why not more Europa around

[indyaachen]

By now I have flown in a RV and seen a few RV projects. It is enough to say that other experimentals can only dream of similar popularity.

Lately, however, Europa XS caught my attention and wondered why there is not a bit more enthusiasm around it. From what little I could gather from various sources, it appears to tick many right boxes:
- fuel efficient
- fast enough
- passanger + baggage ability
- MoGas
- perfect for smaller syndicates

Why do you think is that?

[A and C]

The mono wheel aircraft requires above average pilot ability to avoid ground looping.

[India Four Two]

The mono wheel aircraft requires above average pilot ability to avoid ground looping.

... or a moderately experienced glider pilot. ;)

[indyaachen]

The mono wheel aircraft requires above average pilot ability to avoid ground looping.

well ... that could be the case ....
But Europa has a tri-gear as well. In fact it has been around for a while now.

[Maoraigh1]

I was thinking about a Europa, but once I'd sat in one I decided the cockpit view was unacceptable compared to a Jodel, and stayed with the DR1050 Group.

[mrmum]

I've about 10 hours in a Europa XS trigear with the Rotax 914 turbo and probably 50-60 hours spread among the RV-6A, 7A & 9A models.
In my opinion the Europa, while nice enough, is a bit more quirky. Although, if it's the aircraft you fly regularly, that doesn't matter so much once you're used to it. The finger brakes were quite entertaining to begin with :O the forward vision is a somewhat restricted, a bit "letterboxy". Pretty sure the fuel costs will be less than the RVs though.
However, for someone who's learned in standard flying school aircraft, the RV will be more familiar. Also, there is noticeably more room in the cockpit of the RVs, both for people and baggage.

[BobD]

Interesting topic.


I have just bought a part built XS tri-gear, as much for the build challenge as anything else, and hope to have it flying by the end of the year. I have flown a friends MonoWheel (but not taken off or landed it, and would not have purchased this type due to lack of experience). I would tend to agree with the comments about the finger brakes (although not from experience), but I'm glad my XS has foot brakes.


I found it fairly benign in the air, and interesting to fly stick & rudder, as opposed to the C-182 I usually fly. It's a long time since I did any gliding, but I did manage to gain 500ft, throttled back in a thermal. I didn't find the forward vision a problem, but again, not a lot to compare it with other than the various Cessna's and TB's I flown.

[Potter1]

Europa's are very capable aircraft and very good value. Obviously they are nothing like RVs.
But try and get at RV for under 30k
Rotax- so around 30% less fuel compared to an RV Lycoming

I've just completed a Europa monowheel conversion. The tailwheel technique is different, once that is understood and practiced I found it no more difficult to land or takeoff than a Cub, Aeronca, or Jodel and I don't have above average skills - 300 hrs tailwheel and 400 total.

[x933]

I had a share in one for two years, did about 50hrs in it. Loved flying it but quirky is the best way of putting it - the monowheel can be a handful in A) crosswinds over 10kts (I think the limit was a bit higher) B) Tarmac Runways. Nothing beyond a decent pilot that's been well trained, and a lot of bang for the buck - I planned on 15lt Mogas at 115kts with a VP prop.

Ours had two new props whilst I was in the syndicate, first from a wheels up landing the second from (I think) a ground loop, about 2hrs after the new prop was fitted.

The Tri Gear model is identical to the XL2 which is an IFR certified two seater (though only in the USA I think).

Only two things that I didn't like were our fuel "sight" gage i'm convinced was never properly caliberated, and the fact that neither the seats nor pedals were adjustable. If you were over about 6ft 4 it wasn't comfortable (apparently, i'm 6ft and was OK up to about 2hrs, anything beyond that got a bit uncomfortable).

Ours would take about 65L of fuel at Max take off weight, which gave still air range of 450nm with a bit of reserve.

[indyaachen]

I am personally into tri-gear.
Wonder what makes people go for mono-wheel setting. Afterall there are many stories about it groundlooping. Must be the attraction of the challenge I reckon.

Aren't all experimentals VFR-only in Europe?

[Small Rodent Driver]

Ivan Shaw's original design was the "Monowheel". Tri-gears followed later, firstly as a mod I believe.

The older fleet examples therefore will be monowheel types.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Wonder what makes people go for mono-wheel setting.Better aerodynamics => less drag => higher speed and/or lower fuel burn. Which was exactly the reason this config was chosen for the original design. However, I have no idea how much of a difference it makes. And whether it is worth it is anyone's very own decision.

[India Four Two]

Afterall there are many stories about it groundlooping.

Are there issues with cross-wind handling? I used to instruct on a Motorfalke many years ago and I don't remember any problems.

[Fitter2]

A lot of economical performance for the money they go for, nice handling.

The monowheel Europa is significantly more 'lively' in a crosswind than the Falke, especially on tarmac.

Forward view is no worse than many other types, but the mono (having the flaps linked to the wheel) only has take off flap; the tri-gear can have landing flap with a rather better approach attitude.

The 'Hi-top' variant is better for tall pilots, short have a problem that cushions can only go so far to adjust.

The variations in build quality can be significant. Avionics and electrics are usually unique to the individual example, ranging from extremely basic to effectively a full IFR fit (not that you can legally use it).

[x933]

The main issue was the fact that the distance between the main wheel and the original tail wheel position was quite short - with the rotax engine take off performance was very brisk and - compared to the falke - quite a high threshold speed (65kts) for landing. Basic geometry would also suggest that the tail wheel being closer to the mainwheel gives a marginally greater deck angle, there is a mod which most of the fleet have incorporated which moves the tail wheel 6in further back Which apparently makes a big difference.

Someone at my club is building a motor glider version and I'm looking forward to comparing it to our "I can't believe it's not an XS".

Oh and the Europa one of the types the LAA were trailing for approval to fly in IMC. Though if the conditions are so crap you've resorted to an ILS to get down I wouldn't particularly want to be in a mono wheel for the eventual landing!

[carlmeek]

I'm an ex Europa owner, an xs trigear with Jabiru 3300 6 cylinder.

If you would like me opinion on it, PM me and I will let you know my thoughts.

[rotorfossil]

Unfortunately the Europa acquired a bad reputation in its early days. Several factors contributed. The build process was long and builders, usually trained on nose wheel types often lacked currency. The early Europa Classics, short tailwheel hard linked to the rudder, 80hp and fixed pitch prop had particular challenges.
If you operated from grass and more or less into wind, you might wonder what all the fuss was about. On an imperfect hard surface and a significant left hand crosswind, it was a real handful. While the tailwheel was on the ground, yaw control was positive and very sensitive. When the tail lifted, all the difficult bits happened together. A sharp left yaw helped by torque effect demanded an instant large rudder input. At the same time, the stabilisers lifted and it would roll away from the wind. Without anticipation and practice, this could and did caused departures from the runway, and insurers became unhappy. Fitting the extended sprung tailwheel with conventional spring connection to the rudder and a constant speed prop all helped considerably.
Once airborne, you could enjoy the beautifully harmonised sensitive controls, 120kt cruise and 15 litres/hr provided you weren't too tall.
The landing also had its challenges. In a crosswind, the wing down technique was not an option due to the stabilisers, neither was a landing on the main wheel first as the suspension was very stiff, and the slightest bump caused fore and aft pitching onto the tailwheel. You had to synchronise yawing it straight exactly to the moment that it touched down on main and tailwheel together and with the rudder then centred. Unfortunately, due to the shallow ground angle and the noticeable ground effect from the low wing and flaps, the wings were still flying until the speed dropped a lot so it was easy to get bounced back into the air going sideways. Also the hard tailwheel tended hop off the ground on hard surfaces leading to another sharp yaw. Again, the extended sprung tailwheel made life easier at the expense of an even shallower ground angle and some fore and aft bucketing on rough surfaces.
The nose wheel undercarriage solves the handling problems on takeoffs and landings at he expense of about 8kt loss of cruise speed or greater fuel consumption. The smaller wheels are less ideal on grass and there is a bit of fore and aft pitching due to the short wheelbase.
I have to say that I was more wary of crosswinds on the original Europas than on almost any other tailwheel type that I have flown, and converting people to them was a rather nervous business as things could go wrong very quickly.

[indyaachen]

wow ... rotor ... you seem to have beyond the intuitive knowledge about the original design.

Now that they have a tri-gear, how does it perform on the points you mention? Any experience?

[Jan Olieslagers]

Interesting to read, @rotorfossil, thanks for sharing your insights. Myself would be more interested, though, to learn how much of the mentioned issues remain in recent monowheel Europas. If ever I buy a Europa it will be a monowheel, because of the aerodynamic advantage - unless that be judged irrelevant.

[ChickenHouse]

One reason may be, there still is no certainty wether the Europa does have an issue or not. Last accident I am aware off, was the crash 2014-04-29 in german Lubeck ASN Aircraft accident 29-APR-2014 Europa D-EMJO (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=165871) , where two very skilled and experienced pilots died. AFAIK there ist still no accident report published, I wonder why?

[rotorfossil]

The trigear behaves pretty much like any other trigear aircraft, albeit with much more sensitive and harmonised controls and better visibility over the nose on the ground. Being able to use one stage of flap on takeoff (or none at all) and max flap for landing makes for better approach control, although the max flap is no greater than on the mono. Hence the approach is still rather flat and it is easy to allow the speed to increase leading to a long float.
The monos with the extended tail wheel and Spring connection to the rudder are much less of a problem on takeoff as it isn't absolutely necessary to raise the tail because of the shallower ground angle provided the longer run is not a issue. Europas tend to have varying stall characteristics as the wing is optimised for the cruise and tiny variations in build, bugs on the leading edge, mud in the flap slot cause differences in which wing drops. Early ones had very little stall warning. Now stall breaker strips and/or stall warners are the norm.
The shallower ground angle with the extended tail wheel tends to cause tail first arrivals. It then pitches down onto the main wheel and sometimes buckets fore and aft. Uncomfortable but at least the judgement of the "yaw it straight" in crosswinds is not so critical as the springs in the steerable tail wheel make yaw corrections easier.
Personally, unless operating almost exclusively from grass where the big monowheel has advantages over the small wheels of the trigear, I would accept the reduced cruise performance in exchange for less worries about crosswinds on the almost universal single runway airfields.
Again personally, I would chose the 80hp engine with an electric constant speed prop over the 100hp version with a fixed pitch prop. Better fuel consumption, less noise and perfectly adequate field performance. It's all a matter of individual choice.

[indyaachen]

It turns out, I was quite lucky to have a wish list and having it fulfilled so quickly ... well .... partly ;)

Yesterday, a very enthusiastic Europa-owner took me for in his trigear for a ride. From my limited experience, it felt like a very capable aircraft as people here have pointed out. The controls react quick, flies fast (we were cruising at 125 kts), has quite large baggage space and looks shiny :p
Yes, one has to weigh against the small cockpit leg-space. It would be difficult to fly more than a 3-hours-leg.
Well, I loved what I saw and felt.

My pilot friend commented that Europa is past it heydays. Anyone knows how many kits are they selling per year?