why not more Europa around
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Günzburg, Germany
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why not more Europa around
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?
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?
The mono wheel aircraft requires above average pilot ability to avoid ground looping.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Günzburg, Germany
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mono wheel aircraft requires above average pilot ability to avoid ground looping.
But Europa has a tri-gear as well. In fact it has been around for a while now.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Europa vs RVs
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
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.
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
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.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: South UK
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In Exile...
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Günzburg, Germany
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Wonder what makes people go for mono-wheel setting.
Afterall there are many stories about it groundlooping.
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).
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).
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In Exile...
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Norfolk
Age: 84
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Günzburg, Germany
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Now that they have a tri-gear, how does it perform on the points you mention? Any experience?
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.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 , where two very skilled and experienced pilots died. AFAIK there ist still no accident report published, I wonder why?