Europa Aircraft
The Europa mono-wheel is absolutely, definitely, certainly not a good first aircraft purchase, unless the pilot is skilled on tailwheel types and ideally should also have experience on gliders (similar undercarriage). But the Europa mono is much more directionally twitchy on the ground than a typical glider.
The Europa tri-gear is as easy as most other tricycle types to land, but really needs to have the Rotax 912ULS 100hp engine in preference to the 912UL 80hp, in order to overcome rolling resistance on grass or soft surfaces. The smaller wheels, compared with the mono-wheel, "dig" into the surface and therefore need more horsepower.
As regards size of pilot, people up to 6ft 2ish will manage okay. The XS Europa has some differences from the earlier Classic and one improvement is the extended foot-well on the left side, which allows the pedals to be further away. Anyone heavier than 210lbs/15stone/95kg really shouldn't be looking to buy a Europa, due to load constraints. If heavier you would still have the option fly solo with a full tank , or cut down on the fuel load when carrying a passenger.
The Europa tri-gear is as easy as most other tricycle types to land, but really needs to have the Rotax 912ULS 100hp engine in preference to the 912UL 80hp, in order to overcome rolling resistance on grass or soft surfaces. The smaller wheels, compared with the mono-wheel, "dig" into the surface and therefore need more horsepower.
As regards size of pilot, people up to 6ft 2ish will manage okay. The XS Europa has some differences from the earlier Classic and one improvement is the extended foot-well on the left side, which allows the pedals to be further away. Anyone heavier than 210lbs/15stone/95kg really shouldn't be looking to buy a Europa, due to load constraints. If heavier you would still have the option fly solo with a full tank , or cut down on the fuel load when carrying a passenger.
Last edited by Colibri49; 20th Sep 2017 at 17:00.
That is quite a different ballpark: the Europa is a good deal heavier, it can never be an ultralight whereas the two others can and are. The Europa also really needs the 914 turbo and its 115 hp, while the smaller machines are happy with the basic 80 hp 912.
And I think the weight limits mentioned may perhaps apply to the Europa, but they certainly apply much more to the 450 kg class!
The Europa does make a superb tourer, though. If the monowheel is beyond you, why not consider the nose-dragger variant?
And I think the weight limits mentioned may perhaps apply to the Europa, but they certainly apply much more to the 450 kg class!
The Europa does make a superb tourer, though. If the monowheel is beyond you, why not consider the nose-dragger variant?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Dublin
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would look for the heavier variants of these machines in a 600kg kit. I am 6 ft 3 and have never been accused of being a lightweight. I would get similar performance from the lighter machines although I get the impression that the Europa is more robust.
By the way, I wouldn't mind getting converted to a tailwheel, but if I did the machine would have to be good at handling cross winds.
By the way, I wouldn't mind getting converted to a tailwheel, but if I did the machine would have to be good at handling cross winds.
Have a look at the fuel lines
I recently had a look inside a Europa. The fuel lines were clear plastic like you find at a DIY shop.
There was also a solvent like aroma.
There was also a solvent like aroma.
Some people will try to tell you that the mono Europa is okay/good in crosswinds. Yes, with enough skill and fast reaction times from the pilot's feet, it is. But the glaring difference between the Europa mono and other tailwheel types is that the Europa has only one brake on the central mono-wheel, while most "proper" tailwheel types have brakes on both main wheels.
The differential braking afforded by two main wheels each with brakes makes a huge difference. The Europa has only the steerable tailwheel on the ground to keep you straight and this device really isn't an adequate substitute for brakes on both pedals. Of course I'm not taking into account the Europa's powerful rudder, which isn't of much benefit at low speeds when most ground loops occur.
As has so often been said and I've seen it happen more than once: "It isn't a case of IF you're going to ground loop a Europa mono; it's WHEN!"
Last edited by Colibri49; 20th Sep 2017 at 17:43.
There is a 'Hi-Top' option for builders, which adds 4 inches of headroom; the standard fuselage is tight for over 6 foot (or 1.8M if you measure yourself in metric) pilots. The Hi-Top has the benefit of a better view ahead on the approach.
The trike u/c version is easier to handle, taxi and has no more drag than the original mono. You also have a landing flap setting (on the monowheel flaps are linked to the wheel and either up when the wheel is up or a compromise flap down setting when the wheel is down).
The trike u/c version is easier to handle, taxi and has no more drag than the original mono. You also have a landing flap setting (on the monowheel flaps are linked to the wheel and either up when the wheel is up or a compromise flap down setting when the wheel is down).
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: london
Age: 74
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly a tri gear and find it very comfortable even after a 4 hour flight, But i am 5'7" so below average height, as been said you can have a high top and width extension but obviously only if you are still building the fuselage,
they are a delightful aircraft to fly but i decided early on in my build that the mono wheel wasn't for me, this move proved correct when landing in a 30 kt crosswind in Finland a couple of years later,
there would have been no way a Mono would have stayed on the runway in those conditions,
To be fair to the mono they are lighter and faster and can land and take off from rough long grass far better than the tri gear, so its horses for courses as far as i'm concerned,
they are a delightful aircraft to fly but i decided early on in my build that the mono wheel wasn't for me, this move proved correct when landing in a 30 kt crosswind in Finland a couple of years later,
there would have been no way a Mono would have stayed on the runway in those conditions,
To be fair to the mono they are lighter and faster and can land and take off from rough long grass far better than the tri gear, so its horses for courses as far as i'm concerned,
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Dublin
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparing Bristell and Europa
It's interesting that you have flown both types. How were they to fly? Which had a better payload? Which landed and took off shorter? Finally which was faster?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The controls are very light in the S/C particularly in pitch on the early models.The S/C also has roughly 1metre more wingspan which is a lot thicker in chord and with a lower wing loading gets thrown about quite a bit more in turbulence than the Bristell.
Some of the S/C's have been loaded up with all the goodies known to man and consequently have a poorish payload. The Bristell has a roughly 30-40kg less empty weight to start with and so tends to have more payload but again it is dependant on what goodies have been fitted.
For short strip work the Sportcruiser is slightly better, the bigger wing giving more lift, earlier rotation speed and better early climb. However they both can be comfortably operated out of a 400metre strip.
Hope this helps...PM me if you need more info.
Last edited by Shoestring Flyer; 22nd Sep 2017 at 10:01.
The quoted cruise speed of the Bristell with a Rotax 912ULS 100hp engine is 116 knots, which I assume is at 75% power. With the same engine and power setting, the Europa tri-gear without wheel fairings (spats/pants) is about the same speed, but with the fairings it cruises 5 knots faster. The Bristell already has the fairings, so nothing more can be gained.
The Europa mono-wheel cruises at around 125 knots with the same engine, while the fastest Europa mono with the Rotax 914 turbo 115hp can make well above 150 knots TAS cruising at 10,000 ft. I have performed a WOT check in such a Europa at 2000 ft and seen Vne 165 knots indicated straight and level.
Generally Europas are a lot less capable load-wise that the Bristell, but having a higher wing loading they cope much better in turbulence. With full fuel the Bristell can go maybe 50% further, but most people don't want to travel for so long between pee stops. In the UK the maximum weight allowed for a Europa is 622 kg (1370 lbs). Empty weights of Europas vary widely, but the last time I tried to calculate a fleet average, the answer I got was around 400 kg (880 lbs). So the difference of 222 kg (490 lbs), less full fuel 49 kg (108 lbs) leaves 173 kg (380 lbs) to play with. Not much!
As regards tall pilots, the XS has the extended foot-well and pedals on the left, with no adjustment possible apart from cushions. I've seen tall pilots cope well enough without the Hi-Top modification, but they use very thin cushions.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Speed in anything with a Rotax 912S engine, more so really than a Lycosaurus, is relative to engine speed and how fast you want to go and how much fuel you want to burn. A Bristell is a bit faster than a Sportcruiser but both depend on if you have a fixed pitched prop or a VP/CS prop. A Bristell will do 120knots but at that engine speed you will be burning 20litres per hour. A 914 engined Europa may be slightly faster but will be burning 25litres per hour for the same engine speed.
A S/C will do 112knots for the same fuel burn if fitted with a VP prop but will barely do 100knots without the VP prop at the same engine speed.
A lot of BS is talked about how fast an aircraft will go but it is all relative to how much you want to push the throttle in and how much fuel you want to burn.
A few knots here and there make very little difference to most journeys and the unltimate satisfaction of flying an aircraft that you are comfortable in and that you get real enjoyment out of flying.
A S/C will do 112knots for the same fuel burn if fitted with a VP prop but will barely do 100knots without the VP prop at the same engine speed.
A lot of BS is talked about how fast an aircraft will go but it is all relative to how much you want to push the throttle in and how much fuel you want to burn.
A few knots here and there make very little difference to most journeys and the unltimate satisfaction of flying an aircraft that you are comfortable in and that you get real enjoyment out of flying.
Last edited by Shoestring Flyer; 22nd Sep 2017 at 15:22.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: london
Age: 74
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Bristell is a bit faster than a Sportcruiser but both depend on if you have a fixed pitched prop or a VP/CS prop. A Bristell will do 120knots but at that engine speed you will be burning 20litres per hour. A 914 engined Europa may be slightly faster but will be burning 25litres per hour for the same engine speed
Sorry that's incorrect! My 914 Europa Tri gear burns 18 litre an hour at 115 KTs, that's at 28 Map and 5000rpm,
admittedly that's with a constant speed prop, Being a tri gear it isn't the lightest or as streamlined as the Mono but is way more efficient than you stated,
Sorry that's incorrect! My 914 Europa Tri gear burns 18 litre an hour at 115 KTs, that's at 28 Map and 5000rpm,
admittedly that's with a constant speed prop, Being a tri gear it isn't the lightest or as streamlined as the Mono but is way more efficient than you stated,
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In Exile...
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VP prop made a massive difference with ours. I flew it once or twice with the fixed pitch prop and it was a dog in comparison.
VP prop, monowheel made 120kts at high speed cruise on 18lph (but bring your own noise cancelling headsets), or 115kts at 14-15lph somewhere around 5100rpm.
VP prop, monowheel made 120kts at high speed cruise on 18lph (but bring your own noise cancelling headsets), or 115kts at 14-15lph somewhere around 5100rpm.
From the Rotax owner's manual and according to the advice I received from a well-known Rotax guru, the 912ULS "sweet spot" is 4800 rpm at 26" MAP, which gives 65% cruise power (60 HP) and burns 18 L/h. I achieve exactly this fuel burn at this power setting when adjusting my CS/VP prop manually to 4800 rpm and 26".
In calm air this provides 118 knot cruise S & L in my tri-gear Europa without wheel fairings (spats/pants). The altitude to get this indicated airspeed is around 1500 ft. Earlier in this topic I erroneously stated 75% power.
By the way, on average Europa tri-gears are about 16 kg (36 lbs) heavier than mono-wheels.
In calm air this provides 118 knot cruise S & L in my tri-gear Europa without wheel fairings (spats/pants). The altitude to get this indicated airspeed is around 1500 ft. Earlier in this topic I erroneously stated 75% power.
By the way, on average Europa tri-gears are about 16 kg (36 lbs) heavier than mono-wheels.
Last edited by Colibri49; 23rd Sep 2017 at 09:03.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of the border
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Europa suitability
I have a Europa XS Tri-gear.
I am 5ft 10 inches in old money and weigh 106 kilos. Last weekend I flew with a passenger of about the same weight as me and he is nearly six foot.
We were off the ground in about 350 metres on a grass strip in Scotland without any problems.
I am normally airborne in 200/250 metres if flying solo.
Cruise is 120 KTS without wheel spats and 130 with them. Fuel burn is about 15 LPH as I have an electrically controlled VP prop.
I have owned nearly 30 aircraft and about 25 of these were different types. (Four Twin Comanches and two C182's, two Fujis and two RV6A and 7A). I would find it very hard to find another aircraft that would perform all round better than the Europa. Yes, RV's are faster but burn more fuel and the aircraft cost about twice as much as my Europa. I can cover the same distance for far less fuel and arrive only a few minutes later than an RV plus I use MOGAS at car pump prices.
If the original poster would like to PM me I can give them more information.
I am 5ft 10 inches in old money and weigh 106 kilos. Last weekend I flew with a passenger of about the same weight as me and he is nearly six foot.
We were off the ground in about 350 metres on a grass strip in Scotland without any problems.
I am normally airborne in 200/250 metres if flying solo.
Cruise is 120 KTS without wheel spats and 130 with them. Fuel burn is about 15 LPH as I have an electrically controlled VP prop.
I have owned nearly 30 aircraft and about 25 of these were different types. (Four Twin Comanches and two C182's, two Fujis and two RV6A and 7A). I would find it very hard to find another aircraft that would perform all round better than the Europa. Yes, RV's are faster but burn more fuel and the aircraft cost about twice as much as my Europa. I can cover the same distance for far less fuel and arrive only a few minutes later than an RV plus I use MOGAS at car pump prices.
If the original poster would like to PM me I can give them more information.