Hi Everyone
If a traditional aviation engine such as the 0-200 is high on anyone's list
of requirements then the Europa drops off the list of airframes that can be
considered. The engine is part of the overall design and has implications on
far more than the speed it will pull, or push the airframe through the air.
I am not saying that other engines shouldn't be fitted to the Europa but one
has to understand the size of the development project, not only on the
installation but also on the handling effects on the airframe. By definition
therefore it should only be attempted by people with the knowledge and time
to devote to such a program. I am slowly working on my XS and the choice of
engine is some way off. If I had to choose today I would go with one of the
factory approved (and fully tested) options. By the time I need to make the
decision I hope the Jabiru 3300 will be an option and the Wilksh CITEC
engine if they can get more weight out of it.
I have been in the aviation industry most of my life and would love to try
to design and build an aircraft. I know that I will probably never have the
time to do so and the Europa made the desire diminish as it had the key
elements of what I had on my requirements list.
It is very interesting to hear from fellow builders on news group and I
would like to particularly thank those amazing souls who even keep a web
page which can be very useful and an encouragement for those of us plodding
along behind.
One final thing if anyone is fitting his or her aileron hinges be aware that
in the latest manual amendment a typo crept in. On page 7-8 Fig.14 the 117mm
dimension, in issue 1 was from the aileron root. In issue 2 it is from the
root end of the inboard hinge. This is of no real consequence unless like me
you had marked out one aileron prior to the amendment and the other after.
For neatness I have used the issue I dimension which seems to align a little
better with the mass balance box cut outs. It obviously would not make any
difference if one were 13mm further outboard than the other, but I would
know and it would probably bother me.
Back to the Workshop
Regards
Tony (353)
From: "Jerry Davis" <lts@avnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Continental O-200
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:11:17 +0100
Direct drive versus gearboxes is an interesting point. Direct drive can be
lighter and yes you don't have gearbox rattle however the Rotax 912S for
example has a max prop speed of 2386. That means prop tip speed is much less
than direct drive and efficiency is up. Slower prop speed is particularly
more efficient at the slow speed end of the flight envelope, that is take
off and climb. Prop speed greater than 2500 will result in considerably less
efficiency in Europa type aircraft.
Noise is becoming a huge problem in Europe and I think the days are numbered
for noisy aircraft flown purley for pleasure. Noise off the prop is
predominatley a function of the tip speed. Tip speed (in m/sec) = prop
speed in rpm * prop diameter in cm * PI / 6000.
Fuel consumption of a Rotax is a fraction of that on an O200 (not a problem
to our cousins stateside where gas still costs around 20p / litre). However
don't forget if you want range you have to carry the fuel so if the fuel
consumption is 30% greater your range is reduced correspondingly.
Water cooled verses aircooled. Aircooled is much simpler to install and
maybe simpler to maintain but is it as stable regards temperature change.
Plus I don't see to many cars with aircooled engines?
Last of all - has anyone else done this before. I reckon it takes 10 times
as long to be a trail blazer. If someone has done what you think is a good
idea copy them. It'll take far longer to do it yourself.
Points to check?
1 Propeller efficiency may reduce the effective power
2 Propeller tip speed may make the aircraft noisy
3 Fuel consumption at a given speed may effect cost and range
4 Cooling
5 Has someone else done all the donkey work
Well that's what I think.
Jerry
lts@avnet.co.uk
http://www.avnet.co.uk/touchdown
----- Original Message -----
From: <ptag.dev@ukonline.co.uk>
<europa@avnet.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Continental O-200
|