|
Matronics Email Lists Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
barp99(at)gmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2022 10:42 pm Post subject: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
Hi Area 51,
I see you mention a 915, I'm wondering if you have any data on a 915 in
a Europa, I would love to hear about it, as I am at engine decision
point and have assumed it would be too heavy up front to stay within W&B
and safe operating loads.
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 9/11/2022 1:38 pm, Area-51 wrote:
Quote: |
Very exciting and intense sessions at the design table all week... finished off modelling the instrument panel and interior cabin environment; adding takeoffs for fixings and control lever slots... the sticks and pedals are in along with the spaceframe... next up are the doors... the Rotax 912, 914, and 915 are all sitting there waiting to be popped in when the time comes... will move onto the rear section shortly to add the control surface mechanicals... its hours and hours of arduous and rewarding work.... learning a lot about the aircraft through the process.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=508544#508544
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/a6834e31_4b2a_4ca7_b8e0_a0238a65a4cd_200.jpeg
|
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Area-51
Joined: 03 May 2021 Posts: 396
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2022 2:36 am Post subject: Re: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
No flight data available on a 915 in a europa; this is all work undertaken in a 3D modelling environment... a limitless sandpit.
W&B is just that. More weight up front means more required in the rear; very simple equation. AUW increase and higher stall speeds will be the major result plus added stress/strain load factors upon the factory space frame.
Flight characteristics would be no different than adding 30kg loading to a standard europa; except the extra torque of the engine will improve acceleration and energy to overcome total drag...
You never get the above without more BTU's going in; that's a fairly fixed formula.
The Europa is a very low drag airframe; its pretty much as good as it will ever get straight out of the box.
More torque at the propeller is pretty much the only improvement available to increase its performance.
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
barp99(at)gmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2022 6:14 pm Post subject: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
Thanks Pete, you are right, a 915 with an Airmaster using published figures comes in at 217 Lbs, so the 220lbs+ would be the real FWF weight, along with the longer arm. I checked with Europa, they said they were unaware of any installed 915's and were unable to confirm it could be done. I would love the extra horsepower but just don't want to be a test pilot : )
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 9/11/2022 10:09 pm, Pete Zut wrote:
Quote: | The 915iS has just gotta be too heavy, and being longer making it even worse. I heard 220lbs+ with intercooler etc., plus a heavy airmaster?
cheers,
PeteZ
On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 1:49 AM Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com (barp99(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
Quote: | --> Europa-List message posted by: Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com (barp99(at)gmail.com)>
Hi Area 51,
I see you mention a 915, I'm wondering if you have any data on a 915 in
a Europa, I would love to hear about it, as I am at engine decision
point and have assumed it would be too heavy up front to stay within W&B
and safe operating loads.
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 9/11/2022 1:38 pm, Area-51 wrote:
> --> Europa-List message posted by: "Area-51" <goldsteinindustrial(at)gmail.com (goldsteinindustrial(at)gmail.com)>
>
> Very exciting and intense sessions at the design table all week... finished off modelling the instrument panel and interior cabin environment; adding takeoffs for fixings and control lever slots... the sticks and pedals are in along with the spaceframe... next up are the doors... the Rotax 912, 914, and 915 are all sitting there waiting to be popped in when the time comes... will move onto the rear section shortly to add the control surface mechanicals... its hours and hours of arduous and rewarding work.... learning a lot about the aircraft through the process.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=508544#508544
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/a6834e31_4b2a_4ca7_b8e0_a0238a65a4cd_200.jpeg
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
pa-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
===========
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
===========
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
===========
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://matronics.com/contribution
===========
|
|
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Area-51
Joined: 03 May 2021 Posts: 396
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2022 10:51 pm Post subject: Re: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
Brian the Edge Performance engines are worth looking at if forward mass is a concern... the Gen4 6cyl Jabiru is said to finally be showing reliability but i would still choose Edge over Jabiru
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
budyerly@msn.com
Joined: 05 Oct 2019 Posts: 288 Location: Florida USA
|
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2022 9:35 am Post subject: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
Pete, as you are most aware and Brian you are learning fast:
Weight is the enemy of an airplane. Especially the Europa, as it is a very compact aircraft. If I add 15 horsepower, but it moves the CG forward, requires a prop extension and a constant speed prop, the CG is going to be somewhere around the spinner. Now we move the battery back, run longer heavier cables and as much more to the rear as possible such as autopilots, ELTs, etc. to counterbalance the nose. The weight just keeps going up. The Europa XS is 100 pounds heavier than the equivalent Europa Classic even with the XS fuselage module and firewall forward. The 912 80 HP is not a spectacular performer but will give 30 ANMPG at low altitude or with a leaning device at altitudes up to about 10,000 feet. Cruise is in the 120-130 knot range. The 912S raised the cruise about 5 knots more. The 914 doubles the climb rate, ups cruise to at least 140-145 knot range at the same 25 ANMPG as the 912S on a tricycle gear aircraft of course. The mono is faster and lighter of course.
As I learned on modifying the 914 to fuel injection. Customers moved the boost up to get more power but complained it burned more fuel. The only advantage was more power with less reliability. Fuel burn was basically the same at 31 inches and 5000 RPM. So, what did I gain? Slightly more power for climb but more heat to dissipate, a bigger radiator and shallow climb was necessary to cool. BTU requirements are the same for the same amount of power at the same fuel air ratio and varies little with displacement. Aircraft engines run at constant RPMs like a marine engines, so a carb is just as good as fuel injection except for altitude performance of a normally aspirated engine with no leaning. The Bing stops leaning after about 3500 feet in the normally aspirated engine. So, an after market leaning system is necessary for the high altitude flyers to improve fuel efficiency of the 912/912S. The Rotax 914 is ideal for higher altitude operations and frankly ideal for the Europa but at a higher cost. I believe the 914 totally transformed the Europa into a great airplane. Reliability of the 914 is now as good as the 912S but as we all know, there are techniques and inspections required to keep it running like new.
Normally a 912 through the 914 will go 1000 hours with only carb maintenance/oil changes. Overspeed of the engine is an issue many ignore. The valves can and do contact the piston if oversped. Prop strikes are ignored also by many STOL operators and taildragger/mono.
I do a top overhaul at about 500-600 hours (gearbox, clean up the valves, inspect the rings/cylinders) and press on. Repeat at 1000 hours and the engine is good to 1500 hours. The cleanup of the valves restores compression to like new or better than new and is really a surprise when a 914 burps after only about 5 blades of rotation.
I have no experience with the latest Edge Performance engines, but I do with the so called "Big Bore" engines done here in the States some years ago. They do put out more power. But for how long? Over the years the stock Rotax 100 HP 912S (especially the new blocks) last and last. Most of the Big Bores were back in after as short as 200 hours. But we have many cowboys here in the States that just want more power but won't pay for it to get power and reliability. I was around for the first of these Big Bore mods. As Edge Performance has found out, the crank shaft, and many other formally robust Rotax parts are now under more stress and required "upgrade". This costs money. My hats off to them, as they have at least backed their engines. In their defense, some of our “cowboys” here in the States are running regular car fuel. This causes detonation for sure. I can’t fix stupid!
If you need more power keep in mind in general you will need more gas, gain weight, reduce reliability, increase inspection requirements, require greater cooling mass, and of course add cost. An airplane is 20,000 compromises flying in close formation. If you change one thing, you affect 20 others. Choose wisely.
Example: Charts are scare still for the 915.
5000 RPM wide open throttle 87 KW or about 115 HP (10-20 more than the 914 depending on MP and TCU.) Fuel flow 27 L/hr or 7.1GPH.
A 20 HP increase on N12AY (Trigear) yields a cruise speed increase of nearly 10-13 Kts above 10,000 feet which is better than most.
However, the range in Air Nautical Mile per Gallon does not increase it decreases from about 25 ANMPG to 20 ANMPG.
The Europa drag goes up beyond 140 Knots by a cube root for the trigear. The mono is much better at still basically a square root curve. More horsepower doesn’t give me impressive efficiency or speed.
The 914 fits easily in the Europa XS, will cool, accepts a constant speed prop without issue or added extensions, has a reasonable fuel burn and will get you to 10,000 feet in about 11-13 minutes in a cruise climb. I can put out 70 to 95 horsepower continuous for cruise (typically 140-145 for a trigear) or max speed. Both the 912S/iS and Big Bore require the same octane fuel as the 914 so no advantage. The 914 turbo takes care of most of the issues with density altitude, it allows the Bing to work ideally from cruise to max continuous from the surface to service ceiling (which is well above 25,000 which is our human physiological limit without cabin pressurization). We know how to maintain it, the TCU has been modified and I can setup, troubleshoot or simply run a data dump from my laptop running Windows 7 through 10 without a special dongle. I don’t have Windows 11 yet, but it should work also. Carbs are easy to balance, and the installation manual is easy to follow. Always follow the engine installation manual in conjunction with the airframe firewall forward manual .
The 915 was never designed to fit a standard Rotax engine mount and does not fit most experimental aircraft firewall forwards. Extensive work is necessary to retrofit the 915 to a 912/914 airframe. The 915 is unmaintainable but for plugs and oil change without a “buds” system for the average owner to tell you what it’s doing but the troubleshooting manual is a bit sparce. Much study and patience is needed as the 915 goes through its teething issues. It runs lean on the ground like the 912iS and will overheat easily during an extended taxi out. Automatic systems means you the pilot lose control. Many 912iS owners hate the power drop off and find economy only comes through lower power. They have found fuel burn is the same for the same speed after an engine change from the S to the iS. The 915 has a similar issue with the power requirements. It is not like hopping into your BMW tubo and everything works. It is still like the 1980’s first gen fuel injection and turbo mods. Today it all works flawlessly in our autos, but with larger cooling requirements and components taking up more space under the hood. The 915 is not quite a plug and play engine electrically either. Look at Sling and their learning curve. The 4 place needs 140-150 HP. The two place not so much. Guys are looking hard at the difference.
In summary, the Europa was designed for about 100HP engines of light weight. It is fast and efficient for a 100HP 500 pound payload airplane. More weight makes the induced drag go up. The mono airframe was not designed to go faster than about 170 KTAS at 20,000 feet at an empty weight of 900 pounds. If you go above 900 pounds empty weight, the plane gets sluggish, speed drops and range is decreased. In the States, a 1000 mile per day range airplane is essential for getting around west of the Mississippi river. For my snow birds coming from Canada to Florida for the winter, they need that range also. Frankly, a bigger engine makes for shorter hops, less payload, and a longer day. More horsepower is not as important as more torque. Torque turns the prop, HP just makes it spin up faster.
Keep it light, keep it simple, and it will be a trouble-free steed with stock components. Work on drag reduction and keeping the weight down. Not by slapping more horsepower, weight, complexity, and cost on a very small airframe.
Just my thoughts….
Best Regards,
Bud Yerly
--
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
lantieau
Joined: 29 Jan 2018 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:55 pm Post subject: Re: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
These are great insights, thanks for providing details. It does seem there are significant advantages to the 914 vs a 912S. The focus always seems to be on maximizing speed at the cost of range.
If you're flying at high altitude with a 914 with a decent tailwind, does it make sense to pull the power to a low cruise setting to save fuel while keeping a reasonable speed? You mention that we should expect 25 ANMPG with a 914. What does that number look like at a reduced power setting at altitude?
My thinking is that a low power cruise would allow to sacrifice some speed in exchange for more time aloft, in the end, increasing range and ANMPG. With a 914, what is the optimal power setting/altitude to mazimize fuel economy/range assuming wind is not a factor?
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
budyerly@msn.com
Joined: 05 Oct 2019 Posts: 288 Location: Florida USA
|
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2022 4:56 pm Post subject: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
Pete,
Another nit is if you fly the 912S Europa at the best range speed which is about 108 Kts according to my drag tests or a bit slower if flying lower altitude the Bing at 2500 MSL going about 113 KTAS or about 108 IAS you would swear you are making gas.
My memory is failing I’m afraid and I can’t find the 912S flight test data any longer in my files. It is somewhere. At 10,000 Ft, 12AY will fly with only 25-30 HP. At 94 KTAS it is painfully slow but the gas milage is great. Unfortunately, with the 912S aircraft I have helped build, I fly near WOT with a constant speed prop lugging the engine down at about 4800 RPM and 24.5 inches for best cruise ANMPG according to the fuel flow/TAS data from the EFIS. If I recall it is almost 120 KTAS at about 4.7 GPH or about 26.6 ANMPG and that burns a bit more gas unfortunately as I am impatient and want speed and reasonable range, if I go to 5000 RPM and near full throttle at 7500MSL it will do about 25NMPG and 126 knots which I have the patience for.. The Hac Man leaning device makes it better yet. So, I fly mostly above max range. Unfortunately, most of the 912S equipped Europa’s are trigear and heavy that we built. 1000 pounds empty. Built for comfort not speed I’m afraid. These new EFIS allow you to get instant data rather than laborious data taking.
Creighton Smith has a 912 Mono Classic and he runs about 5000 and about 24 inches and that 912 80HP plane makes gas. With the Hac Man leaning device he gets excellent range and the plane definitely needs a relief tube.
Enough airplane stuff, time to get ready for a another presentation this weekend.
Here is a chart I did on my Trigear while drag testing:
Bud
<![endif]--><![if !vml]> [img]cid:image002.png(at)01D8F53E.5AFC6EE0[/img] <![endif]><![endif]-->
--
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
Description: |
|
Filesize: |
173.29 KB |
Viewed: |
3899 Time(s) |
|
Description: |
|
Filesize: |
98.39 KB |
Viewed: |
3899 Time(s) |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
budyerly@msn.com
Joined: 05 Oct 2019 Posts: 288 Location: Florida USA
|
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2022 5:28 pm Post subject: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
It always makes sense to do that. In the max range computations from Aero it looks like this:
Shown in green is a tailwind, red is no wind, and pink is a headwind. For a small plane it isnt much of a speed difference but max range is rarely flown either in a light plane.
No experimental manufacturer makes charts for best range, cruise, headwind, tailwind or altitude. You have to do that yourself.
<![endif]--><![if !vml]> [img]cid:image003.jpg(at)01D8F542.E382DAC0[/img] <![endif]><![endif]-->
Look at the charts from the manufacturer. You can see the HP vs FF at different power settings. If you pull the power back to say 4800/28 inches slows the plane fuel burn and gets you closer to your max range. Then at various altitudes and power setting within the limits in the charts.
Alt RPM MP FF IAS TAS ANMPG
10000 5500 35 6.9 122 145 21.0
5200 32 6 120 140 23.3
5000 31 5.6 116 138 24.6
4800 28 4.6 106 128 27.8
As you can see, less speed, less drag (until L/D max) which means power is less as is fuel flow and range increases until that tangent point above. Even with this prop (it was not an impressive prop) it clearly shows it takes about 50 HP to do 48/28, but to go down to 4500/28 the engine sounds like it is lugging but fuel flow is now 4 GPH and the speed is down to about 110 KTAS and the ANMPG starts to go up. Now you know you have about your proper power setting for max range. You also have to think about the engine. Lugging down the engine is not good, neither is running the oil and cht temps too low in the quest for max range. The unfortunate thing in most engines is we cant control our boost, we only control the throttle plate and the TCU controls the wastegate. The Bing controls the fuel flow and eventually you hit operational limits. The 912iS and 915 attempted to make the engine more efficient and it gets the fuel flow and power lower than a normal 914 but you must use care with the RPM or prop control. Pull the RPM down too low and you can still lug the engine and perhaps even detonate it as the I engines dont have an antiknock sensor.
Youve got to know your limitations I guess.
Regards,
Bud Yerly
--
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
Description: |
|
Filesize: |
13.16 KB |
Viewed: |
3899 Time(s) |
|
Description: |
|
Filesize: |
28.41 KB |
Viewed: |
3899 Time(s) |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
barp99(at)gmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2022 3:05 am Post subject: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
Bud, thanks very much for your well laid out advice below, much appreciated, your background knowledge never ceases to amaze me.
You have talked me out of the 915, the thought of doing all the retrofit work, along with the weight issues, its just not worth it, and I would never finish it. I am still interested in the 912Is, & was thinking about the Edge 1484cc big bore kit. Your comments below about some of the US based big bore kits has got me thinking again. 10.5:1 CR does seem a little high, combined with no detonation detection feedback loop, does sound a bit risky. Edge performance don't play with the Rotax FI software, they supply a fuel pressure reg that increases the rail pressure, so the pump/s are working harder, again an added risk. Add to that limited operational history, makes the 914 look an even better outcome. As you say, 20,000 compromises flying in close formation.
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 11/11/2022 4:34 am, Bud Yerly wrote:
Quote: | <![endif]--> Clean Clean false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE <![endif]--> <![endif]--> (at)font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536869121 1107305727 33554432 0 415 0;}(at)font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-469750017 -1073732485 9 0 511 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:#0563C1; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;}a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:#954F72; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;}p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText {mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char"; margin:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.5pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}span.PlainTextChar {mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char"; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:"Plain Text"; mso-bidi-font-size:10.5pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;}span.GramE {mso-style-name:""; mso-gram-e:yes;}.MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} <![endif]--> <![endif]--> <![endif]-->
Pete, as you are most aware and Brian you are learning fast:
Weight is the enemy of an airplane. Especially the Europa, as it is a very compact aircraft. If I add 15 horsepower, but it moves the CG forward, requires a prop extension and a constant speed prop, the CG is going to be somewhere around the spinner. Now we move the battery back, run longer heavier cables and as much more to the rear as possible such as autopilots, ELTs, etc. to counterbalance the nose. The weight just keeps going up. The Europa XS is 100 pounds heavier than the equivalent Europa Classic even with the XS fuselage module and firewall forward. The 912 80 HP is not a spectacular performer but will give 30 ANMPG at low altitude or with a leaning device at altitudes up to about 10,000 feet. Cruise is in the 120-130 knot range. The 912S raised the cruise about 5 knots more. The 914 doubles the climb rate, ups cruise to at least 140-145 knot range at the same 25 ANMPG as the 912S on a tricycle gear aircraft of course. The mono is faster and lighter of course.
As I learned on modifying the 914 to fuel injection. Customers moved the boost up to get more power but complained it burned more fuel. The only advantage was more power with less reliability. Fuel burn was basically the same at 31 inches and 5000 RPM. So, what did I gain? Slightly more power for climb but more heat to dissipate, a bigger radiator and shallow climb was necessary to cool. BTU requirements are the same for the same amount of power at the same fuel air ratio and varies little with displacement. Aircraft engines run at constant RPMs like a marine engines, so a carb is just as good as fuel injection except for altitude performance of a normally aspirated engine with no leaning. The Bing stops leaning after about 3500 feet in the normally aspirated engine. So, an after market leaning system is necessary for the high altitude flyers to improve fuel efficiency of the 912/912S. The Rotax 914 is ideal for higher altitude operations and frankly ideal for the Europa but at a higher cost. I believe the 914 totally transformed the Europa into a great airplane. Reliability of the 914 is now as good as the 912S but as we all know, there are techniques and inspections required to keep it running like new.
Normally a 912 through the 914 will go 1000 hours with only carb maintenance/oil changes. Overspeed of the engine is an issue many ignore. The valves can and do contact the piston if oversped. Prop strikes are ignored also by many STOL operators and taildragger/mono.
I do a top overhaul at about 500-600 hours (gearbox, clean up the valves, inspect the rings/cylinders) and press on. Repeat at 1000 hours and the engine is good to 1500 hours. The cleanup of the valves restores compression to like new or better than new and is really a surprise when a 914 burps after only about 5 blades of rotation.
I have no experience with the latest Edge Performance engines, but I do with the so called "Big Bore" engines done here in the States some years ago. They do put out more power. But for how long? Over the years the stock Rotax 100 HP 912S (especially the new blocks) last and last. Most of the Big Bores were back in after as short as 200 hours. But we have many cowboys here in the States that just want more power but won't pay for it to get power and reliability. I was around for the first of these Big Bore mods. As Edge Performance has found out, the crank shaft, and many other formally robust Rotax parts are now under more stress and required "upgrade". This costs money. My hats off to them, as they have at least backed their engines. In their defense, some of our “cowboys” here in the States are running regular car fuel. This causes detonation for sure. I can’t fix stupid!
If you need more power keep in mind in general you will need more gas, gain weight, reduce reliability, increase inspection requirements, require greater cooling mass, and of course add cost. An airplane is 20,000 compromises flying in close formation. If you change one thing, you affect 20 others. Choose wisely.
Example: Charts are scare still for the 915.
5000 RPM wide open throttle 87 KW or about 115 HP (10-20 more than the 914 depending on MP and TCU.) Fuel flow 27 L/hr or 7.1GPH.
A 20 HP increase on N12AY (Trigear) yields a cruise speed increase of nearly 10-13 Kts above 10,000 feet which is better than most.
However, the range in Air Nautical Mile per Gallon does not increase it decreases from about 25 ANMPG to 20 ANMPG.
The Europa drag goes up beyond 140 Knots by a cube root for the trigear. The mono is much better at still basically a square root curve. More horsepower doesn’t give me impressive efficiency or speed.
The 914 fits easily in the Europa XS, will cool, accepts a constant speed prop without issue or added extensions, has a reasonable fuel burn and will get you to 10,000 feet in about 11-13 minutes in a cruise climb. I can put out 70 to 95 horsepower continuous for cruise (typically 140-145 for a trigear) or max speed. Both the 912S/iS and Big Bore require the same octane fuel as the 914 so no advantage. The 914 turbo takes care of most of the issues with density altitude, it allows the Bing to work ideally from cruise to max continuous from the surface to service ceiling (which is well above 25,000 which is our human physiological limit without cabin pressurization). We know how to maintain it, the TCU has been modified and I can setup, troubleshoot or simply run a data dump from my laptop running Windows 7 through 10 without a special dongle. I don’t have Windows 11 yet, but it should work also. Carbs are easy to balance, and the installation manual is easy to follow. Always follow the engine installation manual in conjunction with the airframe firewall forward manual .
The 915 was never designed to fit a standard Rotax engine mount and does not fit most experimental aircraft firewall forwards. Extensive work is necessary to retrofit the 915 to a 912/914 airframe. The 915 is unmaintainable but for plugs and oil change without a “buds” system for the average owner to tell you what it’s doing but the troubleshooting manual is a bit sparce. Much study and patience is needed as the 915 goes through its teething issues. It runs lean on the ground like the 912iS and will overheat easily during an extended taxi out. Automatic systems means you the pilot lose control. Many 912iS owners hate the power drop off and find economy only comes through lower power. They have found fuel burn is the same for the same speed after an engine change from the S to the iS. The 915 has a similar issue with the power requirements. It is not like hopping into your BMW tubo and everything works. It is still like the 1980’s first gen fuel injection and turbo mods. Today it all works flawlessly in our autos, but with larger cooling requirements and components taking up more space under the hood. The 915 is not quite a plug and play engine electrically either. Look at Sling and their learning curve. The 4 place needs 140-150 HP. The two place not so much. Guys are looking hard at the difference.
In summary, the Europa was designed for about 100HP engines of light weight. It is fast and efficient for a 100HP 500 pound payload airplane. More weight makes the induced drag go up. The mono airframe was not designed to go faster than about 170 KTAS at 20,000 feet at an empty weight of 900 pounds. If you go above 900 pounds empty weight, the plane gets sluggish, speed drops and range is decreased. In the States, a 1000 mile per day range airplane is essential for getting around west of the Mississippi river. For my snow birds coming from Canada to Florida for the winter, they need that range also. Frankly, a bigger engine makes for shorter hops, less payload, and a longer day. More horsepower is not as important as more torque. Torque turns the prop, HP just makes it spin up faster.
Keep it light, keep it simple, and it will be a trouble-free steed with stock components. Work on drag reduction and keeping the weight down. Not by slapping more horsepower, weight, complexity, and cost on a very small airframe.
Just my thoughts….
Best Regards,
Bud Yerly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) <owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com> (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) On Behalf Of Pete
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 6:59 AM
To: europa-list(at)matronics.com (europa-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Re: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22
--> Europa-List message posted by: Pete <peterz(at)zutrasoft.com (peterz(at)zutrasoft.com)>
….except for the concerns of Edge welded cranks (cracking), and single point of failure (FI).
Cheers,
PeteZ
- The Europa-List Email Forum -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matronics.com%2FNavigator%3FEuropa-List&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wm%2FStj0pmmpyz3Mig2LnRkBfFdsMx6SLnhjzkK37%2Bc0%3D&reserved=0
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ycdDH2pLsucuLwZ1D%2BRcZsnydcBK5AXdQ6ZEjp%2FjBDQ%3D&reserved=0
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=H82eUxCpMT3FC%2B47WY13DthUPxRlKcO8Slvw4b4BIv4%3D&reserved=0
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmatronics.com%2Fcontribution&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BJyIGhvIq4pT7mzs62M9oV5AvbuxUVmXHUlH%2FDEvC%2Bg%3D&reserved=0
|
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterz(at)zutrasoft.com Guest
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2022 3:30 am Post subject: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
My experience conversing with Edge’s principal over the years, fwiw, is that he is chock full of confidence, many good ideas but peppered with some critical bad ones -which he will not acknowledge, and lets his customers “prove him wrong”. And some have (ex: cracked/failed welded crank). Too few accumulated hours to tease out all that pepper.
Same syndrome as Jan at viking (although Jan even lacks the engineering basics).
Difficult to watch.
Cheers,
PeteZ
Quote: | On Nov 11, 2022, at 6:13 AM, Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Bud, thanks very much for your well laid out advice below, much appreciated, your background knowledge never ceases to amaze me.
You have talked me out of the 915, the thought of doing all the retrofit work, along with the weight issues, its just not worth it, and I would never finish it. I am still interested in the 912Is, & was thinking about the Edge 1484cc big bore kit. Your comments below about some of the US based big bore kits has got me thinking again. 10.5:1 CR does seem a little high, combined with no detonation detection feedback loop, does sound a bit risky. Edge performance don't play with the Rotax FI software, they supply a fuel pressure reg that increases the rail pressure, so the pump/s are working harder, again an added risk. Add to that limited operational history, makes the 914 look an even better outcome. As you say, 20,000 compromises flying in close formation.
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 11/11/2022 4:34 am, Bud Yerly wrote:
Quote: | <![endif]--> Clean Clean false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE <![endif]--> <![endif]--> (at)font-face { font-family: "Cambria Math"; } (at)font-face { font-family: Calibri; } p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; } a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: rgb(5, 99, 193); text-decoration: underline; } a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: rgb(149, 79, 114); text-decoration: underline; } p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText { margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; } span.PlainTextChar { font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; } span.GramE { } .MsoChpDefault { font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; } div.WordSection1 { page: WordSection1; }/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} <![endif]--> <![endif]--> <![endif]-->
Pete, as you are most aware and Brian you are learning fast:
Weight is the enemy of an airplane. Especially the Europa, as it is a very compact aircraft. If I add 15 horsepower, but it moves the CG forward, requires a prop extension and a constant speed prop, the CG is going to be somewhere around the spinner. Now we move the battery back, run longer heavier cables and as much more to the rear as possible such as autopilots, ELTs, etc. to counterbalance the nose. The weight just keeps going up. The Europa XS is 100 pounds heavier than the equivalent Europa Classic even with the XS fuselage module and firewall forward. The 912 80 HP is not a spectacular performer but will give 30 ANMPG at low altitude or with a leaning device at altitudes up to about 10,000 feet. Cruise is in the 120-130 knot range. The 912S raised the cruise about 5 knots more. The 914 doubles the climb rate, ups cruise to at least 140-145 knot range at the same 25 ANMPG as the 912S on a tricycle gear aircraft of course. The mono is faster and lighter of course.
As I learned on modifying the 914 to fuel injection. Customers moved the boost up to get more power but complained it burned more fuel. The only advantage was more power with less reliability. Fuel burn was basically the same at 31 inches and 5000 RPM. So, what did I gain? Slightly more power for climb but more heat to dissipate, a bigger radiator and shallow climb was necessary to cool. BTU requirements are the same for the same amount of power at the same fuel air ratio and varies little with displacement. Aircraft engines run at constant RPMs like a marine engines, so a carb is just as good as fuel injection except for altitude performance of a normally aspirated engine with no leaning. The Bing stops leaning after about 3500 feet in the normally aspirated engine. So, an after market leaning system is necessary for the high altitude flyers to improve fuel efficiency of the 912/912S. The Rotax 914 is ideal for higher altitude operations and frankly ideal for the Europa but at a higher cost. I believe the 914 totally transformed the Europa into a great airplane. Reliability of the 914 is now as good as the 912S but as we all know, there are techniques and inspections required to keep it running like new.
Normally a 912 through the 914 will go 1000 hours with only carb maintenance/oil changes. Overspeed of the engine is an issue many ignore. The valves can and do contact the piston if oversped. Prop strikes are ignored also by many STOL operators and taildragger/mono.
I do a top overhaul at about 500-600 hours (gearbox, clean up the valves, inspect the rings/cylinders) and press on. Repeat at 1000 hours and the engine is good to 1500 hours. The cleanup of the valves restores compression to like new or better than new and is really a surprise when a 914 burps after only about 5 blades of rotation.
I have no experience with the latest Edge Performance engines, but I do with the so called "Big Bore" engines done here in the States some years ago. They do put out more power. But for how long? Over the years the stock Rotax 100 HP 912S (especially the new blocks) last and last. Most of the Big Bores were back in after as short as 200 hours. But we have many cowboys here in the States that just want more power but won't pay for it to get power and reliability. I was around for the first of these Big Bore mods. As Edge Performance has found out, the crank shaft, and many other formally robust Rotax parts are now under more stress and required "upgrade". This costs money. My hats off to them, as they have at least backed their engines. In their defense, some of our “cowboys” here in the States are running regular car fuel. This causes detonation for sure. I can’t fix stupid!
If you need more power keep in mind in general you will need more gas, gain weight, reduce reliability, increase inspection requirements, require greater cooling mass, and of course add cost. An airplane is 20,000 compromises flying in close formation. If you change one thing, you affect 20 others. Choose wisely.
Example: Charts are scare still for the 915.
5000 RPM wide open throttle 87 KW or about 115 HP (10-20 more than the 914 depending on MP and TCU.) Fuel flow 27 L/hr or 7.1GPH.
A 20 HP increase on N12AY (Trigear) yields a cruise speed increase of nearly 10-13 Kts above 10,000 feet which is better than most.
However, the range in Air Nautical Mile per Gallon does not increase it decreases from about 25 ANMPG to 20 ANMPG.
The Europa drag goes up beyond 140 Knots by a cube root for the trigear. The mono is much better at still basically a square root curve. More horsepower doesn’t give me impressive efficiency or speed.
The 914 fits easily in the Europa XS, will cool, accepts a constant speed prop without issue or added extensions, has a reasonable fuel burn and will get you to 10,000 feet in about 11-13 minutes in a cruise climb. I can put out 70 to 95 horsepower continuous for cruise (typically 140-145 for a trigear) or max speed. Both the 912S/iS and Big Bore require the same octane fuel as the 914 so no advantage. The 914 turbo takes care of most of the issues with density altitude, it allows the Bing to work ideally from cruise to max continuous from the surface to service ceiling (which is well above 25,000 which is our human physiological limit without cabin pressurization). We know how to maintain it, the TCU has been modified and I can setup, troubleshoot or simply run a data dump from my laptop running Windows 7 through 10 without a special dongle. I don’t have Windows 11 yet, but it should work also. Carbs are easy to balance, and the installation manual is easy to follow. Always follow the engine installation manual in conjunction with the airframe firewall forward manual .
The 915 was never designed to fit a standard Rotax engine mount and does not fit most experimental aircraft firewall forwards. Extensive work is necessary to retrofit the 915 to a 912/914 airframe. The 915 is unmaintainable but for plugs and oil change without a “buds” system for the average owner to tell you what it’s doing but the troubleshooting manual is a bit sparce. Much study and patience is needed as the 915 goes through its teething issues. It runs lean on the ground like the 912iS and will overheat easily during an extended taxi out. Automatic systems means you the pilot lose control. Many 912iS owners hate the power drop off and find economy only comes through lower power. They have found fuel burn is the same for the same speed after an engine change from the S to the iS. The 915 has a similar issue with the power requirements. It is not like hopping into your BMW tubo and everything works. It is still like the 1980’s first gen fuel injection and turbo mods. Today it all works flawlessly in our autos, but with larger cooling requirements and components taking up more space under the hood. The 915 is not quite a plug and play engine electrically either. Look at Sling and their learning curve. The 4 place needs 140-150 HP. The two place not so much. Guys are looking hard at the difference.
In summary, the Europa was designed for about 100HP engines of light weight. It is fast and efficient for a 100HP 500 pound payload airplane. More weight makes the induced drag go up. The mono airframe was not designed to go faster than about 170 KTAS at 20,000 feet at an empty weight of 900 pounds. If you go above 900 pounds empty weight, the plane gets sluggish, speed drops and range is decreased. In the States, a 1000 mile per day range airplane is essential for getting around west of the Mississippi river. For my snow birds coming from Canada to Florida for the winter, they need that range also. Frankly, a bigger engine makes for shorter hops, less payload, and a longer day. More horsepower is not as important as more torque. Torque turns the prop, HP just makes it spin up faster.
Keep it light, keep it simple, and it will be a trouble-free steed with stock components. Work on drag reduction and keeping the weight down. Not by slapping more horsepower, weight, complexity, and cost on a very small airframe.
Just my thoughts….
Best Regards,
Bud Yerly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) <owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com> (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) On Behalf Of Pete
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 6:59 AM
To: europa-list(at)matronics.com (europa-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Re: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22
--> Europa-List message posted by: Pete <peterz(at)zutrasoft.com (peterz(at)zutrasoft.com)>
….except for the concerns of Edge welded cranks (cracking), and single point of failure (FI).
Cheers,
PeteZ
- The Europa-List Email Forum -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matronics.com%2FNavigator%3FEuropa-List&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wm%2FStj0pmmpyz3Mig2LnRkBfFdsMx6SLnhjzkK37%2Bc0%3D&reserved=0
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ycdDH2pLsucuLwZ1D%2BRcZsnydcBK5AXdQ6ZEjp%2FjBDQ%3D&reserved=0
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=H82eUxCpMT3FC%2B47WY13DthUPxRlKcO8Slvw4b4BIv4%3D&reserved=0
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmatronics.com%2Fcontribution&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BJyIGhvIq4pT7mzs62M9oV5AvbuxUVmXHUlH%2FDEvC%2Bg%3D&reserved=0
|
|
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Area-51
Joined: 03 May 2021 Posts: 396
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2022 4:41 am Post subject: Re: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
Old school is always going to rule; nothing beats a pencil and a sheet of paper or cardboard; battery has never gone flat!!
Logging on 181 with an 80hp 912 shows that it requires the same amount of fuel to fly the same distance at the same altitude in the same conditions at either 80 or 105 KIAS at 4100 or 5100 rpm respectfully. The hourly burn rate is different, so Duration is affected but Range is not.
80 KIAS at 1500 AMSL requires 8L/hr, 105 KIAS (at) 1500 AMSL requires 12L/hr... Loitering at 70 KIAS requires 6L/hr and a steady cruise at 95 KIAS at 4800rpm requires 10L/hr.
This is 181's fuel flow computer; it is a pencil on paper, a map, a wrist watch, and a sight glass with markings at every 5L. Batteries have still never run flat.
The 914 is a great setup. It is an altitude compensator arrangement, not a racing car setup. It maintains 3lb of manifold pressure above 3600rpm regardless of AMSL, and that's it; any higher and the standard Rotax core starts to suffer.
The Edge Performance units use higher boost pressure and the uprated turbo assembly spool up at lower RPM. The cylinder bolts are uprated. The crankshaft is welded and rebalanced. The fuel pumps are upgraded. Its not an adhoc offering by any means.
10.5:1 is a fantastic CR; easiest bankable and safe power improvement any day of the week.... the tradeoff is going to be the gearbox on the 912 at lower rpm ranges; from a design perspective it has many shortcomings, but it gets the job done... Detonation is affected by the operator not the compression ratio. 12:1 CR would be a cause for concern in an aircraft but not 10.5:1... 8:1 is a pretty good fool proof place for a producer to enter the playing field at. 6.5:1 is throwing 50% of your fuel out the tail pipe, but you'll never get detonation unless you put some diesel in the tank. The 912 has two mounting point on the block for a knock sensor, no idea why Rotax did not fit them.
At the end of it all, if you want more power you will burn more liquified tree stumps per hour and more Liquidity!!
HP is a meaningless number; always look at the Torque against RPM and go from there. And there is no substitute for Engine Volumetric Capacity, period. This is the practicality of forced induction. If we wanted to double the output power on our 80hp 912 we would just run it at 2 ATM (29psi) boost; and it would consume twice the fuel.
181's 80hp does just fine. At 425kg AUW it hauls into the air of the grass in around 200m and up into the sky at 80 KIAS and 1600fpm. Two up will see 800fpm... Its no Lancair, but its proving a great allrounder.
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
barp99(at)gmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2022 8:13 pm Post subject: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
Thanks for that Pete, good to know. As you say, too few accumulated hours to build reliable predictability. At least the big bore kit does not need any changes to crank, which is essentially the same as the 914 with the same output. The lighter than standard pistons may even reduce crank stresses.
I did look at the Viking options, I could be wrong but I seem to remember belt drive issues, recessed valves & delivery issues. I believe the crank fillets are smaller on auto engines compared to A/C engines, and with the 100% duty factor can cause cracks, not sure if this applies to the suby though. I do have an EJ25 in my road car, 200K miles, no problems, great engine.
William, your Columbian turbo does interest me, I remember you used a Mitsubishi turbo. Do you use it to normalize or do you actually add a bit more boost in?
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 11/11/2022 10:30 pm, Pete wrote:
Quote: | My experience conversing with Edge’s principal over the years, fwiw, is that he is chock full of confidence, many good ideas but peppered with some critical bad ones -which he will not acknowledge, and lets his customers “prove him wrong”. And some have (ex: cracked/failed welded crank). Too few accumulated hours to tease out all that pepper.
Same syndrome as Jan at viking (although Jan even lacks the engineering basics).
Difficult to watch.
Cheers,
PeteZ
Quote: | On Nov 11, 2022, at 6:13 AM, Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com> (barp99(at)gmail.com) wrote:
Bud, thanks very much for your well laid out advice below, much appreciated, your background knowledge never ceases to amaze me.
You have talked me out of the 915, the thought of doing all the retrofit work, along with the weight issues, its just not worth it, and I would never finish it. I am still interested in the 912Is, & was thinking about the Edge 1484cc big bore kit. Your comments below about some of the US based big bore kits has got me thinking again. 10.5:1 CR does seem a little high, combined with no detonation detection feedback loop, does sound a bit risky. Edge performance don't play with the Rotax FI software, they supply a fuel pressure reg that increases the rail pressure, so the pump/s are working harder, again an added risk. Add to that limited operational history, makes the 914 look an even better outcome. As you say, 20,000 compromises flying in close formation.
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 11/11/2022 4:34 am, Bud Yerly wrote:
Quote: | <![endif]--> Clean Clean false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE <![endif]--> <![endif]--> (at)font-face { font-family: "Cambria Math"; }(at)font-face { font-family: Calibri; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: rgb(5, 99, 193); text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: rgb(149, 79, 114); text-decoration: underline; }p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText { margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; }span.PlainTextChar { font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; }span.GramE { }.MsoChpDefault { font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; }div.WordSection1 { page: WordSection1; }/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} <![endif]--> <![endif]--> <![endif]-->
Pete, as you are most aware and Brian you are learning fast:
Weight is the enemy of an airplane. Especially the Europa, as it is a very compact aircraft. If I add 15 horsepower, but it moves the CG forward, requires a prop extension and a constant speed prop, the CG is going to be somewhere around the spinner. Now we move the battery back, run longer heavier cables and as much more to the rear as possible such as autopilots, ELTs, etc. to counterbalance the nose. The weight just keeps going up. The Europa XS is 100 pounds heavier than the equivalent Europa Classic even with the XS fuselage module and firewall forward. The 912 80 HP is not a spectacular performer but will give 30 ANMPG at low altitude or with a leaning device at altitudes up to about 10,000 feet. Cruise is in the 120-130 knot range. The 912S raised the cruise about 5 knots more. The 914 doubles the climb rate, ups cruise to at least 140-145 knot range at the same 25 ANMPG as the 912S on a tricycle gear aircraft of course. The mono is faster and lighter of course.
As I learned on modifying the 914 to fuel injection. Customers moved the boost up to get more power but complained it burned more fuel. The only advantage was more power with less reliability. Fuel burn was basically the same at 31 inches and 5000 RPM. So, what did I gain? Slightly more power for climb but more heat to dissipate, a bigger radiator and shallow climb was necessary to cool. BTU requirements are the same for the same amount of power at the same fuel air ratio and varies little with displacement. Aircraft engines run at constant RPMs like a marine engines, so a carb is just as good as fuel injection except for altitude performance of a normally aspirated engine with no leaning. The Bing stops leaning after about 3500 feet in the normally aspirated engine. So, an after market leaning system is necessary for the high altitude flyers to improve fuel efficiency of the 912/912S. The Rotax 914 is ideal for higher altitude operations and frankly ideal for the Europa but at a higher cost. I believe the 914 totally transformed the Europa into a great airplane. Reliability of the 914 is now as good as the 912S but as we all know, there are techniques and inspections required to keep it running like new.
Normally a 912 through the 914 will go 1000 hours with only carb maintenance/oil changes. Overspeed of the engine is an issue many ignore. The valves can and do contact the piston if oversped. Prop strikes are ignored also by many STOL operators and taildragger/mono.
I do a top overhaul at about 500-600 hours (gearbox, clean up the valves, inspect the rings/cylinders) and press on. Repeat at 1000 hours and the engine is good to 1500 hours. The cleanup of the valves restores compression to like new or better than new and is really a surprise when a 914 burps after only about 5 blades of rotation.
I have no experience with the latest Edge Performance engines, but I do with the so called "Big Bore" engines done here in the States some years ago. They do put out more power. But for how long? Over the years the stock Rotax 100 HP 912S (especially the new blocks) last and last. Most of the Big Bores were back in after as short as 200 hours. But we have many cowboys here in the States that just want more power but won't pay for it to get power and reliability. I was around for the first of these Big Bore mods. As Edge Performance has found out, the crank shaft, and many other formally robust Rotax parts are now under more stress and required "upgrade". This costs money. My hats off to them, as they have at least backed their engines. In their defense, some of our “cowboys” here in the States are running regular car fuel. This causes detonation for sure. I can’t fix stupid!
If you need more power keep in mind in general you will need more gas, gain weight, reduce reliability, increase inspection requirements, require greater cooling mass, and of course add cost. An airplane is 20,000 compromises flying in close formation. If you change one thing, you affect 20 others. Choose wisely.
Example: Charts are scare still for the 915.
5000 RPM wide open throttle 87 KW or about 115 HP (10-20 more than the 914 depending on MP and TCU.) Fuel flow 27 L/hr or 7.1GPH.
A 20 HP increase on N12AY (Trigear) yields a cruise speed increase of nearly 10-13 Kts above 10,000 feet which is better than most.
However, the range in Air Nautical Mile per Gallon does not increase it decreases from about 25 ANMPG to 20 ANMPG.
The Europa drag goes up beyond 140 Knots by a cube root for the trigear. The mono is much better at still basically a square root curve. More horsepower doesn’t give me impressive efficiency or speed.
The 914 fits easily in the Europa XS, will cool, accepts a constant speed prop without issue or added extensions, has a reasonable fuel burn and will get you to 10,000 feet in about 11-13 minutes in a cruise climb. I can put out 70 to 95 horsepower continuous for cruise (typically 140-145 for a trigear) or max speed. Both the 912S/iS and Big Bore require the same octane fuel as the 914 so no advantage. The 914 turbo takes care of most of the issues with density altitude, it allows the Bing to work ideally from cruise to max continuous from the surface to service ceiling (which is well above 25,000 which is our human physiological limit without cabin pressurization). We know how to maintain it, the TCU has been modified and I can setup, troubleshoot or simply run a data dump from my laptop running Windows 7 through 10 without a special dongle. I don’t have Windows 11 yet, but it should work also. Carbs are easy to balance, and the installation manual is easy to follow. Always follow the engine installation manual in conjunction with the airframe firewall forward manual .
The 915 was never designed to fit a standard Rotax engine mount and does not fit most experimental aircraft firewall forwards. Extensive work is necessary to retrofit the 915 to a 912/914 airframe. The 915 is unmaintainable but for plugs and oil change without a “buds” system for the average owner to tell you what it’s doing but the troubleshooting manual is a bit sparce. Much study and patience is needed as the 915 goes through its teething issues. It runs lean on the ground like the 912iS and will overheat easily during an extended taxi out. Automatic systems means you the pilot lose control. Many 912iS owners hate the power drop off and find economy only comes through lower power. They have found fuel burn is the same for the same speed after an engine change from the S to the iS. The 915 has a similar issue with the power requirements. It is not like hopping into your BMW tubo and everything works. It is still like the 1980’s first gen fuel injection and turbo mods. Today it all works flawlessly in our autos, but with larger cooling requirements and components taking up more space under the hood. The 915 is not quite a plug and play engine electrically either. Look at Sling and their learning curve. The 4 place needs 140-150 HP. The two place not so much. Guys are looking hard at the difference.
In summary, the Europa was designed for about 100HP engines of light weight. It is fast and efficient for a 100HP 500 pound payload airplane. More weight makes the induced drag go up. The mono airframe was not designed to go faster than about 170 KTAS at 20,000 feet at an empty weight of 900 pounds. If you go above 900 pounds empty weight, the plane gets sluggish, speed drops and range is decreased. In the States, a 1000 mile per day range airplane is essential for getting around west of the Mississippi river. For my snow birds coming from Canada to Florida for the winter, they need that range also. Frankly, a bigger engine makes for shorter hops, less payload, and a longer day. More horsepower is not as important as more torque. Torque turns the prop, HP just makes it spin up faster.
Keep it light, keep it simple, and it will be a trouble-free steed with stock components. Work on drag reduction and keeping the weight down. Not by slapping more horsepower, weight, complexity, and cost on a very small airframe.
Just my thoughts….
Best Regards,
Bud Yerly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) <owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com> (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) On Behalf Of Pete
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 6:59 AM
To: europa-list(at)matronics.com (europa-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Re: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22
--> Europa-List message posted by: Pete <peterz(at)zutrasoft.com (peterz(at)zutrasoft.com)>
….except for the concerns of Edge welded cranks (cracking), and single point of failure (FI).
Cheers,
PeteZ
- The Europa-List Email Forum -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matronics.com%2FNavigator%3FEuropa-List&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wm%2FStj0pmmpyz3Mig2LnRkBfFdsMx6SLnhjzkK37%2Bc0%3D&reserved=0
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ycdDH2pLsucuLwZ1D%2BRcZsnydcBK5AXdQ6ZEjp%2FjBDQ%3D&reserved=0
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=H82eUxCpMT3FC%2B47WY13DthUPxRlKcO8Slvw4b4BIv4%3D&reserved=0
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmatronics.com%2Fcontribution&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BJyIGhvIq4pT7mzs62M9oV5AvbuxUVmXHUlH%2FDEvC%2Bg%3D&reserved=0
|
| |
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Area-51
Joined: 03 May 2021 Posts: 396
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2022 11:05 pm Post subject: Re: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
Agree with Pete regarding accumulated hours v's reliability; only time in the sky will definitively answer that one.
What about UL Power? Has anybody user feedback on these? They seem like everything a Jabiru is trying to be???
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterz(at)zutrasoft.com Guest
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2022 3:06 am Post subject: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
Re viking, direct injection with a single pump, ugh. Driven be a custom single ECU (what could go wrong?), duty cycle (oiling clearances etc) risks as you mentioned, & Heavy as heck. Shadetree gearbox with simple and i submit insufficient rubber coupling for resonances. Jan throws garbage on the market and lets the customers teeth out the deficiencies. He’s no engineer, but a legacy vw mechanic by training. More than a few power unit failures now (with deaths) as they are starting to get airborn.
Re 912s piston kits: would luv to see reliabilty data. Keep hearing bad things. Compression still stock?
Cheers,
PeteZ
Quote: | On Nov 11, 2022, at 11:21 PM, Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for that Pete, good to know. As you say, too few accumulated hours to build reliable predictability. At least the big bore kit does not need any changes to crank, which is essentially the same as the 914 with the same output. The lighter than standard pistons may even reduce crank stresses.
I did look at the Viking options, I could be wrong but I seem to remember belt drive issues, recessed valves & delivery issues. I believe the crank fillets are smaller on auto engines compared to A/C engines, and with the 100% duty factor can cause cracks, not sure if this applies to the suby though. I do have an EJ25 in my road car, 200K miles, no problems, great engine.
William, your Columbian turbo does interest me, I remember you used a Mitsubishi turbo. Do you use it to normalize or do you actually add a bit more boost in?
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 11/11/2022 10:30 pm, Pete wrote:
Quote: | My experience conversing with Edge’s principal over the years, fwiw, is that he is chock full of confidence, many good ideas but peppered with some critical bad ones -which he will not acknowledge, and lets his customers “prove him wrong”. And some have (ex: cracked/failed welded crank). Too few accumulated hours to tease out all that pepper.
Same syndrome as Jan at viking (although Jan even lacks the engineering basics).
Difficult to watch.
Cheers,
PeteZ
Quote: | On Nov 11, 2022, at 6:13 AM, Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com> (barp99(at)gmail.com) wrote:
Bud, thanks very much for your well laid out advice below, much appreciated, your background knowledge never ceases to amaze me.
You have talked me out of the 915, the thought of doing all the retrofit work, along with the weight issues, its just not worth it, and I would never finish it. I am still interested in the 912Is, & was thinking about the Edge 1484cc big bore kit. Your comments below about some of the US based big bore kits has got me thinking again. 10.5:1 CR does seem a little high, combined with no detonation detection feedback loop, does sound a bit risky. Edge performance don't play with the Rotax FI software, they supply a fuel pressure reg that increases the rail pressure, so the pump/s are working harder, again an added risk. Add to that limited operational history, makes the 914 look an even better outcome. As you say, 20,000 compromises flying in close formation.
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 11/11/2022 4:34 am, Bud Yerly wrote:
Quote: | <![endif]--> Clean Clean false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE <![endif]--> <![endif]--> (at)font-face { font-family: "Cambria Math"; } (at)font-face { font-family: Calibri; } p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; } a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: rgb(5, 99, 193); text-decoration: underline; } a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: rgb(149, 79, 114); text-decoration: underline; } p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText { margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; } span.PlainTextChar { font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; } span.GramE { } .MsoChpDefault { font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; } div.WordSection1 { page: WordSection1; }/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} <![endif]--> <![endif]--> <![endif]-->
Pete, as you are most aware and Brian you are learning fast:
Weight is the enemy of an airplane. Especially the Europa, as it is a very compact aircraft. If I add 15 horsepower, but it moves the CG forward, requires a prop extension and a constant speed prop, the CG is going to be somewhere around the spinner. Now we move the battery back, run longer heavier cables and as much more to the rear as possible such as autopilots, ELTs, etc. to counterbalance the nose. The weight just keeps going up. The Europa XS is 100 pounds heavier than the equivalent Europa Classic even with the XS fuselage module and firewall forward. The 912 80 HP is not a spectacular performer but will give 30 ANMPG at low altitude or with a leaning device at altitudes up to about 10,000 feet. Cruise is in the 120-130 knot range. The 912S raised the cruise about 5 knots more. The 914 doubles the climb rate, ups cruise to at least 140-145 knot range at the same 25 ANMPG as the 912S on a tricycle gear aircraft of course. The mono is faster and lighter of course.
As I learned on modifying the 914 to fuel injection. Customers moved the boost up to get more power but complained it burned more fuel. The only advantage was more power with less reliability. Fuel burn was basically the same at 31 inches and 5000 RPM. So, what did I gain? Slightly more power for climb but more heat to dissipate, a bigger radiator and shallow climb was necessary to cool. BTU requirements are the same for the same amount of power at the same fuel air ratio and varies little with displacement. Aircraft engines run at constant RPMs like a marine engines, so a carb is just as good as fuel injection except for altitude performance of a normally aspirated engine with no leaning. The Bing stops leaning after about 3500 feet in the normally aspirated engine. So, an after market leaning system is necessary for the high altitude flyers to improve fuel efficiency of the 912/912S. The Rotax 914 is ideal for higher altitude operations and frankly ideal for the Europa but at a higher cost. I believe the 914 totally transformed the Europa into a great airplane. Reliability of the 914 is now as good as the 912S but as we all know, there are techniques and inspections required to keep it running like new.
Normally a 912 through the 914 will go 1000 hours with only carb maintenance/oil changes. Overspeed of the engine is an issue many ignore. The valves can and do contact the piston if oversped. Prop strikes are ignored also by many STOL operators and taildragger/mono.
I do a top overhaul at about 500-600 hours (gearbox, clean up the valves, inspect the rings/cylinders) and press on. Repeat at 1000 hours and the engine is good to 1500 hours. The cleanup of the valves restores compression to like new or better than new and is really a surprise when a 914 burps after only about 5 blades of rotation.
I have no experience with the latest Edge Performance engines, but I do with the so called "Big Bore" engines done here in the States some years ago. They do put out more power. But for how long? Over the years the stock Rotax 100 HP 912S (especially the new blocks) last and last. Most of the Big Bores were back in after as short as 200 hours. But we have many cowboys here in the States that just want more power but won't pay for it to get power and reliability. I was around for the first of these Big Bore mods. As Edge Performance has found out, the crank shaft, and many other formally robust Rotax parts are now under more stress and required "upgrade". This costs money. My hats off to them, as they have at least backed their engines. In their defense, some of our “cowboys” here in the States are running regular car fuel. This causes detonation for sure. I can’t fix stupid!
If you need more power keep in mind in general you will need more gas, gain weight, reduce reliability, increase inspection requirements, require greater cooling mass, and of course add cost. An airplane is 20,000 compromises flying in close formation. If you change one thing, you affect 20 others. Choose wisely.
Example: Charts are scare still for the 915.
5000 RPM wide open throttle 87 KW or about 115 HP (10-20 more than the 914 depending on MP and TCU.) Fuel flow 27 L/hr or 7.1GPH.
A 20 HP increase on N12AY (Trigear) yields a cruise speed increase of nearly 10-13 Kts above 10,000 feet which is better than most.
However, the range in Air Nautical Mile per Gallon does not increase it decreases from about 25 ANMPG to 20 ANMPG.
The Europa drag goes up beyond 140 Knots by a cube root for the trigear. The mono is much better at still basically a square root curve. More horsepower doesn’t give me impressive efficiency or speed.
The 914 fits easily in the Europa XS, will cool, accepts a constant speed prop without issue or added extensions, has a reasonable fuel burn and will get you to 10,000 feet in about 11-13 minutes in a cruise climb. I can put out 70 to 95 horsepower continuous for cruise (typically 140-145 for a trigear) or max speed. Both the 912S/iS and Big Bore require the same octane fuel as the 914 so no advantage. The 914 turbo takes care of most of the issues with density altitude, it allows the Bing to work ideally from cruise to max continuous from the surface to service ceiling (which is well above 25,000 which is our human physiological limit without cabin pressurization). We know how to maintain it, the TCU has been modified and I can setup, troubleshoot or simply run a data dump from my laptop running Windows 7 through 10 without a special dongle. I don’t have Windows 11 yet, but it should work also. Carbs are easy to balance, and the installation manual is easy to follow. Always follow the engine installation manual in conjunction with the airframe firewall forward manual .
The 915 was never designed to fit a standard Rotax engine mount and does not fit most experimental aircraft firewall forwards. Extensive work is necessary to retrofit the 915 to a 912/914 airframe. The 915 is unmaintainable but for plugs and oil change without a “buds” system for the average owner to tell you what it’s doing but the troubleshooting manual is a bit sparce. Much study and patience is needed as the 915 goes through its teething issues. It runs lean on the ground like the 912iS and will overheat easily during an extended taxi out. Automatic systems means you the pilot lose control. Many 912iS owners hate the power drop off and find economy only comes through lower power. They have found fuel burn is the same for the same speed after an engine change from the S to the iS. The 915 has a similar issue with the power requirements. It is not like hopping into your BMW tubo and everything works. It is still like the 1980’s first gen fuel injection and turbo mods. Today it all works flawlessly in our autos, but with larger cooling requirements and components taking up more space under the hood. The 915 is not quite a plug and play engine electrically either. Look at Sling and their learning curve. The 4 place needs 140-150 HP. The two place not so much. Guys are looking hard at the difference.
In summary, the Europa was designed for about 100HP engines of light weight. It is fast and efficient for a 100HP 500 pound payload airplane. More weight makes the induced drag go up. The mono airframe was not designed to go faster than about 170 KTAS at 20,000 feet at an empty weight of 900 pounds. If you go above 900 pounds empty weight, the plane gets sluggish, speed drops and range is decreased. In the States, a 1000 mile per day range airplane is essential for getting around west of the Mississippi river. For my snow birds coming from Canada to Florida for the winter, they need that range also. Frankly, a bigger engine makes for shorter hops, less payload, and a longer day. More horsepower is not as important as more torque. Torque turns the prop, HP just makes it spin up faster.
Keep it light, keep it simple, and it will be a trouble-free steed with stock components. Work on drag reduction and keeping the weight down. Not by slapping more horsepower, weight, complexity, and cost on a very small airframe.
Just my thoughts….
Best Regards,
Bud Yerly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) <owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com> (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) On Behalf Of Pete
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 6:59 AM
To: europa-list(at)matronics.com (europa-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Re: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22
--> Europa-List message posted by: Pete <peterz(at)zutrasoft.com (peterz(at)zutrasoft.com)>
….except for the concerns of Edge welded cranks (cracking), and single point of failure (FI).
Cheers,
PeteZ
- The Europa-List Email Forum -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matronics.com%2FNavigator%3FEuropa-List&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wm%2FStj0pmmpyz3Mig2LnRkBfFdsMx6SLnhjzkK37%2Bc0%3D&reserved=0
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ycdDH2pLsucuLwZ1D%2BRcZsnydcBK5AXdQ6ZEjp%2FjBDQ%3D&reserved=0
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=H82eUxCpMT3FC%2B47WY13DthUPxRlKcO8Slvw4b4BIv4%3D&reserved=0
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmatronics.com%2Fcontribution&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BJyIGhvIq4pT7mzs62M9oV5AvbuxUVmXHUlH%2FDEvC%2Bg%3D&reserved=0
|
| |
|
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
barp99(at)gmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2022 9:51 pm Post subject: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
Pete, good on you, that actually sounds like a good option for UL Power,
I would have thought there is a big market for that weight break and
lower cost than Rotax. As you say, thermally the same, using the 350
parts on their proven base block, appears to be a relatively low risk
venture. We live in hope.
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 12/11/2022 9:57 pm, Pete wrote:
Quote: |
Re ULPower, following for years. Appears to be solid. Have been trying to convince them for years now to offer a turbo’d low compression 260 (at) 130hp, as thermally a no brainer, as it has the same heads and bottom end (just shorter stroke) as their 130hp 350, but alas they don't see a market. I keep telling them they would supplant the 914 market, and steal from the 915 for those airframes who are weight limited (as the europa), being simpler and lighter etc. instead they are chasing the larger lycoming market with their turbo 6cyl.
*sniff*
Cheers,
PeteZ
> On Nov 12, 2022, at 2:12 AM, Area-51<goldsteinindustrial(at)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Agree with Pete regarding accumulated hours v's reliability; only time in the sky will definitively answer that one.
>
> What about UL Power? Has anybody user feedback on these? They seem like everything a Jabiru is trying to be???
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=508738#508738
>
|
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
barp99(at)gmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2022 9:55 pm Post subject: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
Thanks Pete, I didn't realize Viking had so many issues, I'm glad I removed it from my short list long ago. With the 912s piston kits, they utilize the original heads, so the pistons must have a slightly deeper dish than the standard pistons. Not sure if the quench area changes. So bigger piston diameter plus extra dish area means more heat to reject. CR is 10.5:1, down from std 11:1, this helps. I need to find some reliability data from actual users.
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 12/11/2022 10:06 pm, Pete wrote:
Quote: | Re viking, direct injection with a single pump, ugh. Driven be a custom single ECU (what could go wrong?), duty cycle (oiling clearances etc) risks as you mentioned, & Heavy as heck. Shadetree gearbox with simple and i submit insufficient rubber coupling for resonances. Jan throws garbage on the market and lets the customers teeth out the deficiencies. He’s no engineer, but a legacy vw mechanic by training. More than a few power unit failures now (with deaths) as they are starting to get airborn.
Re 912s piston kits: would luv to see reliabilty data. Keep hearing bad things. Compression still stock?
Cheers,
PeteZ
Quote: | On Nov 11, 2022, at 11:21 PM, Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com> (barp99(at)gmail.com) wrote:
Thanks for that Pete, good to know. As you say, too few accumulated hours to build reliable predictability. At least the big bore kit does not need any changes to crank, which is essentially the same as the 914 with the same output. The lighter than standard pistons may even reduce crank stresses.
I did look at the Viking options, I could be wrong but I seem to remember belt drive issues, recessed valves & delivery issues. I believe the crank fillets are smaller on auto engines compared to A/C engines, and with the 100% duty factor can cause cracks, not sure if this applies to the suby though. I do have an EJ25 in my road car, 200K miles, no problems, great engine.
William, your Columbian turbo does interest me, I remember you used a Mitsubishi turbo. Do you use it to normalize or do you actually add a bit more boost in?
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 11/11/2022 10:30 pm, Pete wrote:
Quote: | My experience conversing with Edge’s principal over the years, fwiw, is that he is chock full of confidence, many good ideas but peppered with some critical bad ones -which he will not acknowledge, and lets his customers “prove him wrong”. And some have (ex: cracked/failed welded crank). Too few accumulated hours to tease out all that pepper.
Same syndrome as Jan at viking (although Jan even lacks the engineering basics).
Difficult to watch.
Cheers,
PeteZ
Quote: | On Nov 11, 2022, at 6:13 AM, Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com> (barp99(at)gmail.com) wrote:
Bud, thanks very much for your well laid out advice below, much appreciated, your background knowledge never ceases to amaze me.
You have talked me out of the 915, the thought of doing all the retrofit work, along with the weight issues, its just not worth it, and I would never finish it. I am still interested in the 912Is, & was thinking about the Edge 1484cc big bore kit. Your comments below about some of the US based big bore kits has got me thinking again. 10.5:1 CR does seem a little high, combined with no detonation detection feedback loop, does sound a bit risky. Edge performance don't play with the Rotax FI software, they supply a fuel pressure reg that increases the rail pressure, so the pump/s are working harder, again an added risk. Add to that limited operational history, makes the 914 look an even better outcome. As you say, 20,000 compromises flying in close formation.
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 11/11/2022 4:34 am, Bud Yerly wrote:
Quote: | <![endif]--> Clean Clean false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE <![endif]--> <![endif]--> (at)font-face { font-family: "Cambria Math"; }(at)font-face { font-family: Calibri; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: rgb(5, 99, 193); text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: rgb(149, 79, 114); text-decoration: underline; }p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText { margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; }span.PlainTextChar { font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; }span.GramE { }.MsoChpDefault { font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; }div.WordSection1 { page: WordSection1; }/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} <![endif]--> <![endif]--> <![endif]-->
Pete, as you are most aware and Brian you are learning fast:
Weight is the enemy of an airplane. Especially the Europa, as it is a very compact aircraft. If I add 15 horsepower, but it moves the CG forward, requires a prop extension and a constant speed prop, the CG is going to be somewhere around the spinner. Now we move the battery back, run longer heavier cables and as much more to the rear as possible such as autopilots, ELTs, etc. to counterbalance the nose. The weight just keeps going up. The Europa XS is 100 pounds heavier than the equivalent Europa Classic even with the XS fuselage module and firewall forward. The 912 80 HP is not a spectacular performer but will give 30 ANMPG at low altitude or with a leaning device at altitudes up to about 10,000 feet. Cruise is in the 120-130 knot range. The 912S raised the cruise about 5 knots more. The 914 doubles the climb rate, ups cruise to at least 140-145 knot range at the same 25 ANMPG as the 912S on a tricycle gear aircraft of course. The mono is faster and lighter of course.
As I learned on modifying the 914 to fuel injection. Customers moved the boost up to get more power but complained it burned more fuel. The only advantage was more power with less reliability. Fuel burn was basically the same at 31 inches and 5000 RPM. So, what did I gain? Slightly more power for climb but more heat to dissipate, a bigger radiator and shallow climb was necessary to cool. BTU requirements are the same for the same amount of power at the same fuel air ratio and varies little with displacement. Aircraft engines run at constant RPMs like a marine engines, so a carb is just as good as fuel injection except for altitude performance of a normally aspirated engine with no leaning. The Bing stops leaning after about 3500 feet in the normally aspirated engine. So, an after market leaning system is necessary for the high altitude flyers to improve fuel efficiency of the 912/912S. The Rotax 914 is ideal for higher altitude operations and frankly ideal for the Europa but at a higher cost. I believe the 914 totally transformed the Europa into a great airplane. Reliability of the 914 is now as good as the 912S but as we all know, there are techniques and inspections required to keep it running like new.
Normally a 912 through the 914 will go 1000 hours with only carb maintenance/oil changes. Overspeed of the engine is an issue many ignore. The valves can and do contact the piston if oversped. Prop strikes are ignored also by many STOL operators and taildragger/mono.
I do a top overhaul at about 500-600 hours (gearbox, clean up the valves, inspect the rings/cylinders) and press on. Repeat at 1000 hours and the engine is good to 1500 hours. The cleanup of the valves restores compression to like new or better than new and is really a surprise when a 914 burps after only about 5 blades of rotation.
I have no experience with the latest Edge Performance engines, but I do with the so called "Big Bore" engines done here in the States some years ago. They do put out more power. But for how long? Over the years the stock Rotax 100 HP 912S (especially the new blocks) last and last. Most of the Big Bores were back in after as short as 200 hours. But we have many cowboys here in the States that just want more power but won't pay for it to get power and reliability. I was around for the first of these Big Bore mods. As Edge Performance has found out, the crank shaft, and many other formally robust Rotax parts are now under more stress and required "upgrade". This costs money. My hats off to them, as they have at least backed their engines. In their defense, some of our “cowboys” here in the States are running regular car fuel. This causes detonation for sure. I can’t fix stupid!
If you need more power keep in mind in general you will need more gas, gain weight, reduce reliability, increase inspection requirements, require greater cooling mass, and of course add cost. An airplane is 20,000 compromises flying in close formation. If you change one thing, you affect 20 others. Choose wisely.
Example: Charts are scare still for the 915.
5000 RPM wide open throttle 87 KW or about 115 HP (10-20 more than the 914 depending on MP and TCU.) Fuel flow 27 L/hr or 7.1GPH.
A 20 HP increase on N12AY (Trigear) yields a cruise speed increase of nearly 10-13 Kts above 10,000 feet which is better than most.
However, the range in Air Nautical Mile per Gallon does not increase it decreases from about 25 ANMPG to 20 ANMPG.
The Europa drag goes up beyond 140 Knots by a cube root for the trigear. The mono is much better at still basically a square root curve. More horsepower doesn’t give me impressive efficiency or speed.
The 914 fits easily in the Europa XS, will cool, accepts a constant speed prop without issue or added extensions, has a reasonable fuel burn and will get you to 10,000 feet in about 11-13 minutes in a cruise climb. I can put out 70 to 95 horsepower continuous for cruise (typically 140-145 for a trigear) or max speed. Both the 912S/iS and Big Bore require the same octane fuel as the 914 so no advantage. The 914 turbo takes care of most of the issues with density altitude, it allows the Bing to work ideally from cruise to max continuous from the surface to service ceiling (which is well above 25,000 which is our human physiological limit without cabin pressurization). We know how to maintain it, the TCU has been modified and I can setup, troubleshoot or simply run a data dump from my laptop running Windows 7 through 10 without a special dongle. I don’t have Windows 11 yet, but it should work also. Carbs are easy to balance, and the installation manual is easy to follow. Always follow the engine installation manual in conjunction with the airframe firewall forward manual .
The 915 was never designed to fit a standard Rotax engine mount and does not fit most experimental aircraft firewall forwards. Extensive work is necessary to retrofit the 915 to a 912/914 airframe. The 915 is unmaintainable but for plugs and oil change without a “buds” system for the average owner to tell you what it’s doing but the troubleshooting manual is a bit sparce. Much study and patience is needed as the 915 goes through its teething issues. It runs lean on the ground like the 912iS and will overheat easily during an extended taxi out. Automatic systems means you the pilot lose control. Many 912iS owners hate the power drop off and find economy only comes through lower power. They have found fuel burn is the same for the same speed after an engine change from the S to the iS. The 915 has a similar issue with the power requirements. It is not like hopping into your BMW tubo and everything works. It is still like the 1980’s first gen fuel injection and turbo mods. Today it all works flawlessly in our autos, but with larger cooling requirements and components taking up more space under the hood. The 915 is not quite a plug and play engine electrically either. Look at Sling and their learning curve. The 4 place needs 140-150 HP. The two place not so much. Guys are looking hard at the difference.
In summary, the Europa was designed for about 100HP engines of light weight. It is fast and efficient for a 100HP 500 pound payload airplane. More weight makes the induced drag go up. The mono airframe was not designed to go faster than about 170 KTAS at 20,000 feet at an empty weight of 900 pounds. If you go above 900 pounds empty weight, the plane gets sluggish, speed drops and range is decreased. In the States, a 1000 mile per day range airplane is essential for getting around west of the Mississippi river. For my snow birds coming from Canada to Florida for the winter, they need that range also. Frankly, a bigger engine makes for shorter hops, less payload, and a longer day. More horsepower is not as important as more torque. Torque turns the prop, HP just makes it spin up faster.
Keep it light, keep it simple, and it will be a trouble-free steed with stock components. Work on drag reduction and keeping the weight down. Not by slapping more horsepower, weight, complexity, and cost on a very small airframe.
Just my thoughts….
Best Regards,
Bud Yerly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) <owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com> (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) On Behalf Of Pete
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 6:59 AM
To: europa-list(at)matronics.com (europa-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Re: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22
--> Europa-List message posted by: Pete <peterz(at)zutrasoft.com (peterz(at)zutrasoft.com)>
….except for the concerns of Edge welded cranks (cracking), and single point of failure (FI).
Cheers,
PeteZ
- The Europa-List Email Forum -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matronics.com%2FNavigator%3FEuropa-List&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wm%2FStj0pmmpyz3Mig2LnRkBfFdsMx6SLnhjzkK37%2Bc0%3D&reserved=0
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ycdDH2pLsucuLwZ1D%2BRcZsnydcBK5AXdQ6ZEjp%2FjBDQ%3D&reserved=0
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=H82eUxCpMT3FC%2B47WY13DthUPxRlKcO8Slvw4b4BIv4%3D&reserved=0
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmatronics.com%2Fcontribution&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BJyIGhvIq4pT7mzs62M9oV5AvbuxUVmXHUlH%2FDEvC%2Bg%3D&reserved=0
|
| |
| |
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
barp99(at)gmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2022 9:56 pm Post subject: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
Thanks for that Will. Clearly you know what you are doing as you have been running it since 2006. Can I ask, why do you need to change the gearbox ratio?
Once you installed the turbo system, did you have to adjust or replace it to get it to absorb the power available at higher altitudes?
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 13/11/2022 12:33 am, William Daniell wrote:
Quote: | I use up to 36” although lots of people in Colombia go up to 40”. So yes pretty much the same boost as a 914.
If you use a stock 912 you have to add the turbo system and airbox exhaust etc as you would expect. And also the oil system to feed the turbo none of which is unexpected. A bigger main jet is normal. However the gochta is that you need to change the gearbox ratio and I put in a slipper clutch. All of this can actually be done in a day (the exhaust and airbox are made beforehand.)
I have a manual waste gate in this engine but in the previous one I had a simple wastegate controller like a car
I flown with this engine since 2006 never had an issue.
The turbo is from a Renault diesel van - made by mitisubishi
Nitrile gaskets on the carbs are necessary otherwise they suck air at altitude.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 23:16 Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com (barp99(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
Quote: | Thanks for that Pete, good to know. As you say, too few accumulated hours to build reliable predictability. At least the big bore kit does not need any changes to crank, which is essentially the same as the 914 with the same output. The lighter than standard pistons may even reduce crank stresses.
I did look at the Viking options, I could be wrong but I seem to remember belt drive issues, recessed valves & delivery issues. I believe the crank fillets are smaller on auto engines compared to A/C engines, and with the 100% duty factor can cause cracks, not sure if this applies to the suby though. I do have an EJ25 in my road car, 200K miles, no problems, great engine.
William, your Columbian turbo does interest me, I remember you used a Mitsubishi turbo. Do you use it to normalize or do you actually add a bit more boost in?
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 11/11/2022 10:30 pm, Pete wrote:
Quote: | My experience conversing with Edge’s principal over the years, fwiw, is that he is chock full of confidence, many good ideas but peppered with some critical bad ones -which he will not acknowledge, and lets his customers “prove him wrong”. And some have (ex: cracked/failed welded crank). Too few accumulated hours to tease out all that pepper.
Same syndrome as Jan at viking (although Jan even lacks the engineering basics).
Difficult to watch.
Cheers,
PeteZ
Quote: | On Nov 11, 2022, at 6:13 AM, Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com> (barp99(at)gmail.com) wrote:
Bud, thanks very much for your well laid out advice below, much appreciated, your background knowledge never ceases to amaze me.
You have talked me out of the 915, the thought of doing all the retrofit work, along with the weight issues, its just not worth it, and I would never finish it. I am still interested in the 912Is, & was thinking about the Edge 1484cc big bore kit. Your comments below about some of the US based big bore kits has got me thinking again. 10.5:1 CR does seem a little high, combined with no detonation detection feedback loop, does sound a bit risky. Edge performance don't play with the Rotax FI software, they supply a fuel pressure reg that increases the rail pressure, so the pump/s are working harder, again an added risk. Add to that limited operational history, makes the 914 look an even better outcome. As you say, 20,000 compromises flying in close formation.
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 11/11/2022 4:34 am, Bud Yerly wrote:
Quote: |
Pete, as you are most aware and Brian you are learning fast:
Weight is the enemy of an airplane. Especially the Europa, as it is a very compact aircraft. If I add 15 horsepower, but it moves the CG forward, requires a prop extension and a constant speed prop, the CG is going to be somewhere around the spinner. Now we move the battery back, run longer heavier cables and as much more to the rear as possible such as autopilots, ELTs, etc. to counterbalance the nose. The weight just keeps going up. The Europa XS is 100 pounds heavier than the equivalent Europa Classic even with the XS fuselage module and firewall forward. The 912 80 HP is not a spectacular performer but will give 30 ANMPG at low altitude or with a leaning device at altitudes up to about 10,000 feet. Cruise is in the 120-130 knot range. The 912S raised the cruise about 5 knots more. The 914 doubles the climb rate, ups cruise to at least 140-145 knot range at the same 25 ANMPG as the 912S on a tricycle gear aircraft of course. The mono is faster and lighter of course.
As I learned on modifying the 914 to fuel injection. Customers moved the boost up to get more power but complained it burned more fuel. The only advantage was more power with less reliability. Fuel burn was basically the same at 31 inches and 5000 RPM. So, what did I gain? Slightly more power for climb but more heat to dissipate, a bigger radiator and shallow climb was necessary to cool. BTU requirements are the same for the same amount of power at the same fuel air ratio and varies little with displacement. Aircraft engines run at constant RPMs like a marine engines, so a carb is just as good as fuel injection except for altitude performance of a normally aspirated engine with no leaning. The Bing stops leaning after about 3500 feet in the normally aspirated engine. So, an after market leaning system is necessary for the high altitude flyers to improve fuel efficiency of the 912/912S. The Rotax 914 is ideal for higher altitude operations and frankly ideal for the Europa but at a higher cost. I believe the 914 totally transformed the Europa into a great airplane. Reliability of the 914 is now as good as the 912S but as we all know, there are techniques and inspections required to keep it running like new.
Normally a 912 through the 914 will go 1000 hours with only carb maintenance/oil changes. Overspeed of the engine is an issue many ignore. The valves can and do contact the piston if oversped. Prop strikes are ignored also by many STOL operators and taildragger/mono.
I do a top overhaul at about 500-600 hours (gearbox, clean up the valves, inspect the rings/cylinders) and press on. Repeat at 1000 hours and the engine is good to 1500 hours. The cleanup of the valves restores compression to like new or better than new and is really a surprise when a 914 burps after only about 5 blades of rotation.
I have no experience with the latest Edge Performance engines, but I do with the so called "Big Bore" engines done here in the States some years ago. They do put out more power. But for how long? Over the years the stock Rotax 100 HP 912S (especially the new blocks) last and last. Most of the Big Bores were back in after as short as 200 hours. But we have many cowboys here in the States that just want more power but won't pay for it to get power and reliability. I was around for the first of these Big Bore mods. As Edge Performance has found out, the crank shaft, and many other formally robust Rotax parts are now under more stress and required "upgrade". This costs money. My hats off to them, as they have at least backed their engines. In their defense, some of our “cowboys” here in the States are running regular car fuel. This causes detonation for sure. I can’t fix stupid!
If you need more power keep in mind in general you will need more gas, gain weight, reduce reliability, increase inspection requirements, require greater cooling mass, and of course add cost. An airplane is 20,000 compromises flying in close formation. If you change one thing, you affect 20 others. Choose wisely.
Example: Charts are scare still for the 915.
5000 RPM wide open throttle 87 KW or about 115 HP (10-20 more than the 914 depending on MP and TCU.) Fuel flow 27 L/hr or 7.1GPH.
A 20 HP increase on N12AY (Trigear) yields a cruise speed increase of nearly 10-13 Kts above 10,000 feet which is better than most.
However, the range in Air Nautical Mile per Gallon does not increase it decreases from about 25 ANMPG to 20 ANMPG.
The Europa drag goes up beyond 140 Knots by a cube root for the trigear. The mono is much better at still basically a square root curve. More horsepower doesn’t give me impressive efficiency or speed.
The 914 fits easily in the Europa XS, will cool, accepts a constant speed prop without issue or added extensions, has a reasonable fuel burn and will get you to 10,000 feet in about 11-13 minutes in a cruise climb. I can put out 70 to 95 horsepower continuous for cruise (typically 140-145 for a trigear) or max speed. Both the 912S/iS and Big Bore require the same octane fuel as the 914 so no advantage. The 914 turbo takes care of most of the issues with density altitude, it allows the Bing to work ideally from cruise to max continuous from the surface to service ceiling (which is well above 25,000 which is our human physiological limit without cabin pressurization). We know how to maintain it, the TCU has been modified and I can setup, troubleshoot or simply run a data dump from my laptop running Windows 7 through 10 without a special dongle. I don’t have Windows 11 yet, but it should work also. Carbs are easy to balance, and the installation manual is easy to follow. Always follow the engine installation manual in conjunction with the airframe firewall forward manual .
The 915 was never designed to fit a standard Rotax engine mount and does not fit most experimental aircraft firewall forwards. Extensive work is necessary to retrofit the 915 to a 912/914 airframe. The 915 is unmaintainable but for plugs and oil change without a “buds” system for the average owner to tell you what it’s doing but the troubleshooting manual is a bit sparce. Much study and patience is needed as the 915 goes through its teething issues. It runs lean on the ground like the 912iS and will overheat easily during an extended taxi out. Automatic systems means you the pilot lose control. Many 912iS owners hate the power drop off and find economy only comes through lower power. They have found fuel burn is the same for the same speed after an engine change from the S to the iS. The 915 has a similar issue with the power requirements. It is not like hopping into your BMW tubo and everything works. It is still like the 1980’s first gen fuel injection and turbo mods. Today it all works flawlessly in our autos, but with larger cooling requirements and components taking up more space under the hood. The 915 is not quite a plug and play engine electrically either. Look at Sling and their learning curve. The 4 place needs 140-150 HP. The two place not so much. Guys are looking hard at the difference.
In summary, the Europa was designed for about 100HP engines of light weight. It is fast and efficient for a 100HP 500 pound payload airplane. More weight makes the induced drag go up. The mono airframe was not designed to go faster than about 170 KTAS at 20,000 feet at an empty weight of 900 pounds. If you go above 900 pounds empty weight, the plane gets sluggish, speed drops and range is decreased. In the States, a 1000 mile per day range airplane is essential for getting around west of the Mississippi river. For my snow birds coming from Canada to Florida for the winter, they need that range also. Frankly, a bigger engine makes for shorter hops, less payload, and a longer day. More horsepower is not as important as more torque. Torque turns the prop, HP just makes it spin up faster.
Keep it light, keep it simple, and it will be a trouble-free steed with stock components. Work on drag reduction and keeping the weight down. Not by slapping more horsepower, weight, complexity, and cost on a very small airframe.
Just my thoughts….
Best Regards,
Bud Yerly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) <owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com> (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) On Behalf Of Pete
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 6:59 AM
To: europa-list(at)matronics.com (europa-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Re: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22
--> Europa-List message posted by: Pete <peterz(at)zutrasoft.com (peterz(at)zutrasoft.com)>
….except for the concerns of Edge welded cranks (cracking), and single point of failure (FI).
Cheers,
PeteZ
- The Europa-List Email Forum -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matronics.com%2FNavigator%3FEuropa-List&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wm%2FStj0pmmpyz3Mig2LnRkBfFdsMx6SLnhjzkK37%2Bc0%3D&reserved=0
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ycdDH2pLsucuLwZ1D%2BRcZsnydcBK5AXdQ6ZEjp%2FjBDQ%3D&reserved=0
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=H82eUxCpMT3FC%2B47WY13DthUPxRlKcO8Slvw4b4BIv4%3D&reserved=0
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmatronics.com%2Fcontribution&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BJyIGhvIq4pT7mzs62M9oV5AvbuxUVmXHUlH%2FDEvC%2Bg%3D&reserved=0
|
| |
|
--
William Daniell
LONGPORT
+1 786 878 0246
|
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
budyerly@msn.com
Joined: 05 Oct 2019 Posts: 288 Location: Florida USA
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2022 10:18 am Post subject: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
Let me try to shed some light here from experience. The cost to performance issue has been around since airplanes became accepted as a “necessary” part of higher speed transportation.
First: Propellers fly on torque. The reason the 2.27 gearbox was better for the Columbians was the wide chord Warp Blade requires too much torque in comparison to the 914, hence the 912 (80HP) even with lower normalized boost hasn’t sufficient torque to pull a wide chord Warp at full power. Had narrower chord blade been selected, fixed or constant speed prop, these issues change a lot. Too many for this level of discussion. At sea level manifold pressure with no losses the 80HP Rotax cannot turn a fixed 64 inch Wide Chord WD prop set for a 5000 RMP WOT much beyond about 5200 RPM. Takeoff suffers. Therefore, WD and others have smaller diameter or narrow chord blades to match to the 80HP Rotax. So, if I turbo normalize the 80 HP engine to 30 or even 35 inches, the engine/prop combination becomes a compromise of changes. Either the pitch has to be changed to decrease torque, the boost and therefore mixtures, jetting, fuel grade, and gearbox ratio has to be tweaked to make the engine “runnable” within the narrower torque range of engine with a now smaller or narrower prop.
Second: Looking at the cruise speed difference doesn’t tell the whole story but in fact it does. In high altitude operations, a turbo or supercharging is essential to regain sea level performance or perhaps a bit more. The back yard mechanics tweaked and tinkered to get a truck turbo and custom hand built components and jetting to get around the higher cost of the stock 914 due to rather onerous taxation in Columbia or as I did, just tinkering. Turbo normalization, prop and gearbox selection (but not optimization) led to a workable boost to allow reasonable performance for takeoff, climb and some additional cruise at altitude. However, without optimized waste gate control, you loose efficiency and power in cruise to gain takeoff. So, a turbo normalized 912 vs a 914 may only be 10 knots, but it is more than that. If you desire to optimize takeoff, climb, and cruise, then a more refined means of turbo waste gate control is necessary. That means a computer, or at least a circuit card with a application. Will did a great job of describing his build situation compromises in his last email. For him, it was his choice of compromises. He knew what had worked in Columbia to meet his basic requirements/compromises.
Third: The Columbian conversion and the Italian chap (Vz Power) with the bolt on turbo or even the “Big Bore” conversions are all interesting experiments in getting around the Austrian overpriced 914. After all, the TCU control of a wastegate is not rocket science and a stock Garret turbo is only $500. But you have to look at the cost to long term maintenance and parts availability issues also. In my working with Jason Parker on a degraded Predator Drone engine, we put a stock Garett Turbo, a waste gate dashpot and an SDS fuel injection on a 2015 9XX Rotax stronger block (now stock on all Rotax engines). Jason removed the cylinders/heads, installed forged pistons, worked fuel mapping and boost control to get a very workable engine for about $15000 less than a 914 and a lot less than a 915. However, who got paid back for investing in all this work. Not I, as I didn’t ask for any, but Jason lost 3 years of his life (but was hired to a lucrative position in defense) for all his work. About 25 engines were modified and very quickly sold. Half of them however were tinkered with by “knowledgeable amateurs/experimenter” and eventually blew up cylinders and pistons when tweaked to 60 inches of MP for superb takeoff and climb. When you modify an existing engine for more power, you always trade off something.
My hat is off to those attempting to improve the internal combustion piston engine. Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce, and others developed wonderfully complex hydromechanical control systems to increase engine power and in some cases longevity and many other manufacturers capitalized on that from the 1930’s to the 50’s until the demise of the high powered piston aircraft engine. The internal combustion piston engine was left as a necessary evil mired in inefficiency and relegated to mass produced autos. But then, about 20 years ago computer/digital systems became cheap and available. Toyota’s TRD division, Ford’s Racing, Mercedes and BMW as well as other motor divisions have developed wonderfully powerful and more efficient engines. Today modern electronic controls finally bring these dinosaur piston engines into greater efficiency. Supercharging and Turbo-super-charging can be electronically controlled with the fuel injection to prevent untrained operators from blowing them up and produced an automobile engine that is high powered and yet a reliable daily use vehicle. However, more power means the more your inspection and installation requirements go up, improved cooling, higher octane fuel types and improved electronic “sensoring” to keep it all running flawlessly. Luckily, we don’t push our autos to the extreme we push our aircraft engines. (Although I did leave a Porsche 4 seater in the dirt with my 495 HP pickup truck from the stoplight a few months ago which was great fun for a couple of old guys, but he will never forget to be in “sport mode” again if he sees me.. )
In the many compromises we make in building an aircraft, never forget that the engine and prop are the powerplant. The engine supplies torque to the torque converter (propeller) and if you are smart, a variable pitch propeller. This prop choice allows one to take every bit of power the engine can produce for takeoff, and climb, then power down to 75% and run a few thousand hours with the prop pulling full power out of the available HP and Torque for cruise also. HP is the rate of work, torque is the twisting force and the twisting force/RPM is what is important for cruise. The 914 has reasonably optimized all these and with a constant speed (or variable pitch (with higher pilot work load)) prop is not only more efficient, but is mechanically more reliable than a fixed or mechanically controlled wastegate. Is it perfect, no, is it overpriced, yes, and am I frustrated with their turbo rebuild fiasco of a repair program, absolutely (a turbo only costs about $400 to rebuild and Rotax wants you to replace it for $8000, that is just plain greedy”). Do I like turbo normalization (30 inches), yes, do I like more boost absolutely, but at what cost and reliability?
For me, I’ll stick with my 914 because I can get parts, it is easy to troubleshoot from the TCU to the carbs and frankly just plugs onto the front of my Europa. Is it as nice an engine as the high tech 915, no way, but the extra stuff on the 915 doesn’t really suit my aircraft or pocketbook. Performance wise, if I want to suck on oxygen and fly at 17,500 MSL to get 160 Kts. Vs 143 at 10,000 feet ish, it is worth it for me to stick to the 914 rather than upgrade and change everything on the FWF to match a different engine, then rebalance the aircraft. My drag curve goes much more vertical above 140 Knots and frankly, the only advantage of the 915 is rate of climb (that’s HP or rate of work) but my top cruise increase is going to be less spectacular for all that work, extra weight and fuel burn. Ah compromises!
Choose wisely to meet your requirements. Everyone has a different flying mission for their aircraft. The stock 912S (100HP) is a nice option for the Europa for a lower altitude performer. The UL engine is gaining popularity (I’m still not completely sure why, as the performance increases with most planes isn’t showing up in cruise performance, and prop performance to match at this time is being worked out). It is a well engineered product though and impressive. But is it as maintainable over time. Time will tell. Although Airmaster has attacked that faster spinning UL issue in an attempt to match the engine power/torque to a propeller, as of today, results are encouraging. The faster spinning UL has only about the same torque as the Rotax 9 series. The higher power meant more cooling issues, higher octane fuel (100LL is best) and it appears that the engine can’t be lugged down to lower RPMs most likely due to detonation, hence the faster spinning engine (pump) must be electronically leaned for efficiency and hence cooling rears its ugly head. The UL 350 series engine develops max torque (330nm or 230Ft/lbs.) at about 23-2400 RPM which is 100 HP at sea level but at about 25L/Hr. or 6.6 GPH. Note the fall off of torque as RPM increases. The gearbox makes a difference in how hard you pull the RPM down vs using the fuel to prevent detonation by running a bit richer. That is not a great leap over the 912iS or even the 912S in cruise speed, at and the UL is at a higher fuel burn. At altitude though the HP drops significantly an any normally aspirated engine and on the 350iS and 912iS as the fuel burn goes down to about 17L/Hr. or 4.5 GPH. Not bad and comparable to the Rotax 912iS and 912S with a HacMan leaning kit. Since 2018, UL is continuing to solve all these issues as they attempt to overcome the inefficiencies of the dinosaur horizontally opposed air cooled engine issues in aircraft through fuel mapping, compression ratio, and timing controls. Good on them. Rotax was forced to catch up. And did they do it well. Well, that remains to be seen.
The 914 like the 912/912S fits the cowl FWF package without major issue (you got to do the cooling work though). Extra power means extra heat to dissipate. The UL teething issues are mostly from poor cowl design or execution in my opinion which will take time and money to iron out (why cowl flaps are not used by manufacturers I cannot explain). Too bad as they really need an efficient cowl design for cruise to get rid of the heat in cruise and cowl flaps in climb to cool properly at low speed and high power. In my opinion, the airframe manufacturers seem to be indifferent to higher power engines cooling needs and settle for all but the most basic lower power engines requirements (i.e. it costs them money and time and besides, the actual money is in the stock airplane from a sales point of view).
Research is 90% of your time in selecting an airframe and powerplant. I prefer to go fly in a similarly equipped aircraft I am considering to build, as I can copy or just assemble IAW the manual and achieve an acceptable aircraft that will meet or exceed my expectations without worry of reliability, longevity, or parts supply. As Ira Rampil told me “Better is the enemy of Good”. One has to raise the issues of cost, time, talent and services needed to go from good to better.
Just my opinion and observations!
Best Regards,
Bud Yerly
From: owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com> On Behalf Of William Daniell
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 8:42 AM
To: europa-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Re: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22
Yup - the original 2.27:1 wouldnt make the revs with the airmaster even in Guaymaral at 8500. My previous plane a ICP Savannah with an Ivo had no problem with the 2.27 gearbox. I had the ivo with the narrow blades. The 914 gearbox is 2.43:1.
Theres a lot of experience with this conversion in Colombia - they even claim they turbo-ed the 912 before rotax. It could be true - you never know with Colombia. But in any case I wasnt the pioneer. It’s a well understood process. The chap who did it for me turned up all the required components with nicely welded stainless exhausts etc installed them and fired up the motor. Worked ever since no faffing about.
In any case a 914 would have probably been the way to go but Im a cheapskate.Or rather it would have cost me the price plus another 15% import tax raising the price to almost USD40k. What with labor and parts my current engine cost USD25k.
You dont have to mess with the TCU and it retains the mechanical fuel pump (you need an electric pump as well). The mech pump will just about keep you flying at 22” MAP.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 00:58 Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com (barp99(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
[quote]
Thanks for that Will. Clearly you know what you are doing as you have been running it since 2006. Can I ask, why do you need to change the gearbox ratio?
Once you installed the turbo system, did you have to adjust or replace it to get it to absorb the power available at higher altitudes?
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 13/11/2022 12:33 am, William Daniell wrote:
[quote]
I use up to 36” although lots of people in Colombia go up to 40”. So yes pretty much the same boost as a 914.
If you use a stock 912 you have to add the turbo system and airbox exhaust etc as you would expect. And also the oil system to feed the turbo none of which is unexpected. A bigger main jet is normal. However the gochta is that you need to change the gearbox ratio and I put in a slipper clutch. All of this can actually be done in a day (the exhaust and airbox are made beforehand.)
I have a manual waste gate in this engine but in the previous one I had a simple wastegate controller like a car
I flown with this engine since 2006 never had an issue.
The turbo is from a Renault diesel van - made by mitisubishi
Nitrile gaskets on the carbs are necessary otherwise they suck air at altitude.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 23:16 Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com (barp99(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
[quote]
Thanks for that Pete, good to know. As you say, too few accumulated hours to build reliable predictability. At least the big bore kit does not need any changes to crank, which is essentially the same as the 914 with the same output. The lighter than standard pistons may even reduce crank stresses.
I did look at the Viking options, I could be wrong but I seem to remember belt drive issues, recessed valves & delivery issues. I believe the crank fillets are smaller on auto engines compared to A/C engines, and with the 100% duty factor can cause cracks, not sure if this applies to the suby though. I do have an EJ25 in my road car, 200K miles, no problems, great engine.
William, your Columbian turbo does interest me, I remember you used a Mitsubishi turbo. Do you use it to normalize or do you actually add a bit more boost in?
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 11/11/2022 10:30 pm, Pete wrote:
[quote]
My experience conversing with Edge’s principal over the years, fwiw, is that he is chock full of confidence, many good ideas but peppered with some critical bad ones -which he will not acknowledge, and lets his customers “prove him wrong”. And some have (ex: cracked/failed welded crank). Too few accumulated hours to tease out all that pepper.
Same syndrome as Jan at viking (although Jan even lacks the engineering basics).
Difficult to watch.
Cheers,
PeteZ
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]> <![endif]> [quote]
On Nov 11, 2022, at 6:13 AM, Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com> (barp99(at)gmail.com) wrote:
Bud, thanks very much for your well laid out advice below, much appreciated, your background knowledge never ceases to amaze me.
You have talked me out of the 915, the thought of doing all the retrofit work, along with the weight issues, its just not worth it, and I would never finish it. I am still interested in the 912Is, & was thinking about the Edge 1484cc big bore kit. Your comments below about some of the US based big bore kits has got me thinking again. 10.5:1 CR does seem a little high, combined with no detonation detection feedback loop, does sound a bit risky. Edge performance don't play with the Rotax FI software, they supply a fuel pressure reg that increases the rail pressure, so the pump/s are working harder, again an added risk. Add to that limited operational history, makes the 914 look an even better outcome. As you say, 20,000 compromises flying in close formation.
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 11/11/2022 4:34 am, Bud Yerly wrote:
[quote]
Pete, as you are most aware and Brian you are learning fast:
Weight is the enemy of an airplane. Especially the Europa, as it is a very compact aircraft. If I add 15 horsepower, but it moves the CG forward, requires a prop extension and a constant speed prop, the CG is going to be somewhere around the spinner. Now we move the battery back, run longer heavier cables and as much more to the rear as possible such as autopilots, ELTs, etc. to counterbalance the nose. The weight just keeps going up. The Europa XS is 100 pounds heavier than the equivalent Europa Classic even with the XS fuselage module and firewall forward. The 912 80 HP is not a spectacular performer but will give 30 ANMPG at low altitude or with a leaning device at altitudes up to about 10,000 feet. Cruise is in the 120-130 knot range. The 912S raised the cruise about 5 knots more. The 914 doubles the climb rate, ups cruise to at least 140-145 knot range at the same 25 ANMPG as the 912S on a tricycle gear aircraft of course. The mono is faster and lighter of course.
As I learned on modifying the 914 to fuel injection. Customers moved the boost up to get more power but complained it burned more fuel. The only advantage was more power with less reliability. Fuel burn was basically the same at 31 inches and 5000 RPM. So, what did I gain? Slightly more power for climb but more heat to dissipate, a bigger radiator and shallow climb was necessary to cool. BTU requirements are the same for the same amount of power at the same fuel air ratio and varies little with displacement. Aircraft engines run at constant RPMs like a marine engines, so a carb is just as good as fuel injection except for altitude performance of a normally aspirated engine with no leaning. The Bing stops leaning after about 3500 feet in the normally aspirated engine. So, an after market leaning system is necessary for the high altitude flyers to improve fuel efficiency of the 912/912S. The Rotax 914 is ideal for higher altitude operations and frankly ideal for the Europa but at a higher cost. I believe the 914 totally transformed the Europa into a great airplane. Reliability of the 914 is now as good as the 912S but as we all know, there are techniques and inspections required to keep it running like new.
Normally a 912 through the 914 will go 1000 hours with only carb maintenance/oil changes. Overspeed of the engine is an issue many ignore. The valves can and do contact the piston if oversped. Prop strikes are ignored also by many STOL operators and taildragger/mono.
I do a top overhaul at about 500-600 hours (gearbox, clean up the valves, inspect the rings/cylinders) and press on. Repeat at 1000 hours and the engine is good to 1500 hours. The cleanup of the valves restores compression to like new or better than new and is really a surprise when a 914 burps after only about 5 blades of rotation.
I have no experience with the latest Edge Performance engines, but I do with the so called "Big Bore" engines done here in the States some years ago. They do put out more power. But for how long? Over the years the stock Rotax 100 HP 912S (especially the new blocks) last and last. Most of the Big Bores were back in after as short as 200 hours. But we have many cowboys here in the States that just want more power but won't pay for it to get power and reliability. I was around for the first of these Big Bore mods. As Edge Performance has found out, the crank shaft, and many other formally robust Rotax parts are now under more stress and required "upgrade". This costs money. My hats off to them, as they have at least backed their engines. In their defense, some of our “cowboys” here in the States are running regular car fuel. This causes detonation for sure. I can’t fix stupid!
If you need more power keep in mind in general you will need more gas, gain weight, reduce reliability, increase inspection requirements, require greater cooling mass, and of course add cost. An airplane is 20,000 compromises flying in close formation. If you change one thing, you affect 20 others. Choose wisely.
Example: Charts are scare still for the 915.
5000 RPM wide open throttle 87 KW or about 115 HP (10-20 more than the 914 depending on MP and TCU.) Fuel flow 27 L/hr or 7.1GPH.
A 20 HP increase on N12AY (Trigear) yields a cruise speed increase of nearly 10-13 Kts above 10,000 feet which is better than most.
However, the range in Air Nautical Mile per Gallon does not increase it decreases from about 25 ANMPG to 20 ANMPG.
The Europa drag goes up beyond 140 Knots by a cube root for the trigear. The mono is much better at still basically a square root curve. More horsepower doesn’t give me impressive efficiency or speed.
The 914 fits easily in the Europa XS, will cool, accepts a constant speed prop without issue or added extensions, has a reasonable fuel burn and will get you to 10,000 feet in about 11-13 minutes in a cruise climb. I can put out 70 to 95 horsepower continuous for cruise (typically 140-145 for a trigear) or max speed. Both the 912S/iS and Big Bore require the same octane fuel as the 914 so no advantage. The 914 turbo takes care of most of the issues with density altitude, it allows the Bing to work ideally from cruise to max continuous from the surface to service ceiling (which is well above 25,000 which is our human physiological limit without cabin pressurization). We know how to maintain it, the TCU has been modified and I can setup, troubleshoot or simply run a data dump from my laptop running Windows 7 through 10 without a special dongle. I don’t have Windows 11 yet, but it should work also. Carbs are easy to balance, and the installation manual is easy to follow. Always follow the engine installation manual in conjunction with the airframe firewall forward manual .
The 915 was never designed to fit a standard Rotax engine mount and does not fit most experimental aircraft firewall forwards. Extensive work is necessary to retrofit the 915 to a 912/914 airframe. The 915 is unmaintainable but for plugs and oil change without a “buds” system for the average owner to tell you what it’s doing but the troubleshooting manual is a bit sparce. Much study and patience is needed as the 915 goes through its teething issues. It runs lean on the ground like the 912iS and will overheat easily during an extended taxi out. Automatic systems means you the pilot lose control. Many 912iS owners hate the power drop off and find economy only comes through lower power. They have found fuel burn is the same for the same speed after an engine change from the S to the iS. The 915 has a similar issue with the power requirements. It is not like hopping into your BMW tubo and everything works. It is still like the 1980’s first gen fuel injection and turbo mods. Today it all works flawlessly in our autos, but with larger cooling requirements and components taking up more space under the hood. The 915 is not quite a plug and play engine electrically either. Look at Sling and their learning curve. The 4 place needs 140-150 HP. The two place not so much. Guys are looking hard at the difference.
In summary, the Europa was designed for about 100HP engines of light weight. It is fast and efficient for a 100HP 500 pound payload airplane. More weight makes the induced drag go up. The mono airframe was not designed to go faster than about 170 KTAS at 20,000 feet at an empty weight of 900 pounds. If you go above 900 pounds empty weight, the plane gets sluggish, speed drops and range is decreased. In the States, a 1000 mile per day range airplane is essential for getting around west of the Mississippi river. For my snow birds coming from Canada to Florida for the winter, they need that range also. Frankly, a bigger engine makes for shorter hops, less payload, and a longer day. More horsepower is not as important as more torque. Torque turns the prop, HP just makes it spin up faster.
Keep it light, keep it simple, and it will be a trouble-free steed with stock components. Work on drag reduction and keeping the weight down. Not by slapping more horsepower, weight, complexity, and cost on a very small airframe.
Just my thoughts….
Best Regards,
Bud Yerly
--
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
barp99(at)gmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2022 11:23 pm Post subject: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
Thanks very much, Will, I now understand. Sounds like a smart way of getting a good engine combination.
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 14/11/2022 12:42 am, William Daniell wrote:
Quote: | Yup - the original 2.27:1 wouldnt make the revs with the airmaster even in Guaymaral at 8500. My previous plane a ICP Savannah with an Ivo had no problem with the 2.27 gearbox. I had the ivo with the narrow blades. The 914 gearbox is 2.43:1.
Theres a lot of experience with this conversion in Colombia - they even claim they turbo-ed the 912 before rotax. It could be true - you never know with Colombia. But in any case I wasnt the pioneer. It’s a well understood process. The chap who did it for me turned up all the required components with nicely welded stainless exhausts etc installed them and fired up the motor. Worked ever since no faffing about.
In any case a 914 would have probably been the way to go but Im a cheapskate. Or rather it would have cost me the price plus another 15% import tax raising the price to almost USD40k. What with labor and parts my current engine cost USD25k.
You dont have to mess with the TCU and it retains the mechanical fuel pump (you need an electric pump as well). The mech pump will just about keep you flying at 22” MAP.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 00:58 Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com (barp99(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
Quote: | Thanks for that Will. Clearly you know what you are doing as you have been running it since 2006. Can I ask, why do you need to change the gearbox ratio?
Once you installed the turbo system, did you have to adjust or replace it to get it to absorb the power available at higher altitudes?
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 13/11/2022 12:33 am, William Daniell wrote:
Quote: | I use up to 36” although lots of people in Colombia go up to 40”. So yes pretty much the same boost as a 914.
If you use a stock 912 you have to add the turbo system and airbox exhaust etc as you would expect. And also the oil system to feed the turbo none of which is unexpected. A bigger main jet is normal. However the gochta is that you need to change the gearbox ratio and I put in a slipper clutch. All of this can actually be done in a day (the exhaust and airbox are made beforehand.)
I have a manual waste gate in this engine but in the previous one I had a simple wastegate controller like a car
I flown with this engine since 2006 never had an issue.
The turbo is from a Renault diesel van - made by mitisubishi
Nitrile gaskets on the carbs are necessary otherwise they suck air at altitude.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 23:16 Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com (barp99(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
Quote: | Thanks for that Pete, good to know. As you say, too few accumulated hours to build reliable predictability. At least the big bore kit does not need any changes to crank, which is essentially the same as the 914 with the same output. The lighter than standard pistons may even reduce crank stresses.
I did look at the Viking options, I could be wrong but I seem to remember belt drive issues, recessed valves & delivery issues. I believe the crank fillets are smaller on auto engines compared to A/C engines, and with the 100% duty factor can cause cracks, not sure if this applies to the suby though. I do have an EJ25 in my road car, 200K miles, no problems, great engine.
William, your Columbian turbo does interest me, I remember you used a Mitsubishi turbo. Do you use it to normalize or do you actually add a bit more boost in?
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 11/11/2022 10:30 pm, Pete wrote:
Quote: | My experience conversing with Edge’s principal over the years, fwiw, is that he is chock full of confidence, many good ideas but peppered with some critical bad ones -which he will not acknowledge, and lets his customers “prove him wrong”. And some have (ex: cracked/failed welded crank). Too few accumulated hours to tease out all that pepper.
Same syndrome as Jan at viking (although Jan even lacks the engineering basics).
Difficult to watch.
Cheers,
PeteZ
Quote: | On Nov 11, 2022, at 6:13 AM, Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com> (barp99(at)gmail.com) wrote:
Bud, thanks very much for your well laid out advice below, much appreciated, your background knowledge never ceases to amaze me.
You have talked me out of the 915, the thought of doing all the retrofit work, along with the weight issues, its just not worth it, and I would never finish it. I am still interested in the 912Is, & was thinking about the Edge 1484cc big bore kit. Your comments below about some of the US based big bore kits has got me thinking again. 10.5:1 CR does seem a little high, combined with no detonation detection feedback loop, does sound a bit risky. Edge performance don't play with the Rotax FI software, they supply a fuel pressure reg that increases the rail pressure, so the pump/s are working harder, again an added risk. Add to that limited operational history, makes the 914 look an even better outcome. As you say, 20,000 compromises flying in close formation.
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 11/11/2022 4:34 am, Bud Yerly wrote:
Quote: |
Pete, as you are most aware and Brian you are learning fast:
Weight is the enemy of an airplane. Especially the Europa, as it is a very compact aircraft. If I add 15 horsepower, but it moves the CG forward, requires a prop extension and a constant speed prop, the CG is going to be somewhere around the spinner. Now we move the battery back, run longer heavier cables and as much more to the rear as possible such as autopilots, ELTs, etc. to counterbalance the nose. The weight just keeps going up. The Europa XS is 100 pounds heavier than the equivalent Europa Classic even with the XS fuselage module and firewall forward. The 912 80 HP is not a spectacular performer but will give 30 ANMPG at low altitude or with a leaning device at altitudes up to about 10,000 feet. Cruise is in the 120-130 knot range. The 912S raised the cruise about 5 knots more. The 914 doubles the climb rate, ups cruise to at least 140-145 knot range at the same 25 ANMPG as the 912S on a tricycle gear aircraft of course. The mono is faster and lighter of course.
As I learned on modifying the 914 to fuel injection. Customers moved the boost up to get more power but complained it burned more fuel. The only advantage was more power with less reliability. Fuel burn was basically the same at 31 inches and 5000 RPM. So, what did I gain? Slightly more power for climb but more heat to dissipate, a bigger radiator and shallow climb was necessary to cool. BTU requirements are the same for the same amount of power at the same fuel air ratio and varies little with displacement. Aircraft engines run at constant RPMs like a marine engines, so a carb is just as good as fuel injection except for altitude performance of a normally aspirated engine with no leaning. The Bing stops leaning after about 3500 feet in the normally aspirated engine. So, an after market leaning system is necessary for the high altitude flyers to improve fuel efficiency of the 912/912S. The Rotax 914 is ideal for higher altitude operations and frankly ideal for the Europa but at a higher cost. I believe the 914 totally transformed the Europa into a great airplane. Reliability of the 914 is now as good as the 912S but as we all know, there are techniques and inspections required to keep it running like new.
Normally a 912 through the 914 will go 1000 hours with only carb maintenance/oil changes. Overspeed of the engine is an issue many ignore. The valves can and do contact the piston if oversped. Prop strikes are ignored also by many STOL operators and taildragger/mono.
I do a top overhaul at about 500-600 hours (gearbox, clean up the valves, inspect the rings/cylinders) and press on. Repeat at 1000 hours and the engine is good to 1500 hours. The cleanup of the valves restores compression to like new or better than new and is really a surprise when a 914 burps after only about 5 blades of rotation.
I have no experience with the latest Edge Performance engines, but I do with the so called "Big Bore" engines done here in the States some years ago. They do put out more power. But for how long? Over the years the stock Rotax 100 HP 912S (especially the new blocks) last and last. Most of the Big Bores were back in after as short as 200 hours. But we have many cowboys here in the States that just want more power but won't pay for it to get power and reliability. I was around for the first of these Big Bore mods. As Edge Performance has found out, the crank shaft, and many other formally robust Rotax parts are now under more stress and required "upgrade". This costs money. My hats off to them, as they have at least backed their engines. In their defense, some of our “cowboys” here in the States are running regular car fuel. This causes detonation for sure. I can’t fix stupid!
If you need more power keep in mind in general you will need more gas, gain weight, reduce reliability, increase inspection requirements, require greater cooling mass, and of course add cost. An airplane is 20,000 compromises flying in close formation. If you change one thing, you affect 20 others. Choose wisely.
Example: Charts are scare still for the 915.
5000 RPM wide open throttle 87 KW or about 115 HP (10-20 more than the 914 depending on MP and TCU.) Fuel flow 27 L/hr or 7.1GPH.
A 20 HP increase on N12AY (Trigear) yields a cruise speed increase of nearly 10-13 Kts above 10,000 feet which is better than most.
However, the range in Air Nautical Mile per Gallon does not increase it decreases from about 25 ANMPG to 20 ANMPG.
The Europa drag goes up beyond 140 Knots by a cube root for the trigear. The mono is much better at still basically a square root curve. More horsepower doesn’t give me impressive efficiency or speed.
The 914 fits easily in the Europa XS, will cool, accepts a constant speed prop without issue or added extensions, has a reasonable fuel burn and will get you to 10,000 feet in about 11-13 minutes in a cruise climb. I can put out 70 to 95 horsepower continuous for cruise (typically 140-145 for a trigear) or max speed. Both the 912S/iS and Big Bore require the same octane fuel as the 914 so no advantage. The 914 turbo takes care of most of the issues with density altitude, it allows the Bing to work ideally from cruise to max continuous from the surface to service ceiling (which is well above 25,000 which is our human physiological limit without cabin pressurization). We know how to maintain it, the TCU has been modified and I can setup, troubleshoot or simply run a data dump from my laptop running Windows 7 through 10 without a special dongle. I don’t have Windows 11 yet, but it should work also. Carbs are easy to balance, and the installation manual is easy to follow. Always follow the engine installation manual in conjunction with the airframe firewall forward manual .
The 915 was never designed to fit a standard Rotax engine mount and does not fit most experimental aircraft firewall forwards. Extensive work is necessary to retrofit the 915 to a 912/914 airframe. The 915 is unmaintainable but for plugs and oil change without a “buds” system for the average owner to tell you what it’s doing but the troubleshooting manual is a bit sparce. Much study and patience is needed as the 915 goes through its teething issues. It runs lean on the ground like the 912iS and will overheat easily during an extended taxi out. Automatic systems means you the pilot lose control. Many 912iS owners hate the power drop off and find economy only comes through lower power. They have found fuel burn is the same for the same speed after an engine change from the S to the iS. The 915 has a similar issue with the power requirements. It is not like hopping into your BMW tubo and everything works. It is still like the 1980’s first gen fuel injection and turbo mods. Today it all works flawlessly in our autos, but with larger cooling requirements and components taking up more space under the hood. The 915 is not quite a plug and play engine electrically either. Look at Sling and their learning curve. The 4 place needs 140-150 HP. The two place not so much. Guys are looking hard at the difference.
In summary, the Europa was designed for about 100HP engines of light weight. It is fast and efficient for a 100HP 500 pound payload airplane. More weight makes the induced drag go up. The mono airframe was not designed to go faster than about 170 KTAS at 20,000 feet at an empty weight of 900 pounds. If you go above 900 pounds empty weight, the plane gets sluggish, speed drops and range is decreased. In the States, a 1000 mile per day range airplane is essential for getting around west of the Mississippi river. For my snow birds coming from Canada to Florida for the winter, they need that range also. Frankly, a bigger engine makes for shorter hops, less payload, and a longer day. More horsepower is not as important as more torque. Torque turns the prop, HP just makes it spin up faster.
Keep it light, keep it simple, and it will be a trouble-free steed with stock components. Work on drag reduction and keeping the weight down. Not by slapping more horsepower, weight, complexity, and cost on a very small airframe.
Just my thoughts….
Best Regards,
Bud Yerly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) <owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com> (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) On Behalf Of Pete
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 6:59 AM
To: europa-list(at)matronics.com (europa-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Re: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22
--> Europa-List message posted by: Pete <peterz(at)zutrasoft.com (peterz(at)zutrasoft.com)>
….except for the concerns of Edge welded cranks (cracking), and single point of failure (FI).
Cheers,
PeteZ
- The Europa-List Email Forum -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matronics.com%2FNavigator%3FEuropa-List&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wm%2FStj0pmmpyz3Mig2LnRkBfFdsMx6SLnhjzkK37%2Bc0%3D&reserved=0
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ycdDH2pLsucuLwZ1D%2BRcZsnydcBK5AXdQ6ZEjp%2FjBDQ%3D&reserved=0
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=H82eUxCpMT3FC%2B47WY13DthUPxRlKcO8Slvw4b4BIv4%3D&reserved=0
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmatronics.com%2Fcontribution&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BJyIGhvIq4pT7mzs62M9oV5AvbuxUVmXHUlH%2FDEvC%2Bg%3D&reserved=0
|
| |
|
|
Quote: |
--
William Daniell
LONGPORT
+1 786 878 0246
|
|
--
William Daniell
LONGPORT
+1 786 878 0246
|
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
barp99(at)gmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2022 12:05 am Post subject: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22 |
|
|
Bud,
Thanks very much for your explanations below, a great read and very illuminating. I didn't realize you had done work with Jason Parker. Agree with everything you have said. The 914's running upward of 60" MP, effectively doubling their mas flow, I can't see how they would not ping, blow head gaskets and hole pistons, scary stuff.
On your first line, you mention 2.27, i'm assuming a simple typo and meant 2.43. As the weight of the 914 is pretty much the same as the 912Is, and based on your numerous advice, a 914 is the go if I can put up with those silly carby things. I spent many years playing with Holleys, I thought I was over ever having to rebuild of fault find these things : )
Cheers
Brian Phillips
On 14/11/2022 5:17 am, Bud Yerly wrote:
Quote: | <![endif]--> 90 Clean Clean DocumentEmail false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE <![endif]--> <![endif]--> (at)font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}(at)font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-469750017 -1073732485 9 0 511 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;}a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;}p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0 {mso-style-name:msonormal; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;}span.EmailStyle19 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:windowtext;}span.SpellE {mso-style-name:""; mso-spl-e:yes;}span.GramE {mso-style-name:""; mso-gram-e:yes;}.MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} <![endif]--> <![endif]--> <![endif]-->
Let me try to shed some light here from experience. The cost to performance issue has been around since airplanes became accepted as a “necessary” part of higher speed transportation.
First: Propellers fly on torque. The reason the 2.27 gearbox was better for the Columbians was the wide chord Warp Blade requires too much torque in comparison to the 914, hence the 912 (80HP) even with lower normalized boost hasn’t sufficient torque to pull a wide chord Warp at full power. Had narrower chord blade been selected, fixed or constant speed prop, these issues change a lot. Too many for this level of discussion. At sea level manifold pressure with no losses the 80HP Rotax cannot turn a fixed 64 inch Wide Chord WD prop set for a 5000 RMP WOT much beyond about 5200 RPM. Takeoff suffers. Therefore, WD and others have smaller diameter or narrow chord blades to match to the 80HP Rotax. So, if I turbo normalize the 80 HP engine to 30 or even 35 inches, the engine/prop combination becomes a compromise of changes. Either the pitch has to be changed to decrease torque, the boost and therefore mixtures, jetting, fuel grade, and gearbox ratio has to be tweaked to make the engine “runnable” within the narrower torque range of engine with a now smaller or narrower prop.
Second: Looking at the cruise speed difference doesn’t tell the whole story but in fact it does. In high altitude operations, a turbo or supercharging is essential to regain sea level performance or perhaps a bit more. The back yard mechanics tweaked and tinkered to get a truck turbo and custom hand built components and jetting to get around the higher cost of the stock 914 due to rather onerous taxation in Columbia or as I did, just tinkering. Turbo normalization, prop and gearbox selection (but not optimization) led to a workable boost to allow reasonable performance for takeoff, climb and some additional cruise at altitude. However, without optimized waste gate control, you loose efficiency and power in cruise to gain takeoff. So, a turbo normalized 912 vs a 914 may only be 10 knots, but it is more than that. If you desire to optimize takeoff, climb, and cruise, then a more refined means of turbo waste gate control is necessary. That means a computer, or at least a circuit card with a application. Will did a great job of describing his build situation compromises in his last email. For him, it was his choice of compromises. He knew what had worked in Columbia to meet his basic requirements/compromises.
Third: The Columbian conversion and the Italian chap (Vz Power) with the bolt on turbo or even the “Big Bore” conversions are all interesting experiments in getting around the Austrian overpriced 914. After all, the TCU control of a wastegate is not rocket science and a stock Garret turbo is only $500. But you have to look at the cost to long term maintenance and parts availability issues also. In my working with Jason Parker on a degraded Predator Drone engine, we put a stock Garett Turbo, a waste gate dashpot and an SDS fuel injection on a 2015 9XX Rotax stronger block (now stock on all Rotax engines). Jason removed the cylinders/heads, installed forged pistons, worked fuel mapping and boost control to get a very workable engine for about $15000 less than a 914 and a lot less than a 915. However, who got paid back for investing in all this work. Not I, as I didn’t ask for any, but Jason lost 3 years of his life (but was hired to a lucrative position in defense) for all his work. About 25 engines were modified and very quickly sold. Half of them however were tinkered with by “knowledgeable amateurs/experimenter” and eventually blew up cylinders and pistons when tweaked to 60 inches of MP for superb takeoff and climb. When you modify an existing engine for more power, you always trade off something.
My hat is off to those attempting to improve the internal combustion piston engine. Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce, and others developed wonderfully complex hydromechanical control systems to increase engine power and in some cases longevity and many other manufacturers capitalized on that from the 1930’s to the 50’s until the demise of the high powered piston aircraft engine. The internal combustion piston engine was left as a necessary evil mired in inefficiency and relegated to mass produced autos. But then, about 20 years ago computer/digital systems became cheap and available. Toyota’s TRD division, Ford’s Racing, Mercedes and BMW as well as other motor divisions have developed wonderfully powerful and more efficient engines. Today modern electronic controls finally bring these dinosaur piston engines into greater efficiency. Supercharging and Turbo-super-charging can be electronically controlled with the fuel injection to prevent untrained operators from blowing them up and produced an automobile engine that is high powered and yet a reliable daily use vehicle. However, more power means the more your inspection and installation requirements go up, improved cooling, higher octane fuel types and improved electronic “sensoring” to keep it all running flawlessly. Luckily, we don’t push our autos to the extreme we push our aircraft engines. (Although I did leave a Porsche 4 seater in the dirt with my 495 HP pickup truck from the stoplight a few months ago which was great fun for a couple of old guys, but he will never forget to be in “sport mode” again if he sees me.. )
In the many compromises we make in building an aircraft, never forget that the engine and prop are the powerplant. The engine supplies torque to the torque converter (propeller) and if you are smart, a variable pitch propeller. This prop choice allows one to take every bit of power the engine can produce for takeoff, and climb, then power down to 75% and run a few thousand hours with the prop pulling full power out of the available HP and Torque for cruise also. HP is the rate of work, torque is the twisting force and the twisting force/RPM is what is important for cruise. The 914 has reasonably optimized all these and with a constant speed (or variable pitch (with higher pilot work load)) prop is not only more efficient, but is mechanically more reliable than a fixed or mechanically controlled wastegate. Is it perfect, no, is it overpriced, yes, and am I frustrated with their turbo rebuild fiasco of a repair program, absolutely (a turbo only costs about $400 to rebuild and Rotax wants you to replace it for $8000, that is just plain greedy”). Do I like turbo normalization (30 inches), yes, do I like more boost absolutely, but at what cost and reliability?
For me, I’ll stick with my 914 because I can get parts, it is easy to troubleshoot from the TCU to the carbs and frankly just plugs onto the front of my Europa. Is it as nice an engine as the high tech 915, no way, but the extra stuff on the 915 doesn’t really suit my aircraft or pocketbook. Performance wise, if I want to suck on oxygen and fly at 17,500 MSL to get 160 Kts. Vs 143 at 10,000 feet ish, it is worth it for me to stick to the 914 rather than upgrade and change everything on the FWF to match a different engine, then rebalance the aircraft. My drag curve goes much more vertical above 140 Knots and frankly, the only advantage of the 915 is rate of climb (that’s HP or rate of work) but my top cruise increase is going to be less spectacular for all that work, extra weight and fuel burn. Ah compromises!
Choose wisely to meet your requirements. Everyone has a different flying mission for their aircraft. The stock 912S (100HP) is a nice option for the Europa for a lower altitude performer. The UL engine is gaining popularity (I’m still not completely sure why, as the performance increases with most planes isn’t showing up in cruise performance, and prop performance to match at this time is being worked out). It is a well engineered product though and impressive. But is it as maintainable over time. Time will tell. Although Airmaster has attacked that faster spinning UL issue in an attempt to match the engine power/torque to a propeller, as of today, results are encouraging. The faster spinning UL has only about the same torque as the Rotax 9 series. The higher power meant more cooling issues, higher octane fuel (100LL is best) and it appears that the engine can’t be lugged down to lower RPMs most likely due to detonation, hence the faster spinning engine (pump) must be electronically leaned for efficiency and hence cooling rears its ugly head. The UL 350 series engine develops max torque (330nm or 230Ft/lbs.) at about 23-2400 RPM which is 100 HP at sea level but at about 25L/Hr. or 6.6 GPH. Note the fall off of torque as RPM increases. The gearbox makes a difference in how hard you pull the RPM down vs using the fuel to prevent detonation by running a bit richer. That is not a great leap over the 912iS or even the 912S in cruise speed, at and the UL is at a higher fuel burn. At altitude though the HP drops significantly an any normally aspirated engine and on the 350iS and 912iS as the fuel burn goes down to about 17L/Hr. or 4.5 GPH. Not bad and comparable to the Rotax 912iS and 912S with a HacMan leaning kit. Since 2018, UL is continuing to solve all these issues as they attempt to overcome the inefficiencies of the dinosaur horizontally opposed air cooled engine issues in aircraft through fuel mapping, compression ratio, and timing controls. Good on them. Rotax was forced to catch up. And did they do it well. Well, that remains to be seen.
The 914 like the 912/912S fits the cowl FWF package without major issue (you got to do the cooling work though). Extra power means extra heat to dissipate. The UL teething issues are mostly from poor cowl design or execution in my opinion which will take time and money to iron out (why cowl flaps are not used by manufacturers I cannot explain). Too bad as they really need an efficient cowl design for cruise to get rid of the heat in cruise and cowl flaps in climb to cool properly at low speed and high power. In my opinion, the airframe manufacturers seem to be indifferent to higher power engines cooling needs and settle for all but the most basic lower power engines requirements (i.e. it costs them money and time and besides, the actual money is in the stock airplane from a sales point of view).
Research is 90% of your time in selecting an airframe and powerplant. I prefer to go fly in a similarly equipped aircraft I am considering to build, as I can copy or just assemble IAW the manual and achieve an acceptable aircraft that will meet or exceed my expectations without worry of reliability, longevity, or parts supply. As Ira Rampil told me “Better is the enemy of Good”. One has to raise the issues of cost, time, talent and services needed to go from good to better.
Just my opinion and observations!
Best Regards,
Bud Yerly
From: owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) <owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com> (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) On Behalf Of William Daniell
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 8:42 AM
To: europa-list(at)matronics.com (europa-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Re: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22
Yup - the original 2.27:1 wouldnt make the revs with the airmaster even in Guaymaral at 8500. My previous plane a ICP Savannah with an Ivo had no problem with the 2.27 gearbox. I had the ivo with the narrow blades. The 914 gearbox is 2.43:1.
Theres a lot of experience with this conversion in Colombia - they even claim they turbo-ed the 912 before rotax. It could be true - you never know with Colombia. But in any case I wasnt the pioneer. It’s a well understood process. The chap who did it for me turned up all the required components with nicely welded stainless exhausts etc installed them and fired up the motor. Worked ever since no faffing about.
In any case a 914 would have probably been the way to go but Im a cheapskate. Or rather it would have cost me the price plus another 15% import tax raising the price to almost USD40k. What with labor and parts my current engine cost USD25k.
You dont have to mess with the TCU and it retains the mechanical fuel pump (you need an electric pump as well). The mech pump will just about keep you flying at 22” MAP.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 00:58 Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com (barp99(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
Quote: |
Thanks for that Will. Clearly you know what you are doing as you have been running it since 2006. Can I ask, why do you need to change the gearbox ratio?
Once you installed the turbo system, did you have to adjust or replace it to get it to absorb the power available at higher altitudes?
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 13/11/2022 12:33 am, William Daniell wrote:
Quote: |
I use up to 36” although lots of people in Colombia go up to 40”. So yes pretty much the same boost as a 914.
If you use a stock 912 you have to add the turbo system and airbox exhaust etc as you would expect. And also the oil system to feed the turbo none of which is unexpected. A bigger main jet is normal. However the gochta is that you need to change the gearbox ratio and I put in a slipper clutch. All of this can actually be done in a day (the exhaust and airbox are made beforehand.)
I have a manual waste gate in this engine but in the previous one I had a simple wastegate controller like a car
I flown with this engine since 2006 never had an issue.
The turbo is from a Renault diesel van - made by mitisubishi
Nitrile gaskets on the carbs are necessary otherwise they suck air at altitude.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 23:16 Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com (barp99(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
Quote: |
Thanks for that Pete, good to know. As you say, too few accumulated hours to build reliable predictability. At least the big bore kit does not need any changes to crank, which is essentially the same as the 914 with the same output. The lighter than standard pistons may even reduce crank stresses.
I did look at the Viking options, I could be wrong but I seem to remember belt drive issues, recessed valves & delivery issues. I believe the crank fillets are smaller on auto engines compared to A/C engines, and with the 100% duty factor can cause cracks, not sure if this applies to the suby though. I do have an EJ25 in my road car, 200K miles, no problems, great engine.
William, your Columbian turbo does interest me, I remember you used a Mitsubishi turbo. Do you use it to normalize or do you actually add a bit more boost in?
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 11/11/2022 10:30 pm, Pete wrote:
Quote: |
My experience conversing with Edge’s principal over the years, fwiw, is that he is chock full of confidence, many good ideas but peppered with some critical bad ones -which he will not acknowledge, and lets his customers “prove him wrong”. And some have (ex: cracked/failed welded crank). Too few accumulated hours to tease out all that pepper.
Same syndrome as Jan at viking (although Jan even lacks the engineering basics).
Difficult to watch.
Cheers,
PeteZ
Quote: |
On Nov 11, 2022, at 6:13 AM, Brian Phillips <barp99(at)gmail.com> (barp99(at)gmail.com) wrote:
Bud, thanks very much for your well laid out advice below, much appreciated, your background knowledge never ceases to amaze me.
You have talked me out of the 915, the thought of doing all the retrofit work, along with the weight issues, its just not worth it, and I would never finish it. I am still interested in the 912Is, & was thinking about the Edge 1484cc big bore kit. Your comments below about some of the US based big bore kits has got me thinking again. 10.5:1 CR does seem a little high, combined with no detonation detection feedback loop, does sound a bit risky. Edge performance don't play with the Rotax FI software, they supply a fuel pressure reg that increases the rail pressure, so the pump/s are working harder, again an added risk. Add to that limited operational history, makes the 914 look an even better outcome. As you say, 20,000 compromises flying in close formation.
Cheers,
Brian Phillips.
On 11/11/2022 4:34 am, Bud Yerly wrote:
Quote: |
Pete, as you are most aware and Brian you are learning fast:
Weight is the enemy of an airplane. Especially the Europa, as it is a very compact aircraft. If I add 15 horsepower, but it moves the CG forward, requires a prop extension and a constant speed prop, the CG is going to be somewhere around the spinner. Now we move the battery back, run longer heavier cables and as much more to the rear as possible such as autopilots, ELTs, etc. to counterbalance the nose. The weight just keeps going up. The Europa XS is 100 pounds heavier than the equivalent Europa Classic even with the XS fuselage module and firewall forward. The 912 80 HP is not a spectacular performer but will give 30 ANMPG at low altitude or with a leaning device at altitudes up to about 10,000 feet. Cruise is in the 120-130 knot range. The 912S raised the cruise about 5 knots more. The 914 doubles the climb rate, ups cruise to at least 140-145 knot range at the same 25 ANMPG as the 912S on a tricycle gear aircraft of course. The mono is faster and lighter of course.
As I learned on modifying the 914 to fuel injection. Customers moved the boost up to get more power but complained it burned more fuel. The only advantage was more power with less reliability. Fuel burn was basically the same at 31 inches and 5000 RPM. So, what did I gain? Slightly more power for climb but more heat to dissipate, a bigger radiator and shallow climb was necessary to cool. BTU requirements are the same for the same amount of power at the same fuel air ratio and varies little with displacement. Aircraft engines run at constant RPMs like a marine engines, so a carb is just as good as fuel injection except for altitude performance of a normally aspirated engine with no leaning. The Bing stops leaning after about 3500 feet in the normally aspirated engine. So, an after market leaning system is necessary for the high altitude flyers to improve fuel efficiency of the 912/912S. The Rotax 914 is ideal for higher altitude operations and frankly ideal for the Europa but at a higher cost. I believe the 914 totally transformed the Europa into a great airplane. Reliability of the 914 is now as good as the 912S but as we all know, there are techniques and inspections required to keep it running like new.
Normally a 912 through the 914 will go 1000 hours with only carb maintenance/oil changes. Overspeed of the engine is an issue many ignore. The valves can and do contact the piston if oversped. Prop strikes are ignored also by many STOL operators and taildragger/mono.
I do a top overhaul at about 500-600 hours (gearbox, clean up the valves, inspect the rings/cylinders) and press on. Repeat at 1000 hours and the engine is good to 1500 hours. The cleanup of the valves restores compression to like new or better than new and is really a surprise when a 914 burps after only about 5 blades of rotation.
I have no experience with the latest Edge Performance engines, but I do with the so called "Big Bore" engines done here in the States some years ago. They do put out more power. But for how long? Over the years the stock Rotax 100 HP 912S (especially the new blocks) last and last. Most of the Big Bores were back in after as short as 200 hours. But we have many cowboys here in the States that just want more power but won't pay for it to get power and reliability. I was around for the first of these Big Bore mods. As Edge Performance has found out, the crank shaft, and many other formally robust Rotax parts are now under more stress and required "upgrade". This costs money. My hats off to them, as they have at least backed their engines. In their defense, some of our “cowboys” here in the States are running regular car fuel. This causes detonation for sure. I can’t fix stupid!
If you need more power keep in mind in general you will need more gas, gain weight, reduce reliability, increase inspection requirements, require greater cooling mass, and of course add cost. An airplane is 20,000 compromises flying in close formation. If you change one thing, you affect 20 others. Choose wisely.
Example: Charts are scare still for the 915.
5000 RPM wide open throttle 87 KW or about 115 HP (10-20 more than the 914 depending on MP and TCU.) Fuel flow 27 L/hr or 7.1GPH.
A 20 HP increase on N12AY (Trigear) yields a cruise speed increase of nearly 10-13 Kts above 10,000 feet which is better than most.
However, the range in Air Nautical Mile per Gallon does not increase it decreases from about 25 ANMPG to 20 ANMPG.
The Europa drag goes up beyond 140 Knots by a cube root for the trigear. The mono is much better at still basically a square root curve. More horsepower doesn’t give me impressive efficiency or speed.
The 914 fits easily in the Europa XS, will cool, accepts a constant speed prop without issue or added extensions, has a reasonable fuel burn and will get you to 10,000 feet in about 11-13 minutes in a cruise climb. I can put out 70 to 95 horsepower continuous for cruise (typically 140-145 for a trigear) or max speed. Both the 912S/iS and Big Bore require the same octane fuel as the 914 so no advantage. The 914 turbo takes care of most of the issues with density altitude, it allows the Bing to work ideally from cruise to max continuous from the surface to service ceiling (which is well above 25,000 which is our human physiological limit without cabin pressurization). We know how to maintain it, the TCU has been modified and I can setup, troubleshoot or simply run a data dump from my laptop running Windows 7 through 10 without a special dongle. I don’t have Windows 11 yet, but it should work also. Carbs are easy to balance, and the installation manual is easy to follow. Always follow the engine installation manual in conjunction with the airframe firewall forward manual .
The 915 was never designed to fit a standard Rotax engine mount and does not fit most experimental aircraft firewall forwards. Extensive work is necessary to retrofit the 915 to a 912/914 airframe. The 915 is unmaintainable but for plugs and oil change without a “buds” system for the average owner to tell you what it’s doing but the troubleshooting manual is a bit sparce. Much study and patience is needed as the 915 goes through its teething issues. It runs lean on the ground like the 912iS and will overheat easily during an extended taxi out. Automatic systems means you the pilot lose control. Many 912iS owners hate the power drop off and find economy only comes through lower power. They have found fuel burn is the same for the same speed after an engine change from the S to the iS. The 915 has a similar issue with the power requirements. It is not like hopping into your BMW tubo and everything works. It is still like the 1980’s first gen fuel injection and turbo mods. Today it all works flawlessly in our autos, but with larger cooling requirements and components taking up more space under the hood. The 915 is not quite a plug and play engine electrically either. Look at Sling and their learning curve. The 4 place needs 140-150 HP. The two place not so much. Guys are looking hard at the difference.
In summary, the Europa was designed for about 100HP engines of light weight. It is fast and efficient for a 100HP 500 pound payload airplane. More weight makes the induced drag go up. The mono airframe was not designed to go faster than about 170 KTAS at 20,000 feet at an empty weight of 900 pounds. If you go above 900 pounds empty weight, the plane gets sluggish, speed drops and range is decreased. In the States, a 1000 mile per day range airplane is essential for getting around west of the Mississippi river. For my snow birds coming from Canada to Florida for the winter, they need that range also. Frankly, a bigger engine makes for shorter hops, less payload, and a longer day. More horsepower is not as important as more torque. Torque turns the prop, HP just makes it spin up faster.
Keep it light, keep it simple, and it will be a trouble-free steed with stock components. Work on drag reduction and keeping the weight down. Not by slapping more horsepower, weight, complexity, and cost on a very small airframe.
Just my thoughts….
Best Regards,
Bud Yerly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) <owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com> (owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com) On Behalf Of Pete
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 6:59 AM
To: europa-list(at)matronics.com (europa-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Re: What did you do with your Europa this week - 08/11/22
--> Europa-List message posted by: Pete <peterz(at)zutrasoft.com (peterz(at)zutrasoft.com)>
….except for the concerns of Edge welded cranks (cracking), and single point of failure (FI).
Cheers,
PeteZ
- The Europa-List Email Forum -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matronics.com%2FNavigator%3FEuropa-List&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wm%2FStj0pmmpyz3Mig2LnRkBfFdsMx6SLnhjzkK37%2Bc0%3D&reserved=0
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ycdDH2pLsucuLwZ1D%2BRcZsnydcBK5AXdQ6ZEjp%2FjBDQ%3D&reserved=0
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=H82eUxCpMT3FC%2B47WY13DthUPxRlKcO8Slvw4b4BIv4%3D&reserved=0
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
--> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmatronics.com%2Fcontribution&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BJyIGhvIq4pT7mzs62M9oV5AvbuxUVmXHUlH%2FDEvC%2Bg%3D&reserved=0
|
| |
|
|
Quote: |
--
William Daniell
LONGPORT
+1 786 878 0246
|
|
--
William Daniell
LONGPORT
+1 786 878 0246
|
| - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|