Thanks for the comments. I was not aware a BRS was a serious problem for t
he Europa. Nothing I have flown has had it=2C but I thought it would be a
nice add in an EXP. Scratch that.
For the range=2C I was looking for the maximum fuel load with me in the pla
ne and nothing else. In other words=2C useful load less 175 pounds all as
fuel with the tankage for it. Not sure where to put it=2C so if anyone has
done it that would be useful information. One thought was that the J.L. O
sborne Inc. tip tanks (for like a Comanche) actually "lift themselves" sinc
e the tanks and fuel weigh about the same as the additional gross weight pe
rmitted when you add the tip tanks on a Comanche. The tip tanks improve th
e wing performance and puts some weight on the "other end" of the wing wher
e it actually helps with the stress forces at the wing roots. But I suspec
t putting some weight out at the end of the MG wing may not be possible bec
ause of structural issues.
The turbo-diesel is obviously for altitude and fuel economy=2C but also for
speed. For economy cruise it would be running at slightly less than 50% p
ower. Speed or range=2C you can only get one. You can throttle back for m
ore economy=2C but for more speed you have to have enough power to pull it
along. The Europa performance sheet said 150kts at 10K with the Rotax 914
=2C and I expected a 120HP turbo-diesel to do as well for max speed=2C and
better than the 914 for max range.
I had looked at the WAM 120 because it has a peak power of 120HP=2C which i
s why I asked if it is possible to increase useful load with more power. M
any aircraft do. My Cherokee 180 has a higher max gross than the same airf
rame with less power. Does the Rotax 914 allow a higher max gross than the
912? If tip tanks are not possible=2C perhaps the long wings with the WAM
120 would rate an adjustment to the maximum gross? I am not sure how much
freedom the builder has to make these adjustments. Piper does it=2C but t
hey have an engineering staff to justify it. The STC for the Osborne tips
provdes for a gross weight increase=2C but they went through some steps to
prove the design.
At this point I am mostly looking for comments on the feasability of this u
sing the Europa MG as the platform. So far it seems to be the best option
=2C and where it can not be stretched to fit all the ideas (like the BRS) I
would scale back as necessary. I am just looking for the extent that the
optimum dream machine would need to be scaled back=2C using the Europa=3B b
efore making any decisions about getting started. Thanks again for the com
ments.
Dwight B. Van Zanen
22426 262 Ave. SE
Maple Valley=2C WA 98038
(425) 432-2213
dbvz@hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
|