Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Europa Tailplane

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

Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

carl(at)flyers.freeserve.
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:06 am Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

Im not sure your mod would have prevented Williams accident.



I believe his kit would have been purchased in 1994 and was finished in 

1995.

---

sidsel.svein(at)oslo.onli
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:56 am Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

While there may be doubt whether the shallow lip on the inside  of TP6 will be adequate as a tailplane retention, it is worth reading EA2004's  reasoning behind Mod 73 carefully:  Retention of the tailplane  by TP6 (and the pip pin securing TP6 to the torque tube) AND a secondary  retention by the pip pin and its surrounding composite structure alone,  should the primary retention not hold.  The mod is therefore as  much a strengthening of the structure around the pip pin and a proper  transfer of forces acting on the pip pin into the tailplane skin, as it  is a mod for better bonding of TP6 to the tailplane.

  

 This is the reason why the instructions make a point of not  removing any bid/epoxy around the hole on the underside, in the event the pip  pin ball should not open on the underside of the new layup, but instead buy a  longer pip pin.  Removing bid/epoxy here would defeat that secondary  retention function of the mod.

  

 As I understand it, this view is also reflected in  FSB-006 Issue 3 section 5:  Mod 73 need to be done if the upper pip pin  recess does not satisfy the stated requirements.  I think, however, that  PFA ought to have required ovalization of the torque  tube holes even if Mod 73 may be omitted if the requirements of Section 5 are  complied with -ovalization should be done in any event, I think.

  

 Regards,

 Svein

 LN-SKJ

   [quote][b]

willie.harrison(at)tinyon
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:02 am Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

I have heard that there are still doubts in the AAIB investigation  

about whether the initial failure was the wing pin (with  

consequential failure of the tail) or the other way around. Hence we  

are being required to cover both hypotheses by mods and checks front  

and back.



If it was indeed the wing pin which failed first - very big "if" -  

then the implication is that the tail could/would have then failed  

because it was subject to loads it had never been designed for  

(perhaps a sudden pitch or roll or yaw?) , and not because there was  

anything wrong with it - it would have been a consequential event,  

not a causal one. You might also feel that if the wing pin had failed  

then the aircraft may have been doomed whether or not the tail broke  

up. If this is true  then perhaps neither mod 73 nor Nigel's mod  

would have saved the day.



A supporting thought to this hypothesis is that the build quality  

around the wing pin on the crash aircraft is known to have been poor.  

Also, the aircraft is known to have been returning from a Permit  

inspection when the wings would have been removed and replaced.  

Perhaps in refitting the wing, some damage was done to the already  

compromised wing pin?



Just a thought.



Willie Harrison



On 14 Jul 2007, at 15:05, Carl Pattinson wrote:



[quote] 

 <carl(at)flyers.freeserve.co.uk>



 Im not sure your mod would have prevented Williams accident.



 I believe his kit would have been purchased in 1994 and was  

 finished in 1995.

 ---

gcrowder2

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 136
Location: Golden, Colorado USA

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:40 am Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

I wonder about the integrity of the elevator mass balance in the accident aircraft.  If the

 mass balance had become disengaged for any reason, then the slightest disturbance in pitch

 could cause the elevator to become uncontrollable.  This would be consistent with the report

 of wild pitch excursions initially prior to the tail departing.

  

                                           Glenn



[quote] From: willie.harrison(at)tinyonline.co.uk

 Subject: Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

 Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:01:35 +0100

 To: europa-list(at)matronics.com

 

 --> Europa-List message posted by: William Harrison <willie.harrison(at)tinyonline.co.uk>

 

 I have heard that there are still doubts in the AAIB investigation 

 about whether the initial failure was the wing pin (with 

 consequential failure of the tail) or the other way around. Hence we 

 are being required to cover both hypotheses by mods and checks front 

 and back.

 

 If it was indeed the wing pin which failed first - very big "if" - 

 then the implication is that the tail could/would have then failed 

 because it was subject to loads it had never been designed for 

 (perhaps a sudden pitch or roll or yaw?) , and not because there was 

 anything wrong with it - it would have been a consequential event, 

 not a causal one. You might also feel that if the wing pin had failed 

 then the aircraft may have been doomed whether or not the tail broke 

 up. If this is true then perhaps neither mod 73 nor Nigel's mod 

 would have saved the day.

 

 A supporting thought to this hypothesis is that the build quality 

 around the wing pin on the crash aircraft is known to have been poor. 

 Also, the aircraft is known to have been returning from a Permit 

 inspection when the wings would have been removed and replaced. 

 Perhaps in refitting the wing, some damage was done to the already 

 compromised wing pin?

 

 Just a thought.

 

 Willie Harrison

 

 

 

 On 14 Jul 2007, at 15:05, Carl Pattinson wrote:

 

 > --> Europa-List message posted by: "Carl Pattinson" 

 > <carl(at)flyers.freeserve.co.uk>

 >

 > Im not sure your mod would have prevented Williams accident.

 >

 > I believe his kit would have been purchased in 1994 and was 

 > finished in 1995.

 >

 >

 > ---

kheindl(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:45 am Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

 	  Quote: 	
		  



  I wonder about the integrity of the elevator mass balance in the accident 

aircraft.  If the

mass balance had become disengaged for any reason, then the slightest 

disturbance in pitch

could cause the elevator to become uncontrollable.  This would be 

consistent with the report

of wild pitch excursions initially prior to the tail departing.


	




I am not so sure about the above. A failing mass balance would have the same 

effect as pushing the stick forward. The pilot would instinctively pull back 

the stick and regain level flight. Maximum trim would then reduce that load 

a little, but there should be no real problem in maintaining ccordinated 

flight with the stick held back.



Karl

[quote]

                                           Glenn> From: 

willie.harrison(at)tinyonline.co.uk> Subject: Re: Europa 

Tailplane - Mod 73> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:01:35 +0100> To: 

europa-list(at)matronics.com> > 

Harrison <willie.harrison(at)tinyonline.co.uk>> > I have heard that there are 

still doubts in the AAIB investigation > about whether the initial failure 

was the wing pin (with > consequential failure of the tail) or the other 

way around. Hence we > are being required to cover both hypotheses by mods 

and checks front > and back.> > If it was indeed the wing pin which failed 

first - very big "if" - > then the implication is that the tail could/would 

have then failed > because it was subject to loads it had never been 

designed for > (perhaps a sudden pitch or roll or yaw?) , and not because 

there was > anything wrong with it - it would have been a consequential 

event, > not a causal one. You might also feel that if the wing pin had 

failed > then the aircraft may have been doomed whether or not the tail 

broke > up. If this is true then perhaps neither mod 73 nor Nigel's mod > 

would have saved the day.> > A supporting thought to this hypothesis is 

that the build quality > around the wing pin on the crash aircraft is known 

to have been poor. > Also, the aircraft is known to have been returning 

from a Permit > inspection when the wings would have been removed and 

replaced. > Perhaps in refitting the wing, some damage was done to the 

already > compromised wing pin?> > Just a thought.> > Willie Harrison> > > 

 > On 14 Jul 2007, at 15:05, Carl Pattinson wrote:> > > --> Europa-List 

message posted by: "Carl Pattinson" > > <carl(at)flyers.freeserve.co.uk>> >> > 

Im not sure your mod would have prevented Williams accident.> >> > I 

believe his kit would have been purchased in 1994 and was > > finished in 

1995.> >> >> > ---

kheindl(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:52 am Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

Can anyone explain to me how the tailplane can possibly move outward by even 

a millimeter when the pip pin head is resting firmly against a solid wall on 

the inboard side, whether this is epoxy, glass, wood or anything else ? 

Where are these huge forces that would pull this pin sideways through the 

surrounding foam body ? Is a loose TP6 really such a big problem, apart from 

making it difficult if not impossible to rig the tailplane ?



Regards,

Karl





 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "Sidsel & Svein Johnsen" <sidsel.svein(at)oslo.online.no>

Reply-To: europa-list(at)matronics.com

To: <europa-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:54:16 +0200



14 Hantone HillWhile there may be doubt whether the shallow lip on the 

inside of TP6 will be adequate as a tailplane retention, it is worth 

reading EA2004's reasoning behind Mod 73 carefully:  Retention of the 

tailplane by TP6 (and the pip pin securing TP6 to the torque tube) AND a 

secondary retention by the pip pin and its surrounding composite structure 

alone, should the primary retention not hold.  The mod is therefore as much 

a strengthening of the structure around the pip pin and a proper transfer 

of forces acting on the pip pin into the tailplane skin, as it is a mod for 

better bonding of TP6 to the tailplane.



This is the reason why the instructions make a point of not removing any 

bid/epoxy around the hole on the underside, in the event the pip pin ball 

should not open on the underside of the new layup, but instead buy a longer 

pip pin.  Removing bid/epoxy here would defeat that secondary retention 

function of the mod.



As I understand it, this view is also reflected in FSB-006 Issue 3 section 

5:  Mod 73 need to be done if the upper pip pin recess does not satisfy the 

stated requirements.  I think, however, that PFA ought to have required 

ovalization of the torque tube holes even if Mod 73 may be omitted if the 

requirements of Section 5 are complied with -ovalization should be done in 

any event, I think.



Regards,

Svein

LN-SKJ


	


_________________________________________________________________

Tell Hotmail about an email that changed your life!  

http://www.emailbritain.co.uk/

riddon(at)sent.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:14 am Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

Nigel,  

   

Can you tell me where I can find details of mod 10672 as I can’t locate it on the Europa Aircraft web site?  

   

Richard Iddon G-RIXS  

     

   

  

     

  13/07/2007 15:41

  

  13/07/2007 15:41

     [quote][b]

josok-e(at)ukolo.fi
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:58 am Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

Hi Richsrd,



http://www.europaclub.org.uk/mods/improved_tp5_and_tp6_sleeve_retention.shtml



Europa club pages,



Regards,



Jos Okhuijsen

Visit -  www.EuropaOwners.org

nicolaprice(at)tiscali.co
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:00 am Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

Its on the Europa club website  builders pages  I think.

 Thanks for the what ' to look for'  Nigel.

  

 John Price.

 [quote]   ---

gcrowder2

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 136
Location: Golden, Colorado USA

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:39 pm Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

Yeah, I got that but without mass balancing, the elevator could tend to slam up or down

 to the stops, possibly ripping the stick out of the pilots hands.  One or two oscillations of

 this sort and the tail would come off for sure.

  

                                                  Glenn



[quote] From: kheindl(at)msn.com

 To: europa-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

 Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:43:49 +0100

 

 --> Europa-List message posted by: "Karl Heindl" <kheindl(at)msn.com>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 >

 >

 > I wonder about the integrity of the elevator mass balance in the accident 

 >aircraft. If the

 >mass balance had become disengaged for any reason, then the slightest 

 >disturbance in pitch

 >could cause the elevator to become uncontrollable. This would be 

 >consistent with the report

 >of wild pitch excursions initially prior to the tail departing.

 

 

 I am not so sure about the above. A failing mass balance would have the same 

 effect as pushing the stick forward. The pilot would instinctively pull back 

 the stick and regain level flight. Maximum trim would then reduce that load 

 a little, but there should be no real problem in maintaining ccordinated 

 flight with the stick held back.

 

 Karl

 

 

 >

 > Glenn> From: 

 >willie.harrison(at)tinyonline.co.uk> Subject: Re: Europa 

 >Tailplane - Mod 73> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:01:35 +0100> To: 

 >europa-list(at)matronics.com> > --> Europa-List message posted by: William 

 >Harrison <willie.harrison(at)tinyonline.co.uk>> > I have heard that there are 

 >still doubts in the AAIB investigation > about whether the initial failure 

 >was the wing pin (with > consequential failure of the tail) or the other 

 >way around. Hence we > are being required to cover both hypotheses by mods 

 >and checks front > and back.> > If it was indeed the wing pin which failed 

 >first - very big "if" - > then the implication is that the tail could/would 

 >have then failed > because it was subject to loads it had never been 

 >designed for > (perhaps a sudden pitch or roll or yaw?) , and not because 

 >there was > anything wrong with it - it would have been a consequential 

 >event, > not a causal one. You might also feel that if the wing pin had 

 >failed > then the aircraft may have been doomed whether or not the tail 

 >broke > up. If this is true then perhaps neither mod 73 nor Nigel's mod > 

 >would have saved the day.> > A supporting thought to this hypothesis is 

 >that the build quality > around the wing pin on the crash aircraft is known 

 >to have been poor. > Also, the aircraft is known to have been returning 

 >from a Permit > inspection when the wings would have been removed and 

 >replaced. > Perhaps in refitting the wing, some damage was done to the 

 >already > compromised wing pin?> > Just a thought.> > Willie Harrison> > > 

 > > On 14 Jul 2007, at 15:05, Carl Pattinson wrote:> > > --> Europa-List 

 >message posted by: "Carl Pattinson" > > <carl(at)flyers.freeserve.co.uk>> >> > 

 >Im not sure your mod would have prevented Williams accident.> >> > I 

 >believe his kit would have been purchased in 1994 and was > > finished in 

 >1995.> >> >> > ---

grahamsingleton(at)btinte
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:58 pm Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

What I still don't understand is that the wings came off and from the 

information to date there was not enough speed to pull the wings off. 

Incomplete information it would appear. Wings should not fail at any 

speed less than about 125 knots? That's what max rough air speed means.

Graham



glenn crowder wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		     Yeah, I got that but without mass balancing, the elevator could tend 

 to slam up or down

 to the stops, possibly ripping the stick out of the pilots hands.  One 

 or two oscillations of

 this sort and the tail would come off for sure.

  

                                                  Glenn

gcrowder2

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 136
Location: Golden, Colorado USA

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

Once the tailplane(s) departed, the wing by itself has a negative pitching moment.  Once the

 main wing heads down with nothing to stop it, would normally tend to pitch all the way under, which would certainly break the wing attachments.

                                               Glenn

 	  Quote: 	
		   Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:01:30 +0100

 From: grahamsingleton(at)btinternet.com

 To: europa-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

 --> Europa-List message posted by: Graham Singleton <grahamsingleton(at)btinternet.com>

 What I still don't understand is that the wings came off and from the 

 information to date there was not enough speed to pull the wings off. 

 Incomplete information it would appear. Wings should not fail at any 

 speed less than about 125 knots? That's what max rough air speed means.

 Graham

 glenn crowder wrote:

 > Yeah, I got that but without mass balancing, the elevator could tend 

 > to slam up or down

 > to the stops, possibly ripping the stick out of the pilots hands. One 

 > or two oscillations of

 > this sort and the tail would come off for sure.

 > 

&gt======

 	  Quote: 	

PC Magazine’s 2007 editors’ choice for best web mail—award-winning Windows Live&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HMWL_mini_pcmag_0707' target='_new'>Check it out!  [quote][b]

mikenjulie.parkin(at)btin
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:45 pm Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

Glenn,

  

 I am not so sure about that statement.  As one  accellerates, more nose down trim is required - standard in any aeroplane.   That implies that if the tailplane was taken out of the equation, the aircraft  would pitch up - not down.  Aerodynamicists,  am I missing something  here??

  

 regards,

  

 Mike

  

 [quote]   ---

gcrowder2

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 136
Location: Golden, Colorado USA

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

Yes, but trimming nose down is done to lower the angle of attack of the wing, and

 thus lower the induced drag, allowing a higher airspeed.  It is still pushing down, just not

 as much as at lower speeds.

   All non symmetrical airfoils that do not have reflex in the trailing edge have a negative CM (pitching moment).  This is why the tail is necessary in the first place.  The tailplane provides a downforce that balances the negative pitching moment of the wing.  In a flying wing design, there is a necessity for more washout at the tips and/or reflex in the trailing edge of the wing to counteract the negative CM of the wing (effectively adding downforce at the tail).  

   Without the tail, the wing will rotate nose down and then tuck under.

  

                                                  Glenn

  

   From: mikenjulie.parkin(at)btinternet.com

To: europa-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 01:43:10 +0100



   .ExternalClass P {padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-top:0px;} .ExternalClass {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}  

 [quote] Glenn,

  

 I am not so sure about that statement.  As one accellerates, more nose down trim is required - standard in any aeroplane.  That implies that if the tailplane was taken out of the equation, the aircraft would pitch up - not down.  Aerodynamicists,  am I missing something here??

  

 regards,

  

 Mike

  

 [quote] ---

DuaneFamly(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:59 pm Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

To All,

  

 Was I imagining what I read about the accident? Wasn't flutter mentioned as  part of the failure equation? If high frequency flutter occurred in flight,  might that have caused, maybe, the debonding of the TP6 sleeve. Then the  same high frequency flutter of the tailplane might have allowed the  tailplane to "walk" on the torque tube. It could only go in one direction,  outboard, and would not have to go very far before TP13 drive pins  disengaged. Once disengaged, what would the tailplane behave like? Would the  flutter drive the tailplane up and down so quickly without the mass balance  weight as to cause the tailplane to fail? Or could the aerodynamics  from the loose tailplane force the tail up, with the pilot countering this force  with the other tailplane? Would it equalize to a controllable point while in  flight? A question for the investigators, "Was the pip pin still in it's hole in  the torque tube?"   

 Mike Duane  A207A

Redding, California

XS Conventional Gear

Jabiru 3300  

Sensenich R64Z N

Ground Adjustable  Prop





Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL.com.

  [quote][b]

mikenjulie.parkin(at)btin
Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:01 am Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

I accept what you say about CM about the aerodynamic  centre for an aerofoil.  But are you saying that irrespective of the CofG  of the aircraft, an aircraft will always pitch down.

  

 regards,

  

 Mike

  

  

   [quote][b]

nigel_graham(at)btconnect
Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:44 am Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

-

kheindl(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:51 am Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

Nigel,



I understand all that and your mod should have been made standard a long 

time ago. But what about older Europas ? We hear reports about disbonded 

TP6s but we don't hear how they were repaired. I really would like to know. 

A suitable retrofit mod should also have been made available as soon as this 

problem was known.

I still say that there is no way the tailplane can move if the pip pin head 

is firmly against solid material on the inboard side. You say there is 

always a gap, but that gap is filled with floxed epoxy, and the head is 

inside a close fitting plastic pipe in my case. I think another builder 

recently told us about a similar mod he made. The remaining space around the 

pipe is also filled with epoxy. Of course all these solutions are based on 

theory and only a lab test could verify the claims.

When my TP5s disbonded from trailering I was kicking myself for not having 

installed a one-piece pipe, but in those early days I was very careful to 

follow the build instructions precisely. I stll think that a retrofit of a 

one-piece sleeve  would be more than strong enough to prevent any future 

disbonding, and would be a relatively easy solution where the TP6s have 

already disbonded.



As far as the accident goes, we still don't have any real conclusive 

evidence about the sequence of events. Only a number of theories. Only a 

wind tunnel test would verify the flutter theory, but who is going to pay 

for that ? Eyewitness reports can be very misleading.

If the wing trailing edge pin came off first, is it possible that the pilot 

was getting set up for landing and deploying flaps and undercarriage ?



I also like the other suggested solutions where a lock is put behind the 

TP12

Karl

 	  Quote: 	
		  

Karl,



I have attached below, an excerpt of a long mail I sent to the PFA that

describes a sequence of events that could lead to the tailplain moving

outboard. Out of interest, there is always a gap between the pip-pin and 

the

face of the rib.



This was sent before the current Mod 73 was issued, but you will see why 

the

temporary remedial action has been to reinforce the pip-pin hole.



Nigel





-------------------------------

Excerpt



...... The only thing preventing each tailplane moving sideways is a single

pip-pin that passes through the TP6 bush and into the TP4 torque tube. (See

Fig.5 Chap 4)

The design relies on a good bond to hold TP6 in place, however only the

protruding outer 12mm (just 8mm on TP5) is required to bond to the 

tailplane

rib that will subsequently be laid-up onto it. Epoxy adhesive does not bond

well to stainless steel - so the potential for this bondline to fail is

great.

This tiny bondline is the only "design" load path to prevent the tailplane

moving laterally. If the bond failed, the loose TP6 bush would tend to push

its way inboard into the soft blue foam, allowing the tailplane to move

outboard. The TP5 bush would offer no resistance since it would simply 

slide

along the TP4 torque tube.



In some early Europas, this TP6 bush has de-bonded and it is only the

laminations into the "PipPin" access hole that prevent any lateral movement

of the tail-plane. This lamination was never intended to be structural. If

the aircraft is high-time and habitually operated off rough strips, it is

logical to predict that the continual fretting would cause the glass around

the pip-pin hole to chafe, opening up the hole to a point where the whole

tailplane could slide far enough laterally to allow the tail-pane drive 

pins

(TP12) to disengage from their drive bushes (TP13) - The tailplane would

then oscillate violently with catastrophic results.



Modification 10672) calls for both the Stainless TP5 and TP6 bushes to be

laminated into an epoxy/Bi-Directional Glass tube before inserting this 

into

the tailplane TP2 cores and laminating the ribs. This bonds both bushes 

over

their entire surface area, significantly increasing the bond area and more

importantly, physically tying TP5 with TP6 and both the inner and outer 

ribs

together. With this structure, the entire bond surface area and both ribs

would have to fail before the tailplane could move sideways.



The loadpath is through the mod 10672 and not through the outer skin and

pip-pin hole - a significantly better engineering solution.

-




	


_________________________________________________________________

Watch all 9 Live Earth concerts live on MSN.  http://liveearth.uk.msn.com

carl(at)flyers.freeserve.
Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:43 am Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

The only "solid" material on the inboard side is 2 plies of bid comprising 

the pip pin recess (and a bit of foam!!!) . That is why the PFA have been so 

specific as to what is considered acceptable or not.



The tailplane rib is on the outboard side of the pip pin recess and would 

provide no suport to a disbonded TP6.



You say that the pip pin head is located against "solid material" but what 

is that solid material anchored to? If it isnt anchored to the tailplane 

surface or to the outboard tailplane rib then it isnt anchored to anything !



I suspect the current mod 73 will prove to be no more than a temporary 

solution and a more robust mod will follow in due course.



There would seem to be several retrofit solutions to this problem and 

ultimately it is up to the PFA to decide which will be best in the long 

term.



Whilst I agree this problem should have been addressed a long time ago, the 

fact is that many Europas have flown many hours without incident.  This 

would suggest the problem is not as dire as we all think it is. I suspect 

that 99% of Europas are flying around with secure tailplanes but in the 

absence of definitive proof one has to assume the worst.



We are also assuming that a disbonded TP5 contributed towards Williams 

accident. So far however there is no definitive evidence to support such an 

assumption (in the public domain at least).



Carl (with a C !)

G-LABS

---

gcrowder2

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 136
Location: Golden, Colorado USA

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:33 am Post subject: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

Hi Mike - yes the aircraft will always pitch down with a non symmetrical airfoil.  This is why

 aerobatic aircraft are designed with symmetrical airfoils - zero pitching moment.  

Aerobatic pilots don't like their aircraft pitching without their command!

   Also, in the accident aircraft, losing the tailplane suddenly removed 20 lbs of weight off the

 tail, pitching the nose down further.

   If you've ever flown a C-172 while lowering the flaps you will probably remember the

 pitch down.  Actually, it balloons up first while speed is being lost, then pitches down.

   The wing is now very non-symmetrical, requiring up trim on the elevator to

 balance the increased negative CM.  The Europa does this too but not as noticeable,

 probably because of the powerful tail.

  

                                             Glenn

  

                                                     

  

                                              



  	  Quote: 	
		    From: mikenjulie.parkin(at)btinternet.com

To: europa-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:01:17 +0100



   .ExternalClass P {padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-top:0px;} .ExternalClass {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}   I accept what you say about CM about the aerodynamic centre for an aerofoil.  But are you saying that irrespective of the CofG of the aircraft, an aircraft will always pitch down.

  

 regards,

  

 Mike

  

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  



arget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List

p://forums.matronics.com



	
	
See what you’re getting into…before you go there. Check it out!  [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4

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