> fuel/electronics has been removed from the average owner/operator.
>> Problems currently are with the automatic electronic fuse box switching
>> controls failing, overheating on the ground due to its running in lean a
t
>> all times, a much larger, or fan augmented, radiator is a must for summe
r
>> time operations, a larger or multiple oil coolers are needed to keep the
>> oil in limits, troubleshooting guides are still in flux so give your dea
ler
>> a break if he can=99t give you a quick turn around. I have worked
with a
>> number of Pipistrel owners with the iS and Lockwood and Pipistrel have
>> taken ownership of fixing the issues under warranty, but slowly and in m
y
>> opinion, incompletely. Pipistrel has had to add fans to the radiator (a
s
>> has Lockwood on the AirCam), larger oil coolers, and Pipistrel had to ma
ke
>> cowl modifications which were better, but not enough.
>>
>>
>>
>> Although the 912ULS burns more gas, it doesn=99t overheat on the g
round, is
>> easier to troubleshoot, annual maintenance doesn=99t require a tri
p to the
>> Rotax dealer, and is quite a bit cheaper to buy. One can install a carb
>> leaning work around (HACman) if high altitude fuel economy is needed. T
he
>> HACman works by lowering the float bowl pressure via a needle valve
>> controlling vacuum from the intake manifold to the float bowl tube. The
>> lower pressure in the float bowl reduces the flow slightly through the m
ain
>> jet. (A bit Rube Goldberg, but it is effective if you fly above 3500 MSL
.
>> It takes some fiddling with part throttle setting and even finely adjust
ed
>> needle settings to fine tune your mixture to get the EGT in the proper
>> range. WOT makes it less effective as the manifold and carb throat press
ure
>> are nearly equal.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Do not be sucked in to the =9Cbig bore, higher power or other afte
rmarket
>> cylinder and cam mods=9D as the mean time between failure is just
not
>> documented. Keep the engine reasonably stock. One exception is what I
>> call the =9CColumbian Turbo mod for the 912UL. This is a reasonab
le turbo
>> normalizing of a stock UL 80 HP to about a 95 HP engine. This mod is no
w
>> made by an Italian company as well. Basically a small auto turbo with d
ash
>> pot, using Rotax type plumbing, a different exhaust geometry and the sto
ck
>> carbs. The key is it is a low boost pressure giving more sea level
>> performance at higher cruising altitudes. Pricey, but well within the
>> capabilities of the 912 as a 914 is just a 912 with a different set of
>> carbs and turbo management system. Other companies have what they call
>> =9CBad Ass=9D and higher output mods increasing output beyon
d the prop
>> capabilities. Quite pricey, and as I found on the Jason Parker fuel
>> injected turbo conversion, prone to owner/operator tweaking which over
>> boosted the engines making reliability a problem. Props are made in
>> certain power ranges: 80-120, 125-140, 150-180, 250-300. Check your pr
op
>> capability before upgrading your engine or you may have not just engine
>> costly problems.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just my two cents.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bud Yerly
>>
>> Custom Flight Creations, Inc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>> Windows 10
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com <
>> owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com> on behalf of Martin Tuck <
>> MJKTuck@cs.com>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, July 13, 2019 10:13:51 PM
>> *To:* Europa Builders Forum
>> *Subject:* Europa-List: Rotax 912ULS
>>
>>
>> I think I may have traced my intermittent starting problem of my old
>> 912UL to the ignition boxes, so I'm weighing up my options.
>>
>> Two new ignition boxes are around $1,000 each (!) so I'm not sure I want
>> to sink that kind of money into a 20 year old engine even though it only
>> has 300 hours on it.
>>
>> I like the look of the 912ULS, it has a bit more power, a heavy duty
>> starter and a slow start module that seems to have resolved the ragged
>> starting issues of the early engines.
>>
>> If you have a 912ULS I'd be interested to hear what you think of the
>> engine and how long you have had it. Also, will it fit in the same
>> engine ring mount as the 912UL - I'm thinking particularly of the size
>> of the starter.
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Martin Tuck
>>
>> N152MT
>>
>> ==========
>> st Email Forum -
>> pa-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
>> ==========
>> p; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>> ums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> p; - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
>> matronics.com
>> ==========
>> p; - List Contribution Web Site -
>> p; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> 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: Rotax 912ULS |
But there's more than 50 hours till Osh-tuesday ;-)
Oh well, next year?
Cheers and blue skies,
Pete
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:45 PM William Daniell <wdaniell.longport@gmail.co
m>
wrote:
> Sadly I am still in the test period and con not leave the test area....:-
(
> William Daniell
> LONGPORT
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:55 PM Pete <peterz@zutrasoft.com> wrote:
>
>> Great info Will! Thx!
>>
>> How bout a show and tell osh next week? ;-)
>>
>> On Jul 14, 2019, at 3:05 PM, William Daniell <wdaniell.longport@gmail.co
m>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Just to follow up the last para of Buds email - I have flown Colombian
>> turbo since 2004 with zero issues - as bud says I only use 33".
>> I can put you in touch with the man in Colombia (the Colombian
>> Connection!) - he'll make a kit and come fit it or you can fit it
>> yourself. Mine complete mod cost about USD4k including new exhaust,
>> airbox, oil scavenge tank, jets and mounting brackets and I think that
>> included the turbo. You have to use a stock 80 horse - the high
>> compression of the ULS causes detonation. The only mod to the engine is
>> something done to the oil pump to make sure that the oil is scavenged.
>>
>> The Colombian guy doesnt speak English which will make for some
>> interesting interactions....he's a great bloke by the way.
>>
>> Happy to show and tell if anyone is in the area.
>>
>> Will
>> N460HJ
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 1:50 PM Bud Yerly <budyerly@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Martin,
>>>
>>> I know the XS uses a Rotax ring mount and changing engines from the UL
>>> to the ULS or 914 basically fits on any XS existing Fire Wall Forward
>>> (FWF), but the exhaust bends may be close to the cowl front and the ULS
new
>>> fuel pump gets pretty close to the cowl also. So some fiddling require
d.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Classic is somewhat different because of the shorter nose and
>>> exhaust systems changed slightly between the UL and ULS. The 914 on th
e
>>> Classic during an engine upgrade was a pain. Frankly, I just installed
a
>>> whole new XS FWF on my Classic and it was worth every penny. The high
>>> torque starter Rotax provides is a bit long for the Classic. Consider
the
>>> aftermarket Sky-Tec starter as it appears to fit and is roughly half th
e
>>> cost and the same size as the original Rotax low torque starter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn=99t recommend any 912ULS at Custom Flight until after 2006
. Hard
>>> starting, poor starters needing 12.5 volts to start, kick back on start
,
>>> sprag clutch issues, case cracking, horrible shutdown and start up shak
ing,
>>> etc. just sowered me to recommending the engine. After 2006, Rotax fin
ally
>>> made adjustments that addressed these issues. Although they never admi
tted
>>> to what they had to do it was obvious when the new engines came out. F
ield
>>> reports indicate the 912ULS (post 2006) are as reliable as the 80HP UL.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The 912ULS new case is stronger, the ignition timing and boxes are
>>> optimized for smooth starts and running, it is equipped with a high tor
que
>>> starter standard, and many other little touches that have completely
>>> changed my outlook on the 912ULS. The purchase price is very near that
of
>>> a rebuild 912UL that is 1000 plus hours old. I can do carbs, so the 91
2ULS
>>> is actually more appealing to me than a 912iS fuel injected engine as i
ts
>>> fuel economy does not completely trump the maintenance complexity and c
ost
>>> over the short term.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Don=99t get me wrong. The iS engine starts and runs smooth, is v
ery
>>> economical, and very complex. Your ability to maintain the
>>> fuel/electronics has been removed from the average owner/operator.
>>> Problems currently are with the automatic electronic fuse box switching
>>> controls failing, overheating on the ground due to its running in lean
at
>>> all times, a much larger, or fan augmented, radiator is a must for summ
er
>>> time operations, a larger or multiple oil coolers are needed to keep th
e
>>> oil in limits, troubleshooting guides are still in flux so give your de
aler
>>> a break if he can=99t give you a quick turn around. I have worke
d with a
>>> number of Pipistrel owners with the iS and Lockwood and Pipistrel have
>>> taken ownership of fixing the issues under warranty, but slowly and in
my
>>> opinion, incompletely. Pipistrel has had to add fans to the radiator (
as
>>> has Lockwood on the AirCam), larger oil coolers, and Pipistrel had to m
ake
>>> cowl modifications which were better, but not enough.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Although the 912ULS burns more gas, it doesn=99t overheat on the
ground,
>>> is easier to troubleshoot, annual maintenance doesn=99t require a
trip to the
>>> Rotax dealer, and is quite a bit cheaper to buy. One can install a car
b
>>> leaning work around (HACman) if high altitude fuel economy is needed.
The
>>> HACman works by lowering the float bowl pressure via a needle valve
>>> controlling vacuum from the intake manifold to the float bowl tube. Th
e
>>> lower pressure in the float bowl reduces the flow slightly through the
main
>>> jet. (A bit Rube Goldberg, but it is effective if you fly above 3500 MS
L.
>>> It takes some fiddling with part throttle setting and even finely adjus
ted
>>> needle settings to fine tune your mixture to get the EGT in the proper
>>> range. WOT makes it less effective as the manifold and carb throat pres
sure
>>> are nearly equal.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do not be sucked in to the =9Cbig bore, higher power or other aft
ermarket
>>> cylinder and cam mods=9D as the mean time between failure is just
not
>>> documented. Keep the engine reasonably stock. One exception is what I
>>> call the =9CColumbian Turbo mod for the 912UL. This is a reasona
ble turbo
>>> normalizing of a stock UL 80 HP to about a 95 HP engine. This mod is n
ow
>>> made by an Italian company as well. Basically a small auto turbo with
dash
>>> pot, using Rotax type plumbing, a different exhaust geometry and the st
ock
>>> carbs. The key is it is a low boost pressure giving more sea level
>>> performance at higher cruising altitudes. Pricey, but well within the
>>> capabilities of the 912 as a 914 is just a 912 with a different set of
>>> carbs and turbo management system. Other companies have what they call
>>> =9CBad Ass=9D and higher output mods increasing output beyo
nd the prop
>>> capabilities. Quite pricey, and as I found on the Jason Parker fuel
>>> injected turbo conversion, prone to owner/operator tweaking which over
>>> boosted the engines making reliability a problem. Props are made in
>>> certain power ranges: 80-120, 125-140, 150-180, 250-300. Check your p
rop
>>> capability before upgrading your engine or you may have not just engine
>>> costly problems.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just my two cents.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bud Yerly
>>>
>>> Custom Flight Creations, Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>>> Windows 10
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com <
>>> owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com> on behalf of Martin Tuck <
>>> MJKTuck@cs.com>
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, July 13, 2019 10:13:51 PM
>>> *To:* Europa Builders Forum
>>> *Subject:* Europa-List: Rotax 912ULS
>>>
>>>
>>> I think I may have traced my intermittent starting problem of my old
>>> 912UL to the ignition boxes, so I'm weighing up my options.
>>>
>>> Two new ignition boxes are around $1,000 each (!) so I'm not sure I wan
t
>>> to sink that kind of money into a 20 year old engine even though it onl
y
>>> has 300 hours on it.
>>>
>>> I like the look of the 912ULS, it has a bit more power, a heavy duty
>>> starter and a slow start module that seems to have resolved the ragged
>>> starting issues of the early engines.
>>>
>>> If you have a 912ULS I'd be interested to hear what you think of the
>>> engine and how long you have had it. Also, will it fit in the same
>>> engine ring mount as the 912UL - I'm thinking particularly of the size
>>> of the starter.
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>>
>>> Martin Tuck
>>>
>>> N152MT
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> st Email Forum -
>>> pa-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
>>> ==========
>>> p; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>>> ums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> p; - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
>>> matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> p; - List Contribution Web Site -
>>> p; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
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: | XS mono max gross weight |
Gents,
My XS mono owners manual lists the max gross weight at 1370 lbs. yet my understanding
is that most Europas in the US are tagged at 1450 lbs., and I know of one
which was approved at 1600 lbs. (believe it or not).
So my question is, how is a higher figure justified if the FAA asks about it?
Fred A194
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! --
|