Garry;
You are painting a picture with a very large brush.
One example;
In 2001, or 2002, Europa had the Glider wings at Sun and Fun and had installed
them on the Mono wheel. This was the first public showing of the glider wings
installed on the mono wheel. Keith wanted to get pictures of the Tri-gears and
a mono wheel in formation. So a photo shoot was put together.
Jim Thursby flew a customers tri-gear, Clive flew the company tri-gear
demonstrator, I flew our mono wheel, and Andy flew the company mono wheel with
the long wings attached. All four planes were topped off with fuel.
We were in the air over two hours with all four planes and the camera ship.
After landing all four planes were refueled. The two tri-gear's took over two
gallons each, more fuel than my mono wheel. I had used over a gallon more than
the glider winged mono wheel.
We were all at about the same airspeed, in the same area for the flight,
so the conditions were the same on each aircraft.
The tri-geared just simply burned more fuel.
Jim Brown
N398JB
Garry wrote:
>
> 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. 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.
> 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. 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
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Thursby" <jthursby@tampabay.rr.com>
> To: <europa-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?]
>
> > <jthursby@tampabay.rr.com>
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> > If you are that gung ho, by all means try it yourself but don't say you
> > weren't warned. I thought I was smarter than Ivan Shaw once too. Against
> > his wishes (and unknown to) I spent the better part of two hours trying
> > to
> > wheel land one of the company planes. I've been told it was some of the
> > most entertaining stuff the controllers at Lakeland had ever seen. It
> > will
> > squeak the main on ever so gently with just a touch of power, then the
> > tail
> > slams to the runway and you are rewarded for your carelessness with
> > another
> > chance or two at landing it properly. If you recover from the resulting
> > three to ten foot bounce and haven't clipped your propeller, and if you
> > haven't ground looped it, and if you haven't stalled and dropped it in,
> > you
> > can attempt another landing. I tried many times and NEVER got it to stay
> > on
> > the ground. If you must attempt wheel landings in a tail dragger aircraft
> > please buy or build an RV and save the Europa community from losing
> > another
> > aircraft from the ranks. And the prop is VERY close when on the main
> > wheel
> > with the plane in a slight nose down attitude.
> >
> > Jim T.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Beck
> > To: europa-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Europa-List: wheel landings [was: Flying a heavy Europa XS?]
> >
> >
> > Jim Brown wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>I would also suggest, to those of you who want to "TRY" to wheel land a
> >>mono wheel, you need to do one thing first. With the engine off, have a
> >>friend or helper raise the tail to normal flight attitude, then take a
> >>look at how close the prop is to the ground or pavement. One bounce on
> >>landing, and you may be buying new prop blades.
> >>
> >>The center of gravity is behind the mono wheel, which will make the
> >>tail drop down, as soon as the wheel touches the runway, if you counter
> >>with some forward stick, re-read the above paragraph.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Jim, what sort of clearance are we talking about?? 2"? 6"? I've got a
> > mile on the 140. I'd have to be looking straight at the dirt to get the
> > prop grounded.
> >
> > Regarding the C of G, it's the same issue on any taildragger. It's behind
> > the mains, which causes the tail to drop when landing due to the inertia.
> > Trick is to zero out the rate of descent just as the mains touch, then
> > nail
> > it with that bit of forward stick (as I'm sure you know very well from the
> > Pitts). Again, is it strictly a prop clearance issue that prevents
> > wheelies
> > in the monowheel? Has this been beaten to death in the past where I can
> > look it up in the archives?
> >
> > I'm just very curious about the mechanics of landing a monowheel. I've
> > flown in a few different ones (a Classic and an XS). Now that I'm flying
> > a
> > tailwheel plan, I understand a lot more of what's going on.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
>
|