Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

MAUW Increase

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

nigel_graham(at)m-tecque.
Guest

Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 12:58 am Post subject: MAUW Increase

Steve,

     

     FYI

     

     I have just received a reply from John Tempest at the LAA regarding     my Callisto mod submission.

     Reproduced below is his (predictably conservative) response to the     MAUW increase proposal.

     I await with eager anticipation, his response to your mod!

     

     Nigel

     

Initial comments are (for discussion):     1.       The       MTOW of 1370 lb for the Europa was based on a number of analysis       reports and load tests and was limited by a number of issues, for       example, required composite special factors, stresses on the wing       root pins, and no doubt other issues, and it is therefore going to       require a considerable amount of thought to give any additional       weight increase over this figure, if indeed it is possible at all.       The use of in-service experience to justify operating at weights       higher that the designer’s intentions is fraught with problems and       at the moment this is a major hurdle. I am not sure how remaining       at 1370 lb will affect the practicality of your aircraft.

      [quote][b]

nigel_graham(at)m-tecque.
Guest

Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 3:44 am Post subject: MAUW Increase

Sorry chaps, Finger trouble!

     

     This was supposed to go to Steve Pitt . 

     But at least you UK flyers now know that we are working on a MTOW     upgrade proposal for the Europa.

     

     Nigel

     

     

     On 30/05/2015 09:56, Nigel Graham       wrote:

     

     [quote]              Steve,

       

       FYI

       

       I have just received a reply from John Tempest at the LAA       regarding my Callisto mod submission.

       Reproduced below is his (predictably conservative) response to the       MAUW increase proposal.

       I await with eager anticipation, his response to your mod!

       

       Nigel

       

Initial comments are (for discussion):       1.       The          MTOW of 1370 lb for the Europa was based on a number of analysis         reports and load tests and was limited by a number of issues,         for example, required composite special factors, stresses on the         wing root pins, and no doubt other issues, and it is therefore         going to require a considerable amount of thought to give any         additional weight increase over this figure, if indeed it is         possible at all. The use of in-service experience to justify         operating at weights higher that the designer’s intentions is         fraught with problems and at the moment this is a major hurdle.         I am not sure how remaining at 1370 lb will affect the         practicality of your aircraft.

        	  Quote: 	
		  

	
     [b]

JonathanMilbank

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 384
Location: Aberdeen area

Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 4:31 am Post subject: Re: MAUW Increase

Well my knee-jerk response is that whatever our American cousins are using for the max.mass of their Europa fleet is what we should be allowed, assuming that they haven't suffered mishaps due to overloading and aren't seeing evidence of structural failures developing.

Regardless of the whether the USA limit is higher, an increase to 1420 lbs (645 kg) seems reasonable to me, for Europas with 100hp or more powerful engines and/or VP propellers.

In my former commercial career I saw one 19 pax seat aircraft given a 7.9% increase of max.mass, without any structural strengthening. Just the performance graphs were altered to show things like increased take-off distance and reject area requirements and of course reduced single engine climb rates.

spcialeffects

Joined: 29 Aug 2012
Posts: 305
Location: Kent

Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 6:55 am Post subject: Re: MAUW Increase

From what Iv read and seen on the Internet the Americans operate their europa's at 1450lbs which in Church of England is another 5 and a half stone! A light passenger! However in order to fly at thet weight they have to pre load their planes (wings) with weight

JonathanMilbank

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 384
Location: Aberdeen area

Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 8:44 am Post subject: Re: MAUW Increase

Well, here's a bit more subjective waffling from me then! I don't think that most Europae would need that much of an increase i.e. beyond 1420 lbs. How about this? Most of us would like the capability to take off with two 15 stone (210 lbs to our USA cousins, 95,25 kg to our EU neighbours) blokes and a full tank 110 lbs, plus a bit of baggage e.g. 10 lbs.

That leaves 880 lbs which might be a fairly representative average empty weight (mass for EU neighbours) across the fleet.

Last edited by JonathanMilbank on Sun May 31, 2015 10:15 am; edited 1 time in total

rlborger(at)mac.com
Guest

Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 11:06 am Post subject: MAUW Increase

Here in the USA, because we are the “manufacturer” of the aircraft, we may set some of the specs of our aircraft.  I set my max gross weight to be 1450 lbs as suggested.  I also have restricted the CG range to 59-61.5 for weight over 1370 lbs. as suggested.  There was no need to do any further testing or weighting of the wings.  I find that, at max gross weight, the aircraft still climbs at almost 1000 fpm to pattern altitude of 1500 ft.  Cruise climb at 100 kts is over 500 fpm.  If stall speed was increased, it isn’t enough to see in the ASI at those low speeds.  



Blue skies & tailwinds,

Bob Borger

Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (75 hrs).

Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP

3705 Lynchburg Dr.

Corinth, TX  76208-5331

Cel: 817-992-1117

rlborger(at)mac.com

On May 30, 2015, at 9:55 AM, spcialeffects <spcialeffects(at)aol.com> wrote:






 	  Quote: 	
		   From what Iv read and seen on the Internet the Americans operate their europa's at 1450lbs which in Church of England is another 5 and a half stone! A light passenger! However in order to fly at thet weight they have to pre load their planes (wings) with weight

ward.t(at)xtra.co.nz
Guest

Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 1:49 pm Post subject: MAUW Increase

While flying the 747-400 our MAUW was changed from 398 tones to 405 tones. I asked the Technical skipper what we had to do to qualify for that increase, difference tyres, undercarriage oleos, tweak up the engine power etc. Answer: NOTHING, except pay Boeing $1,000,000 per aircraft to be certified!



So be it.

Tim

Tim Ward

12 Waiwetu Street

Fendalton,

Christchurch,  8052

New Zealand.



ward.t(at)xtra.co.nz



Ph 64 3 3515166

Mob 0210640221

 	  Quote: 	
		   On 31/05/2015, at 12:31 am, jonathanmilbank <jdmilbank(at)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

 

 

 

 Well my knee-jerk response is that whatever our American cousins are using for the max.mass of their Europa fleet is what we should be allowed, assuming that they haven't suffered mishaps due to overloading and aren't seeing evidence of structural failures developing.

 An increase to 1420 lbs (645 kg) seems reasonable to me, for Europas with 100hp or more powerful engines and/or VP propellers.

 In my former commercial career I saw one 19 pax seat aircraft given a 7.8% increase of max.mass, without any structural strengthening. Just the performance graphs were altered to show things like increased take-off distance and reject area requirements and of course reduced single engine climb rates.

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442800#442800

pestar

Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 61
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 2:18 pm Post subject: Re: MAUW Increase

Tim



I did not know that you were that heavy that Air New Zealand had to increase the 747-400 MAUW when you had to fly it.



Cheers Peter

_________________
Peter Armstrong
Auckland, New Zealand
DynAero MCR-4S (Do not shoot me Smile

John Wighton

Joined: 18 May 2010
Posts: 240

Posted: Sun May 31, 2015 5:07 am Post subject: Re: MAUW Increase

An increase in MAUW for the Europa (or any other LAA Permit aircraft) nowadays requires a significant amount of engineering work culminating in a rational and fully detailed submission to the Engineering office at the LAA.  Long gone are the days when partial submissions and/or data based on predominantly observation based in-service history are sufficient to achieve the desired result.



For the Europa there was never (to my knowledge) a full submission made, it's approval being in the days when the system was less obstructive.  If there was a fully detailed submission it could be used as a baseline for a MAUW increase, probably based solely on an extrapolation of the existing stress work and/or a new interpretation of the factors used in the original.



There seems to be a misunderstanding that an increase in MAUW only affects the wing, the reality is the entire airframe structurally (and it's aeroelastic responses) are influenced by the additional mass.



I started to look at the Europa structure many years ago whilst conducting stress analysis on the FLYER magazine aircraft.  At that time they not only wanted to go through the process of building a Permit aircraft but (somewhat ambitiously) decided to implement some major modifications.  The final result is, thankfully, flying successfully today (G-MLXP by Mike Davies) albeit without the BRS mods.  The justification reports for that Mod required a simulation (FEA) of the entire front end of the Europa, which l made on a ply by ply basis 'laying' up the FE model in the same way that kit is built.  The finished model was stressed using JAR-VLA derived loads (pre CS-VLA) and then the Mods were applied thereby showing the differences in loads.  To cut a very long story short the LAA finally accepted the Mod after Mike (who purchased the project from FLYER) agreed to increase the level of reinforcement around the MLG.  The context of this tale is that my business, as a CAA approved E1/E2 DOA (with the scope to design and submit type certification for complete JAR-VLA aircraft) was unable to persuade (then PFA) LAA Engineering that we had a good solution. The end result is (most probably) heavier than it needs to be.



The above is an illustration indicating the amount of justification required to achieve a successful Mod application.  I could add further tales of woe to illustrate just how difficult these applications are when made via the LAA.



So, cutting to the chase, to achieve a MAUW increase >1370lbs will require probably a complete loads and stress analysis of the aircraft as if it were a new design.  It would also most likely require us to conduct material qualification/characterisation tests in order to alleviate the composite special factor (1.5) used.  Any data relating to the foreign fleet would be of interest but is unlikely to be of any real value.  Had one of our enterprising US cousins strain gauged their aircraft and conducted flight tests under strict (CAFE type) conditions (see http://209.83.103.25/home/flight_reports/europa_classic. (h t m l )

we may have some useful data to correlate the stress analysis with.



My own view (having inadvertently flown my own Europa at >MAUW with a marginally aft CG whilst in CH) is that it is probably OK structurally and from a stability and control point of view.  Landing at such high weights (admittedly unlikely) may not work out so well (tri-gear and/or mono).



With swift concentrating on their new aircraft program, which l learned yesterday will also be a kit (and then a TC) aircraft, they will unlikely be willing to devote their own engineering resources to a Heavy Europa Mod (HEM). 



Input/opinion from Europa Club members and non-member owners (shame on you, wherever you are) on this matter is welcome.  If enough people want a Mod (with/without structural changes) then we can perhaps take it further.



Regards

JW

_________________
John Wighton
Europa XS trigear G-IPOD

rlborger(at)mac.com
Guest

Posted: Sun May 31, 2015 6:02 am Post subject: MAUW Increase

John,



Thanks very much for your detailed description of what is needed for an LAA MAUW increase.  The LAA not only make it onerous but also expensive to complete.  I’ve not tested my aircraft with a fully aft CG at any weight so I can’t speak to that.  But, N914XL has been tested in general flight conditions at 1449 lbs with CG at 61.267 (185 lb pilot, 135 lbs in the passenger seat, 80 lbs in the baggage bay & 17 gal of fuel with the results stated in my last e-mail.  I wish you folks the best of luck in obtaining you MAUW increase approval.



Blue skies & tailwinds,

Bob Borger

Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (75 hrs).

Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP

3705 Lynchburg Dr.

Corinth, TX  76208-5331

Cel: 817-992-1117

rlborger(at)mac.com

On May 31, 2015, at 8:07 AM, John Wighton <john(at)wighton.net> wrote:






An increase in MAUW for the Europa (or any other LAA Permit aircraft) nowadays requires a significant amount of engineering work culminating in a rational and fully detailed submission to the Engineering office at the LAA.  Long gone are the days when partial submissions and/or data based on predominantly observation based in-service history are sufficient to achieve the desired result.



For the Europa there was never (to my knowledge) a full submission made, it's approval being in the days when the system was less obstructive.  If there was a fully detailed submission it could be used as a baseline for a MAUW increase, probably based solely on an extrapolation of the existing stress work and/or a new interpretation of the factors used in the original.



There seems to be a misunderstanding that an increase in MAUW only affects the wing, the reality is the entire airframe structurally (and it's aeroelastic responses) are influenced by the additional mass.



I started to look at the Europa structure many years ago whilst conducting stress analysis on the FLYER magazine aircraft.  At that time they not only wanted to go through the process of building a Permit aircraft but (somewhat ambitiously) decided to implement some major modifications.  The final result is, thankfully, flying successfully today (G-MLXP by Mike Davies) albeit without the BRS mods.  The justification reports for that Mod required a simulation (FEA) of the entire front end of the Europa, which l made on a ply by ply basis 'laying' up the FE model in the same way that kit is built.  The finished model was stressed using JAR-VLA derived loads (pre CS-VLA) and then the Mods were applied thereby showing the differences in loads.  To cut a very long story short the LAA finally accepted the Mod after Mike (who purchased the project from FLYER) agreed to increase the level of reinforcement around the MLG.  The context of this tale is that my business, as a CAA approv!

ed E1/E2 DOA (with the scope to design and submit type certification for complete JAR-VLA aircraft) was unable to persuade (then PFA) LAA Engineering that we had a good solution. The end result is (most probably) heavier than it needs to be.



The above is an illustration indicating the amount of justification required to achieve a successful Mod application.  I could add further tales of woe to illustrate just how difficult these applications are when made via the LAA.



So, cutting to the chase, to achieve a MAUW increase >1370lbs will require probably a complete loads and stress analysis of the aircraft as if it were a new design.  It would also most likely require us to conduct material qualification/characterisation tests in order to alleviate the composite special factor (1.5) used.  Any data relating to the foreign fleet would be of interest but is unlikely to be of any real value.  Had one of our enterprising US cousins strain gauged their aircraft and conducted flight tests under strict (CAFE type) conditions (see http://209.83.103.25/home/flight_reports/europa_classic. (h t m l )

we may have some useful data to correlate the stress analysis with.



My own view (having inadvertently flown my own Europa at >MAUW with a marginally aft CG whilst in CH) is that it is probably OK structurally and from a stability and control point of view.  Landing at such high weights (admittedly unlikely) may not work out so well (tri-gear and/or mono).



With swift concentrating on their new aircraft program, which l learned yesterday will also be a kit (and then a TC) aircraft, they will unlikely be willing to devote their own engineering resources to a Heavy Europa Mod (HEM). 



Input/opinion from Europa Club members and non-member owners (shame on you, wherever you are) on this matter is welcome.  If enough people want a Mod (with/without structural changes) then we can perhaps take it further.



Regards

JW



--------

John Wighton

Europa XS trigear G-IPOD

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

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