Anxious to put the records straight
The Ban-bi is not quite as light as that quoted. 440 lbs is a design weight
whereas mine actually weighs 517 lbs ready to fly with a VP prop modest
instrumentation and not the lightest of paint jobs. Recent mods which I
don't have could save around 15 lbs. Regarding internal accommodation there
is little to choose. The Ban-bi offers 44" at the shoulders which combined
with small central tunnel gives good cockpit width. It also has adjustable
seats and adjustable rudder pedals. I certainly don't think it offers any
less pilot accommodation than a Europa. The Europa may have a little more
space behind the seats and a fancier panel design.
Regarding crash worthiness - I don't know that the Ban-bi is any worse or
better than the Europa. Its lighter because it uses lots of carbon which is
lighter than glass for the same strength. The wings which are immensely
strong
weigh around 33 lbs each and the all flying tail weighs 9 lbs 8 oz. Those
sorts of weights are carried all through the design. Unless inertia is going
to help in a crash situation I don't see the advantage of extra weight and
weight doesn't mean strong.
In fact it could be argued that lightweight gives better take off, climb and
go around performance therefore reducing the likelihood of a crash.
I am sure a lightweight Europa must be inherently more safe than a heavy
Europa. Reiterating Tony's view that light is good.
I think the best advice for Europa and Ban-bi pilots alike is make sure you
have sufficient training on type. It takes a long time to make and seconds
to break.
Jerry
lts@avnet.co.uk
http://www.avnet.co.uk/touchdown
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Renshaw <renshaw@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Dont be a PRE Builder!!!!
> Jan de Jong,
> If you put as much work into your Europa build as this e-mail, you will
> build a nice, light Europa that will do all that you want and protect you
> if the need arises. Ask yourself, if I crash this pretty little Banbi, how
> will I come off. Then ask yourself the same question in a Europa. I could
> not imagine having a fuselage much lighter than our Europas. I have only
> seen a Banbi in pictures, but feel that whilst you have 2 seats side by
> side you will want to be good friends with your travelling companions. If
> you are not on intimate terms with them before the flight you may well be
> after. Don't fly with a bloke though! Kit a/c are about compromises.
Decide
> how fast you want to fly, how slow you'd like to crash, would you walk
away
> from a assaulting piece of terrafirma or a tree at 40 knots or so, whether
> you want to tinker with your a/c after it is built in your garage AFTER it
> is built, etc, then just part with the bucks and buy the tailkit and get
on
> the merry-go-round of being a Europa builder. We welcome people with this
> sort of attention to detail, so come on and be like Nike "Just do it"
> Reg
> Tony Renshaw
>
> > Hallo everybody!
> >I am new to the list and a preparatory stage builder (a dreaming stage
> >flyer). I had not looked at private flying for 20 years. Once, after a
> >1979 Florida vacation of flying lessons I had decided that flying was too
> >expensive - one flies either professionally or not. So I had given up on
> >flying - a page turned... To my delight I recently discovered that a
whole
> >kitplane industry has grown in the interim and that owning and using an
> >aircraft may now be a reasonable proposition (not all beloveds saw this
> >right away, but my wife will support, or tolerate - boys and toys).
> >I have since collected a lot of bookmarks and a small stack of books. I
> >decided early on that the Europa looked exactly right and I signed up for
> >the Europa Club. Very good. A lot of information still to be gathered and
> >processed, but a very nice start. Reiterating my kit selection process
> >(why the Europa - sorry to bore):
> >Aircraft requirements:
> > 80 - 120 hp
> > unleaded or diesel
> > 2 side by side
> >& at most 800 ft
> > at least 500 lbs
> > at least 140 mph
> > to at most 80" (about 2.0 m) wide A pretty thorough search (Internet
> >and EAA AeroCrafter list of 700) shows that the Europa is the only
> >contender. Allowing leeway in requirements 5, 6 and 7 the following
> >aircraft come closest (random order):
> ><www.capellakitplanes.com : Capella XLS
> ><www.skystar.com : Kitfox Voyager/Outback
> ><www.zenair.com : Super Zodiac CH601 HDS/XL
> > : Gemini CH602
> ><members.aol.com/dynaero : MCR01 (Ban-bi)
> ><www.arvcorp.com : ARV Griffin Mk III
> ><www.fly-kr.com : KR-2/KR-2S
> ><www.storm-sg.it : Storm 300 Special
> > : Sea Storm Amphibian
> ><www.pulsaraircraft.com : Super Pulsair 100
> ><exp-aircraft.com/aircraft/pipistrel : Pipistrel Sinus 912 Short falls
> >(and good points):
> > (640 lbs)
> > (800 lbs)
> > ()
> > (2 eng.,650 lbs)
> > (180 mph)
> > (660 lbs)
> > de-rigs too wide, maxload 460 lbs (180 mph)
> > (165 mph)
> > (amph.,642 lbs)
> > (190 mph)
> > (glider) Secondhand numbers of course and not likely pessimistic.
> >Also, numbers do not tell how these aircraft fly. Reviews and reports
> >favour the Europa.
> >Last not least: building support for the Europa looks very good, price ok
> >(but UK adoption of the Euro would help).
> >So, the Europa it is. Now I've been pondering weights, weight and
balance
> >being a central issue with airplanes, and one on which the builder can
have
> >some influence. And I want the diesel engine, the folding bikes and a
good
> >helping of clean socks. I made the following list for the non-contenders
> >above, showing MTOW (lbs), Empty wt. (lbs), Maxload (lbs) and ratio
> >Maxload/Empty wt. ('weight efficiency') in descending order of the
latter:
> > &F fuselage
> > low C wing, C fuselage
> > low A wing, A fuselage
> > &&F fus.
> > low A wing, A fuselage
> > &W fuselage
> > &W fuselage
> > low A wing, A fuselage
> > high A wing, A fuselage
> > high C wing, C fuselage
> > high A wing, C fuselage
> > low C wing, C fuselage
> > low A wing, A fuselage
> > ----
> > 0.88 0.80
> > 0.73 Apparently it is not exquisite management of 'weight
> >efficiency' that gives the Europa its desirable qualities. A layman's
> >guess: it is not the MTOW that is low but the Europa's weight that is
> >somewhat high, considering aircraft volume and design payload. Taking off
> >the Rotax 912 (140 lbs) the weight is more than double that of the MCR01
> >(an extreme example of exquisite weight management) - 620 vs. 300 lbs. A
> >good two thirds of that is probably the fuselage including u/c etc. but
> >without wings and hor. tail. The weight may have gone to (select):
> >ease/quality of build, simpler/less expensive materials mix, crash
> >resistance, load carrying reinforcement, extra stiffness/better safe than
> >sorry, ...
> ><www.wilksch.com>) with VP prop will likely be a challenge. Maybe the
> >numbers indicate that there could be room for a 10% or 40 lbs or so
weight
> >reduction of the fuselage. I would be all for it, even if it gets
reflected
> >in the kit price. Building is the addition of weight. For the classic
> >Europa with Rotax 912 770 (760?) lbs of this is prescribed. The variation
> >in actual completion weights as reported by the Europa Club membership
> >appears quite large. Of 42 completions the lightest 10 range from 729.5
to
> >768 lbs, the heaviest 10 from 825 to 849 lbs, the median weight is a
little
> >over 800 lbs (nr 43 omitted - atypically weighing 889 lbs, possibly with
> >kitchen sink). Fanatical weight watching certainly seems worthwhile. I
will
> >have to find out where the most weight sensitive building areas are, if
any.
> >Does anyone know the publication (12 issues, 36$ US, 52$ overseas, POB
196,
> >Morrisville PA 19067-0196, USA) "Make It Light"? The add in EAA
AeroCrafter
> >says the subject is "...saving weight without sacrificing...". I would
> >prefer a book on the subject if there is one. Weights and folding bikes.
> >Below some sites from the folding bicycle front.
> ><www.gfonline.org/bikeaccess/default.htm>
> ><www.a2bmagazine.demon.co.uk>
> ><www.bromptonbike.com>
> ><bikefriday.com>
> ><www.strida.com>
> ><www.alexmoulton.co.uk>
> ><world.std.com/~nexibike>
> ><www.whooper.demon.co.uk/foldsoc>
> ><www.whooper.demon.co.uk/moulton/notmbc.html>
> ><www.pashley.co.uk/[p]/pj5-bb.htm>
> ><www.r-m.de>
> ><www.bikindex.com/bi/index.asp>
> ><www.sandsmachine.com>
> >The lightest folding bicycle I found is the Micro, now from Pashley, UK,
at
> >9.5 kgs without rear carrier. Say 45 lbs for two of them. It received a
> >good review from a cycling enthousiast and it is also relatively
> >inexpensive - 275 (299) UK pounds with 1 (3) gears. It is all academic -
> >work at hand still is laying the groundwork for preparing the garage for
> >upgrading to a space that can be turned into a workshop. This has turned
> >out longer than I thought.
> >I hope some of it is useful/elicits comments/leads to more on weight
saving
> >methods. Jan de Jong.
> Reg
> Tony Renshaw
> Builder No.236
>
|