Trying to remain unemotional and logical !!!!!!!!
You are obviously a late comer to the Europa fraternity, when many of us
started building - training wheels/stabilisers were not an option.
> I remain completely baffled as to why so many Europa pilots have chosen
> the
> mono over the trigear when given a choice. There is absolutely zero
> performance advantage to the mono, in rate of climb, in cruise speed, in
> fuel burn, or whatever.
With respect this statement is complete unadulterated rubbish!! Ask Andy
Draper why on X-country they always flew with the tri-gear fuel state in
mind. Answer - it always ran out of fuel before the monowheel. I have yet
to fly with a tri-gear that can out climb or out cruise my monowheel.
The difference is that the mono is inheritantly
> unstable in landing (and takeoff) configuration. Everyone (almost) else
> in
> the aircraft business, both large and small, has abandon the taildragger
> design, and no one else is building mono wheel planes. For the life of me
> I
> cannot understand why Ivan thought he could be successful when the rest of
> the world says it's an unstable design. The proof is in the results.
> Europa mono's are ground looping, wheelbarrowing, bending props, running
> off
> the tarmac, and generally destroying themselves with regularity. Perhaps
> that is a smart marketing strategy........to design a product that
> requires
> regular parts replacement and rebuilding, but as a pilot I'm not
> impressed.
The original design concept was to produce an aircraft that could operate
---From an short, unprepared farm strip. The same aircraft should be able to
cover distance at a good speed and be kept at home on a trailer - avoiding
hangarage costs. Ivan achieved all those points with style - it is fact
that experience has shown that a monowheel can be operated from some strips
that would be a no-go with a tri-gear.
It is true that if it is mis-handled, the monowheel is likely to bite back.
I have only witnessed one major Europa incident and that was a tri-gear that
entered into a PIO and wiped out the prop and the nosewheel on the third
bounce - fortunately the crew walked away unharmed.
> I do acknowledge that there are a few among our ranks who get a certain
> thrill out of placing themselves in danger on every flight, and love the
> challenge of taming a wild and unpredictable beast. It makes for good
> chest
> thumping and bragging rights at the local pub, but might I suggest that
> you
> take up the (American) sport of bull riding. It's probably safer and more
> satisfying than trying to land a mono. I'm not trying to stir up the
> ranks,
> but simply trying to understand the motivation of choosing an unstable
> design over a proper one.
A wild and unpredictable beast -- oh pleeeease !!!! all it requires is
average skill and a little practice. Thats why people choose to fly a Pitts
or an RV - or perhaps the ultimate a Mustang or a Spitfire. If all you want
is a safe aircraft, then why not stick with a wallowing SpamCan.
Both Europas are fabulous planes in the air, but
> one operates on the ground in a proper fashion while the other acts like a
> drunk and wounded gooney bird. Let's hear some logical and unemotional
> arguments in favor of the mono.
>
> Trigear pilot
You may be right in what you say, but as someone else commented - a
monowheel in flight looks sexy. Have you ever tried handling a monowheel or
do you just criticise from a distance.
signed Monowheel Pilot (Slightly twisted, living on the edge with
absolutely no sense at all - BUT IT IS FUN!!)
|