Marc LeFevre wrote:
> I'm wondering what crosswind
>landing technique one would use. Is is possible to use partial flaps?
>With the monowheel design, can the plane be landed in a crab?
At the Sywell seminar, Ivan talked about various modifications to improve
the cross-wind limits. He thought it was OK until one day he had a cross
wind from the opposite direction to usual, and discovered that the torque
had been helping him and was now agin him ... I don't recall either he or
Pete Clarke making any specific recommendations on crosswind technique,
though. You can't use part flaps in the monowheel as they are linked to the
gear, and you have a choice of <no flaps and no gear>, or <gear down and
full flaps>. In the tri-gear, the flaps are electrically operated and the
gear does not retract, so you can (I guess) select any amount of flaps you
care to.
>1) I have to travel all the way across the US to test fly the plane.
- and how d'ya think the first UK builders of the west coast fast glass
stuff felt about having to cross the Atlantic as well as the US for their
trial flights? :-)
>2) The engine of choice is nearly as expensive (on a $/HP basis) as the
> Lycomings and Continentals.
You pays your money and you takes your choce. The Subaru seems to be a
feasible option - several UK builders are going for it.
>3) I'm wondering if I'd prefer a conventional tailwheel configuration for
> landing on rough strips. Although, I might find that I'd easily
> adapt to the monowheel configuration.
See Ed Kolano's article in August 95 'Sport Aviation' re adapting
>4) I'm not sure I believe that the bumps and curves in the molded dash
> are an improvement over the more conventional (flat) designs.
The biggest hole in the dash is of course to make room for the gear/flap
lever (and the fingers of the operator). This appearance may be just a
matter of taste, but intended equipment fit has a bearing on design
choices. The Europa was so named because of its tailoring to European (and
specifically UK) conditions and regulations. If you're not allowed to fly
at night or IFR, there's no point in making room for a vast conventional
radio/nav stack + IFR flight instruments. I sometimes wonder if Ivan was
wise to introduce the Europa to the US market with its emphasis on IFR and
heavy iron. (Again, at the seminar he said that if he'd offered a kit plane
that got off the ground in 20 yards, climbed at 6000'/min, and cruised at
mach 2.5, the typical US kit buyer's first question would be "Can I put a
bigger engine in it?") Of course, I know there's a much bigger potential
market over there, but I wouldn't want it to deflect him from his original
dream of a machine really suited to conditions over here.
> does anyone know what the "real" lead
>times to get a kit are these days?
Have the answers to this given by the factory or the US office been shown
to be incorrect? I know there's been a lot of grumbling here by people
waiting for specific items (notably fuel tanks, most recently). However, I
know I'd rather wait and get a part that's right than have to tear stuff
apart because something was shipped without proper development. (That's how
I feel now - of course when I actually get building, I too may become
impatient, but I hope by then any supply irregularities will have been
ironed out. - Unless the factory's swamped with US orders ....)
cheers
Rowland
... that's Rowland with a 'w' ...
|