Peter wrote:
is very true. That is relevant when PPL training; lots of circuits. Not if you are going somewhere.
I climb to FL150 full rich at 99l/h and about 1000fpm. That is a lot of excess fuel that a modern engine would not waste (“burn” is the wrong word as it remains unburned).
You do a lot of “best power” flying, too as you frequently report. A Rotax is significantly more fuel efficient than the dinosaur engines.
One thing which is not emphasised enough yet: A Europa is REALLY FUN TO FLY 
@italianjon – nice new profile image!
S57 – I guess you’ve checked this http://www.theeuropaclub.org/the-europa/the-europa out already.
I climb to FL150 full rich at 99l/h and about 1000fpm. That is a lot of excess fuel that a modern engine would not waste (“burn” is the wrong word as it remains unburned).
Yes but you fly a vastly different plane to what the OP is looking for. You have a 540 with a turbo…
You do a lot of “best power” flying, too as you frequently report.
Only above FL170, or against a 50kt headwind when trying to reach an airport before it closes. Maybe 1% of my (or any typical non turbo pilot) cruise time. Oh and when running in a new engine…
A Rotax is significantly more fuel efficient than the dinosaur engines.
Only in those parts of the flight. The rest of the time, the “efficiency” claims are due to the planes (which carry them) being much smaller and much lighter. A 30HP engine (attached to one of these) would be “more efficient” still 
The Rotax is probably better on SFC to start with (more modern design, electronic ignition, etc) but then it loses a bit by revving higher and having a gearbox.
So I would not use this factor to reject for example an RV. RVs are nice and perhaps the most solid of all the “kit planes” (if built correctly) and are popular for good reasons, but are at the top end of the price range.
I’ve never flown a Europa, but considered buying one. The cockpit view put me off. There are apparently different cabin tops available when building, so this varies. The seating position is fixed by the builder.
I was told by a former owner to choose one with a metal tank.
The empty weights vary, so useful load varies.
I was told to look at C of G position, as builders start with the tailplane, and some have made it too heavy.
I’m still sort-of thinking of a Monowheel, and a grass strip. The right build could be very attractive. Better reputation than tricycle on soft/rough fields. But long crosswind taxiing on tarmac?
I got checked-out on a Tomahawk on Monday, as our Jodel DR1050 is still not re-assembled. The instructor, a Jodel part-owner, finished by suggesting a crosswind landing with the wind gusting around the demonstrated limit. It was easy. It would have been much more taxing in a Jodel. I don’t know about a Monowheel. Get some landings in tailwheel before you decide.
Maoraigh wrote:
There are apparently different cabin tops available when building, so this varies. The seating position is fixed by the builder.
I was told by a former owner to choose one with a metal tank.
For a couple of years there is a High Top Version available with more headroom. The seating position is determined by the fuel tank behind the seats and the footwells/fixed rudder pedals. Depending on his size the builder chooses the appropriate cushions. There is also a difference between the Classic- and the XS-Version, the latter has more legroom and the kit is much more pre completed by the factory with less possibilities for errors in the build. In all Europas one sits rather in an upright position just on the leading edge so the view down is not much restricted. I’m 1,82 m tall, wearing a parachute and sit comfortably in the XS for a couple of hours, and I even know 1,90 m pilots flying the Classic for many years also long distances without issues. That said the Europa has not the roomiest cockpit on the market (compared with e.g. the Flight Design CT – one just has to try how it fits….
The baggage compartement of the XS is big and you can even load a whole camping gear for two persons (max 36 kg). There is a modification to retrofit the Classic with the XS-baggage compartment.
Payload is also good (to excellent with a modification for increased MTOM and depending on the country of registration) for a two seater. My Europa XS Trigear with Turbo-Rotax is 407 kg empty with a MTOM of 657 kg on a dutch registration. However the britisch LAA Europas are limited to max 621 kg.
Much has been written about performance/economy….
As for rigging/derigging – the Europa is designed from scratch for this purpose and it can easily be done alone with a rigging aid in about 30-40 minutes realistically. I do this any time I go flying since 6,5 years now, have it at home for maintenance, can refuel at the car station, can bring it/pick it up anywhere.
AFAIK there is only one Europa flying with a metal tank, however there are rarely problems with the composite tank.
Another source for Information is also here http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=9
LeSving wrote:
Just about every other experimental aircraft out there Your list will fit almost everything as well.
Yes, I suppose a lot of kit planes would fit most of my list. Perhaps apart from the European touring part which is where I’d like to graduate to. I have looked into some (mostly from the LAA ‘might get IFR clearance’ list) and either they are a little slow, don’t have quite the range, don’t carry quite the same baggage, don’t have so much room in the cabin, are much more money or, a combination of these. If scoring each attribute separately I suspect the Europa might take the prize overall.
Peter wrote:
RVs are nice and perhaps the most solid of all the “kit planes” (if built correctly) and are popular for good reasons, but are at the top end of the price range.
I agree, and, as my funds are not unlimited at present, I’d rather buy a Europa for £30,000 and do £30,000 worth of flying than buy an RV for £60,000 and do £0 of flying.
Maoraigh wrote:
Get some landings in tailwheel before you decide.
I hear you, although it takes time to master tail wheelers. If I just did a few landings in one then I’m sure I wouldn’t like them. Plenty of people, including @italianjon, say that the monowheel can be mastered very well with the right conversion training. If it can be mastered then I think I am in a good position to be able to do so. I am still reasonably young and I do not have years and years of tri-gear flying to break the habit from.
europaxs wrote:
I’m 1,82 m tall, wearing a parachute and sit comfortably in the XS for a couple of hours
I am not criticising you for it, but am intrigued on why you wear a parachute in your Europa. Do you do aerobatics in it or something?
I also need to add another thing to my list in my OP… a Europa has a centre stick with the PTT on the top! (See here)
It is reassuring that no-one has come forward and said “have you considered this or that particular plane”. Perhaps my feeling about the Europa is a good one! If anyone knows of one for sale please let me know or pass my details on. Thanks.
S57 wrote:
Yes, I suppose a lot of kit planes would fit most of my list. Perhaps apart from the European touring part which is where I’d like to graduate to. I have looked into some (mostly from the LAA ‘might get IFR clearance’ list) and either they are a little slow, don’t have quite the range, don’t carry quite the same baggage, don’t have so much room in the cabin, are much more money or, a combination of these. If scoring each attribute separately I suspect the Europa might take the prize overall.
For you maybe, but then there are lots about your “scoring system” you haven’t told us about. I mean, if you like the Europa, and it checks all your personal preferences, then there is nothing to do, but to find a good one and buy it Details like the placement of the PTT is of no concern. In an experimental you can mount an extra foot switch if you want to.
Tailwheel pilots I know who have built/owned/flown Monowheel Europas say it’s more difficult to handle. After many years, one converted to trigear.
As a composite homebuilt, the empty weights vary. The C of G position varies.
If I heard of a GOOD one for sale, I’d have to think carefully. Tell you? Or buy? (Not actively looking at present.)
@Maoraigh. You tease. I think you’ve spent too much time getting your Jodel back in the air to consider buying anything else.
The one I tried the other week was a monowheel which, in capable hands, seemed to behave itself very nicely from the grass strip we flew out of. From reading and talking a lot about them I am led to believe that with the later design of steerable tail wheel, good conversion training and a LOT of respect they are perfectly manageable. Having said that, I have no doubt at all that a proper tail-dragger version or tri-gear would be much more stable and predictable in a crosswind taxi/take off/landing situation. Quite a few people have converted them although I read about one chap who went from writing off propellers to writing off nose gear legs.
I suspect, although have never managed to get anyone to confirm my theory, that the later XS models are more predicable with respect to weight and CG due to there being a lot less wet lay up construction involved.
A friend of mine has a Europa with (IIRC) a turbocharged 914. The performance is very good, I’ve flown it several times (unfortunately not recently since it’s now in a different country), and with me in it solo I was getting a 2000fpm climb rate with full fuel which was nice.
The thing is about the Rotax, for that size and power you won’t get a Lycoming/Continental with a constant speed prop, but CS props are pretty common on Rotaxes of that size, which helps economy during cruise and getting the full rated power in climb. Perhaps MT do an electric CS prop for an O-200, but you’d probably end up spending more than the common and well proven Rotax/CS prop matchup. My friend’s has a full feathering prop on it (he’s got the glider wings for it so he can swap the wings and turn it into a motor glider whenever he likes).
