Kolb-List Archive Browser

Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com<= /DIV> ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 15, 1997

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: definition of "datum"

>> The datum line is a chosen point (this point can be chosen by you) from which >> you take ALL your measurements. It can be anywhere on the aircraft, or really >> anywhere near the aircraft. > >Two points to the individual who can explain what determines where >the CG is located. > > >Jim Baker >Pres, USUA Club 104 >Frontier Ultralight Aviators > >- > I'm going to stick my neck WAAYYYY out and submit that the Center of Gravity needs to always be slightly ahead of the center of lift, for the following reasons: If the center of gravity is behind the center of lift, the aircraft will be unstable. The aircraft will try to pitch up, and a stall is likely. A stall becomes unrecoverable under normal situations, the nose will want to stay up. Control authority may be insufficient to keep the nose down at slow speeds. If the center of gravity is too far ahead of the center of lift, the aircraft will be very stable, but may not have enough control authority to take off, or flare when landing. Slow speeds limit control authority. The CG is determined by the designer's instructions! If unknown,(I HATE IT when that happens!) 25% back from the leading edge of a non-canard type aircraft is normally airworthy, not to exceed 30% back. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 15, 1997

From:

"Ronald G. Blaylock" <rgbsr(at)aimnet.com>

Subject:

Re: definition of "datum"

On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Richard Pike wrote: > > > >Two points to the individual who can explain what determines where > >the CG is located. > > > > > >Jim Baker > >Pres, USUA Club 104 > >Frontier Ultralight Aviators I do believe he what determines where the CG is located not what determines the allowable range of the CG. But then I've been known to pick nits before....:~) Ron B. > > > >- > > I'm going to stick my neck WAAYYYY out and submit that the Center of > Gravity needs to always be slightly ahead of the center of lift, for the > following reasons: > If the center of gravity is behind the center of lift, the aircraft > will be unstable. The aircraft will try to pitch up, and a stall is likely. > A stall becomes unrecoverable under normal situations, the nose will want to > stay up. Control authority may be insufficient to keep the nose down at slow > speeds. > If the center of gravity is too far ahead of the center of lift, the > aircraft will be very stable, but may not have enough control authority to > take off, or flare when landing. Slow speeds limit control authority. > The CG is determined by the designer's instructions! If unknown,(I > HATE IT when that happens!) 25% back from the leading edge of a non-canard > type aircraft is normally airworthy, not to exceed 30% back. > Richard Pike > MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) > > > - > Ron Blaylock - AMSC USN (retired) < ron.b(at)cheerful.com > Living in San Jose, California < rblaylock(at)mail.arc.nasa.gov > Flying from Lodi, California ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 15, 1997

From:

"Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM" <GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM>

Subject:

Mk iii stats

Mk iii s/n M3-247 Empty weight: 461 Engine: 582, "C" box, recoil start, HAC Prop: Powerfin 3-bl 66" composite, set at about 18 degrees as measured at tips Stall speed: around 34 solo no flaps, mushy below 40 Cruise: 65mph seems nice, quieter and economical Top speed: 85mph with prop pitch set for compromise between speed and climb Max. climb rate: around 1200 fpm solo in 40 degree weather, as pitched today Modifications from plans: none significant, Kolb aileron counterbalances added Full enclosure: yes Wheel pants: no, but thinking about them for mud reasons Streamlined struts: yes (standard equip on Mkiii) ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com>

Date:

Dec 15, 1997

Subject:

Re: definition of "datum"

> >Two points to the individual who can explain what determines where > >the CG is located. R Pike writes.... > > I'm going to stick my neck WAAYYYY out and submit that the Center of > Gravity needs to always be slightly ahead of the center of lift, for the > following reasons: Two points awarded. Pull your neck back in. Every airfoil has a center of lift. Jim Baker Pres, USUA Club 104 Frontier Ultralight Aviators ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Performance Stats

Date:

Dec 15, 1997

I have already got 2 request from listees to compile the results of the performance numbers. I will compile all information sent to me and post it on my web page. Now come on MarkIII builders out there, take a minute and mail it to me. It's not just a favor for me anymore it's your civic duty!! (Maybe "duty" is a little strong,,,Let's just say it would be appreciated!) Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com

I have already got 2 request from listees to compile the results of the performance numbers. I will compile all information sent to me and post it on my web page.

Now come on MarkIII builders out there, take a minute and mail it to me. It's not just a favor for me anymore it's your civic duty!! (Maybe "duty" is a little strong,,,Let's just say it would be appreciated!)

Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com<= /DIV> ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com

Date:

Dec 16, 1997

Subject:

Re: Loose windscreen on Firestar II

On our Firefly which may be slightly different, we put fitted ours first without the rubber which probably helped assure a tighter fit. We also trimmed the lexan so it only overlaps the nose cone a couple inches and is flat (parallel) against it, not at an angle riding on it. (We used a light shinning from inside thru the lexan protective paper to mark the line of the instrument panel/nose cone, then moved the line 1" or 2" using width tape needed as cut line. The lexan with the Firefly cut nice with a good pair of tin snips. You then have to sand/file the edges a little but it worked good for us. We also used tape to establish the top of the windshield trim line. Another optional thing we did was create a painted glare shield. While mounted, again using the light method to establish the relative position of the instrument panel. We marked it at points on the protective paper. Then removed the lexan, laid a couple 1" wide strips down to move the line up and placed a 3rd strip to be the final paint edge. Masked off the other areas, (don't use news paper it bleeds thru) and painted the inside surface with Krylon semi-flat black. The semi black versus ultra flat don't rub off as easy and blacken where it rubs against the nose cone when mounted. (Note: A handy type of tape is a 3M long-release masking tape. It's blue in color, not quite as sticky as normal masking tape and will not leave adhesive behind when removed up to 7 days later. We exceeded 7 days many times. It's pricey like other 3M tapes but is great stuff. Being low stick, it normally wouldn't pull paint off unless its very poorly adhered. We also marked and drilled the mounting holes without the rubber. Then we pulled it back off, put the rubber on the lexan, and did a test fit with it. (Mounting holes tighten up) Took it back off, with the lexan backside up squirted a little silicon between the back part of the rubber and the lexan. Left it lay to set up and remounted it when cured. Worked great. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Kolb-List: Loose windscreen on Firestar II Date: 12/15/97 8:26 AM Group, Sunday my Firestar II was taxied for the first time, and I found a problem. The (short) windscreen was so loose that the air pushed it down allowing me to get undeflected, 32 degree air into my face and eyes. Also the rubber front edge trim started to come off. Did I miss something in the plans? Is there suppose to be more to attaching the windscreen than the four screws? Did I just not stretch it tight enough before drilling the holes? Who has had this problem and how have you solved it? The good news is, that is the only problem that came up. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com

Date:

Dec 16, 1997

Subject:

It's a FireFly - First Flight

By Jerry Bidle 15-December-1997 Well it happened this Sunday, 14 December. My partner, Gary Hansen was the pilot for our FireFly's first flight. It is equipped with 447 Rotax, 2 blade IVO prop, BRS 750# VLS chute, brakes and short wind screen soon to be converted to the full enclosure. First take off and landing were uneventful. Second takeoff was aborted due to "it sticking to the runway". Third takeoff went fine. Being late in the day and a little cold, the flights were limited to around the pattern. Everything seemed to function as expected. We both have fallen in love with the EIS system from Grand Rapids Technologies, it's great. Another inspection will be completed before its flown again. One brake cable developed some slack and will need adjustment. I have not flown it yet, maybe this coming weekend weather permitting. I need to talk to Dan at Kolb about technique. Just as we were doing the weight and balance and had it on the scales, about 10 people showed up at the hangar. Not exactly the time for visitors. Gary acknowledged that it flies different than what he's used to, a Citabria & N3-Pup both tractor engine configurations. He commented about experiencing the characteristics of the high thrust line which has a tendency to push the nose over (down) as you increase power on the takeoff roll. On the aborted takeoff he said it would not come off. I contribute this to technique. He said he applied full back stick and it would not come off? From observation of the 3rd T/O run, I appeared he may be holding it in a tail low attitude. The tail was in low position, rose suddenly, and then it broke ground very shortly thereafter. He is concerned about it going on it's nose thus may be over compensating with back stick. One thing he did say is it picks up speed very quickly. Rate of climb without pushing it 600-700 fpm. For this flight we had it propped for 6300 static run up, a cruise setting. Hopefully we can fly a littler earlier in the day while it's a little warmer and gather more precise performance information. We still have a few things to do. Figure where to mount the Icom A22 radio and make coax and push to talk connections. Finish the wing root gap seal around the VLS parachute container. We flew it with the gap seal front part installed on the Velcro and rear part rolled up and taped down in front of the chute with 100-MPH tape. I still considering making a stirrup so I can get in and out of the thing without tearing of the windshield or falling on my face. Sometimes being short is not an advantage. (My partner thinks he has it to himself since I can't get in and out of it) So far so good. After my partner briefing me on how it acted, I feel a little less confident about flying it but will give it a go. I like him, have only tractor configuration experience in the same model planes. It flies great in the air and appears to be very stable. Well give more detail and figures as thing progress. A major milestone of life has been meet this weekend. Regards, Jerry Bidle Gary Hansen ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

DLSOUDER <DLSOUDER(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 15, 1997

Subject:

Re: Loose windscreen on Firestar II

<< Group, Sunday my Firestar II was taxied for the first time, and I found a problem. The (short) windscreen was so loose that the air pushed it down allowing me to get undeflected, 32 degree air into my face and eyes. Also the rubber front edge trim started to come off. Did I miss something in the plans? Is there suppose to be more to attaching the windscreen than the four screws? Did I just not stretch it tight enough before drilling the holes? Who has had this problem and how have you solved it? The good news is, that is the only problem that came up. Reply: Depends on how current the windshield is. The windshield has gotten larger in past several years. Before then, the problem as described, could usually be attributed to not fitting tight enough around nose fairing. Windshields that were a bit loose would collapse as described; whereas the same windshield, if it fitted snugly, would stand up just fine. You could do two things: 1) trim the windshield so it is a bit smaller & make sure it fits tight over the fairing, or 2) install a reinforching loop toward rear of windshield to make it stiffer. We made one of 5/16" x 035 alum tubing which was curved approximately to fit the curve of windshield. This was held in place by 4 rivets through the lexan into the tube. The bottom of the loop simply butts against the longerons. It is a pretty simple installation and keeps the windshield at its max height which gives better air deflection. Dennis Souder Pres Kolb Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 15, 1997

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: It's a FireFly - First Flight

> By Jerry Bidle 15-December-1997 > Well it happened this Sunday, 14 December. My partner, Gary Hansen Congratulations! > Citabria & N3-Pup both tractor engine configurations. He commented > thereafter. He is concerned about it going on it's nose thus may be > over compensating with back stick. I don't at all presume this to be it, but I do know it is possible to be so married to a previously learned technique that it can be repeated subconsciously. In other words, it is possible Gary is lifting the tail (aka pushing the nose down) as a learned habit from Citabria and N3. Even more likely, it may be that the nose dip of the Kolb is just a Lot Unlike what he became used to and comfortable with in the other planes. He would not be the first to show concern for the nose dropping characteristic of Kolbs powering up on take-off. If that is all it is, you'll get used to it very quickly. If there is something amiss, you'll probably realize that too after more trials, altho that assumes you're sure about correct CG and all other check-out details. Just figuring it out carefully/slowly will tell. I'll spare you all from my sermon about the benefits of a lot of high speed taxiing. > being short is not an advantage. (My partner thinks he has it to > himself since I can't get in and out of it) Next time go to a major airport and borrow one of the motorized boarding stairways. :-) Again, Congrats!!! -Ben ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Ski rigging again

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Dec 15, 1997

I've been flying off of converted wooden water skis for 10 years now on my original FireStar. I put the axle 1" ahead of the CG of the ski (this is 39" from the tip on the type of skis I have). My skis are about 5-1/2 feet long and I can land in snow that comes up to my thighs when I get out of the plane. I do not have a tail ski but in recent years I added a triangular piece of oak to the tailwheel post. This keeps chunks of ice from hitting the tailwheel. I have it hose-clamped on there around a heavy piece of clear neoprene tubing. You get the correct angle for the ski by putting a 3" block under the ski in front of the axle with the edge of the block even with the axle. The rear cable should be rigged tight at this angle. I rigged the front cable with the ski flat on the surface. Use a strong bungee on the front because heavy wet snow needs to be lifted up. In both cases, the tail is on level ground. I just finished up a new pair of composite skis. They are also water skis with the same dimensions as the old ones. The FS II angles are the same as the original FS. I helped a friend rig his FS II and it was the same. I might add through personal experience that if you happen to rig the angle of the ski tipped up high, the drag on the plane will be tremendous and you may need full power to stay in the air! I witnessed a FS owner who rigged his short skis wrong and they turned upside down in flight. He noticed this on approach and tried to upright the ski while landing. He managed to get that one, but he didn't see the other ski in the same condition. For unknown reasons, he chose to land in deep snow when he could have landed in a spot where the snow wasn't so deep. Upon landing, the inverted ski dug in and flipped the plane on its back. Ironically, I had warned him prior to flight that his skis could potentially flip upside down by grabbing hold of the ski and twisting it around the axle. He's around, but doesn't fly anymore. If the skis are rigged properly, the plane will have less drag than with wheels, ie. faster cruise. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 15, 1997

From:

Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net>

Subject:

Test time about over...

To all, I got in a couple of hours today. It was a nice fairly warm day. On inspection I noticed that my cable splitters had loosened up (meaning unscrewed a little) some in the bracket I made for them. I thought I had them tight, evidently not tight enough. I practiced aborted take off's, did a lot of T & G's, and generally tried to fly just off the runway and under control - something I practice a lot. It isn't easy sometimes, depending on winds and gusts. I am due for an annual and a 50 hour Rotax inspection soon. I missed seeing Gary and Jerry's Kolb Firefly first flight. Dang it! Later, -- Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (37.3 hrs) (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel ____________________|_____________________ ___(+^+)___ (_) 8 8 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 16, 1985

From:

wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>

Subject:

Re: definition of "datum"

> >Two points to the individual who can explain what determines where >the CG is located. > The cg is located where after you hang all the stuff you are going to hang on your aircraft the aircraft will balance.The mechanical way is to hang your aircraft from a tree at the recommended balance point the mfg. gave you.If the nose or tail makes a quick dive for the ground you must reconsider your options or at least move these options to the side pointed to the sky. Mathematically if you take your datum point to be 1 foot in front of the nose and add what weighs what and at what distance from this imaginary point jumble the numbers around a bit and just like magic you will know where the balance point is.In the case of an aircraft(in proper flight attitude) measure from this imaginary point to the front axel and insert the weight on the scales to this measurement.Measure from the datum point to the tail wheel and record this weight and distance.Now for the hard part It may take a good 5 min. but the results are worth it. Multiply the individual weights in lbs by the distance to the datum point.This gives ft lbs. add all your foot lbs together and divide by the total weight.This will give you a number from the datum point and if you were to hang your plane from a tree it would balance there.Its a miracle! from datum gives 5 ft/lbs.A 10 lb weight 4ft. from the datum is 40 ft./lbs.Together they are 45 ft.lbs. Divided by the total weight of 15lbs gives a datum point of 3 ft.If you drew it out you will see that you are holding a yardstick with a 5 lb weight on one end and a 10 lb weight on the other and it balances at the foot marker nearest to the heavy weight.Or to simplify it one more step the fulcrum is twice as far from the light weight as to the heavy weight This has been a lot of work so I will look forward to those 2 pints.Perhaps at Osh Kosh. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 16, 1985

From:

wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>

Subject:

Re: Velcro

> >>Later I learned that the HiPec systems wonder glue was contact >>cement. That is what I hold my fabric with on my Twinstar and so far no >>problem. >> Woody >> > > This sounds like good stuff, but I am not sure what you are >referring to. Exactly what is it that Hipec uses that sticks so good, their >fabric cement or a special glue? > > Richard Pike > MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) The HIPEC system uses contact cement as their special glue to hold the fabric on the wings.I searched untill I found a can that claimed the glue was water resistant.The fabric was glued together like polytac and the heating with the iron is claimed to activate the glue and bond it together.Worked good for me. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 15, 1997

Subject:

Re: definition of "datum"

From:

rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT)

John you are right , but dose the bottom of the wing have to be at some degree in order to get the datum to the wheel? ,For a quick check on my plane my tail boom will be at 6.5 deg. this would put the bottom of the wing at the right angle >b. steinhagen wrote: >> >> In doing a weight and bal, the manual talks about weight at the mail >> wheel times distance from datum?? > >The datum is the front of the leading edge of the wing. >John Jung >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 15, 1997

Subject:

Re: FireFly Gap Seal around BRS VLS Chute

From:

rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT)

Jerry Don't cut any corners tell your partner that you two should not fly until it is ready if KOLB thought that it did not need the gap seal they would not have put it in the planes IF somethings happens no one could say IF you had the gap seal like it called for maybe this would not have happened " just a thought " RICK On Sat, 13 Dec 97 00:32:39 cst jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com writes: > OK we just reached our next hurdle. Dealing with the gap seal >which > goes between the wings on the FIRE-FLY. We have used the BRS VLS > > chute which is a box like unit that mounts between the wings. >This > has made installing of the gap seal more complex. > > It has been recommended that the BRS VLS clam shell box not be >covered > > Here's solutions being considered: > > Fly without any - will it fly > > Modify the gap seal fabric - cut out a square area in the center >where > the VLS would reside and hem in an elastic "bungee" rope (square >hole) > like the draw string of a hood of a coat. Lets see now how do >you > fill the bobbin on the sewing machine? It's been a long time >since > I done that. Sorry partner, looks like we'll have to use what >ever > color and type thread that's on the bobbin. > > Again modify the gap seal fabric - cut out and hem the area where >the > VLS would reside. Add Velcro to the edges of the cut out area. >Make > an L bracket out of lexan which would install on the right and >left > sides of the VLS using its mounting tray screws. For this to >work > right it would be necessary for the vertical part to profile the >wing > shape, the horizontal part would have to be "chemically" welded >to the > vertical. > > +-----------------+ > Repeat ! VLS !--- <-- L Bracket > on ! Box !! Lexan w/Velcro on top > both sides +-----------------+!..<--mtg screws > > > Some doubts if this will even work but it would take some time. >BRS > would probably frown on us using the VLS mounting screws >locations to > hold the side brackets. > > So far I favor the elastic rope method. In both cases I have to >sew. > I feel I can hem in the elastic rope much faster than making the >lexan > brackets. > > Any suggestions welcome. My partner has given me one day >(Saturday) > to get this done. It fly's Sunday ready or not. > > Jerry Bidle > FireFly > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 16, 1997

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: FireFly Gap Seal around BRS VLS Chute

Jerry, I agree with Rick. I think that you guys should step back and think soberly about what you are doing. In 10 years of being part of a large ultralight club, I have observed that people who let there enthusiasm to fly affect there decisions, seem to have accidents eventually. The objective should be to keep risk to a minimum so that we don't wreak our planes or our bodies, allowing us to do much more flying in the future. Here is my idea about how to reduce risk. If you have one thing that increases the risk, evaluate it and decide. If you have two things, don't even think about it. Fix one first, then decide. In evaluating past accidents, there are usually two or three things that contribute to the cause. A new plane of a type that you are unfamiliaar with is already two by my count. The gap seal is three. I am not saying that you shouln't fly, just keep a perspective when you make the decision. I am really writing this for everyone, you just presented an example that made me thing about it. John Jung RICK M LIBERSAT wrote: > > Jerry > Don't cut any corners tell your partner that you two should not fly > until it is ready if KOLB thought that it did not need the gap seal they > would not have put it in the planes > IF somethings happens no one could say IF you had the gap seal like it > called for maybe this would not have happened " just a thought " > > RICK > On Sat, 13 Dec 97 00:32:39 cst jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com writes: > > OK we just reached our next hurdle. Dealing with the gap seal > >which goes between the wings on the FIRE-FLY. We have used the BRS VLS > >chute which is a box like unit that mounts between the wings. > >This has made installing of the gap seal more complex. > >It has been recommended that the BRS VLS clam shell box not be > >covered with the fabric gap seal material if it were possible. > >Here's solutions being considered: > > Fly without any - will it fly ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 16, 1997

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: definition of "datum"

Rick, On my plans for both the Firestar II and the origianl Firestar, the bottom of the wing should be at 9 degrees. All measurements are based on the plane being in that position. John Jung RICK M LIBERSAT wrote: > > John > you are right , but dose the bottom of the wing have to be at some > degree in order to get the datum to the wheel? ,For a quick check on my > plane my tail boom will be at 6.5 deg. this would put the bottom of the > wing at the right angle > >b. steinhagen wrote: > >> > >> In doing a weight and bal, the manual talks about weight at the mail > >> wheel times distance from datum?? > > > >The datum is the front of the leading edge of the wing. > >John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Cavuontop <Cavuontop(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 16, 1997

Subject:

Re: FireFly Gap Seal around BRS VLS Chute

<< tell your partner that you two should not fly until it is ready if KOLB thought that it did not need the gap seal they would not have put it in the planes >> I agree with this position. I flew my mark 2 the first time without a gap seal, canopy or altimeter. It was very dumb. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 16, 1997

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Ready to fly?

Several years ago, Jack McCornack, Pterodactyl designer and writer for Ultralight Flying! magazine made a wonderfully wise statement: There is something worse than being on the ground wishing that you were up in the air; it is being up in the air, and wishing that you were on the ground. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com

Date:

Dec 17, 1997

Subject:

Re[2]: FireFly Gap Seal around BRS VLS Chute

We installed it where majority of it was in place and small area on top was rolled up and taped down with 100 MPH tape. It flew fine in this configuration. We been told it will fly with out the wing root but didn't want to push the stall numbers any higher until we new what they were. Were going to modify it by cutting a hole in it for the BRS VLS chute and hem a elastic bungee cord around the cut out area to seal it against the container. It should work fine. Now if I could just get into the thing. Cliff felt sorry for me and dropped of some seat belt material to make a stirrup out of. (Were in Texas) Having tried on Kolb's demonstrator, it suddenly dawned on me why I can't get in to the thing. Their demonstrator had 5" wheels and I had to stretch to get in and out of it. We have 6" FireStar wheels and that raises it just enough it make it really difficult for me to get in or out. Got to run, Jerry Bidle ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Kolb-List: Re: FireFly Gap Seal around BRS VLS Chute Date: 12/16/97 7:56 AM Jerry, I agree with Rick. I think that you guys should step back and think soberly about what you are doing. In 10 years of being part of a large ultralight club, I have observed that people who let there enthusiasm to fly affect there decisions, seem to have accidents eventually. The objective should be to keep risk to a minimum so that we don't wreak our planes or our bodies, allowing us to do much more flying in the future. Here is my idea about how to reduce risk. If you have one thing that increases the risk, evaluate it and decide. If you have two things, don't even think about it. Fix one first, then decide. In evaluating past accidents, there are usually two or three things that contribute to the cause. A new plane of a type that you are unfamiliaar with is already two by my count. The gap seal is three. I am not saying that you shouln't fly, just keep a perspective when you make the decision. I am really writing this for everyone, you just presented an example that made me thing about it. John Jung RICK M LIBERSAT wrote: > > Jerry > Don't cut any corners tell your partner that you two should not fly > until it is ready if KOLB thought that it did not need the gap seal they > would not have put it in the planes > IF somethings happens no one could say IF you had the gap seal like it > called for maybe this would not have happened " just a thought " > > RICK > On Sat, 13 Dec 97 00:32:39 cst jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com writes: > > OK we just reached our next hurdle. Dealing with the gap seal > >which goes between the wings on the FIRE-FLY. We have used the BRS VLS > >chute which is a box like unit that mounts between the wings. > >This has made installing of the gap seal more complex. > >It has been recommended that the BRS VLS clam shell box not be > >covered with the fabric gap seal material if it were possible. > >Here's solutions being considered: > > Fly without any - will it fly ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 17, 1997

Subject:

Re: It's a FireFly - First Flight

<< On the aborted takeoff he said it would not come off. I contribute this to technique. He said he applied full back stick and it would not come off? From observation of the 3rd T/O run, I appeared he may be holding it in a tail low attitude >> Jerry, if it is anything like my firestar, I have experienced the same dilemma if you want to call it that, but I attribute the slow take off with the stick all the way back to the very small tail wheel digging into the turf causing a lot of friction. For this reason, I always take off with my stick forward to get the tail wheel off the ground then ease back til ground is broke then I go nuts into a steep Kolb climb!! GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 17, 1997

Subject:

Kolb Small Windshield

From:

rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon)

Another way to handle the flexing problem sometimes found with the small windshield is to use thicker Lexan. The Lexan supplied in the kit is .070 thick. I substituted .090 material, same as the full enclosure. It is much stiffer and yet still very workable. At the same time I extended the windshield 6 inches so that it protects my face from the slipstream completely. Even with the extension there is no flexing at all. Temperatures have been in the mid 40`s this week, making flying here in Minnesota a real pleasure. I do not use a snowmobile suit. Too bulky. Makes it almost impossible to get in and out the Firestar. Ray Lujon, Woodbury, MN ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 18, 1997

From:

Jhann Gestur Jhannsson <johanng(at)ok.is>

Subject:

Looking for a used Firestar

Dear Kolb flyers/builders My friend in Iceland saw my new Firestar flying last month and only thing he wants today is to own a Firestar ultralight. He has asked me to try to find a used Firestar that needs work on airframe or on the engine, or even without an engine. If anyone on the list knows of any Firestar like that for sale, please send me an E-mail. Merry Christmas from Iceland, where Santa lives. Jhann G. E-mail: johanng(at)ok.is ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Timandjan <Timandjan(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 18, 1997

Subject:

intercom advice

I ordered a Hushacom intercom and 2 headsets before Thanksgiving after researching quite a bit and flying with them with kolb etc. Today I got their phone message that they are out of business. I need advice from fellow kolb fliers on what they are using. It's for my Firestar 2 with a handheld Icom radio. The front is enclosed but the passenger in ther rear receives a lot of air noise. I even talked to all the manufactures at Oshkosh and most of them including Sigtronics (which I was also very interested in) said I would not be happy with theirs because of the high wind noise created in the micra phone. The Hushacom unit does not have a squelch, rather it's on all the time, and they tell me that's what is needed for our type of airplanes. Give me some advice on what everybody is using and if you are satisfied. Thanks Tim ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 19, 1997

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: intercom advice

> >Give me some advice on what everybody is using and if you are satisfied. >Thanks >Tim >- > I am using a Flightcom II MX intercom with the Flitecom 4DX headsets. I am satisfied with the performance of both. When I first added the Lexan rear inclosure to the MKIII, it didn't work too well, all that Lexan gave too much noise amplification. A friend in the stereo business suggested some baffling foam, so I cut some out and attached to the inside of the lexan, and it was amazing. Cut the noise by more than half. When I had the Anglin J-6, the inside of that airplane was not very sound absorbing, it had a Rotax 532 also, and without headsets on it was deafening. I had a Soft Comm brand intercom, it worked almost as good as this one, but the Soft Comm brand headsets were not near as comfortable. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 19, 1997

Subject:

Re: intercom advice

From:

rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT)

timandjan I have been trying to go with the HUSH-A- COM for about 9/ 10 weeks and I have been told by RAY ANDERSON it is in the mail over and over again As far as I an concerned the hush-a-com Ray IS a no good liar and I have the long distance phone bills to prove it. I will give any vendor the benefit of the doubt but when they LIE over and over to the people who are willing to buy their product they are no good snakes DENNIS SHOLDER you have a very good airplane and your staff are top noch but the intercom you are using , well it dose work very good . BUT Ray Anderson has lied to me ,as well as Houston, TEXAS LITE FLYERS CLUB. TIMANDJAN I have talked to two of my friends one in HOUSTON ,THE OTHER IN DALLAS. Both are KOLB MK. III owners and use the COMTRONICS intercom and love it. They have a system that I like and will buy it It will let you use 2 radio's and transmit on either one while montering the other. I talked to them today TIM ( did not get his last name) is one of the tecks. that will be doing the work on my helment to convert it to their units I will let you know how it works in my M III with a ICOM A 21 / an a rat shack CB I hate to say bad things about folks but Ray Anderson sure made a fool out of me TERRY SWARTZ you did the right thing by not messing around with hush-a-com as long as I did. RICK >I ordered a Hushacom intercom and 2 headsets before Thanksgiving after >researching quite a bit and flying with them with kolb etc. Today I >got their >phone message that they are out of business. I need advice from fellow >kolb >fliers on what they are using. It's for my Firestar 2 with a handheld >Icom >radio. The front is enclosed but the passenger in ther rear receives a >lot of >air noise. >I even talked to all the manufactures at Oshkosh and most of them >including >Sigtronics (which I was also very interested in) said I would not be >happy >with theirs because of the high wind noise created in the micra phone. >The Hushacom unit does not have a squelch, rather it's on all the >time, and >they tell me that's what is needed for our type of airplanes. >Give me some advice on what everybody is using and if you are >satisfied. >Thanks >Tim >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Rinehart, Mark W." <Mark.W.Rinehart(at)Allison.com>

Subject:

Mark III Building Time

Date:

Dec 19, 1997

Dear KOLB Enthusiasts, I was surfing the web the other day and ran across a Mark III builder who said it took him 1785 hours to build his KOLB! I didn't think it took near that long. The Kolb literature says about 500 hrs to build. How about it Mark III builders? Could you post your estimated build time? Mark Rinehart ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 19, 1997

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: Mark III Building Time

npex01.allison.com> >Dear KOLB Enthusiasts, > >I was surfing the web the other day and ran across a Mark III builder >who said it took him 1785 hours to build his KOLB! I didn't think it >took near that long. The Kolb literature says about 500 hrs to build. > >How about it Mark III builders? Could you post your estimated build >time? > > >Mark Rinehart > >- Working part time, it took about 4 months to build, and then another 18 months to wire, plumb,cover, and finish. I sent my check in March, and flew the following October. If I had used the stock gas tank arrangement, and throttle set up, that would have saved a couple months. I would consider it a very easy airplane to build. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com

Date:

Dec 19, 1997

Subject:

Re: Mark III Building Time

It took me 525 hrs over a seven month period to get the MkIII (serial #022)signed off and flying on floats on Aug 6 1991 and I spend an additional 175 hrs to complete the enclosure,BRS installation and retractable wheels and waterrudders. It was the second customer build MkIII flying. Fred Anderson beat me to it by 7 days. Frank Reynen MkIII@430hrs http;//www.webcom.com/reynen Dear KOLB Enthusiasts, I was surfing the web the other day and ran across a Mark III builder who said it took him 1785 hours to build his KOLB! I didn't think it took near that long. The Kolb literature says about 500 hrs to build. How about it Mark III builders? Could you post your estimated build time? Mark Rinehart ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 19, 1997

From:

"RIVARD" <RIVA01B(at)MACOMB.CC.MI.US>

Subject:

MARK 2

Date: Friday, 19 December 1997 12:15pm ET From: RIVARD@MCCVM1 Subject: Kolb-List: MARK 2 I HAVE A KOLB MK.2 WITH 87hrs.ON ENGINE AND AIRFRAME.AIRWORTHY. I WILL ONLY SELL UNASSEMBLED FOR PARTS.LOST MY MEDICAL. THIS IS A TWO PLACE THAT COULD BE MADE INTO A SINGLE PLACE. FLYS EXCELLENT. BOB RIVARD RIVARD(at)MACOMB.CC.MI.US PLANE LOCATED AT PORT HURON MICHIGAN. WILL BE BACK JAN. 5th. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 19, 1997

From:

T Swartz <Tswartz(at)postoffice.ptd.net>

Subject:

Re: intercom advice

Timandjan wrote: > > I ordered a Hushacom intercom and 2 headsets before Thanksgiving after > researching quite a bit and flying with them with kolb etc. Today I got their > phone message that they are out of business. I need advice from fellow kolb > fliers on what they are using. It's for my Firestar 2 with a handheld Icom > radio. The front is enclosed but the passenger in ther rear receives a lot of > air noise. > I even talked to all the manufactures at Oshkosh and most of them including > Sigtronics (which I was also very interested in) said I would not be happy > with theirs because of the high wind noise created in the micra phone. > The Hushacom unit does not have a squelch, rather it's on all the time, and > they tell me that's what is needed for our type of airplanes. > Give me some advice on what everybody is using and if you are satisfied. > Thanks > Tim > - Tim I have been talking to Ray at Hush-A-Com since the beginnig of Nov. He kept telling me it was in the mail. Then he said it came back, and he sent it again. Still didn't come. I kept calling and believe it or not it showed up yesterday UPS. I didn't know they were going out of business. I had been using a David Clark headset with an Icom A-22. I worked ok at lower power settings, but at high power settings which created high noise levels, other pilots couldn't understand me. Said I was breaking up. I borrowed a Hush-A-Com from a friend and it worked much better but the headsets are not as comfortable. I'll probably stay with the Hush-A-Com since I have it now. Good luck Terry ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com>

Subject:

Polytak VS Polybrush

Date:

Dec 19, 1997

Are you suppose to use Polytak for gluing the fabric over the fabric, for example the 2" overlap on the leading edge of the wing is that entirely polytak? I know you use Polybursh for patches and tapes. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 20, 1985

From:

wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>

Subject:

Re: Mark III Building Time

>Dear KOLB Enthusiasts, > >I was surfing the web the other day and ran across a Mark III builder >who said it took him 1785 hours to build his KOLB! I didn't think it >took near that long. The Kolb literature says about 500 hrs to build. > >How about it Mark III builders? Could you post your estimated build >time? > I am helping to build a Mk111. I would think we have between 4 and 5 hundred hours. I documented my Twinstar at less than 150 hrs. The high hour projects often show a high degree of fussyness or a lack of skill with tools or reading blueprints. I was able to get a good deal on my Twinstar kit because the original owner had his mind boggled just reading the prints.On the other hand using my hands,tools,and reading prints are second nature to me.I am also familiar with Kolb building techniques which resulted in the reduced building times. So all things considered it still all depends on you Don't be scared off.The 500 hr estimate is a good average for an average project. Some people can put 500 hrs in their paint job. If you need help just ask the list. Good luck Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 19, 1997

From:

"Clifton C. Curtiss" <c45(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

ultralight Firestar

I am building a Firestar and would like to have it weigh less 254 lb. The 2SI 35hp engine w/belt drive is advertised to weigh about the same as a Rotax 277. I would appreciate any comments/remarks concerning: a) the feasibility of an ultralight Firestar b) builder's actual Firestar gross weights c) using the 2SI 35hp w/belt drive ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Mike Sharp" <msharp(at)tgn.net>

Subject:

Powder Coating

Date:

Dec 19, 1997

Folks, I took my steel parts for kit number one to a local powder coating company last week. Today when I went to pick them up they told me that they could not coat my parts. There reason was that there distributor for the coatings told them that MEK and other solvents eat through the coating. Has any one else heard of this? Is there more than one type of powder coating? I made the mistake of telling him that they were airplane parts. That might have scared him. I guess next time I'll tell folks that they are "tractor parts" I guess I'm back to Primer and Paint. I hear that Sears has a sale on weather beater this week :-) Peace, Mike Sharp Kolb Mark III Cut First Tubing, 11-28-97

Folks,

I took my steel parts for kit number one to a local powder coating company last week. Today when I went to pick them up they told me that they could not coat my parts. There reason was that there distributor for the coatings told them that MEK and other solvents eat through the coating. Has any one else heard of this? Is there more than one type of powder coating?

I made the mistake of telling him that they were airplane parts. That might have scared him. I guess next time I'll tell folks that they are "tractor parts"

I guess I'm back to Primer and Paint.

I hear that Sears has a sale on weather beater this week :-)

Peace,

Mike Sharp

Kolb Mark III
Cut First Tubing, 11-28-97

________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 20, 1997

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: ultralight Firestar

Clifton C. Curtiss wrote: > I am building a Firestar and would like to have it >weigh less 254 lb. The 2SI 35hp engine w/belt drive is >advertised to weigh about the same as a Rotax 277. >I would appreciate any comments/remarks > concerning: > a) the feasibility of an ultralight Firestar > b) builder's actual Firestar gross weights > c) using the 2SI 35hp w/belt drive Clifton, I have my doubts that any Firestar could make the legal weight without undesireable changes. Also the 2si people have been having manufacturing problems this year. To use one of their engines before they demonstrate that they have their problems solved would be a BIG mistake. Do not be their unpaid test pilot. Has anyone in the group made the weight with a Firestar? Does anyone even know of someone that claims to have made the weight? The only claim that I am aware of is Kolb's claim that it can be done with a 277. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 20, 1997

From:

Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net>

Subject:

Repairman's Certificate

To all, I have been trying to get a repairman's certificate for my homebuilt "experimental" plane. I called the FAA's FSDO office here in Dallas to inquire on my application. It was mailed to them at the end of October. They told me that I would have to come down to the office in person and sign a form - not sure what form. I suppose it is the same form as used to request the certificate. They will not issue one by mail. I will present myself on Monday and dot the "i" and cross the "t" for them. I did not know in advance that this would be necessary. The instructions on how to apply did not say to go in person and I have not heard of other FSDO offices requiring such action. Each office must "makes its own rules" about such things... or it might be possible the general application rules have recently changed. Anyone who is about to make application for this certificate might want to check by phone with their nearest FSDO before sending in paperwork. It might save them some time. Later, -- Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (37.3 hrs) (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel ____________________|_____________________ ___(+^+)___ (_) 8 8 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 21, 1997

From:

"Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM" <GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM>

Subject:

FLAT SPOT PREVENTION

Does anyone know a good way to store your aircraft so the tires don't get flat spots? I am trying overinflation, any other ideas? Thanks... ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net>

Subject:

Re: Repairman's Certificate

Date:

Dec 21, 1997

>I have been trying to get a repairman's certificate for my homebuilt >"experimental" plane. I called the FAA's FSDO office here in Dallas to >inquire on my application. It was mailed to them at the end of October. >They told me that I would have to come down to the office in person and sign >a form - not sure what form. I suppose it is the same form as used to >request the certificate. They will not issue one by mail. I will present Cliff, When the DAR did my initial inspection, I signed a form that he brought for the repairman's certificate. After about 6 weeks, I received the temporary copy by mail with a statement that the final copy would arrive within 60 (I think) days. The other day, I arrived home to find a message on my machine from the FAA office in Birmingham saying that I should fax them a copy of my drivers license because they needed a picture ID for their paperwork. I faxed it that night, but can't imagine that it was good enough quality to be useful. I never heard back from him though, and should receive the permanent copy by the end of this month according to my notes. We'll see. Unfortunately, work has been a disaster recently, and I haven't even been to the hanger in 3 weeks. The only small chances I've had to fly were eliminated by the weather. Hope everyone has a happy holiday. Rusty "Deciding on the next project" Duffy ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 21, 1997

From:

Frank Metcalfe <fmetcalf(at)ix.netcom.com>

Subject:

Re: FLAT SPOT PREVENTION

Try to take the weight off them by jacking the plane up. Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM wrote: > Does anyone know a good way to store your aircraft so the tires don't > get flat > spots? I am trying overinflation, any other ideas? Thanks... > - ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

PKrotje <PKrotje(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 21, 1997

Subject:

Re: Repairman's Certificate

<< I have been trying to get a repairman's certificate for my homebuilt "experimental" plane. I called the FAA's FSDO office here in Dallas to inquire on my application. It was mailed to them at the end of October. They told me that I would have to come down to the office in person and sign a form - not sure what form. I suppose it is the same form as used to request the certificate. >> That was the drill for my Mark III also. I had to go to Milwaukee FSDO to get of the repairman's cert paperwork at the same time & location as the airworthyness insp. It took only six short months for the permenant certificate to arrive. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

PKrotje <PKrotje(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 21, 1997

Subject:

Re: Mark III Building Time

writes: << Dear KOLB Enthusiasts, I was surfing the web the other day and ran across a Mark III builder who said it took him 1785 hours to build his KOLB! I didn't think it took near that long. The Kolb literature says about 500 hrs to build. How about it Mark III builders? Could you post your estimated build time? >> That time log must have included lots of 'thinking time' and probably time sitting in the partially completed airframe making airplane noises! ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 21, 1997

From:

Mark Swihart <mswihart(at)tcsn.net>

Subject:

MKII/TwinStar Design Question

My pardner had the idea to replace the tailfeather hinges with aircraft clevis pin assemblies....Has anyone done that? Anyone know if structural strength would be compromised by removing those angle brackets...and installing the clevis pin assemblies? Your input would be appreciated! :) -Mark Swihart- Paso Robles Ultralight Association TwinStar #46 <http://www.tcsn.net/mswihart/twinstar.htm> ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 19, 1997

From:

"Richard neilsen" <NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us>

Subject:

Mark III Building Time -Reply

My VW powered MKIII took 3 years elapsed time. In this time I took app 6 months off to rebuild my house that burned and had times were just didn=27t have any motivation. As for the exact hours?? 500-600 seems close. I also spent at least 100+ additional hours working on a non standard engine. >>> =22Rinehart, Mark W.=22 12/19/97 08:00am >>> Dear KOLB Enthusiasts, I was surfing the web the other day and ran across a Mark III builder who said it took him 1785 hours to build his KOLB=21 I didn=27t think it took near that long. The Kolb literature says about 500 hrs to build. How about it Mark III builders? Could you post your estimated build time? Mark Rinehart ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 22, 1997

From:

"Bill Weber (DVNS)" <bweber(at)micom.com>

Subject:

Re: FLAT SPOT PREVENTION

nOn Sun, 21 Dec 1997, Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM wrote: > Does anyone know a good way to store your aircraft so the tires don't get flat > spots? I am trying overinflation, any other ideas? Thanks... I have never seen flat spots develop on tires even when left sitting for long periods of time. However, if you are concerned, I would just cut some 2x4 pieces and put them under the axle to get the tire off the ground. *********************************************** * Bill Weber * Keep * * MICOM Communications Corp. * the shiny * * Simi Valley, CA * side up * *********************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 22, 1997

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: MKII/TwinStar Design Question

>My pardner had the idea to replace the tailfeather hinges with >aircraft clevis pin assemblies....Has anyone done that? Anyone >know if structural strength would be compromised by removing >those angle brackets...and installing the clevis pin assemblies? >Your input would be appreciated! :) > >-Mark Swihart- >Paso Robles Ultralight Association >TwinStar #46 ><http://www.tcsn.net/mswihart/twinstar.htm> > I think I would stick with the angle brackets. The stab tubing is kinda thin, and the angle brackets distribute the load around. Besides, those angle brackets are a good way to go. Maxair used them for elevator and aileron hinges for years with no problems. My Hummer had 600 hours on it when I sold it, and my elevator hinges had no slop. Imagine how long they will last in their semi-immobile state on the Kolb stab! Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________ jd_roth(at)juno.com, dwegner(at)isd.net

Subject:

Merry Christmas

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Dec 24, 1997

Merry Christmas everyone and let's have a safe flying year to come. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 24, 1997

Subject:

Christmas 1997

From:

rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon)

Merry Christmas to all Kolb Flyers and builders. I appreciate all the help I received during the past year from many experienced ultralight flyers. I especially want to thank Ralph Burlingame for the encouragement and time he spent in helping me achieve a life long ambition. May we all have nothing but happy and smooth landings during 1998. Ray Lujon , Woodbury, MN ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 25, 1997

From:

Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net>

Subject:

Merry Christmas Kolbers

To All, A friend of mine made a web page for me on his computer... actually it is just a pic of my plane, but very nice. It is sitting in a corner of the grass (in need of mowing) strip portion of Aero-country airport. The grass is almost over the tires. That makes for nice soft landings. http://www.icatgroup.com/ca/ Our son is about to make a "real" web page for Carolyn and me. That will be a nice Christmas present. Hope everyone is having a wonderful holiday. Later, -- Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (37.3 hrs) (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel ____________________|_____________________ ___(+^+)___ (_) 8 8 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 25, 1997

From:

Mark Swihart <mswihart(at)tcsn.net>

Subject:

Seasons Greetings!

Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas! :) Have a happy New Year! -Mark Swihart- TwinStar #46 Paso Robles Ultralight Assoc. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 26, 1997

From:

"Ron Christensen" <SPECTRUMINTERNATIONAL(at)classic.msn.com>

Subject:

RE: Mark III Building Time

Hi Mark: I spent over 1300 hours building my MKIII, however it is significantly modified from the standard factory kit. I would guess that 500 - 600 hours is about right if you simply follow factory instructions. ---------- From: owner-kolb(at)intrig.com on behalf of Rinehart, Mark W. Sent: Friday, December 19, 1997 5:00 AM Subject: Kolb-List: Mark III Building Time Dear KOLB Enthusiasts, I was surfing the web the other day and ran across a Mark III builder who said it took him 1785 hours to build his KOLB! I didn't think it took near that long. The Kolb literature says about 500 hrs to build. How about it Mark III builders? Could you post your estimated build time? Mark Rinehart ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com>

Subject:

Rotax 447's

Date:

Dec 26, 1997

I have a new rotax 447 with B gear box and complete exhaust system that is currently excess to my needs.I bought this engine one year ago new from Danny Day as a spare.I belong to a club here in lower Alabama that is 90 percent Kolbs and we do a lot of cross country flights.We ran the engine up in accordance with Rotax standards and specifications.Carried it as a spare on our cross country flights,have not used it in last year.Just to make sure the engine was what we all consider to be new I had the engine torn down and checked.No problems I had all new gaskets to include new rings put in as I spent 30 years in aircraft engine maintenance and this was the only way to do it,the right way. We fly all makes of Kolbs here in lower Alabama,the people at Kolb know us well,The builder of award winning Kolbs and in the past two years Titans lives here .He has built 95 percent of our planes. We have had built one firestar and had the wings clipped to make it fly faster.What we have learned is in extremely hot weather you loose lift getting out of short fields.We have two firestars equipped with Rotax 503's DCDI.Definately a waste of Money.Have one Fergy II here,owner previously had a Mark III with 503,after a If your interslong review and analysis the following is known,the Fergy is a beefed up Mark III,most Fergys have 582's and this is the basic difference.As far as flying goes they both fly about the same.If we can be of any assistance do not hesitate to drop a message we fly 12 months out of the year and we have made one excellent training video on tearing down a 503.If your in need of and engine ,gearbox and exhaust system drop me a line.The engine will require a normal break-in. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 26, 1997

From:

Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net>

Subject:

Kolb Stuff

Lindy and all, >I belong to a club here in lower Alabama that is 90 >percent Kolbs and we do a lot of cross country flights. Good to hear that you have a nice bunch of Kolbs down in "Alabamy". I love that country. A branch of my family is sprinkled from Mobile over toward Pensicola. >We fly all makes of Kolbs here in lower Alabama,the >people at Kolb know us well,The builder of award winning Kolbs... Could that be John Hauck? He is from Alabama (and I think the southern part). I met him at SNF and he gave a talk about his "round the US trip" at the Paradise City forum. He was kind of reserved at first but by the end of his talk he had gotten into the spirit of it. They almost had to get out the "hook" to get him off the stage. Very enjoyable. What a trip! There is also another guy who has built a bunch of Kolbs - Glenn Rinch - who lives nearby in the Florida panhandle. I saw a video he produced that was pretty good concerning construction. He included funny references to the precision "tools" (crude but effective) he used to help build the airframes. We have serveral Kolbs around the Dallas/Ft.Worth, Tx. area and a few down near Houston. The rest are kind of scattered around the state. We are hoping to find a location or fly-in somewhere between the two main areas to have a Kolb gathering next spring. It is just talk so far. Later, -- Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (37.3 hrs) (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel ____________________|_____________________ ___(+^+)___ (_) 8 8 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 26, 1997

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: Kolb Stuff

Cliff and Carolyn Stripling wrote: > We have serveral Kolbs around the Dallas/Ft.Worth, Tx. area and a few down > near Houston. The rest are kind of scattered around the state. We are > hoping to find a location or fly-in somewhere between the two main areas to > have a Kolb gathering next spring. It is just talk so far. > Talk about an all Kolb fly-in sounds like a reason to travel. I would like to hear more. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________ (/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.16 #30.229) with smtp for

Date:

Dec 27, 1997

From:

Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net>

Subject:

Re: ultralight Firestar

Having just put a FireFire in the air, the FireStar's little brother, I would find it hard to believe you could do it. You'ld have to watch every thin washer you used. It would mean: no silver poly-spray very light coat of paint little in instruments - I mean bare bones no brakes lightest wheels available small engine 277 or 2SI 35 HP small windshield no extras - none zero maybe foam in the parachute container to claim the parachutes weight Note the 2SI 35 HP does not have a charging system - that what makes it lighter than the 277. >Clifton C. Curtiss wrote: >> I am building a Firestar and would like to have it >>weigh less 254 lb. The 2SI 35hp engine w/belt drive is >>advertised to weigh about the same as a Rotax 277. >>I would appreciate any comments/remarks >> concerning: >> a) the feasibility of an ultralight Firestar >> b) builder's actual Firestar gross weights >> c) using the 2SI 35hp w/belt drive > >Clifton, > I have my doubts that any Firestar could make the legal weight without >undesireable changes. Also the 2si people have been having manufacturing >problems this year. To use one of their engines before they demonstrate >that they have their problems solved would be a BIG mistake. Do not be >their unpaid test pilot. > Has anyone in the group made the weight with a Firestar? Does anyone >even know of someone that claims to have made the weight? The only claim >that I am aware of is Kolb's claim that it can be done with a 277. >John Jung >- > > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 26, 1997

From:

Mark Swihart <mswihart(at)tcsn.net>

Subject:

TwinStar Build Pic's

I found the original build pic's for the TwinStar that my friend and I bought. I have started posting them on my web site. They are mostly pictures of the wings at different angles. I will try and put more on my page as time permits for those of you who are working on TwinStars..:) -Mark- TwinStar #46 Paso Robles Ultralight Assoc. <http://www.tcsn.net/mswihart/kolb.htm> ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 27, 1997

Subject:

Re: Kolb Stuff

<< We have serveral Kolbs around the Dallas/Ft.Worth, Tx. area and a few down > near Houston. The rest are kind of scattered around the state. We are > hoping to find a location or fly-in somewhere between the two main areas to > have a Kolb gathering next spring. It is just talk so far. > Talk about an all Kolb fly-in sounds like a reason to travel. I would like to hear more. John Jung - >> yea! that does sound like a great idea, maybe I could get up enough steam ot try to fly down from Ohio ( with a ground crew of course) GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 27, 1997

From:

skip staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net>

Subject:

Re: ultralight Firestar

>>>I would appreciate any comments/remarks >>> concerning: >>> c) using the 2SI 35hp w/belt drive The 35 hp 2SI and the 35 hp Cuyuna OLII-02 look to be the same but I have no idea if the crankshafts are the same or not. That said, I've been advised that the belt drive reduction unit on the Cuyuna, as installed on a Kolb Ultrastar, will end up breaking the engine's crankshaft if the belt is tensioned improperly. I have no idea if this problem will translate to the 2SI engine and its belt reduction drive. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

WGrooms511 <WGrooms511(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 27, 1997

Subject:

Re: ultralight Firestar

Skip: Take it from one who knows. Forget the thought of putting a belt drive on a Kolb. I put one on my firestar with disasterous results. The only practical way to use a belt drive is to mount your prop beneath the engine. You probably have never thought about this, but the large pully that your prop mounts on has a shaft that must be secured. You cannot secure it at the same place a gear drive would mount because of that shaft. (The engine block is in the way). Therefor, you must mount it below the engine mounting plate, with pillow blocks. The gear reduction unit puts your prop up, off the engine mounting block by 9 inches. The minimum distance you will be able to mount your prop below the mounting plate will be 9 inches. You are relocating the thrust line of your aircraft by at least 18 inches. IT WON'T WORK!!!!! Also, you are limiting the overall diameter of your prop, requiring you to use a three blade prop. A three bladed prop is not as efficient as a two blade prop, and you will not be able to fold your wings.(Porbably the main reason you bought a Kolb in the first place.) As for the purchase of a 2SI engine. Take the advice of many many pilots with lots of time under their belts. In a nutshell " FORGET IT !!!!!!!!!!!! " THEY HAVE HAD NOTHING BUT TROUBLE WITH THEIR ENGINES. THEY HAVE A DON'T GIVE A DAMN ATTITUDE TOWARD THEIR CUSTOMERS. BUY RELIABILITY. IT'S WELL WORTH IT IN THE LONG RUN Best of luck W. Grooms ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 27, 1997

From:

skip staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net>

Subject:

Re: ultralight Firestar

>Skip: Take it from one who knows. Forget the thought of putting a belt drive >on a Kolb. Thanks for your thoughtful insight. It was, however, Jerry Biddle that was looking for the information and I was just answering him. That said, the problem with a belt drive may not be a bad as you think. It all depends on the aircraft and the belt adjustment. A Kolb Ultrastar, like I have, uses a Cuyuna engine with a belt reduction drive. To date, the 1984 Ultrastar hasn't had a problem. The engine is installed inverted and the Ultrastar has the tailboom running from the wing to the tail. Prop clearance could become a problem if a gear reduction box was installed in place of the belt drive. To get the necessary prop clearance one might then have to resort to a less efficient 3 bladed prop. >You are relocating the thrust line of your aircraft by >at least 18 inches. IT WON'T WORK!!!!! FWIW, the thrust line of the Ultrastar with the belt reduction drive is better than any other model Kolb has designed since the Ultrastar. I think that both Homer and Dennis will back me on that. There is no pitch change with power application as the thrust line is right where it should be. :) Your observation may be correct for later model Kolbs with the tail boom mounted under the engine. >Best of luck >W. Grooms The same to you and thanks for your input. Regards, Skip ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 27, 1997

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: ultralight Firestar

>Skip: Take it from one who knows. Forget the thought of putting a belt drive >on a Kolb. I put one on my firestar with disasterous results. >The only practical way to use a belt drive is to mount your prop beneath the >engine. >You probably have never thought about this, but the large pully that your prop >mounts on has a shaft that must be secured. You cannot secure it at the same >place a gear drive would mount because of that shaft. (The engine block is in >the way). >Therefor, you must mount it below the engine mounting plate, with pillow >blocks. > Not necessarily. Manta used to make a belt drive that bolted to the PTO end of the engine and could be mounted either up or down. It worked ok but was a little difficult to adjust. It was a very thick aluminum plate that clamped around a steel prop shaft at one end. I mounted one on a Hummer several years ago. It was for a Zenoah 250. Is Manta still in business? If they are still as indifferent to customer service as they used to be, I would suspect the are down the tube. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 27, 1997

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: ultralight Firestar

WGrooms511 wrote: > A three bladed > prop is not as efficient as a two blade prop, and you will not be able to fold > your wings.(Probably the main reason you bought a Kolb in the first place.) Just so no one gets the wrong information, Kolbs do fold with three blades. One blade goes straight down between the wings. One compromise is that the other two blades are higher then the engine, and may require a higher enclosed trailer. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 27, 1997

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

This group

Being part of this group has been such a good experience for me that I thought I would try the FLY-UL list. After a week, all I got out of it is a better apperciation for this group. So I would like to thank each of you and wish you all a Happy New Year. Also I got an hour of flying in today, inspite of the 25 degree temperature and inch of snow on the ground (Wisconsin). The lakes have thin ice or no ice at all so I didn't get to land on any lakes. The trick is to get flying weather between the time the ice is thick enough and before the snow gets too deep. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 28, 1997

Subject:

Re: ultralight Firestar

<< >>>I would appreciate any comments/remarks >>> concerning: >>> c) using the 2SI 35hp w/belt drive The 35 hp 2SI and the 35 hp Cuyuna OLII-02 look to be the same but I have no idea if the crankshafts are the same or not. That said, I've been advised that the belt drive reduction unit on the Cuyuna, as installed on a Kolb Ultrastar, will end up breaking the engine's crankshaft if the belt is tensioned improperly. I have no idea if this problem will translate to the 2SI engine and its belt reduction drive. >> I had a Cuyuna 35 hp engine on my old Pterodactyl and did suffer 2 engine outs but I.m sure that a well placed EGT would have eliminated that problem. I thought that the engine was very reliable and had no problem with the belt drive. I flew it from 83 to 90. GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 27, 1997

Subject:

Re: ultralight Firestar

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: >...... There is no pitch change with power application as the >thrust line is right where it should be. :) Same with my Flyer, Skip. Homer's idea was to keep the vertical center of thrust as close to the vertical center of drag as possible. It works very well but the prop(s) become(s) a target for any tall grass or pebble kicked up by the tires. If someone is still set on a belt drive, Hegar is still making them as far as I know. Challenger used (uses?) them long after gear drive was adopted by most other manufacturers. I recently got a replacement prop shaft from them for a decent price for my C'II which, BTW is for sale. Hegar's number is - (503) 659-1234. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

WGrooms511 <WGrooms511(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 28, 1997

Subject:

Re: ultralight Firestar

John; It's true that wings will fold if the prop is mounted high, on a gear reduction unit, but if it mounted low, as on a standard belt reduction unit, they will not fold. I had the belt reduction setup (mounted low) and it won't even come close. W. Grooms ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 28, 1997

From:

Frank & Winnie Hodson <fwhodson(at)megalink.net>

Subject:

Propellers

--I'd like to see further discussion and/or explanations re: 2 vs. 3 blade prop efficiency and preferrences. I'm getting close to ordering the engine/prop kit for my F.S.II. Thanks, Frank Hodson Oxford, ME fwhodson@megalink.net | http://www.megalink.net/~fwhodson ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 29, 1985

From:

wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>

Subject:

Re: ultralight Firestar

>Skip: Take it from one who knows. Forget the thought of putting a belt drive >on a Kolb. I put one on my firestar with disasterous results. Are you speaking of one particular belt drive or all belt drives in general.I have a belt drive on a Hirth and think it is the greatest thing ever.My friends with gear boxes have problems with bearings and leaks and unexpected breakages.(next time you change a bearing change the 6305 bearing to a 7305 bearing.This has a higher thrust rating but don't put it in backwards). My belt drive is very simple.All bearings and belts are easily inspected and belts don't just break. They crack,they stretch, They slowly disintigrate but they don't just break. The maintenance is minimal.Is there something about the Rotax that does not allow a proper belt drive to be installed?As for moving the thrust line 18", if you can do it,do it,the nearer to the center line of the aircraft the better. Of course this may not be practical and that is why the thrust line is so high. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 28, 1997

Subject:

Re: Propellers

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: >--I'd like to see further discussion and/or explanations re: 2 vs. 3 >blade prop efficiency and preferrences. I'm getting close to ordering >the engine/prop kit for my F.S.II. > Thanks, > Frank Hodson > Oxford, ME My Twinstar is still a long way from being in need of a prop but here is my reason for buying a 3-blade when the time comes: Any prop in pusher configuration with it's centerline at or near the trailing edge of the wing encounters air moving faster over the top of the wing than under it. This causes a small pulse or beat each time the blade passes the trailing edge. Of course with two blades, the opposite blade is passing the trailing edge at nearly the same instant (in the opposite direction of course). A 3-blade prop will stagger, or even-out the pulses because only one blade is passing the trailing edge at any one time. Many people talk about how much "smoother" a 3-blade is and most assume it has to do with static balance but I think its more likely the above reason. 3 blades are harder to balance and more likely to get out of balance than 2, they are also less efficient but I'll trade that for "smoothness" anyday. This was something I read (probably a Barnaby Wainfan article in Kitplanes) and was one of those rare times when my light bulb went on. Happy Holidays! -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________ mike.louis(at)aero.dot.state.mn.us, dmattsen(at)isd.net, scott.pierskalla(at)usa.net, jd_roth(at)juno.com, dwegner(at)isd.net

Subject:

Winter Flying

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Dec 28, 1997

John, In Minneapolis, some lakes are great for landing on with very little snow so far this year. I've had two recent flights off the lakes that were nothing short of spectacular. For the benefit of those people living in the western and southern part of the country, winter lake flying in the north means being able to fly in ground effect for extended periods depending on the length of the lake. Talk about "low and slow", you can't get any lower or slower and still be able to stay in the air. For those of you saying, "Isn't that dangerous flying so low"? Not at all because you are flying next to the surface so that if the engine decides to "take a hike", you just simply land. I keep trying to tell new pilots this is the ideal place to train because there are no obstacles to hit, you don't have to be confined to a runway, and you can always land directly into the wind. If there is less than three inches of snow you can use wheels. More than that, time for the skis. Hmmmm maybe I really should retire here after all. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar > Also I got an hour of flying in today, inspite of the 25 degree >temperature and inch of snow on the ground (Wisconsin). The lakes have >thin ice or no ice at all so I didn't get to land on any lakes. The >trick is to get flying weather between the time the ice is thick >enough and before the snow gets too deep. >John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 28, 1997

From:

Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net>

Subject:

When it's cooooold outside!

To all, Reading about "skimming the frozen lakes" sounds like a lot of fun. Makes me a little jealous, but only for a moment... as my weak back begins to tighten up on me from just the thought of the cold. OK you cold weather flyers, I have a "newbie to 2-cycles" question. With a Rotax 582, what do you do except cover the radiators (I have 2 widths (50 degrees F.) and sometimes 3 widths (40 degrees F.) of duct tape on now with no cardboard or other insulation underneath) to keep the engine water warmer in colder weather? I also see a noticable change in the viscosity of the 2-cycle oil on a cold day, but there is not much that can be done about that. At what low air temp is it not a good idea to fly? ...or is that not even the correct criteria to measure. Rather does it depend more on what the minimum operating water temp of the engine is in flight and therefore... depending how much you insulate the radiators? And if that is so, what is that magic minimum water temp. Is that temp considered at cruise or as an absolute minumum at any time. For instance, it would be coldest on decent. Educate this "cold natured, kinda like it warm down south guy" in on the basics of flying up north in colder weather. P.S. As an aside, my wife and I just got back from a few days on the beach at Puerto Vallarta, Mex. Eat your hearts out - plenty of SUN, WARM nice ocean breezes, "strong" marguaritas and great food. Thanks! -- Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (37.3 hrs) (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel ____________________|_____________________ ___(+^+)___ (_) 8 8 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

WGrooms511 <WGrooms511(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 28, 1997

Subject:

Re: ultralight Firestar

Woody; Glad you asked that question. It gives me a chance to explain my response. I have nothing against belt drives. In fact I rather prefer them. My advice to the question of using a belt drive system on a Kolb could be better put in these words. There are many people with many specialties involved in designing and building an airplane. You, as builder should do just that; build according to plans supplied by the designer. The plans for your Kolb call for a gear drive. You are not an aircraft engineer, therefor you should not design, nor redesign, nor modify the design. There are many ramifications that you may not realize will effect the end product. You then become a test pilot. I was a test pilot once, testing the modification mentioned in the origional question. I am lucky to be alive. Dennis at Kolb preaches this advice all the time. It's good advice. Take it! ________________________________________________________________________________ scott.pierskalla(at)usa.net, ggleiter(at)minn.net, dwegner(at)isd.net, dmattsen(at)isd.net, jburlin181(at)aol.com

Subject:

Re: When it's cooooold outside!

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Dec 28, 1997

Cliff, I have fan-cooled 377, so I can't answer questions about the liquid-cooled 582. I can answer some of your other questions. I fly only when the outside air temperature is 20 degrees above or warmer. I flew once when it was calm and -20 degrees with near disastrous results. I took off and as soon I got into the air, my face-shield, on the helmet I was wearing, frosted up so I could not see a thing! I had to lift it up to see, but when I did, the searing cold air streamed on my face. I made an immediate uneventful landing, but a guy on a snowmobile said that the right side of my face was "white". I reached up and felt my cheek. It was hard as a rock! I thought I had disfigured myself, but I thawed out without any harmful consequences. Sorry I digressed, but a good story. By the way, the engine ran fine. I do not do a thing to my engine as far as jetting goes. The reason being, the Bing carburetor charts show very little difference in main jet sizes from summer to winter for the Rotax 377. I used to change the main jet to a 175 in the winter, but I found that it wasn't necessary. The nominal is 165. I use a 50:1 mix with premium unleaded auto gas. I do use the synthetic "Klotz" oil, and for the first time this year I switched to "Mobil 1" synthetic gear oil for the gearbox. I noticed it runs cooler in the summer and makes the engine easier to start in the winter. The sun on a warm beach and good food sounds pretty good, but I'd rather be skimming those frozen lakes ..... just kidding. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar writes: >To all, >Reading about "skimming the frozen lakes" sounds like a lot of fun. >Makes me a little jealous, but only for a moment... as my weak back begins >to tighten up on me from just the thought of the cold. OK you cold weather >flyers, I have a "newbie to 2-cycles" question. With a Rotax 582, what do you >do except cover the radiators (I have 2 widths (50 degrees F.) and sometimes 3 >widths (40 degrees F.) of duct tape on now with no cardboard or other >insulation underneath) to keep the engine water warmer in colder weather? I >also see a noticable change in the viscosity of the 2-cycle oil on a cold day, >but there is not much that can be done about that. At what low air temp is it >not a good idea to fly? ...or is that not even the correct criteria to measure. >Rather does it depend more on what the minimum operating water temp of the >engine is in flight and therefore...depending how much you insulate the >radiators? And if that is so, what is that magic minimum water temp. Is that >temp considered at cruise or as an absolute minumum at any time. For >instance, it would be coldest on decent. Educate this "cold natured, kinda like >it warm down south guy" in on the basics of flying up north in colder weather. > >P.S. As an aside, my wife and I just got back from a few days on the beach >at Puerto Vallarta, Mex. Eat your hearts out - plenty of SUN, WARM nice >ocean breezes, "strong" marguaritas and great food. > >Thanks! > >-- >Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (37.3 hrs) >(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas > Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel > > ____________________|_____________________ > ___(+^+)___ > (_) > 8 8 > > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________ scott.pierskalla(at)usa.net, ggleiter(at)minn.net, dwegner(at)isd.net, dmattsen(at)isd.net, jburlin181(at)aol.com

Date:

Dec 28, 1997

Subject:

Re: When it's cooooold outside!

From:

rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT)

Their is one thing for sure you guys up north are for sure a lot more toughter than us southern guy's I don't see how you can fly in the cold fridige weather . But I can just imagine it must be a beautiful sight to see the blankets of snow !! RICK writes: >Cliff, > >I have fan-cooled 377, so I can't answer questions about the >liquid-cooled 582. I can answer some of your other questions. I fly >only when the outside air temperature is 20 degrees above or warmer. I >flew once when it was calm and -20 degrees with near disastrous >results. I took off and as soon I got into the air, my face-shield, on >the helmet I was wearing, frosted up so I could not see a thing! I had >to lift it up to see, but when I did, the searing cold air streamed on >my face. I made an immediate uneventful landing, but a guy on a >snowmobile said that the right side of my face was "white". I reached >up and felt my cheek. It was hard as a rock! I thought I had >disfigured myself, but I thawed out without any harmful consequences. >Sorry I digressed, but a good story. By the way, the engine ran fine. >I do not do a thing to my engine as far as jetting goes. The reason >being, the Bing carburetor charts show very little difference in main >jet sizes from summer to winter for the Rotax 377. I used to change >the main jet to a 175 in the winter, but I found that it wasn't >necessary. The nominal is 165. I use a 50:1 mix with premium unleaded >auto gas. I do use the synthetic "Klotz" oil, and for the first time >this year I switched to "Mobil 1" synthetic gear oil for the gearbox. >I noticed it runs cooler in the summer and makes the engine easier to >start in the winter. > >The sun on a warm beach and good food sounds pretty good, but I'd >rather be skimming those frozen lakes ..... just kidding. > >Ralph Burlingame >Original FireStar > > > > writes: >>To all, > >>Reading about "skimming the frozen lakes" sounds like a lot of fun. >>Makes me a little jealous, but only for a moment... as my weak back >begins >>to tighten up on me from just the thought of the cold. OK you cold >weather >flyers, I have a "newbie to 2-cycles" question. With a Rotax >582, what do you >do except cover the radiators (I have 2 widths (50 >degrees F.) and sometimes 3 >widths (40 degrees F.) of duct tape on >now with no cardboard or other >insulation underneath) to keep the >engine water warmer in colder weather? I >also see a noticable change >in the viscosity of the 2-cycle oil on a cold day, >but there is not >much that can be done about that. At what low air temp is it >not a >good idea to fly? ...or is that not even the correct criteria to >measure. >Rather does it depend more on what the minimum operating >water temp of the >engine is in flight and therefore...depending how >much you insulate the >radiators? And if that is so, what is that >magic minimum water temp. Is that >temp considered at cruise or as an >absolute minumum at any time. For >instance, it would be coldest on >decent. Educate this "cold natured, kinda like >it warm down south >guy" in on the basics of flying up north in colder weather. >> >>P.S. As an aside, my wife and I just got back from a few days on the >beach >>at Puerto Vallarta, Mex. Eat your hearts out - plenty of SUN, WARM >nice >>ocean breezes, "strong" marguaritas and great food. >> >>Thanks! >> >>-- >>Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (37.3 hrs) >>(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas >> Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel >> >> ____________________|_____________________ >> ___(+^+)___ >> (_) >> 8 8 >> >> >>- >> ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: When it's cooooold outside!

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Dec 28, 1997

Rick, I didn't mention that I wear long underwear, T-shirt, sweatshirt, sweater, insulating jacket, and then an outside winter jacket. You dress in layers then it's like flying in the summer and I'm not cold at all. In fact there are days where I have to unzip the outer jacket because I'm beginning to sweat! Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar writes: >Their is one thing for sure you guys up north are for sure a lot >more toughter than us southern guy's I don't see how you can fly in >the cold fridige weather . But I can just imagine it must be a >beautiful sight to see the blankets of snow !! > > RICK ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Steve Bennett <sab(at)ma.ultranet.com>

Subject:

Re: winter flying

Date:

Dec 28, 1997

I second the comments about the joys of winter flying. Flying for miles at 45 mph and 1 foot agl over an immense emergency landing field is almost indescribable. Here in central Massachusetts we do get a fair amount of snow, but it's very unpredictable. Some years the good ice precedes the big snow, and some years the snow dumps on the ice and it's never usable. Last week we got socked with 20 inches of snow in one day, and most of the lakes were already iced over. Then two days later it was in the 40's and pouring rain, so the lakes are really trashed. And the hangar door is hidden behind several feet of snow soaked with rain and frozen solid. Puerto Vallarta is sounding pretty good...... -Steve ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net>

Subject:

I'm a cold weather wimp

Date:

Dec 28, 1997

Boy, my hat's off to you guys that fly in 20 degree weather. I didn't fly my SS today because it was only in the upper 40's, and remember, the SS is quite fully enclosed. Give me 90 plus degrees any day. If I can't work up a sweat just walking to the car, it's too cold :-) The SS is flying well, and the 503 has been flawless though it recently took about 6 pulls to get it started after sitting neglected for 4 weeks. I'm still chasing the elusive goal of ASI accuracy. I've redesigned my static port and still it's off, but not by as much as before. If I disconnect the static port, it's off the other way (high rather than low readings). I should either ignore it, or just re-mark the instrument somehow, but still the error bugs me. Ben mentioned that there was a small screw visible through the pitot port of his ASI, but he refuses to turn it to find out what it does (some friend huh ). I think he only told me this because he knows that I'll eventually have to turn it to find out. Please spare me from this torture. Does anyone know what this screw adjusts? Someone on one of the newsgroups told me not to touch it, but that's just like handing me the screwdriver :-) In other news, I've finally decided on the next project. After receiving Sonerai-IIS and KR1 plans, I've decided to order an RV-8 kit. This means I'll be selling the SS at some point to help finance the new project. Don't get me wrong, I'm convinced that the SS is the cream of the crop in very light planes. I had hoped that this type of flying would appeal to me as much as it does to so many others, but so far, that hasn't been the case. Everyone have a safe New Years. Russell Duffy SlingShot SS-003, N8754K RV-8 coming soon rad(at)pen.net http://www.pen.net/~rad/ ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 29, 1985

From:

wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>

Subject:

Re: Propellers

>--I'd like to see further discussion and/or explanations re: 2 vs. 3 >blade prop efficiency and preferrences. I'm getting close to ordering >the engine/prop kit for my F.S.II. > Thanks, > Frank Hodson > Oxford, ME > > , Think of it this way. It takes horse power to move a blade through the air.It is easier to move 1 blade than 2 and 2 blades rather than 3. We do not have to room to spin a 1 blade prop but a 2 blade will fit nice.If we pitch the prop to limit our rpm to 6300 rpm we will have a theoretical distance we can move in one revolution. There is less air resistance on a fine pitch than a course pitch and on a 3 blade you will have to decrease pitch to make it easier to spin that extra blade around. A finer pitch will reduce the theoretical distance you can travel in one revolution.Since 6300rpm is a good rule of thumb for max rpm no matter how many blades you can see where a reduction in top end will occur. I do not know if the finer blade pitch will aid in climb because of the extra hp required to spin that extra blade. In general a 2 blade is the most efficient but a 3 blade is good if you have a limited amount of room to spin a prop because the blades are often shorter. 3 blade are also smoother running. This is my opinion and I am sure there are others out there with a differing opinion so choose what seems most logical and go for it.(2 costs less than 3 also)The comment about the pulses when the 2 blade goes by the trailing edge may not apply to the kolbs because the centerline of the prop is above the trailing edge so only 1 blade passes the trailing edge of the wing at a time unlike the Challenger configuration Wainfarn was commenting on. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 29, 1985

From:

wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>

Subject:

Re: ultralight Firestar

>Woody; >Glad you asked that question. It gives me a chance to explain my response. >I have nothing against belt drives. In fact I rather prefer them. >My advice to >You, as builder should do just that; build according to plans supplied by the >designer. The plans for your Kolb call for a gear drive. >You are not an aircraft engineer, therefor you should not design, nor >redesign, nor modify the design. Boy you sure put a damper on the fun of building a plane.If you modify know what you are doing. If you have a belt drive or gear drive it does not matter a bit unless you are worried about "p factor". I hope I don't break your bubble but Homer is just a truck drivin farmer. I respect his opinion a lot more than educated engineers.I do not believe in modifying for the sake of modifying but there are times when you may have a better idea and a bit of research will give you an indication of what to expect. >There are many ramifications that you may not realize will effect the end >product. >You then become a test pilot. >I was a test pilot once, testing the modification mentioned in the origional >question. >I am lucky to be alive. > Dennis at Kolb preaches this advice all the time. >It's good advice. >Take it! > I have been a test pilot on 7 aircraft and will do it again next summer (right Andy)I tested a Kolb Flyer to destruction and kissed my ass goodbye but managed to walk away. You live you learn.I have tested a new theory on aerodynamics. We will never progress if everyone is afraid to try new ideas.I will take the chances to try something new but you can rest assured I have done everything to assure my butt will be protected.After all I have grown quite attached to it over the years. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 28, 1997

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

2 VS 3 blade Props

Am currently running a 3-blade 64" Ivo on the MKIII. Tried a 2-blade 66" Warp on it and found no improvement on performance, but there was a noticable increase in noise, and roughness. Did not try the Warp in 3-blade configuration. One of the neighbors commented on the "odd whapping noise" that it made while I was trying out the 2-blade. I think it was due to the blades symmetrically cutting through the air coming off the inboard trailing edges. I base this on having heard some VariEzes making a similar sound. I was using a Rotax 532 with a 3" prop extension with both props. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 28, 1997

Subject:

Re: Propellers

<< The comment about the pulses when the 2 blade goes by the trailing edge may not apply to the kolbs because the centerline of the prop is above the trailing edge so only 1 blade passes the trailing edge of the wing at a time unlike the Challenger configuration Wainfarn was commenting on. Woody >> Yep! that sounds good too....you guys really know your business! GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 28, 1997

Subject:

Re: Propellers

<< about how much "smoother" a 3-blade is and most assume it has to do with static balance but I think its more likely the above reason. 3 blades are harder to >> Sounds like a great explanation to me! Thanks GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 28, 1997

From:

Jeff Stripling <jstripli(at)io.com>

Subject:

Forwarded mail...

> Also I got an hour of flying in today, inspite of the 25 degree >temperature and inch of snow on the ground (Wisconsin). The lakes have >thin ice or no ice at all so I didn't get to land on any lakes. The >trick is to get flying weather between the time the ice is thick enough >and before the snow gets too deep. >John Jung John, I have to say ...you enjoy your flying. I was working on my house today (the 'little' project that has been hampering me from getting started on a markIII) when the temp got down in the low 30's with 15 to 20 mph winds. That's when this ex-florida boy say time to go INSIDE! I can't imagine open cockpit 25 degree flying with that 45-50 mph 'breeze' blasting by you. What does that wind chill work out to? Absolute zero or something like that? Hats of to the determined pilot of the week! Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com P.S. In defense of us southern boys...the transplanted snowbirds I know down here aren't real crazy about our 98 degree 99 percent humidity July's either. NO offense intended to Northerners....to each his own! ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 29, 1997

Subject:

Re: Propellers

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

>....about the pulses when the 2 blade goes by the trailing edge may not >apply >to the kolbs because the centerline of the prop is above the trailing >edge >so only 1 blade passes the trailing edge of the wing at a time unlike >the >Challenger configuration Wainfarn was commenting on. > Woody > I'm not even sure it was WainfaRn I was paraphrasing but I do know that the article I referred to was not about any plane in particular. It was a general piece on pusher vs. tractor installations. I'll try to find the source and post it to the list if anyone cares. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 29, 1997

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Flying in cold weather.

Jeff Stripling wrote: > I can't > imagine open cockpit 25 degree flying with that 45-50 mph 'breeze' blasting > by you. What does that wind chill work out to? Absolute zero or something > like that? Hats of to the determined pilot of the week! > Jeff and Group, I am not crazy about the cold either. I would rather be down south in the winter. But I have learned the trick to enjoying the (northern) outside in winter. It is to dress properly. When I fly at this time of year, I wear bib ski pants, two jackets, thinsulate gloves, winter boots, and long underwear in addition to regular clothes. Also, I fly with a full face helmet all year round. But in cold weather, I tuck my jacket collar under the helmet. I am able to keep the face shield open by slouching a little in the seat. Some people wonder about changing their Rotax jetting for cold weather. Here is what I have found on 277's, 377's and 447's. I have run stock jets with the clip set one notch higher (leaner) than recommended all year round. I did notice, Saturday, that the 377 Firestar can reach 1250 EGT while desending if I don't reduce the power enough. I plan to move the clip back down (to stock) so that I don't have to monitor the gage so closely. In spring it will need to be moved back, because the engine tends to run too rich in hot weather. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 29, 1997

From:

"Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM" <GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM>

Subject:

Jetting changes, my humble opinion...

The thing with two-stroke jetting is: there is only as much power available as your mixture allows. Example: Your Rotax is running great, propped just right, etc. then winter comes along. The air is denser, the prop turns a little harder, the dense air is more resitive to your plane going thru it, and the dense air gives your wings more lift. The denser air means more molecules per cubic gulp, but if you don't change your MAIN JET to match, you won't get the benefit of the denser air in your combustion process, all you'll get is a leaner mixture (that is why you'll notice higher EGT temps). If you richen the mixture you can cool it back down and get power you never knew your Rotax had, like turbocharging! The main jet is all that requires changing. Then when it warms up again in Spring, you need to progressively jet back down (leaner) so you keep that optimum mixture (and you don't want to foul plugs). Experiement and MAKE SOME NOTES. A little chart works great. If you once go thru the initial pain of trying this for each 20 degrees F you want to operate your two-stroke in, I gaurantee you will always be willing to do a five-minute jet change before flying. The performance is that much better, really. The process depends on which engine, how many carbs, what exhaust, what air cleaner, prop,..., so nobody can do the experiment for you. You will need maybe five different main jets by the time you are thru, at about four bucks each. You will save that back in fuel costs in the hot summer months. Determine the mixture by static RPM and spark plug readings, and by all means consult with a local two-stroke expert if you have any questions. The entire range of RPM is affected by a main jet change, except idle. So changing the main according to temperature and air pressure is perfect. Main jet changes are easier than changing the needle position and do not require you to "tune" anything or have the engine running. Just pop the bowl and unscrew the jet and install the desired one with a 1/4" nut driver. It is not a bad idea to dump the fuel out of the bowls now and then anyway. OR, buy HAC carbs and be done with it. I have done it each way and it is worth the hassle/money. HAC has provided great mixture control for my dual-carb 582 for temp range from 90 to 35 F and altitudes from 900 to 7500' MSL. I am very glad I bought it when the engine was ordered. I don't think I would spend $600 for it though. One more thing, if you read your manual it probably says something like; "Your Rotax engine has been set up properly for your operating environment by experienced Rotax technicians and should not require any adjustment." Yea, right. So they somehow put in a main jet that would keep it from melting pistons in the coldest, most dense air they thought I would operate it in. OK, then what is my engine supposed to do with all that extra fuel when the air temperature warms up? Toss it out the exhaust system and coat my prop I guess. Maybe Rotax company owns NGK spark plug company :-). ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

belt vs geardrives

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Dec 29, 1997

Kolb people, I haven't been following this thing too closely, but why would anyone want to use a belt drive on a FireStar if the gear drives are proven trouble-free. I mean I've got a 1986 model gearbox (maybe an "A"-type) and I've never had a problem with it. The idea of adjusting a belt drive certainly doesn't make a bit of sense to me. Why mess with success? Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 29, 1997

From:

Cal <cgreen(at)centuryinter.net>

Subject:

Wind chill

The wind chill for 25 degree's at 50 mph is -15 brrrr... ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

PKrotje <PKrotje(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 29, 1997

Subject:

Re: Jetting changes, my humble opinion...

<< The denser air means more molecules per cubic gulp, but if you don't change your MAIN JET to match, you won't get the benefit of the denser air in your combustion process, all you'll get is a leaner mixture (that is why you'll notice higher EGT temps). If you richen the mixture you can cool it back down and get power you never knew your Rotax had, like turbocharging! The main jet is all that requires changing. >> Changing the main jet will only affect performance at or near full throttle. Large temperature changes like we in the north find when going from summer to winter affect two strokes performance in the mid-range throttle setting as well. On most flights we operate at high power settings for only brief periods but run at mid-range (cruise) for long periods of time. Cruise performance and cruise economy can be greatly improved with the proper needle jet and winter flying for me in Wisconsin has required a different needle jet. An interesting exercise in 'carb 101' is to remove the air filter(s) and with the throttle raise the carb slide to the 50% open position. For those bings with a primer port, the bottom of the slide would be at the level of that port. Mark that position on your throttle lever. Then raise the slide to the point where it is just to the full open position and again mark your throttle lever where this full open position is located. Then go and fly! (put everything back together first...) Take note of the throttle position at your normal cruise RPM and then you will know which jet you are running on at cruise (most of your flight time). If the throttle setting is much below 3/4 open, you are running on the needle jet and the needle jet is determining your mixture. This is the jet to adjust to make EGT's correct at cruise RPMs. For example, my Mk III (582) would cruise at 5500 RPM at about 1/2 throttle. Changing to the next lower needle jet brought operating EGT temps to 1100 (a good number) and reduced fuel consumption by 1/2 gallon per hour. On my Titan Tornado (503), cruise speed of 95 mph at 5600 RPM happens at less than 1/2 throttle. With the stock 2.74 needle jets I couldn't maintain 1000 degree EGT. After trying several needle jets, I found that a 2.68 jet gave me cruise temps of 1100 to 1120 and reduced fuel consumption by a bit more than 1/2 gallon per hour to slightly under 3 gallons per hour at 5600 RPM. I guess my point, after all this rambling discourse is to pay some attention to the part of the carb that you use for 95% of your flight time and is the limiting factor for performance and economy for that time. Take the time to find out what your limiting jets are for the plane that you fly, the way that you usually fly it. Pete Krotje EAA Tech Counselor Hortonville Wis. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: Wind chill

Cal wrote: > > The wind chill for 25 degree's at 50 mph is -15 brrrr... > It would only feel that cold on exposed skin. If one keeps all skin covered and stays behind the windscreen it is really not a problem. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

From:

Jon Steiger <stei0302(at)cs.fredonia.edu>

Subject:

Re: Flying in cold weather.

>Jeff Stripling wrote: >> I can't >> imagine open cockpit 25 degree flying with that 45-50 mph 'breeze' blasting >> by you. What does that wind chill work out to? Absolute zero or something >> like that? Hats of to the determined pilot of the week! >> >Jeff and Group, > I am not crazy about the cold either. I would rather be down south in >the winter. But I have learned the trick to enjoying the (northern) >outside in winter. It is to dress properly. When I fly at this time of >year, I wear bib ski pants, two jackets, thinsulate gloves, winter >boots, and long underwear in addition to regular clothes. Also, I fly >with a full face helmet all year round. But in cold weather, I tuck my >jacket collar under the helmet. I am able to keep the face shield open >by slouching a little in the seat. I haven't flown in the really cold stuff yet (my skis are rigged now though; I'm just waiting for some snow to do a test flight - then they come off to get painted) but I've flown in temperatures where my hands would go numb if I didn't have some sort of protection. I found this great little thing at Wal-Mart; I'm not even sure what its called (A "gator" I think?). Its in the hats and gloves section of the men's clothing department in the local store. Anyway, you pull it over your head and you wear it around your neck - its a collar that I can tuck into my coat and also up into my full face helmet. It really helped to close up the neck area where the air is good at sneaking into. -Jon- .--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---. | DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ, RP-SEL | | '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT Club Cab, '96 Kolb FireFly 447 (#FF019) | `-------------------------------------------------------------------------' I do not speak for the SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

From:

"Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM" <GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM>

Subject:

Jetting, one last comment

Pete, you have a valid point that we spend 95% of the time in the midrange. Great job on the actual data from your experiences with jetting, you must keep good records! This kind of fine-tuning is what I was talking about to encourage the guys to think about if they haven't. In my experience in Ultralights, Kolbs, Snowmobiles, ATVs, Chainsaws and Gocarts using two- strokes, I have not had to change the midrange needles or needle jet, ever. This includes after mild porting, adding tuned pipes, changing air filters, gearing changes, prop changes, and atomspheric changes. I guess you've taken it a step further than most, my hat's off to you. The midrange is controlled, as you stated, by the needle in the needle jet. But it is also affected by the main jet above half throttle. I don't think many of us are able to maintin level flight below half throttle (wish I could). Put simply, I beleive that once the midrange circuit is set up (and I admit that Rotax can't possibly get them all right so we could probably all benefit from some leaning of the needle jet), in my experience, seasonal changes have always been adjusted-for by main jet changes only. Maybe its because I tend to "keep it pinned" all the time. Watch those EGTs, safe flying. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

From:

"Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM" <GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM>

Subject:

1/2 throttle

Pete, hey I re-read your note again and I am confused. How can 5600 RPM be "less than half throttle" on your 503? I am going to have to try what you suggested just so I know, I guess. If I read it correctly, you are saying the slide is halfway open, and your RPM reads 5600, when cruising. Is that right, or did I miss something? I guess there is some missunderstanding because I commonly say "half-throttle" and mean "half of the available power" or in other words "halfway from idle RPM to full RPM". That could be where I am mis-understanding you a little. When talking about carb circuit tuning I should change my habits and think slide position like you and others do. Still, 5600 RPM at half-open slide would seem to be somewhat under-loaded. I will do some experimenting when my exhaust system comes back home. You are probably right. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net>

Subject:

Fw: Rotax 503 Service Bulletin

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

Hi everyone, I found this post on one of the newsgroups this morning. I took a brief look at the service note in question http://www.rotax-owner.com/serviceb/9ul97.pdf and it concerns some engines between the SN ranges of 4837735 and 4838155. Fortunately, my one year old engine is well below this range of SN's. Rusty >In article <34A8D101.5019(at)aracnet.com>, you say... >> >>Just a note to you Rotax 503UL engine owners. Stumbled across a link to >>the Rotax owners homepage yesterday and saw a Service Bulletin that said >>the wrist pins for the pistons of certain 503's were suspect and had to >>be replaced before the next flight. >> >> Having just installed my 503 in my plane, and then seeing this, I >>almost had a cow. Had to run home and check to see if my engine was one >>of the 130 or so engines affected. Luckily, mine wasn't. >> >>The homepare is at www.rotax-owner.com. Look at the list of service >>bulletins to see if your engine is affected. >> >>Hope it's not! > ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

PKrotje <PKrotje(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

Subject:

Re: 1/2 throttle

<< How can 5600 RPM be "less than half throttle" on your 503? I am going to have to try what you suggested just so I know, I guess. If I read it correctly, you are saying the slide is halfway open, and your RPM reads 5600, when cruising. Is that right, or did I miss something? >> Yes, I mean that the slide is less than half way open at 5600 rpm cruise. On my Titan, take off RPM is 6100 and full out straight & level RPM is 6350. Cleaner (aerodynamically) airplanes will take less power (fuel & air) to cruise. A wire braced UL will require a much wide carb slide opening to maintain RPM and in that case, perhaps a main jet change is all that is required as the engine will be running more on the main jet. That's why each of us needs to find where we are running and make the right adjustments to keep EGTs up where they need to be but not high enough to cause alarm. All this experimentation came about when the three of us who completed Titans with 503's couldn't keep EGTs up to 1000 during cruise and changing main jets did absolutely nothing. Pete ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

Subject:

Re: Propellers

<< 'm not even sure it was WainfaRn I was paraphrasing but I do know that the article I referred to was not about any plane in particular. It was a general piece on pusher vs. tractor installations. I'll try to find the source and post it to the list if anyone cares. >> I switched from a 66 - 2 blade wood that came with the Firestar to a 3 blade IVO at the recommendation of Dennis who said that the 3 blade would run smoother but not perform quite so well...I fond this to be totally true. Also my pitch changes were made before I had a tach so I haven't optimized yet. Does anyone know why the 2 blade is more "efficient" than the 3 blade? Of course the circle area will have a positive effect for the 2 blade....but is that all? GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

From:

Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca>

Subject:

Re: When it's cooooold outside!

>To all, > >Reading about "skimming the frozen lakes" sounds like a lot of fun. Makes >me a little jealous, but only for a moment... as my weak back begins to >tighten up on me from just the thought of the cold. > >OK you cold weather flyers, I have a "newbie to 2-cycles" question. With a >Rotax 582, what do you do except cover the radiators (I have 2 widths (50 >degrees F.) and sometimes 3 widths (40 degrees F.) of duct tape on now with >no cardboard or other insulation underneath) to keep the engine water warmer >in colder weather? I also see a noticable change in the viscosity of the >2-cycle oil on a cold day, but there is not much that can be done about >that. At what low air temp is it not a good idea to fly? ...or is that not >even the correct criteria to measure. Rather does it depend more on what >the minimum operating water temp of the engine is in flight and therefore... >depending how much you insulate the radiators? And if that is so, what is >that magic minimum water temp. Is that temp considered at cruise or as an >absolute minumum at any time. For instance, it would be coldest on decent. >Educate this "cold natured, kinda like it warm down south guy" in on the >basics of flying up north in colder weather. > >P.S. As an aside, my wife and I just got back from a few days on the beach >at Puerto Vallarta, Mex. Eat your hearts out - plenty of SUN, WARM nice >ocean breezes, "strong" marguaritas and great food. > >Thanks! > >-- >Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (37.3 hrs) >(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas > Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel > > ____________________|_____________________ > ___(+^+)___ > (_) > 8 8 > > >- > I copied and pasted an old e-mail that I had sent to the Kolb list about a year ago. I have had two great flights over the last week and was warm and very comfortable. The outside temp was about +25F The following was originally sent on Dec. 07,1996: I have seen a number of comments on winter flying during the last month. I have about 15 years of winter flying. The last six have been with Kolb aircraft. I am now flying a Mark 111. Winter flying offers some of the best flying. There are no thunderstorms or harsh thermals. Most snow covered fields and frozen lakes are good landing sites. You must keep warm to enjoy cold weather flying. I have a Rotax 582 on my Mark 111. I enclose the "carburetor side" radiator with cardboard and multiple layers of fiberglass strapping tape and then another layer of duct tape. I also insulate the radiator hoses with plumber's water pipe insulation (the cheep foam stuff that you buy at a hardware store for home waterline insulation). A word of caution - Make sure everything is securely fastened! I also cover up to one quarter of the remaining rad behind the muffler with duct tape. Close attention must be paid to the water temp gauge when covering up radiators. I have built a warm air collector that fastens to the back side of the radiator that is beside the muffler. A three foot length of 2 1/2 inch "cat" aeroduct flexible ducting routs the warm air into the cockpit. I have had excellent results with the above heater. I have used it for over 80 hours. During the first winter's operation I did not use cardboard to insulate the carb side rad and no plumber's insulation on the hoses. I have noticed an additional increase in cabin heating with the extra insulation. My last flight was on December 3, 96. It was 0 degrees F. I was up for one hour and did not get cold. Sears sells an automotive 12 volt car seat warmer that works well when laid on the ultralight's seat. It keeps your back and bottom toasty warm. I initially used the car seat warmer before I had my warm air heater installed, it felt so good I just keep using it. I have run two seat warmers with no battery drain, the rotax alternator keeps up. Carb heat is an important feature to have installed when flying in cold damp weather. I made my own. I cut two 3 3/4 inch square sheets of .063 aluminum, one for each carb. Cut a hole in the center of each sheet. The hole must be just large enough for the carb air cleaner flange to pass through. Weld a four inch length of 1/2 inch 6061 aluminum tubing along one side of each sheet. The tubing should have a thickness of .058. I used a scrap of tubing from the Mark 111 jury struts. The ends of the tubing can be threaded with a 1/8 inch pipe threader. I purchased small hose fittings from a plumbing store that can be screwed into the ends of the tubing. I routed hot water from the center plug in the 582's head through the first carb heater on the rear carb then through the front carb heater and then back to the water pump. I used good quality 1/4 inch automotive gas line hose and have had no problems with it. The water pump will have to be drilled and tapped for a 1/8 inch brass hose fitting. The plug in the center of the head is 1/8 inch pipe thread. The 3 3/4 inch sheet should be made to fit tightly on the carb. I welded a 3/8 inch square length of aluminum along the bottom edge of the carb heater. It is about 1 inch long and is centered along the bottom edge. I drilled a 3/16 inch hole through it lengthwise. I then used a hack saw to cut a slit from the large center hole all the way through the middle of the 3/8 inch aluminum stock. An AN 3 bolt can now be inserted in the 3/16 hole and tightened to secure the carb heater to the carb. The air cleaner can now be installed and safety wired. The air cleaner is moved out .063 of an inch when the carb heaters are installed. The first winter that I flew my Mark 111 with the 582 Rotax I ended up scuffing my cylinders from ingesting ice particles. The rebuild cost me over $600.00. I have had no more problems after installing carb heat. That's it enjoy winter flying! Kim Saskatchewan, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

Subject:

Re[2]: Flying in cold weather.

A friend showed up at our hangar on a cold day this last weekend on his motor cycle. He had a electric vest and gloves which plug into the bike. I don't recall the exact wattage but it was far less than the 150 watt power system on a typical Rotax. He too also had a type of dickey that covered his neck and lower part of his face. Covering the throat area would help a lot. Jerry Bidle ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Flying in cold weather. Date: 12/30/97 4:21 AM >Jeff Stripling wrote: >> I can't >> imagine open cockpit 25 degree flying with that 45-50 mph 'breeze' blasting >> by you. What does that wind chill work out to? Absolute zero or something >> like that? Hats of to the determined pilot of the week! >> >Jeff and Group, > I am not crazy about the cold either. I would rather be down south in >the winter. But I have learned the trick to enjoying the (northern) >outside in winter. It is to dress properly. When I fly at this time of >year, I wear bib ski pants, two jackets, thinsulate gloves, winter >boots, and long underwear in addition to regular clothes. Also, I fly >with a full face helmet all year round. But in cold weather, I tuck my >jacket collar under the helmet. I am able to keep the face shield open >by slouching a little in the seat. I haven't flown in the really cold stuff yet (my skis are rigged now though; I'm just waiting for some snow to do a test flight - then they come off to get painted) but I've flown in temperatures where my hands would go numb if I didn't have some sort of protection. I found this great little thing at Wal-Mart; I'm not even sure what its called (A "gator" I think?). Its in the hats and gloves section of the men's clothing department in the local store. Anyway, you pull it over your head and you wear it around your neck - its a collar that I can tuck into my coat and also up into my full face helmet. It really helped to close up the neck area where the air is good at sneaking into. -Jon- .--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---. | DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ, RP-SEL | | '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT Club Cab, '96 Kolb FireFly 447 (#FF019) | `-------------------------------------------------------------------------' I do not speak for the SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

From:

Paul Vencel <paul.vencel(at)mci.com>

Subject:

Redrives

This is not a Kolb specific question, and maybe it's been asked before, but I didn't find an answer that I was satisfied with. If a belt redrive costs less and weighs less than a gearbox, what is the advantage of the gearbox over the belt drive? Things I could think of: 1) The belt could slip. A1: Adjust it, if an adjustment is available. A2: Belt dressing could help quite a bit. 2) A belt may break. A: Do that preflight! -- Paul Vencel mailto:paul.vencel(at)MCI.COM - Work:719-535-4620 They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, 1759 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

From:

Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca>

Subject:

Re: Re[2]: Flying in cold weather.

At 11:35 AM 30/12/97 cst, you wrote: > A friend showed up at our hangar on a cold day this last weekend on > his motor cycle. He had a electric vest and gloves which plug into > the bike. I don't recall the exact wattage but it was far less than > the 150 watt power system on a typical Rotax. He too also had a type > of dickey that covered his neck and lower part of his face. Covering > the throat area would help a lot. > > Jerry Bidle > >______________________________ Reply Separator Electric clothing is avaible at the following web address; http://www.sargentcycle.com/ccchilli.htm http://www.widder.com/ http://www.gerbing.com/products.htm Kim Steiner Saskatchewan, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

From:

Jon Steiger <stei0302(at)cs.fredonia.edu>

Subject:

Re: Propellers

> ><< 'm not even sure it was WainfaRn I was paraphrasing but I do know that > the article I referred to was not about any plane in particular. It was a > general piece on pusher vs. tractor installations. I'll try to find the > source and post it to the list if anyone cares. > > >> >I switched from a 66 - 2 blade wood that came with the Firestar to a 3 blade >IVO at the recommendation of Dennis who said that the 3 blade would run >smoother but not perform quite so well...I fond this to be totally true. Also >my pitch changes were made before I had a tach so I haven't optimized yet. >Does anyone know why the 2 blade is more "efficient" than the 3 blade? Of >course the circle area will have a positive effect for the 2 blade....but is >that all? GeoR38 > I beleive a major factor is because the blades on a 3 blade are closer together. (If you have a blade straight up, you only have to turn the prop 1/3 of the way around in order to have another blade be at the same place, whereas you have to turn a 2 blade prop 1/2 of the way around.) For the 2 blade prop, that means when a blade cuts through the air, the air has more time to settle before the next blade comes through, so the "wake" from the first blade doesn't affect the next one as much. The 2 blade can take a better "bite" since the air it is travelling through is cleaner than for the 3 blade. -Jon- .--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---. | DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ, RP-SEL | | '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT Club Cab, '96 Kolb FireFly 447 (#FF019) | `-------------------------------------------------------------------------' I do not speak for the SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

From:

Jon Steiger <stei0302(at)cs.fredonia.edu>

Subject:

Re: When it's cooooold outside!

[...] > >Carb heat is an important feature to have installed when flying in cold damp >weather. [...] >The first winter that I flew my Mark 111 with the 582 Rotax I ended up >scuffing my cylinders from ingesting ice particles. The rebuild cost me >over $600.00. I have had no more problems after installing carb heat. > What about those of us with air cooled engines? (277,377,447) I've heard that the proximity of the carb to the engine won't allow carb icing. On the other hand, I've also heard that under certain conditions, the carb will ice up. Do we have to worry about carb icing? -Jon- .--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---. | DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ, RP-SEL | | '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT Club Cab, '96 Kolb FireFly 447 (#FF019) | `-------------------------------------------------------------------------' I do not speak for the SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Cavuontop <Cavuontop(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

Subject:

Re: When it's cooooold outside!

<< The first winter that I flew my Mark 111 with the 582 Rotax I ended up >scuffing my cylinders from ingesting ice particles. >> This is a very interesting statement. How did you determine it was ice? ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

From:

William Hinkelmann <whink(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

2 VS 3 BLADES

Rebuilding my FS-II, decided to try a 2 blade IVO, Had a 3 blade IVO before, 2 blades did not make it. picked up two 66" blades at Oshkosh. Guess I could always glue a washer on the surviving 64" blade and fly with 3 blades. Hope to be flying in Feb or March, depending on the weather in Atlanta or Mobile. Am using Stits Poly-Tone but cannot find anything as to ambient temperatures. is 30 degrees to cold to spray paint? 40 degrees? only thing that was said was the slower drying the smoother, and increased temperature causes shorter drying time. _____________________ William Hinkelmann whink(at)mindspring.com ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Cavuontop <Cavuontop(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

Subject:

Re: 2 VS 3 BLADES

<< Am using Stits Poly-Tone but cannot find anything as to ambient temperatures. is 30 degrees to cold to spray paint? 40 degrees? >> 30 or 40 is too cold I think. I sprayed some stits epoxy in the 40s once and got bit in the butt. The primer peeled right off. There was some condensation that happened. Tried it again in the high 50s and had no problem. Same with the poly tone. If you want to slow it up they have differnet retarders. Try that. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: Propellers

GeoR38 wrote: > Does anyone know why the 2 blade is more "efficient" than the 3 blade? > The reason that a two blade is more efficient that a three blade is that each blade operates in cleaner, less disturbed air. A single blade is even more efficient but more difficult to balance. That is not a joke. Planes have flown with single bladed propellers. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: 2 VS 3 BLADES

William Hinkelmann wrote: > > Am using Stits Poly-Tone but cannot find anything as to ambient > temperatures. is 30 degrees to cold to spray paint? 40 degrees? only > thing that was said was the slower drying the smoother, and increased > temperature causes shorter drying time. I had no problem at 60 degrees on the wings, but 50 degrees on the nose cone was pushing it. I have heard of people painting with poly-tone at temps colder than 50, but it isn't recommended. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

Subject:

Re: Propellers

<< >Does anyone know why the 2 blade is more "efficient" than the 3 blade? Of >course the circle area will have a positive effect for the 2 blade....but is >that all? GeoR38 > I beleive a major factor is because the blades on a 3 blade are closer together. (If you have a blade straight up, you only have to turn the prop 1/3 of the way around in order to have another blade be at the same place, whereas you have to turn a 2 blade prop 1/2 of the way around.) For the 2 blade prop, that means when a blade cuts through the air, the air has more time to settle before the next blade comes through, so the "wake" from the first blade doesn't affect the next one as much. The 2 blade can take a better "bite" since the air it is travelling through is cleaner than for the 3 blade. >> Sounds good to me Jon, ...thanks for the feedback! GeoR38 (how come you didn't know this ....Frank?) ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

Subject:

Re: Propellers

<< eoR38 wrote: > Does anyone know why the 2 blade is more "efficient" than the 3 blade? > The reason that a two blade is more efficient that a three blade is that each blade operates in cleaner, less disturbed air. A single blade is even more efficient but more difficult to balance. That is not a joke. Planes have flown with single bladed propellers. John Jung - >> I believe you John, after all I still have a 1938 Wakefield rubber band airplane and the most enjoyable part of building it was whittling out the 1 blade folding prop....very sleek and efficient indeed!! Thanks for the input! GeoR38 (you didn't know that either, did you, Frank?) ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net>

Subject:

re:Kolb propellers

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

Is that why they use 4-blade props on the P-51? -----Original Message----- From: Jon Steiger <stei0302(at)cs.fredonia.edu> Date: Tuesday December 30 1997 11:55 AM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Propellers >> >><< 'm not even sure it was WainfaRn I was paraphrasing but I do know that >> the article I referred to was not about any plane in particular. It was a >> general piece on pusher vs. tractor installations. I'll try to find the >> source and post it to the list if anyone cares. >> >> >> >>I switched from a 66 - 2 blade wood that came with the Firestar to a 3 blade >>IVO at the recommendation of Dennis who said that the 3 blade would run >>smoother but not perform quite so well...I fond this to be totally true. Also >>my pitch changes were made before I had a tach so I haven't optimized yet. >>Does anyone know why the 2 blade is more "efficient" than the 3 blade? Of >>course the circle area will have a positive effect for the 2 blade....but is >>that all? GeoR38 >> > > I beleive a major factor is because the blades on a 3 blade are closer >together. (If you have a blade straight up, you only have to turn the prop >1/3 of the way around in order to have another blade be at the same place, >whereas you have to turn a 2 blade prop 1/2 of the way around.) For the 2 >blade prop, that means when a blade cuts through the air, the air has more >time to settle before the next blade comes through, so the "wake" from the >first blade doesn't affect the next one as much. The 2 blade can take a >better "bite" since the air it is travelling through is cleaner than for >the 3 blade. > > > -Jon- > > .--- stei0302(at)cs.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---. > | DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ, RP-SEL | > | '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT Club Cab, '96 Kolb FireFly 447 (#FF019) | > `----------------------------------------------------------------------- --' > I do not speak for the SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own. >- ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

From:

Frank & Winnie Hodson <fwhodson(at)megalink.net>

Subject:

Stits Paint

-- William Hinkelmann wrote: > > > Am using Stits Poly-Tone but cannot find anything as to ambient > temperatures. is 30 degrees to cold to spray paint? 40 degrees? only > thing that was said was the slower drying the smoother, and increased > temperature causes shorter drying time. > I have used the Stits process many times and have sprayed poly brush, poly spray and poltone multiple times below 30 degrees. Note: The epoxy primer will not cure for weeks at that temperature. The problem areas noted when spraying other Stits products are all related to possible moisture condensation, the compressor air heats up to warmer than ambient air temperature so a moisture filtration system is a must. Extra care must be taken to avoid runs as the paint definately dries slower. I found that making rotating stands for the airframe and wings allowed me to spray on a more horizontal surface and avoided ecessive running. I am not recommending painting at such low temperatures, but I completely covered and painted a 1946 Aeronca 11AC Chief in my garage during the winter months here in Maine. (It was a lot more desirable than heating the garage and wondering whether or not we would explode!) All in all painting in warmer weather has always been easier when time is not a problem. Good luck: Frank fwhodson@megalink.net | http://www.megalink.net/~fwhodson ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 30, 1997

From:

Frank & Winnie Hodson <fwhodson(at)megalink.net>

Subject:

More propellers

Dear fellow Kolbites: The information thus far on 2 vs 3 blade props has been greately enjoyed. I present my FSII with several challenges: 1. I am hefty and would enjoy the increased efficiency. 2. I plan to use the Kolb in several different modes (wheels, skis, and posibly floats) and desire an adjustable prop. ? Does anyone have experience with the two bladed adjustable prop and would they summarize thier opinions re; acceptable smoothness and performance ? Thanks again: Frank fwhodson@megalink.net | http://www.megalink.net/~fwhodson ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 31, 1997

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: More propellers

Frank & Winnie Hodson wrote: > Does anyone have experience with the two bladed adjustable prop and > would they summarize thier opinions re; acceptable smoothness and > performance ? I have a 66" Warp Drive prop on my 377 Firestar and it is very quiet and efficient. It does have a slight pulsing which makes it sound more like a four stroke form the ground than most two strokes. It is not as smooth as a three blade, but I find it acceptable. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 31, 1997

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: re:Kolb propellers

Ron Carroll wrote: > Is that why they use 4-blade props on the P-51? Four blades are used to handle more power without getting too big in diameter. This also one of the reasons for 3 blades. It's a trade-off with efficiency. P-51's have plenty of power. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Wayne Welsh <flight(at)mail.on.rogers.wave.ca>

Subject:

Re: Propellers

Does anyone have any experience with Sport Props. http://www.teleport.com/~trikes/Sport%20Prop%20main.html GeoR38 wrote: > > << >Does anyone know why the 2 blade is more "efficient" than the 3 blade? > Of > >course the circle area will have a positive effect for the 2 blade....but > is > >that all? GeoR38 > > > > I beleive a major factor is because the blades on a 3 blade are closer > together. (If you have a blade straight up, you only have to turn the prop > 1/3 of the way around in order to have another blade be at the same place, > whereas you have to turn a 2 blade prop 1/2 of the way around.) For the 2 > blade prop, that means when a blade cuts through the air, the air has more > time to settle before the next blade comes through, so the "wake" from the > first blade doesn't affect the next one as much. The 2 blade can take a > better "bite" since the air it is travelling through is cleaner than for > the 3 blade. >> > Sounds good to me Jon, ...thanks for the feedback! > GeoR38 > (how come you didn't know this ....Frank?) > - ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 31, 1997

Subject:

Re: re:Kolb propellers

<< Is that why they use 4-blade props on the P-51? >> yes Ron, otherwise it would have gone too fast with only 3 or 2 blades, and we all know what can happen when we hit the sound barrier!.......just funnin"..... Got that Frank?......... GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 01, 1986

From:

wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>

Subject:

Re: belt vs geardrives

>Kolb people, > >I haven't been following this thing too closely, but why would anyone >want to use a belt drive on a FireStar if the gear drives are proven >trouble-free. I mean I've got a 1986 model gearbox (maybe an "A"-type) >and I've never had a problem with it. The idea of adjusting a belt drive >certainly doesn't make a bit of sense to me. Why mess with success? > >Ralph Burlingame The advantage of a belt drive is the simplicity and ease of inspection.Belt adjustment is a simple procedure that is not done very often if done right the first time.In my area in one summer 3 guys had their bearings give out on the gearboxes. They all claim without warning.Belt drives are also quieter and smoother with the belts taking the shock of the engine power stroke. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Timandjan <Timandjan(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 31, 1997

Subject:

spar/boom tube material

I am in the need of a piece of the 6 inch 6061T6 boom tube/spar tube left over from a Mark 3 or Slingshot. When I build my firestar 2 the 5 inch tubes were sent 24 inches too long and they needed to be cut so I had 2 pieces left over. I need a piece of the 6 inch size. I hope to get it from 1-2 feet long, but I can work with any size, if anybody has a piece laying around that I could talk you out of please let me know, I am creating!!!!!. tim ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: belt vs geardrives

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Dec 31, 1997

Woody, I still don't see the logic in wanting a belt drive over a gear drive because the Rotax gearboxes are well designed and trouble-free. I believe the belt drives may be more efficient, but the reliability of the gearboxes outweigh the reasons for using a beltdrive. I have a friend who took off in his FireStar without any gear oil in his Rotax 447 gearbox (he forgot to put it in). He flew for over 10 minutes before he heard squealing noises coming from the engine (he knew at that point what it was). Even at that, he flew another 10 minutes or so to get back home. After getting down safely, he got out and walked around the rear of the plane to see what the gearbox looked like. It was blue on the outside from the heat generated by it. The point is that the thing didn't fail on him, but kept right on going in spite of the lack of oil in it! This is what you call reliability and this is what you want in your aircraft. I do not know of anyone in this area who has had any Rotax gearbox trouble. I change my gear oil annually (this is important) and now use Mobil 1 synthetic gear oil in it (runs cooler). Mine is over 11 years old and I expect many more years out of it. What more could you want for your plane? Good Luck to you guy. Looks like warmer temps here on New Years Day in the Minneapolis area. Me and a buddy are going to take a cross-country in our FireStars. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar > The advantage of a belt drive is the simplicity and ease of >inspection.Belt adjustment is a simple procedure that is not done very >often if done right the first time.In my area in one summer 3 guys had >their bearings give out on the gearboxes. They all claim without >warning.Belt drives are also quieter and smoother with the belts >taking the >shock of the engine power stroke. > > Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Olendorf <Olendorf(at)aol.com>

Date:

Dec 31, 1997

Subject:

Re: belt vs geardrives

<< I change my gear oil annually (this is important) and now use Mobil 1 synthetic gear oil in it (runs cooler). Mine is over 11 years old and I expect many more years out of it. >> I assume that this is a GEAR OIL type of Mobil 1 not the motor type. Scott Olendorf Schenectady, NY USA Kolb Firestar, Rotax 377 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Dec 31, 1997

From:

skip staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net>

Subject:

Re: belt vs geardrives

>I do not know of anyone in this area who has had any Rotax gearbox trouble. On the other hand, how many do you know that have had troubles with a belt reduction system? I have a friend that has had all kinds of problems with a gear reduction unit in an airboat. Maybe trouble, or lack thereof, has something to do with the particular installation and how the unit is operated and maintained? >Mine is over 11 years old and I expect many >more years out of it. What more could you want for your plane? The belt reduction drive on my 1984 Ultrastar is still operating with absolutely no problems. It's not extremely high time, but the original belt is still in one piece. :) If I'm not mistaken, I believe that you will find that a belt drive is actually more efficient than a gear or chain drive. New belts are a far cry from the old V belts that many of us remember. For instance, how much do you worry about the belts that run the alternater, air conditioner or water pump on your car? Even Harley-Davidson has reverted to belt drive on their motorcycles. Many cars use belts to drive their cams/valve drive. :) >Looks like warmer temps here on New Years Day in the Minneapolis area. Me >and a buddy are going to take a cross-country in our FireStars. It's supposed to be the coldest day of the year here south of the Tampa Bay area, but it's supposed to be back into the 80=B0+ range by the weekend. :) Happy New Year to all. Skip ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: belt vs geardrives

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Dec 31, 1997

You got it Scott ..... just what I said Ralph B. > ><< I change my gear oil annually (this is important) and now use Mobil 1 > synthetic gear oil in it (runs cooler). Mine is over 11 years old and I > expect many more years out of it. > >I assume that this is a GEAR OIL type of Mobil 1 not the motor type. >Scott Olendorf >Schenectady, NY USA >Kolb Firestar, Rotax 377 >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: belt vs geardrives

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Dec 31, 1997

Skip Was the airboat gear drive a Rotax? When I talk about gear drives, I'm strictly referring to the Rotax types. Don't forget your UltraStar belt drive was tested by the Kolb Company before it was marketed. You were not the "test pilot". I've read of all kinds of problems that can result from reduction drives that have harmonic resonances that cause vibration and failure. If you have a belt drive that has been tested for 11 years without a failure then it would appear to be "reliable", but why experiment when you have the proven success of a Rotax gear drive, especially with something you really want to work without problems. Ralph B. Original FireStar writes: > >On the other hand, how many do you know that have had troubles with >a belt reduction system? I have a friend that has had all kinds of >problems with a gear reduction unit in an airboat. Maybe trouble, >or lack thereof, has something to do with the particular installation >and how the unit is operated and maintained? > >>Mine is over 11 years old and I expect many >>more years out of it. What more could you want for your plane? > >The belt reduction drive on my 1984 Ultrastar is still operating >with absolutely no problems. It's not extremely high time, but >the original belt is still in one piece. :) If I'm not mistaken, >I believe that you will find that a belt drive is actually more >efficient >than a gear or chain drive. New belts are a far cry from the old >V belts that many of us remember. For instance, how much do you worry >about the belts that run the alternater, air conditioner or water pump >on your car? Even Harley-Davidson has reverted to belt drive on their >motorcycles. Many cars use belts to drive their cams/valve drive. :) > >>Looks like warmer temps here on New Years Day in the Minneapolis >area. Me >>and a buddy are going to take a cross-country in our FireStars. > >It's supposed to be the coldest day of the year here south of the >Tampa Bay area, but it's supposed to be back into the 80=B0+ range >by the weekend. :) > >Happy New Year to all. > >Skip > > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 01, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Throttles,Carb's and props

Computer has been busted, so did I have a lot of e-mail to read! About cruising at half-throttle: The Hummer I sold last spring had a Rotax277 with 2.5:1 belt drive and a 56" prop. At full throttle it only turned 5800rpm, but then the Hummer was designed for low power, and it cruised at 4800-5200 rpm at about half throttle, slide about half up. Since the 277 uses the same 36mm Bing as the 503, I think if an engine is over carb'd for it's size, and then over propped to keep the horsepower down, it might normally cruise at 1/2 throttle. As far as belt drive vs. gearbox, the Maxair belt drive had 600 trouble free hours on it when I sold it. I have already had to trash one Rotax B box when it loosened up all it's bearings. The oil had been changed normally. Concerning 2 vs. 3 blade props. The J-6 Karatoo I sold to build the MKIII had a Rotax 532 and a Warp drive 66" 2 blade prop. I tried an Ivo in 2 and 3 blade configuration, performance was no better, but it was slightly smoother. The MKIII has an Ivo 64" 3 blade. I tried a Warp Drive 2 blade, but it was poorer in performance, much noiser, and not nearly as smooth. If you are using an Ivo, do not rely on the cams to pitch the blades equally. We have tested several Ivo props locally, and it is normal for the blades to vary somewhat in pitch. The easiest solution is to make some little "L shaped" shims that you can insert by loosening the bolts, reaching down the center cut-out, and slipping between the cams and the bearing plate while you hold the vertical leg of the "L". The Ivo gets LOTS better when all the blades are pitched the same. Maybe that's why I was not impressed with the one I tried on the J-6... Happy New Year Fellow Flyers Thanks for all the Good Info Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 03, 1986

From:

wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>

Subject:

Re: belt vs geardrives

>Woody, > >I still don't see the logic in wanting a belt drive over a gear drive >because the Rotax gearboxes are well designed and trouble-free. I am glad you have such good luck with your gear box. Personally I can't see why every body does not have a belt drive. To each their own, good luck Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 02, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Firestar picture

Anyone interested in seeing a picture of my 377 Firestar, (the one that made it to 17,000 feet with a 377 Rotax), check out: http://www.classifieds2000.com/cgi-cls/ad.exe?P1+C181+A0+R224213+Q201976583 Oh, did I mention that it's For Sale? John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 03, 1986

From:

wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>

Subject:

Re: belt vs geardrives

Date:

Jan 02, 1986

From:

wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>

Subject:

Re: belt vs geardrives

Date:

Jan 02, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: Propellors

Hi everybody, I've been out for awhile, holiday visiting out of town. Glad to be back and hope to be flying tomorrow. I skimmed thru most of the propellor discussion and felt my usual compulsion to jump in on this with a couple of thoughts. 1. I disagree w/ the bit more HP being able to turn more blades. As has been mentioned, some work had been done in the 30s or 40s with single bladed props in the interest of greater effeciency. They just used a counter- weight stub on the other side. 3 blades can use the same HP as 2 or 1 bladed configs assuming the blade length (disk size) and prop pitch are changed accordingly. 2. The main enchilada on number of blades is thrust disk area. That is, fewer blades almost always means they are longer, and therefore have a larger thrust disk area. This translates to efficiency. An easy analogy is considering the effiency of the long wings on gliders ...this higher aspect ratio = efficiency! 3 bladed configs will generally have higher tip losses (induced drag) because of their lower aspect ratio, and simply because their are 3 tips to lose from instead of 2. 3. As for 3-bladed being less efficient because of each blade following more disturbed air, i think this is not so much a factor except at static or near static loads. I think >2 blades is usually seen as a way to accomodate bigger engines when prop diameter is otherwise exceeded, and also simply to reduce noise. Also note, without changing the gearbox, a 3 bladed prop will have lower tip speeds and that is why they are quieter. Well, that's my $.02. I'm gonna actually go play w/ my airplane now. :-) -Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________ by r1.boston.juno.com (8.8.6.Beta0/8.8.6.Beta0/2.0.kim) with ESMTP id TAAAA09495

Date:

Jan 01, 1998

Subject:

Hello, where'd everybody go?

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

OK, is everyone just hung-over or has the list server had another hiccup? Maybe the problem is at my end but have received no messages since early 12/31. All the computers aren't supposed to crash at once for 2 years yet! Happy New Year to All! Thanks for all the help and advice in 1997, especially Adrian. Here's to a SAFE and prosperous 1998. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 02, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: IVO shims

>Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 01:42:52 -0500 >To: Cliff and Carolyn Stripling >From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> >Subject: Re: IVO shims >In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980102034422.0068d150(at)dfw.net> > >>Richard, >> >>> If you are using an Ivo, do not rely on the cams to pitch the blades >>>equally. We have tested several Ivo props locally, and it is normal for the >>>blades to vary somewhat in pitch. The easiest solution is to make some >>>little "L shaped" shims that you can insert by loosening the bolts, >>>reaching down the center cut-out, and slipping between the cams and the >>>bearing plate while you hold the vertical leg of the "L". >>> The Ivo gets LOTS better when all the blades are pitched the same. Maybe >>>that's why I was not impressed with the one I tried on the J-6... >> >>I know you (or someone else) posted about this before but I did not save the >>post and wish I had. Would you give the list more info about those shims... >>what stock material did you use and dimensions and (knowing that it is >>different for different props) about what thickness is required. >> >>Thanks! >> > Originally I ground the cams until everything matched. Too much work. the easiest method is pure shade tree. Grab the micrometer, and grub through the scrap bin until you have some .005, some .010, some.015, etc. Then I cut out a strip about 3/8" to 1/2" wide (I don't remember exactly, and it really doesn't matter) and about an inch or two long (high tech here, if you can easily hold it with needle noses while installing it, it is long enough) and then bend it 90 degrees about 1/2" from the end. Loosen the bolts enough to slip the bent end under the cam for the prop with the least pitch, tighten the bolts back down and recheck it. Eventually they all get the same. > Now you run the engine up and discover that the total pitch load has moved your engine out of the desired power band, so you remove and restack the Ivo shims, and start over! But it's nice when it's finally perfect. > If you have to use more than one shim, stick a bit of double stick tape to the bent end, and one won't fall out while you are playing with the other. operation to your local A/P mechanic, it is guaranteed to have him walking away shaking his head and muttering! Richard Pike > MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Jan 03, 1998

Subject:

Re: Propellors

<< 3 bladed configs will generally have higher tip losses (induced drag) because of their lower aspect ratio, and simply because their are 3 tips to lose from instead of 2. 3. As for 3-bladed being less efficient because of each blade following more disturbed air, i think this is not so much a factor except at static or near static loads. I think >2 blades is usually seen as a way to accomodate bigger engines when prop diameter is otherwise exceeded, and also simply to reduce noise. Also note, without changing the gearbox, a 3 bladed prop will have lower tip speeds and that is why they are quieter. >> I was one of the instigaters of this subject ,and am amazed at the diversity of comment, all of which I can buy in on, ie, you folks all make a lotta sense to me...so I would like to bring up another subject that I haven't heard anyone on here speak about and that is the "weak link" type of landing gears on the Kolb Firestar. I have a deep appreciation for the idea of the spring aluminum landing gear approach to "saving" the rest of the plane on tough landings, but now I have accumulated enough bent ones that it would sure be nice if there were a way to reuse them if they are not too badly bent. Since I have 15 bent ones.....Naw, just kiddin but I do have 5 bent ones and 1 actually broke on a landing one time (but I know why) I wonder if anyone of a mechanical bent (pun intendedf) would be able to tell the group what to do....or where to go ......or sumpin. (where you been Frank?) GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 03, 1998

From:

molu@achilles (Lucien Morais)

Subject:

Update on noisy motor

HI Kolbers! If you remember a few months ago I wrote a letter about a noisy motor and vibrations I had when the RPM was over 3000. Well we took the motor apart and checked everything. I only had 65 hres on that motor but I did not want to take any chances. The prop was balanced and tracking was ok. There was nothing wrong with the motor except a oil seal on the mag side that was leaking a little bit. I did also order news motor mounts from Kolb. I flew about 1 hres yesterday and everything is back to normal. Except I cant get the rpm to go over 6000 at full throttle. Before I had 6030 Rpm. So I guess it is time to look for a adjustable pitch prop, like the IVO. I guess I will never know if it was the motors mounts that was causing the problems or may be the timing was out a little bit. We did not check the timing before we took it apart Happy flying Lucien ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 04, 1986

From:

wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>

Subject:

straight gear

>aluminum landing gear approach to "saving" the rest of the plane on tough >landings, but now I have accumulated enough bent ones that it would sure be >nice if there were a way to reuse them if they are not too badly bent. Since I >have 15 bent ones.....Naw, just kiddin but I do have 5 bent ones and 1 >actually broke on a landing one time (but I know why) I wonder if anyone of a >mechanical bent (pun intendedf) would be able to tell the group what to >do....or where to go ......or sumpin. (where you been Frank?) GeoR38 My theory is straighten once then replace but before I take it off I need a good bend in it. They can be straightened with a good 5 ton hydrolic jack. Also keep a pair of restraightened ones on the aircraft if possible with the tools to swap it out in case you are ever stuck in the boonies. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________ by r1.boston.juno.com (8.8.6.Beta0/8.8.6.Beta0/2.0.kim) with ESMTP id OAAAA18183

Subject:

New Years flight

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Jan 03, 1998

To all: here's my New Years Day flight Ground Effect Flying New Years Day turned out to be a spectacular day for flying. Jerry Jagerson, Ray Lujon and I were planning to get up early and fly to White Bear Lake. I did get up early and the forecasted winds were out of the SW at 10-20 mph. I called Jerry and then Ray to say that it would be too windy. Jerry called back and said that he thought we should go anyway because it was going to warm up into the upper 30's. We agreed to meet at Maple Plain at 11:30 am. The winds were blowing at about 14 mph when I got out there to set up. Jerry came flying over just before noon and said it was smooth at 2400 feet. We took off at 12:15 and decided to land at Cooks Bay on lake Minnetonka. There wasn't much snow on the lake so our wheels made for a "cushy" landing. I thought the air was pretty smooth, and from there we flew all over the lake and came back. After adding some gas to our tanks, we wanted to head over to Lake Waconia about 10 minutes to the west. As we approached Waconia, we could see a lot of cars, trucks, snowmobiles, and people out there. We made a straight in approach into the wind and landed near the shore. I asked a guy in a truck next to where I parked, where we might find something to eat. He said right up the street there was a cafe. Jerry and I walked about 3 blocks and found the place. After getting some good food in our guts, we walked back to the lake and noticed the winds had died down. We were now prepared to do some real flying! After discussing our flight plan, we got in our planes and flew the circumference of that big round lake for over and hour making about 4 or 5 laps around at about 5 feet AGL doing 40-45 mph. Many of the snowmobiles wanted to race with us and were passing us up. I couldn't stand for that any longer and I opened it up. My airspeed indicator cranked up to 80 mph and left them behind (I really didn't think it would do that with a 377 Rotax. I wasn't diving because I was only 20 feet AGL). Jerry and I had a blast all afternoon. I learned that you can fly really low like this and make very gradual turns to stay within the boundaries of the lake. Most of the flying was at 4500 RPM so you can conserve fuel. On our last pass of the east end, we climbed to 1000 feet and headed back to Cooks Bay and called it a day. What a day it was indeed! It's one New Year's Day I won't forget for years to come. Thanks for calling me back Jerry. See what you guys in the south are missing ....... Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar Minneapolis ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

gear legs

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

Kolber's (I Iike that name), I have the uncut 7075 tapered aluminum gear legs off the TwinStar on my original FireStar. They are heavier duty (thicker and longer) than the gear legs shipped in my kit. Installed, the plane sits up higher and makes it more difficult to get in the cockpit, but now it looks more like a Slingshot. Kolb told me to cut them off, but I didn't for two reasons: 1) the longer legs absorb more shock 2) Landing speeds can be lower due to the higher angle of attack. I do have to watch my landing speed closer because I can stall easier on touchdown (I think this is what Kolb was concerned about). Like all of our tapered aluminum gear legs, in time they will bend outward. I just remove the single bolt holding them in the cage and turn them over so they are now bowed inward. This solves the problem until I have to turn them back the other way. I try to grease it in on landing, but every once in awhile I come down harder than I expected. I've had them 10 years and they are still going strong. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar >to me...so I would like to bring up another subject that I haven't >heard anyone on here speak about and that is the "weak link" type of landing >gears on the Kolb Firestar. I have a deep appreciation for the idea of the >spring aluminum landing gear approach to "saving" the rest of the plane on >tough landings, but now I have accumulated enough bent ones that it would >sure be nice if there were a way to reuse them if they are not too badly bent. >Since I have 15 bent ones.....Naw, just kiddin but I do have 5 bent ones and 1 >actually broke on a landing one time (but I know why) I wonder if anyone of a >mechanical bent (pun intendedf) would be able to tell the group what >to do....or where to go ......or sumpin. (where you been Frank?) > GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: New Years flight

I am suprised. I expected to be able to read about those down south flying in the winter. So who is doing the flying and sharing the experiences? Ralph and myself, from Minnesota and Wisconsin. Does anybody down south fly in winter? Or does one have to be in Phoenix to escape the bad weather? John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 05, 1986

From:

wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>

Subject:

Re: Update on noisy motor

>cant get the rpm to go over 6000 at full throttle. Before I had 6030 Rpm. >So I guess it is time to look for a adjustable pitch prop, like the IVO. > > I guess I will never know if it was the motors mounts that was causing > > Happy flying Lucien > > If you get 6000 rpm don't worry about the prop if you can accept the slightly slower climb rate and slightly faster cruise speed, unless of course you have a bunch of extra money kicking around. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

From:

Tom DeIulio <74650.1521(at)compuserve.com>

Subject:

Mark III Trim Tabs

Hello all. Let me introduce myself as a new member of the list, Tom from Albany, NY. I'm building a Mark III and am currently working on the elevators. I am concidering installing an inflight adjustable trim tab similar to those found on the Cessnas. I'm wondering if anyone has attempted this modification before. If so, how about some feedback. How well does the spring trim system work called for by the plans? With the fairly slow speeds at which the Kolbs fly is an adjustable trim tab even needed? Being new to the light/ultralight scene I can only relate to the C-172. I'm open to suggestions. Thanks. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

AMAV8R <AMAV8R(at)aol.com>

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

Subject:

Re: straight gear...use spring steel

ITry Kolb.... I've found they are now including same in their advertising. I find them outstanding on my MKIII. And....a good design...all one piece ..replaces seperate axle...easy to retrofit with sleeve in cage socket. Good spring action. Happier hardlanding. AMAV8R(at)aol.com Russ in Tucson ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

AMAV8R <AMAV8R(at)aol.com>

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

Subject:

Re: gear legs.....stress on cage

I would imagine that Kolb is also concerned with the additional stress on the cage caused by the additional leverage as a result of the longer gear struts. I'm a strong believer that the manufacturer has REAL reasons for their recommendations.. I have high regard for the kolb structural integerity and listen close to their advice. Try their spring steel struts...I imagine they'er going to be offering retrofits. AMAV8R(at)aol.com ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net>

Subject:

Re: New Years flight

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

80?!? Now I really am anxious to get my Original Firestar #15 (377-Rotax) finished and flying. There are a few guys in my UL club that want to take a trip in early June, and they asked me if I could be ready to go. The trip will be from Albany, Oregon to Sandy River, Oregon, up the Columbia River Gorge and on to Boise, Idaho, down thru the Alvord Desert, across southern Oregon to Grants Pass, Oregon and on home. About a 1,000 mile trip, with lots of camping out and site-seeing. The only problem I have is that they are all fairly fast planes (Rans S-12, Carrera, Titan), and they expect to cruise around 55 to 60 mph. The slower planes like the MXs, trikes and B1RD will not take part in this trip, and I hate to commit myself for fear I would be unable to maintain the necessary speed. I see from your letter that your original Firestar cooks pretty good, but I'd like your opinion on a sustained 55-60 mph cruise. Your New Year's Day trip sounded great. Thanks, Ron Carroll >To all: here's my New Years Day flight > >Ground Effect Flying > >New Years Day turned out to be a spectacular day for flying. Jerry >Jagerson, Ray Lujon and I were planning to get up early and fly to White >Bear Lake. I did get up early and the forecasted winds were out of the SW >at 10-20 mph. I called Jerry and then Ray to say that it would be too >windy. Jerry called back and said that he thought we should go anyway >because it was going to warm up into the upper 30's. We agreed to meet at >Maple Plain at 11:30 am. The winds were blowing at about 14 mph when I >got out there to set up. Jerry came flying over just before noon and said >it was smooth at 2400 feet. We took off at 12:15 and decided to land at >Cooks Bay on lake Minnetonka. There wasn't much snow on the lake so our >wheels made for a "cushy" landing. I thought the air was pretty smooth, >and from there we flew all over the lake and came back. After adding some >gas to our tanks, we wanted to head over to Lake Waconia about 10 minutes >to the west. As we approached Waconia, we could see a lot of cars, >trucks, snowmobiles, and people out there. We made a straight in approach >into the wind and landed near the shore. I asked a guy in a truck next to >where I parked, where we might find something to eat. He said right up >the street there was a cafe. Jerry and I walked about 3 blocks and found >the place. After getting some good food in our guts, we walked back to >the lake and noticed the winds had died down. We were now prepared to do >some real flying! After discussing our flight plan, we got in our planes >and flew the circumference of that big round lake for over and hour >making about 4 or 5 laps around at about 5 feet AGL doing 40-45 mph. Many >of the snowmobiles wanted to race with us and were passing us up. I >couldn't stand for that any longer and I opened it up. My airspeed >indicator cranked up to 80 mph and left them behind (I really didn't >think it would do that with a 377 Rotax. I wasn't diving because I was >only 20 feet AGL). Jerry and I had a blast all afternoon. I learned that >you can fly really low like this and make very gradual turns to stay >within the boundaries of the lake. Most of the flying was at 4500 RPM so >you can conserve fuel. On our last pass of the east end, we climbed to >1000 feet and headed back to Cooks Bay and called it a day. What a day it >was indeed! It's one New Year's Day I won't forget for years to come. >Thanks for calling me back Jerry. > >See what you guys in the south are missing ....... > >Ralph Burlingame >Original FireStar >Minneapolis >- ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: Mark III Trim Tabs

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

Tom, I know that the trim system in the Mark II works very well. I'm sure the Mark III would be the same. You can install a MAC trim electrical trim system from Menzimer Aircraft Components (760) 598-0592 out of Vista, California. Gary Menzimer won Grand Champion Light Plane at Oshkosh '97 and had this system installed in his FireStar, N423G. I had a chance to talk to Gary while I was out there and the guy is a real perfectionist. He has one of the most (if not "the most") beautiful Kolbs ever built. You can get the MAC trim system from other dealers too. Check in the back of "Sport Aviation". Ralph Burlingame Original FiresStar writes: >Hello all. Let me introduce myself as a new member of the list, Tom >from Albany, NY. I'm building a Mark III and am currently working on the >elevators. I am considering installing an inflight adjustable trim ta similar to >those found on the Cessnas. I'm wondering if anyone has attempted this >modification before. If so, how about some feedback. How well does the spring >trim system work called for by the plans? With the fairly slow speeds at which >the Kolbs fly is an adjustable trim tab even needed? Being new to the light/ultralight scene I can only relate to the C-172. I'm open to suggestions. Thanks. ________________________________________________________________________________ Richard.Dewitt(at)HBC.honeywell.com, scott.pierskalla(at)usa.net

Subject:

Re: New Years flight

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

Hey Ron, Yes, believe it or not 80 mph, but I could not hold a cruise at full throttle, of course. The cruising speed of my original FireStar, with a Rotax 377, is a solid 60 mph at 5500 RPM. This is with a 66" 2-blade IVO adjusted to 5900 RPM static. I can only get this cruise when my two auxiliary tanks (plastic gas cans) are full. They are 3g each, right in back of the seat, which is about 40 lbs. This gives me a forward cg making the plane nose heavy (I weigh 200 lbs ... maybe I could use a MAC trim system or go on a diet). As I stop and add gas to the main tank in the rear (from the auxiliaries), my cg moves to the rear and my cruising speed will decrease. I pick up about 5 mph in cruise with those tanks full. Now, another thing that helped me out was a new open windshield that Ray Lujon helped me make. It's made of .090" lexan and is similar to the ones on the new FireStars. I picked up ~ 5 mph with this windshield. My FireStar has no covering in the rear part of the cage. I decided when I built it, only to cover from the gear forward. It does not have streamlined struts or wheel pants and it still has the old large wheels that I got from Kolb. You shouldn't have any problem holding a 55-60 mph cruise (with a windshield like mine), but the Titan and the Rans may have to slow down a bit for you. That sounds like quite a trip for you this summer. If you don't have any time logged in a Kolb, this may be pushing your limits (testing the new plane, logging time, etc.). Please use common sense. There is always next year. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar writes: >80 mph? Now I really am anxious to get my Original Firestar #15 (377-Rotax) >finished and flying. There are a few guys in my UL club that want to take a trip >in early June, and they asked me if I could be ready to go The trip will be from >Albany, Oregon to Sandy River, Oregon, up the Columbia River Gorge and on >to Boise, Idaho, down thru the Alvord Desert, across southern Oregon to >Grants Pass, Oregon and on home. About a 1,000 mile trip, with lots of >camping out and site-seeing. The only problem I have is that they are all fairly >fast planes (Rans S-12, Carrera, Titan), and they expect to cruise around 55 >to 60 mph. The slower planes like the MXs, trikes and B1RD will not take part >in this trip, and I hate to commit myself for fear I would be unable to maintain >the necessary speed. I see from your letter that your original Firestar cooks >pretty good, but I'd like your opinion on a sustained 55-60 mph cruise. Your >New Year's Day trip sounded great. > >Thanks, > >Ron Carroll ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: Mark III Trim Tabs

>Hello all. Let me introduce myself as a new member of the list, Tom from >Albany, NY. I'm building a Mark III and am currently working on the >elevators. I am concidering installing an inflight adjustable trim tab >similar to those found on the Cessnas. I'm wondering if anyone has >attempted this modification before. If so, how about some feedback. How >well does the spring trim system work called for by the plans? With the >fairly slow speeds at which the Kolbs fly is an adjustable trim tab even >needed? Being new to the light/ultralight scene I can only relate to the >C-172. I'm open to suggestions. Thanks. >- The trim tab system works pretty good. Solo I fly with the lever full forward. With a 130 pound passenger, the trim lever is about half back. With a passenger at 200 pounds or more, it is full back. The first time you fly with a passenger, you will be surprised at how much further you need to pull the stick back to rotate on takeoff. While you are building, you need to plan on a trim tab for the rudder and ailerons. Normal behavior for the MKIII with no tabs is to yaw nose right, and roll left. You can put a little tab on the trailing edge of the rudder to turn the craft slightly to the left. Take care to keep the trailing edge of the rudder as light as possible. I put my nav light on it and had flutter problems. The tab for the ailerons should be readily adjustable, I have a tab on the right aileron that is about 1 1/2" wide and one rib spacing long, and when I have an adult passenger, it is adjusted almost in trail. Solo, it is about 20 degrees down. It is easier to plan your tabs before you cover. The Kolb MKIII is very responsive to aileron/flap droop or reflex to fine tune the nose up/down trim. If your ailerons/flaps are floating up at all, the airplane will act tail heavy even if it is not. Likewise, if the ailerons/flaps droop any in flight, it will act more nose heavy than it is. A modification that I am trying this winter is another hole in the flap handle just about 3/8" closer to the pivot than the normal one. Normal flaps are up, 15 degrees down, and 40 degrees down. The new hole changes the leverage ratio so that I have up, 5-7 degrees down, and 15-20 degrees down. Since I never land two up with 40 degrees of flaps, the modification will let me try takeoffs with 5 degrees of flap to see what that does to shorten my short field performance. Or I can adjust it so that up is 2 degrees reflexed for cruising dual with less elevator up trim, and then 3 degrees down for flying solo, and still have 12-15 degrees or so for landings. If I ever get done glassing up the new gas tank, will try it out. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

AMAV8R <AMAV8R(at)aol.com>

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

Subject:

Re: Mark III Trim Tabs

There's nothing wrong with the MKIII trim systemin it's standard form, providing the craft is rigged right. On top of that it doesn't take the modifications to an alreadyquite adequate design...plus it's no additional cost. There are other things to consider such as dual throttles mounted outboard. There is very little comparison to the MKII trim afterthought which is not too effective. Regards Russ in Tucson ________________________________________________________________________________ scott.pierskalla(at)usa.net, dwegner(at)isd.net

Subject:

80 mph

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

Kolber's For the benefit of those who just read about my 80 mph top speed in an original FireStar, please remember this was IN GROUND EFFECT flying at 20 feet AGL across a frozen lake surface here in Minneapolis with an outside air temp of 35 degrees. We are approximately 1000 feet above sea level. I failed to mention this in my letter to Ron Carroll. I have not measured my "actual" top speed with my new windshield at cruising altitude, but it would not be 80 mph. Ralph (cover my butt) Burlingame Original FireStar ________________________________________________________________________________ scott.pierskalla(at)usa.net, dwegner(at)isd.net, ggleiter(at)minn.net

Subject:

flying fast

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

Skip and other Kolber's, I knew I would get a comment on the "nose heavy" FireStar flying faster than the aft cg loaded one. What you say is true for conventional aircraft, but I think the flat-bottom airfoil of the Kolb aircraft may have something to do with this. The flat-bottom wings have so much lift that as the speed is increased, the more forward stick (down elevator) is needed to keep from climbing. This does two things: 1) creates a lot of drag from the "down elevator" 2) the wing can fly at a negative angle of attack. Now if the cg is moved forward to make it nose heavy, no forward stick is needed to keep from climbing at high power settings, which means: 1) the elevator drag is reduced 2) the wing flies at a slightly positive or zero angle of attack and creates less induced drag. Both of these two things minimize the drag and the plane flies faster. When I am flying, I can turn around and look back at the elevator and actually see that it is neutral when I carry the added weight up front. Otherwise it is slightly down in cruise, without the weight. Remember, I didn't cover the rear part of my cage, so I can see the tail in flight, although this was not my reason for doing this (another subject). This is my explanation and I am not an aerodynamics expert, but the FireStar will fly faster with the added weight up front. I think this might be one of the reasons "flat-bottom" airfoils aren't widely used for conventional aircraft. This is going to open up a lot of comments on the subject, and I am waiting to hear other explanations. Ok Ben and others, go for it! Ralph (open-a-can-of-worms) Burlingame Original FireStar writes: >FWIW: >You may wish to clarify what you have written above. In actuality, you cruise >faster because of the aft cg not a forward cg. This true for all conventional >airplanes because as your aft cg increases you unload the horizontal stabilizer >and cut your induced drag. This is good unless carried to extreme as an aft cg >decreases stability. > >Regards, >Skip ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

Subject:

Re: gear legs

<< Like all of our tapered aluminum gear legs, in time they will bend outward. I just remove the single bolt holding them in the cage and turn them over so they are now bowed inward. This solves the problem until I have to turn them back the other way. I try to grease it in on landing, but every once in awhile I come down harder than I expected. I've had them 10 years and they are still going strong. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar >> Ralph, I appreciate your input on the "what to do with bent gear legs" but you haven't seen the abuse I have put mine through, ....at least some of them. I will try the 5 ton thing someone wrote about.and on the ones not so bent I will turn them over. Word to the wise....I had MkIII set of legs on once and had to tun them down to make them fit and that's the one that "broke:" due to poor radius on the turned down part. GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

Subject:

Re: New Years flight

<< e now prepared to do some real flying! After discussing our flight plan, we got in our planes and flew the circumference of that big round lake for over and hour making about 4 or 5 laps around at about 5 feet AGL doing 40-45 mph. Many of the snowmobiles wanted to race with us and were passing us up. I couldn't stand for that any longer and I opened it up. My airspeed indicator cranked up to 80 mph and left them behind (I really didn't think it would do that with a 377 Rotax. I wasn't diving because I was only 20 feet AGL). Jerry and I had a blast all afternoon. I learned that you can fly really low like this and make very gradual turns to stay within the boundaries of the lake. Most of the flying was at 4500 RPM so you can conserve fuel. On our last pass of the east end, we climbed to 1000 feet and headed back to Cooks Bay and called it a day. What a day it was indeed! It's one New Year's Day I won't forget for years to come. Thanks for calling me back Jerry. >> Ralph, I'm from Ohio and I loved your story....truly a memory to treasure.... you are a good one for word pictures..... GeoR38 Got this Frank? ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: flying fast

<3.0.3.32.19980104174704.006e44e4(at)bhip.infi.net> >Skip and other Kolber's, > >I knew I would get a comment on the "nose heavy" FireStar flying faster >than the aft cg loaded one. What you say is true for conventional >aircraft, but I think the flat-bottom airfoil of the Kolb aircraft may >have something to do with this. The flat-bottom wings have so much lift >that as the speed is increased, the more forward stick (down elevator) is >needed to keep from climbing. This does two things: 1) creates a lot of >drag from the "down elevator" Something isn't adding up here. I don't know how the incidences work out on the Firestar, but normally the stab/elevator is at an angle of incidence of several degrees relative to the wing, and if the stab is down a few degrees, then it is actually more in line with the incidence angle of the wing than if the stab and elevator are in a straight line. This reduces elevator drag. 2) the wing can fly at a negative angle of >attack. Now if the cg is moved forward to make it nose heavy, no forward >stick is needed to keep from climbing at high power settings, which >means: 1) the elevator drag is reduced Same as my comment above, drag should be less with a couple degrees down elevator, which increases total aircraft lift, because the tail is now somewhat of a lifting airfoil, there is less load on the wing, it's angle of attack is less, it's induced drag is less, tail induced drag increases slightly, but total drag is less, right? 2) the wing flies at a slightly >positive or zero angle of attack and creates less induced drag. Induced drag is drag caused by lift. In a conventional (non-canard)aircraft, there is a nose down pitching moment caused by the typical airfoil, and the tail exerts a downward force to counter it. As the CG moves aft, downforce decreases until the tail is "in trail" for lack of a better phrase (why do I get involved with these at midnight? Can't think...) At a given speed, angle of attack, and induced drag increase as the CG moves forward, and decrease as the CG moves aft. I would not dispute your results, or control inputs, but the why and how isn't adding up. Both of >these two things minimize the drag and the plane flies faster. When I am >flying, I can turn around and look back at the elevator and actually see >that it is neutral when I carry the added weight up front. Otherwise it >is slightly down in cruise, without the weight. Remember, I didn't cover >the rear part of my cage, so I can see the tail in flight, although this >was not my reason for doing this (another subject). This is my >explanation and I am not an aerodynamics expert, but the FireStar will >fly faster with the added weight up front. I think this might be one of >the reasons "flat-bottom" airfoils aren't widely used for conventional >aircraft. This is going to open up a lot of comments on the subject, and >I am waiting to hear other explanations. >Ok Ben and others, go for it! > >Ralph (open-a-can-of-worms) Burlingame >Original FireStar I wonder if it is not more a function of the normal Kolb engine thrust angle relative to the wing. Postulate: When the aircraft is flying with the wing absolutely level relative to the horizon in level flight, the thrust line is aimed downward somewhat,(7&1/2 degrees on a MKIII, don't know about a Firestar) and at very high power settings there is a thrust loss, forward thrust being dissipated as down thrust. This becomes more pronounced as the nose is lowered to prevent climb. With a little more weight toward the nose, it becomes necessary to hold the nose up a bit, and the prop's thrust line relative to the horizon/angle of attack is more favorable. Thrust is not wasted being blown up and back, but straight back instead. The wing is creating a little more drag, but the improvement in thrust efficiency more than makes up for it. I am not convinced that this is it, but I have a stake in this too. As I add weight forward of the CG in the MKIII, it takes a higher angle of attack to fly at any given airspeed up to full throttle, and it will not fly as fast with two as solo. If I could figure out a way to get mine to fly at zero angle of attack, I know I would pick up 20 knots easy, because it NEVER flys at less than 6 or 7 degrees relative to the horizon, and 160 square feet of wing is a lot of drag, induced, parasite, or whatever, at 6 degrees. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) >writes: > >>FWIW: >>You may wish to clarify what you have written above. In actuality, you >cruise >faster because of the aft cg not a forward cg. This true for all >conventional >airplanes because as your aft cg increases you unload the >horizontal stabilizer >and cut your induced drag. This is good unless >carried to extreme as an aft cg >decreases stability. >> >>Regards, >>Skip > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

From:

Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net>

Subject:

Rigging

Ralph and all, I have not altered it yet, but I have a ground adjustable horizontal stabilizer (operates by adjusting the front attachment point higher or lower than the "plans location"). I have a storage compartment behind the tanks but must be careful when using it because of aft CG. At some point and I don't feel ready yet, I plan to alter it up one then down one to see how the plane reacts to the change in rigging. I have 5 possible positions with it being in the middle one now. I had envisioned using it to make possible more aft loading for camping gear by raising the attach position thereby raising the tail thereby reducing the angle of attack therefore reducing lift of the main wings. I cannot think of a scenerio whereby I might need to lower the position because of excessive weight up front. The most forward loading CG calculation for two "big guys" is still in the forward CG range for my plane. It seems to be flying very well right now in the suggested "plans location". Later, -- Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (37.3 hrs) (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel ____________________|_____________________ ___(+^+)___ (_) 8 8 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

Subject:

Re: New Years flight

From:

rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT)

JOHN I will at anytime I get a chance go out I like to go down to the beach its only about 20 miles or so to get their ,from their its miles and miles of flying , this spring their are a few kolbers that hope to link up at a 1/2 way spot just to chat and look at each other's KOLB'S I hope that all of this can happen this year,CLIFF maybe you will be settled down and have some time to spare away from your new house project I hope so anyway ,, JOHN I know it would be a long flight from Minnesota , but you sure would be welcomed to zip on down to south east Texas. This last week or two the wind has been up to a unconformable breeze. John I will send you a pic of my kolb on my new x-mass toy Rick writes: >I am suprised. I expected to be able to read about those down south >flying in the winter. So who is doing the flying and sharing the >experiences? Ralph and myself, from Minnesota and Wisconsin. Does >anybody down south fly in winter? Or does one have to be in Phoenix to >escape the bad weather? >John Jung >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 04, 1998

Subject:

Re: Rigging

From:

rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT)

Cliff I got part of the intercom in , and the rest will be here on the 5th. it is the same kind that GEORGE , has so you know how he likes his ,If you want to try out my flightcom with the patch cord I got from ICOM let me know and it will be in the mail. Talk to you later Rick writes: >Ralph and all, > >I have not altered it yet, but I have a ground adjustable horizontal >stabilizer (operates by adjusting the front attachment point higher or >lower >than the "plans location"). I have a storage compartment behind the >tanks >but must be careful when using it because of aft CG. At some point >and I >don't feel ready yet, I plan to alter it up one then down one to see >how the >plane reacts to the change in rigging. I have 5 possible positions >with it >being in the middle one now. I had envisioned using it to make >possible >more aft loading for camping gear by raising the attach position >thereby >raising the tail thereby reducing the angle of attack therefore >reducing >lift of the main wings. I cannot think of a scenerio whereby I might >need >to lower the position because of excessive weight up front. The most >forward loading CG calculation for two "big guys" is still in the >forward CG >range for my plane. It seems to be flying very well right now in the >suggested "plans location". > >Later, > >-- >Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (37.3 hrs) >(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas > Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel > > ____________________|_____________________ > ___(+^+)___ > (_) > 8 8 > > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: New Years flight

Ron Carroll wrote: > I see from your letter that your original > Firestar cooks pretty good, but I'd like your opinion on a sustained > 55-60 mph cruise. My original 377 Firestar will cruise at 60 mph at 5400 rpm. I don't usually go that fast, only because in an open cockpit, that wind hitting the top of my helmet moves my head slightly. I don't care for that. With a full windscreen, that problem would be gone and it would cruse 5 or more mph faster at the same rpm. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Cavuontop <Cavuontop(at)aol.com>

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

Subject:

Re: straight gear

<< My theory is straighten once then replace but before I take it off I need a good bend in it. >> I took a slightly different approach. I would turn them over. Just rotate the leg 180 in the socket. The plane would look funny for a little bit, but the gear would then bend back the other way. I would only do this a couple of times. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Frank Thomas" <fthomas(at)gate.net>

Subject:

Installing floats on Kolb Firestar II

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

Is anyone building or flying a Kolb with floats instead of wheels? I would like to communicate with you. I have made provisions for front and rear attachment of floats on my plane, however I have not selected the floats yet. Anyone with information would be welcome. Please reply to Frank Thomas at the following address: fthomas(at)gate.net Thanks: Frank Thomas ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: straight gear

Here are my thoughts on the gear that seem to bend too often: I have bent 5 legs in 90 hours and 2 1/2 years on my original Firestar with KXP legs. It is the most common and expensive repairs that I have had to make. But as I look back on what happened, in each case I was landing on a very short runway (about 400 feet). I needed to get my airspeed down to minimum. In 2 cases I landed hard because I got too slow and stalled at about 10 feet off the ground. Once I touched down just short of the runway on frozen, plowed field. And 2 legs were bent at one time when I could stop on a 400 foot runway because of dew on the grass. I had landed long and counted on the brakes, hit a ditch at the end of the runway. Considering that, by now, I can change a leg in 30 minutes for $30, and so far no damage to the plane, I don't consider it a problem. I just consider it a cost of landing on very short runways. If there were an alternative that wouldn't risk damaging the plane, I would be interested. But in the meantime, I am trying to watch my airspeed closer at short runways and be more willing to go around if I am too fast or too slow near touchdown. On longer runways I carry extra airspeed down to 5 feet and then let the plane slow down and never a problem. John Jung Wisconsin ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

From:

"Bill Weber (DVNS)" <bweber(at)micom.com>

Subject:

Re: Propellers

> GeoR38 wrote: > Does anyone know why the 2 blade is more "efficient" than the 3 blade? > First you must define what you mean by "efficient". You could say efficiency means the amount of lift produced compared to the amount of drag. In that case, the factors affecting efficiency are the airfoil shape, pitch and length. Just like a wing, the longer the airfoil the less induced drag is produced. The higher the pitch, the more frontal area and therefore more parasitic drag is produced. So for a propeller, the things affecting efficiency in this sense is the prop length and pitch. When a prop is put on an engine we must balance the load created by the prop to the power output of the engine. there are 3 basic variables; length, pitch and number of blades. Increasing any one of these will increase the load on the engine and therefore one of the others must be reduced. Top speed at a given RPM is strictly dependant on pitch. Pitch determines how far you move through the air with each turn of the prop. When you go from 2 blades to three you can either reduce the pitch or the prop diameter. If you reduce the pitch, your top speed will be lower but your climb rate will be better - like shifting to a lower gear in a car. If you keep the same pitch, you must reduce the prop length. However, now your efficiency may be less but because of the shorter prop length. However, with less frontal area, the parasitic drag will also be less. So things are not quite so simple as "2-blade props are more efficient". It all depends on the engine, plane, prop combination. In the absence of a cood computer simulation, experimentation is the only way to determine the best prop for a given plane-engine. In many cases, a 3-blade prop can be set up to outperform a 2 blade in both climb and top speed. In all cases, however, the 3-blade will be quieter and smoother. *********************************************** * Bill Weber * Keep * * MICOM Communications Corp. * the shiny * * Simi Valley, CA * side up * *********************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

Subject:

New Years Flight

From:

rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon)

Kolbers.... Ralph, I knew your New Years day flight was worth telling. Here is my over-simplified version of optimum cruise . I feel optimum cruise is obtained when the elevator is neutral, no need for forward or back pressure on stick (hands off) and the plane is flying level. At this setting, the angle of attack of the wings is minimum, or even neutral. The download on the stabilizer matches the pitching moment of the wing. To achieve these ideal conditions requires that the CG be exactly in the middle of the allowable range. A forward or rearward CG would require a corresponding back or forward pressure on the stick (however slight) to achieve level flight, thereby creating elevator drag and a loss of airspeed. Both Ralph and I use the small windshield made of .090 lexan, that is extended 6 inches longer so no slipstream strikes the face. The additional advantage is the increased cruise airspeed. I have a FS, 447 Rotex. Cruise in summer, 60mph at 4800rpm and 60mph in winter at 4000rpm. I highly recommend this larger version of the short windshield. Ray Lujon , Woodbury ,MN ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

UL DAD <ULDAD(at)aol.com>

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

Subject:

Re: gear legs

On the subject of gear legs: it was simple on my Firestar (original design) to put in chrom-moly legs. Pull the sleeve from the gear leg socket, hone out socket and install 1.125" x .120" 4130 tubing. I had the tubing heat treated to RC46. I cut the tubing 28.5" long. Hint: don't drill holes in legs before heat treating as the tubing will probably warp slightly during treating. Cobalt drill bits cut the heat treated steel easily. I tried untreated tubing, but it bent. As for gear leg strength vs. center section strength, I landed hard following an engine out a couple of years ago and bent one gear leg but the center section was undamaged. Everyone was suprised as I really dropped it in hard. Bill Griffin ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: gear legs

On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, UL DAD wrote: > On the subject of gear legs: it was simple on my Firestar (original design) to > put in chrom-moly legs. Pull the sleeve from the gear leg socket, hone out > socket and install 1.125" x .120" 4130 tubing. I had the tubing heat treated > to RC46. I cut the tubing 28.5" long. Hint: don't drill holes in legs before > heat treating as the tubing will probably warp slightly during treating. > Cobalt drill bits cut the heat treated steel easily. I tried untreated tubing, > but it bent. As for gear leg strength vs. center section strength, I landed > hard following an engine out a couple of years ago and bent one gear leg but > the center section was undamaged. Everyone was suprised as I really dropped it > in hard. > > Bill Griffin I take it your 4130 gear legs are the same tube for the full length of the leg? I.E., nothing done to simulate the tapered solid AL legs from Kolb? I've not bent my gear legs ever but am always curious about possible weight savings and the 1.125x.120 4130 might be lighter than solid tapered 7076 AL. I've also thought about titanium or carbon fiber, and yes, thinking about it is a lot easier than actually doing anything. --------|-------- Ben Ransom (*) Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

engine out landing

I made my first unexpected engine out landing yesterday. I gurantee you that I momentarily thanked myself for all the practice ones I've done, but then quickly got back to business. I had been up for 1 hour mostly at cruise rpm. I was unhappy about high EGT temps, but i let it go, again thinking that higher than 1200 was okay with the single probe. (I was sitting at 1260-1280.) I began to realize during the flight that i've normally not let my engine see over 1200 cruise so was planning on richening more upon landing. I've not been flying much so being rusty contributed to my accepting the high temp. Also, I realized that i had made a mental mistake and changed to a smaller jet instead of larger before going up. (The air was ~20 deg colder yesterday than previous flight about 5 weeks ago.) I crossed over the center of the runway and came back to idle as i dropped altitude to turn 90 deg into a downwind pattern leg. At idle for ~10 seconds i added a little throttle to verify my engine was still with me -- which is what i normally do -- and it died. The runway was right there so it wasn't a real big deal, but i did pucker just a little, partly cuz of the rude surprise change-over to glider, and also because there was ~10-12mph crosswind and i had to fly straight against that on my "base" leg. Landing was uneventful (and quiet). I started the engine on second pull right after pulling off the runway. I richened the main jet and mid-range needle setting and flew a little more. I was still too lean, verified by adding choke at cruise, and had the engine quit once more after coming completely back to idle after touchdown. I'll pull the heads and exhaust manifold before next flight to inspect and hopefully verify no damage done from running hot. And, i am finally ordering dual EGT probes (really) so i will have published EGT limits to believe in. I'll let y'all know when i find out more about the actual cause. -Ben "one notch less enamored w/ 2-strokes" Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Cavuontop <Cavuontop(at)aol.com>

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

Subject:

Re: engine out landing

<< I richened the main jet and mid-range needle setting and flew a little more. I was still too lean, verified by adding choke at cruise, and had the engine quit once more after coming completely back to idle after touchdown. I'll pull the heads and exhaust manifold before next flight to inspect and hopefully verify no damage done from running hot. >> Glad to hear you're alive. But you just broke one of the cardinal rules of Rotax flying. Your engine quit at idle after a presumtive overheat situation and YOU FLEW ON IT AGAIN WITHOUT DETERMINING IF YOU HAD SEIZED IT. As the piston starts to overheat and expand past its limits it binds. The energy from running at cruise will keep it moving, but when you let up on the throttle it doesn't have enough oomph to overcome the friction and it grabs. The rule can be stated with great simplicity: if your Rotax quits for no apparent reason and you even slightly suspect that it overheated you MUST pull the exhaust and inspect the cylinder walls for scuffing or other evidence of a seizure. I bought a wreck of a Rans Airaille a few years ago. The pilot had exactly your experience. The engine quit at or near idle on landing. By the time he got it pulled off the runway and scratched his head for a while it had cooled down some. He started it again and took off. It seized again on take off and he bought the farm. Again . . . . I'm very glad you are alive, but I question your judgment in flying again on the engine beofre you had satisfied yourself that the cylinder walls weren't scuffed. I'll be very interested to hear your report on the inspection. (I recomend a flashlight and a dental mirror so you can see all sides.) I would welcome the group's comments as well. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"b. steinhagen" <bsteinhagen(at)itol.com>

Subject:

Re: engine out landing

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

Ben, I'm interested in your dead-stick experience. I have a FS-II with a 3 blade prop and wonder about the prop drag. Do you have a 3 blade, and how was your decent profile with the engine stopped as compared to at idle? -----Original Message----- From: Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> Date: Monday, January 05, 1998 2:13 PM Subject: Kolb-List: engine out landing >I made my first unexpected engine out landing yesterday. I gurantee >you that I momentarily thanked myself for all the practice ones I've >done, but then quickly got back to business. > >I had been up for 1 hour mostly at cruise rpm. I was unhappy about >high EGT temps, but i let it go, again thinking that higher than >1200 was okay with the single probe. (I was sitting at 1260-1280.) >I began to realize during the flight that i've normally not let >my engine see over 1200 cruise so was planning on richening more upon >landing. I've not been flying much so being rusty contributed to my >accepting the high temp. Also, I realized that i had made a mental >mistake and changed to a smaller jet instead of larger before going >up. (The air was ~20 deg colder yesterday than previous flight about 5 >weeks ago.) > >I crossed over the center of the runway and came back to idle as i dropped >altitude to turn 90 deg into a downwind pattern leg. At idle for ~10 >seconds i added a little throttle to verify my engine was still with me -- >which is what i normally do -- and it died. The runway was right there >so it wasn't a real big deal, but i did pucker just a little, partly >cuz of the rude surprise change-over to glider, and also because there >was ~10-12mph crosswind and i had to fly straight against that on my >"base" leg. > >Landing was uneventful (and quiet). > >I started the engine on second pull right after pulling off the runway. >I richened the main jet and mid-range needle setting and flew a little >more. I was still too lean, verified by adding choke at cruise, and >had the engine quit once more after coming completely back to idle >after touchdown. I'll pull the heads and exhaust manifold before next >flight to inspect and hopefully verify no damage done from running hot. >And, i am finally ordering dual EGT probes (really) so i will have >published EGT limits to believe in. > >I'll let y'all know when i find out more about the actual cause. > >-Ben "one notch less enamored w/ 2-strokes" Ransom >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

From:

Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net>

Subject:

Horiz. Stab. rigging

>> I had envisioned using it to make possible >> more aft loading for camping gear by raising the attach position thereby >> raising the tail thereby reducing the angle of attack therefore reducing >> lift of the main wings. > >Aieeeeeee!!!! That's not the way it works, son! > >The CG is determined in relation to the wings' Center of Pressure. >You can't get a more aft CG by adjusting trim. Jim... Let me come at it with different language. What I would like to do is carry more weight in the rear baggage compartment. I thought raising the front of the horizontal stabs would allow the plane to carry more weight in the tail by increasing the incidence of the tail surface with respect to the main wings. Raising the front of the tail surface should provide some increased lift in the tail to help carry that additional weight if nothing else. Is this not logical? If I am off in my thinking, I sure would like to know where. The pitch trim adjustment works pretty much the same way it seems to me. I realize that at some point you can enter a dangerous rigging configuration if you go to the extreme and add too much weight in the tail, but I am not talking about that kind of situation. I have seen the fronts of the horiz. stabs. rigged way high (like an inch above the top of the tube) and way low (like mid-fuselage tube) by builders... probably because they messed up with the incidence rigging of the main wing in relation to the fuselage and had to compensate by adjusting the horiz. stabs. Educate me about this becauce I have always held this as a safe way (within limits obviously) to carry a little additional weight... in the tail. Talk to me, -- Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (37.3 hrs) (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel ____________________|_____________________ ___(+^+)___ (_) 8 8 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

UL DAD <ULDAD(at)aol.com>

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

Subject:

Re: gear legs

No, nothing fancy. Just 4130 tubing as far up into the cage as it'll go. Glad to hear that your engine out landing was uneventful. Practice pays off. bill griffin ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: engine out landing

On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Cavuontop wrote: > Glad to hear you're alive. But you just broke one of the cardinal rules of > Rotax flying. Your engine quit at idle after a presumtive overheat situation > and YOU FLEW ON IT AGAIN WITHOUT DETERMINING IF YOU HAD SEIZED IT. As the You may be right about it being unwise to fly again right after a possible overheat situation. It was not necessary (it never is), and I'll admit i've thought afterwards that i shoulda parked it. On the other hand, i feel sure I took no unreasonable risks, especially to my own hide. I feel we all determine our own "cardinal rules", unless they are written on stone tablets somewhere and I haven't seen em. We all fly with a probability of engine out, and yesterday I flew with added probability and added caution to match. In summary, you're right that i shoulda parked it, but i don't think i took any risk at all to my health. -Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: engine out landing

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

Ben, Thanks for telling us about your deadstick landing. We will all benefit through your experience. I'm very glad that it happened where it did. With my 377, the first cold snap in the fall my idle RPM's drop and I have to turn the idle screw clockwise to get it up to 2000 RPM. If I don't turn the idle screw up, the engine will want to quit when I close the throttle, just like yours did. I do not change any jetting and everything works well for me, now. I am, however, starting to clean the carbon out with the "Seafoam" I referrered to in an earlier email. I'm hoping this will solve the stuck ring problem. BTW if you have a stuck ring, the first one will most likely be the rear (PTO) bottom one. Long before they both stick on the rear cylinder, you will see a noticeable "lack of power" from when it was new. I thought, at the time, that the engine was breaking in and had no idea that its rings could stick. This will go on for ~ 50 hrs. Then one day you'll be flying along and the EGT will begin to rise up past 1300 degrees while cruising. When this happens, bring back the power immediately and look for an emergency field. If you do it quick enough, it will probably keep running and not want to seize. How do I know all of this? It happened to me with my FireStar several years ago. After taking the engine apart, both rings on the rear cylinder were stuck. I had ~ 200 hours on the engine since new. Now I pull off the exhaust manifold after ~ 100 hours and check for stuck rings. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: Horiz. Stab. rigging

Cliff and Carolyn Stripling wrote: > > Educate me about this becauce I have always held this as a safe way (within > limits obviously) to carry a little additional weight... in the tail. > The only safe way to carry more weight is too do the weight and balance first. If you are within limits, then it should be safe. Now comes trim, or how to keep from holding pressure on the stick. I recommend using normal means of trim (tabs and springs) first, and not changing the design of the plane. A cockpit adjustable trim tab would do the job for sure. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: engine out landing

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

Hold on there, The engine can quit at idle as in Ben's situation, but that does not necessarily mean it has seized. This WOULD happen every year to me IF I didn't turn the idle RPM's up to 2000 RPM when the temperatures took a drop. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar > The rule can be stated with great simplicity: if your Rotax quits for no apparent reason and you even slightly suspect that it overheated you MUST pull the exhaust and inspect the cylinder walls for scuffing or other evidence of a seizure. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: engine out landing

b. steinhagen wrote: > > Ben, I'm interested in your dead-stick experience. I have a FS-II with a 3 > blade prop and wonder about the prop drag. Do you have a 3 blade, and how > was your decent profile with the engine stopped as compared to at idle? Although I have a two blade prop, I have done quit a bit of engine out flying and I believe that my observations are revelant. The bigest change that I have noticed between engine at idle and engine off is a much sharper stall with engine off. And the stall comes quicker with little or no warning. So I you find yourself flying with a real quiet engine, WATCH THE AIRSPEED. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

From:

skip staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net>

Subject:

Re: Propellers

Bill, >So things are not quite so simple as "2-blade props are more efficient". Assumming that prop clearance is not an issue; assuming that prop tip speed is not excessive------ >In many cases, a 3-blade prop >can be set up to outperform a 2 blade in both climb and top speed. Considering the above conditions, some examples might be in order. :) (under some circumstances, climb might improve) >In all cases, however, the 3-blade will be quieter and smoother. I think that even this premis "may" be flawed as the number of cylinders in an internal combustion engine/2 stroke or 4 stroke might have an influence on smoothness. We are assuming that all props are properly statically and dynamicaly balanced --- The noise factor is primarily determined by prop tip speed. A 3 bladed prop set at a lesser pitch but with the same blade length might actually create more noise. I would tend to believe that all combinations of props, etc., can be made to run smoothly at some RPM, but not necessarily all usuable RPMs. That considered, prop length and tip speed limitations considered, I, still believe that the 2 bladed prop (all other conditions being equal - such as blade efficiency, weight, etc.) will be more efficient. OK, have at me. :) Yes, I do know what assuming can lead to. Regards, Skip ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: engine out landing

On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ralph H Burlingame wrote: > Ben, > > Thanks for telling us about your deadstick landing. We will all benefit > through your experience. I'm very glad that it happened where it did. Me too (glad it happened where it did). One lesson to take from this, which might be a little hard to adhere to, is to not reduce throttle below 4k rpm without a very good emergency field in mind. Of course in theory i spose we all fly w/ an em "field" option 100% of the time anyway. Similar to your experience, one of the factors i noticed was that my idle was slower than usual. I didn't take the time to try bumping it up before quitting for the day, but did try taxiing around a little and then leaving it at the abnormally slow idle to see if it would quit there. It would not quit in this scenario, which lends credence to other more expensive possibilities. As for rings, the engine is 148 hours, ~30 since total top end disassembly and de-carboning, so i also doubt stuck rings. It is either just bad mixture, air leak, or heat damage. CHT temps never showed high (and yes i was looking at them a lot) so i'm hopeful that it is not heat damage. Also on the suspicion list is idle mixture combined with slow idle setting. I couldn't recall which direction of that screw richens, so i left it alone till getting home to re-read the manual. It is out exactly 1/2 turn. Hey! i thought these planes were supposed to be simple! If i were GA i guess i'd just take it to my mechanic and squawk, or what the heck, maybe just sue somebody. :-) -Ben ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: Propellers

> >In many cases, a 3-blade prop > >can be set up to outperform a 2 blade in both climb and top speed. > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, skip staub wrote: > Considering the above conditions, some examples might be in order. :) > (under some circumstances, climb might improve) In this discussion, we should maybe keep some definitions in mind. "outperform" is one thing, "efficiency" is another. A well designed and configured (pitch/length) 3 blader will never be more efficient than a well designed and configured 2 blader on the same plane/engine/gearbox. Another note ...one time i found a "rule of thumb" from an aero textbook about the ideal maximum efficiency for prop tip speed. Altho , i don't recall the exact number, i do recall doing the calc's and realizing that my 66" 2-blader running on the standard 2.58 Rotax gearbox is really turning substantially *below* that ideal prop tip speed. This naturally invites me to consider changing to a lower ratio gearbox to increase the prop speed (reducing pitch too), but then i figure i'm loud enf to piss off enf people already. :-) --------|-------- Ben Ransom (*) Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

nose heavy Kolb

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

Richard, Thanks for your comments. The engine down thrust is something I haven't even given any thought to. I really don't even know if my original FireStar has any down thrust. That's something I can check. Your right about the forward cg (and flying faster) does not seem to be adding up with conventional theory, but when I'm on my return trip home after using up the fuel in my auxiliary gas cans, the FireStar's cruise drops ~ 5 mph. Maybe I can coax Homer out of retirement to answer my question. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar >>I knew I would get a comment on the "nose heavy" FireStar flying faster >>than the aft cg loaded one. What you say is true for conventional >>aircraft, but I think the flat-bottom airfoil of the Kolb aircraft may >>have something to do with this. >Something isn't adding up here. I don't know how the incidences work out >on the Firestar, but normally the stab/elevator is at an angle of incidence >of several degrees relative to the wing, and if the stab is down a few >degrees, then it is actually more in line with the incidence angle of the >wing than if the stab and elevator are in a straight line. This reduces >elevator drag. >I wonder if it is not more a function of the normal Kolb engine thrust >angle relative to the wing. Postulate: When the aircraft is flying with the >wing absolutely level relative to the horizon in level flight, the thrust >line is aimed downward somewhat,(7&1/2 degrees on a MKIII, don't know about >a Firestar) and at very high power settings there is a thrust loss, forward >thrust being dissipated as down thrust. This becomes more pronounced as the >nose is lowered to prevent climb. >With a little more weight toward the nose, it becomes necessary to hold the >nose up a bit, and the prop's thrust line relative to the horizon/angle of >attack is more favorable. Thrust is not wasted being blown up and back, but >straight back instead. The wing is creating a little more drag, but the >improvement in thrust efficiency more than makes up for it. I am not >convinced that this is it, but I have a stake in this too. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net>

Subject:

Re: engine out landing

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

Good for you Ben. -----Original Message----- From: Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> Date: Monday January 05 1998 3:15 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: engine out landing >On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Cavuontop wrote: >> Glad to hear you're alive. But you just broke one of the cardinal rules of >> Rotax flying. Your engine quit at idle after a presumtive overheat situation >> and YOU FLEW ON IT AGAIN WITHOUT DETERMINING IF YOU HAD SEIZED IT. As the > >You may be right about it being unwise to fly again right after a possible >overheat situation. It was not necessary (it never is), and I'll admit >i've thought afterwards that i shoulda parked it. > >On the other hand, i feel sure I took no unreasonable risks, especially to >my own hide. I feel we all determine our own "cardinal rules", unless >they are written on stone tablets somewhere and I haven't seen em. >We all fly with a probability of engine out, and yesterday I flew with >added probability and added caution to match. > >In summary, you're right that i shoulda parked it, but i don't think i >took any risk at all to my health. >-Ben Ransom >- ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net>

Subject:

Fw: RV-List: Hot Time

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

Hi everyone, I'm forwarding this post from the RV list because almost all of us could benifit from a little reminder about fueling safety. This guy is REALLY lucky. Be careful, Rusty >I had a rather exciting experience that occurred while refueling my >RV-6A. I have a Mazda 13B as a power plant using auto fuel. Not having >auto fuel at the airport, I have been transporting it in a 5 gallon >plastic container (approved for auto fuel) and using a funnel to pour >the gasoline into the wing tank. Sensitive to the risks of static >electricity, I always "grounded" (I know - I question whether you can >truly "ground" a plastic container) the plastic container against the >airframe prior to pouring in the gasoline. I have refuel the aircraft >many times before using this method (as well numerous lawn mowers, weed >wackers, etc). I had hauled the aircraft out of the hangar and had it >sitting in the middle of the tarmac in front of the hanger and had >commenced to refuel. > >Well, this time it happened. As I was approximately half-way through >pouring from the five gallon container into the funnel (the plastic >funnel is a very wide mouth with a filter cartridge in its center- used >to quickly fill race cars) the fireworks started. The gasoline ignited >with a "Swoosh" and I found myself holding a flaming funnel as well as >the five gallon container which had flames coming from its opening. > >Needless to say, things got very exciting and busy in a hurry. As I >reacted to the flames going off, I swung the container away ,which was >in my right hand, removed the flaming funnel from the wing tank opening >with my left hand. In the process I sloshed some flaming gasoline onto >the wing and tarmac. And flames were now also coming from the opening >of the wing tank. So by quick count, I had flames coming out of the >wing tank, some burning on the wing, a patch burning on the tarmac, a >flaming funnel as well as the 5 gallon container on fire. Did I say >things got exciting in a hurry? I immediately move the flaming >container about 12-15 feet away from the aircraft and set it down, >quickly move the flaming funnel about 5 feet from the container and laid >it down.. Immediately dashed to the plane and placed the fuel cap into >the tank opening stuffing out that fire, smothered the fire on the wing, >ran back to the container and placed its lid on the flaming opening >smothering that fire, moved the still flaming funnel further away, >smother the fire on the tarmac and then returned to smother the funnel. > >Finally, all fires are extinguished and I take time for a breath. >Wasn't timing myself as I was somewhat distracted at the moment, but >believe the entire event from ignition to all flames out was around >30-45 seconds (could be wrong about the time, but not by much). Old men >can move quickly if motivated properly. > >Yes, I did have a fire extinguisher, but had neglected to take it out of >the car and didn't feel I had the time to dash to the car to get it.. I >also have a small Halon fire extinguisher mounted between the seats of >aircraft - but, again distance and flames were between it and me. >Won't make that mistake again. Also, I will never use a plastic >container again, but will use a metal one with a little cable attached >that I can ground to the aircraft. I will also not use a funnel, but >will probably use one of the rotary pumps with hose and nozzle grounded. > > >So the good news is no damage to me or the aircraft and a much wiser me. >So, while it had not ever happened before, I quickly found out that one >time is one time too many. > >For your consideration > >Regards > >Ed ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

PKrotje <PKrotje(at)aol.com>

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

Subject:

Re: engine out landing

<< he engine can quit at idle as in Ben's situation, but that does not necessarily mean it has seized. This WOULD happen every year to me IF I didn't turn the idle RPM's up to 2000 RPM when the temperatures took a drop. >> Same with my 582 - when the weather turns cold here in Wis the idle air control screw must be turned in to richen the idle mixture or the exact stalling behavior would appear. Pete Krotje ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Cavuontop <Cavuontop(at)aol.com>

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

Subject:

Re: engine out landing

<< I'll bet dime-to-a-dollar that almost all (near) seizures occur at or near full throttle with an engine that is not properly warmed prior to the application of full power. >> This is another possible scenario for a seizure. And a good point. It may call for a simplification of the Rule: IF YOUR ROTAX ENGINE STOPS AT ANY TIME AND YOU DON"T KNOW WHY IT QUIT REMOVE THE EXHAUST AND LOOK FOR EVIDENCE OF SEIZURE. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 05, 1998

From:

Larry Cottrell <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net>

Subject:

Re: engine out landing

John Jung wrote: > > b. steinhagen wrote: > > > > Ben, I'm interested in your dead-stick experience. I have a FS-II with a 3 > > blade prop and wonder about the prop drag. Do you have a 3 blade, and how > > was your decent profile with the engine stopped as compared to at idle? > > Although I have a two blade prop, I have done quit a bit of engine > out flying and I believe that my observations are revelant. The bigest > change that I have noticed between engine at idle and engine off is a > much sharper stall with engine off. And the stall comes quicker with > little or no warning. So I you find yourself flying with a real quiet > engine, WATCH THE AIRSPEED. > John Jung > - There was a earlier request on dead stick landings regarding drag ect. I have done quite a few and I always found that they wern't as smooth as when the engine was idling. It finally occurred to me that when I landed nbormally I need to keep 50 MPH airspeed. I can flare when close to the ground and the stall comes at about 35-40 IAS. When I landed without the engine I attempted to duplicate the engine landing and always dropped it how ever high I was when I started the flare. What happens is that the airspeed bleeds off instantly when the flare is begun- you stall however high you were at the time. I strongly suggest that yu carry at least 5 mph more speed and 10 wouldn't be too much. That way when you flare you will have a chance to land without stalling. Larry ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

firestar glider

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

Kolber's A couple of years ago a friend and I flew into Stanton Airfield, a glider training base with a large grass field with 2500 and 2000 foot runways each 300 feet wide. This is the place for first flights and "hanging out" with other pilots. I was enjoying the good weather that summer day and I told my buddy that I wanted to try some "dead sticking". I discussed my plans with the glider operations field manager and proceeded to take off in my FireStar. I climbed to 2500 feet about 1-1/2 miles to the NW of the field. At that altitude I throttled back to idle and switched off the engine. I glided around for less than 5 minutes and decided to set up an approach to the field. My idea was to set up an approach with plenty of altitude still left in case I misjudged it. As it turned out, I saw that I was a little too high, so rather than put it into a side slip, I pulled back slightly on the stick to slow up. The slower speed increased my sink rate and I saw that my final approach was right on. About 100 feet up I increased my speed with forward stick to grease it in. I made a smooth landing onto the field and it was fun! I think with more practice, I could be an expert FireStar glider pilot. The advantage here, was the large field and very little traffic that day which allowed me to do it. This was not my first experience gliding the FireStar. I had made about 10 intentional dead stick landings at another field the year before. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: engine out landing

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

I certainly agree with you here! Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar > ><< I'll bet dime-to-a-dollar that almost all (near) seizures > occur at or near full throttle with an engine that is not properly > warmed prior to the application of full power. >> > >This is another possible scenario for a seizure. And a good >point. It may call for a simplification of the Rule: IF YOUR ROTAX ENGINE >STOPS AT ANY TIME AND YOU DON"T KNOW WHY IT QUIT REMOVE THE >EXHAUST AND LOOK FOR EVIDENCE OF SEIZURE. >- ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

From:

skip staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net>

Subject:

Re: nose heavy Kolb

but when I'm on my return trip home after using >up the fuel in my auxiliary gas cans, the FireStar's cruise drops ~ 5 >mph. Didn't you mention that the (2) three gal aux tanks were behind the seat? That would move your cg aft and would cause your airplane to fly faster. When the aux tanks are dry, it would seem that the cg would then move forward giving you a forward cg and causing the stability to go up and the airspeed down. It sounds as if things are working as conventional theory would dictate. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

From:

"Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM" <GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM>

Subject:

stuck rings and things...

Ralph B.: One of your last appends talked about a Rotax you had stuck rings in, at 200 hours. At that time, what oil were you using, what ratio (assuming no injex system)? Thanks All Rotax operators: I pulled my X manifold off for high temp coating and was surprised to see so much buildup of thick black tar-like substance on the inside of the "Y" pipe near the cylinder. This was also present on the spark plugs. I immediately blamed it on the oil, of course. Now I am thinking it could also have been from the fuel. (This is injection-equipped 582). What deposits might be left behind by the fuel? The EGTs look great but it could be too rich, would this give me black tar? Or is it excess heavy unburned oil base from the injex oil? This stuff is stuck to my prop also. Someone asked about Sport Prop: Also check out Power Fin. Their web address is: http://www.everett.net/users/expat/index.htm I am very happy with the PowerFin on the 582 with "C" box and 2.62 ratio, three-bladed 66", pitch is ground adjustable. I am glad I can adjust the pitch because the Rotax keeps getting more and more power as it breaks in. I have increased pitch three times now, +-3/4 of a degree each time, each time the RPM will drop by 400-500 RPM initially and then, a few hours later, I see it is back up to 6800 again. I am using the Warp drive protractor. I started out at 16 degrees indicated, and will be going to 18 degrees 30 minutes next. All measurements are measured at the tips, with plane setting level. As I understand the general concensus from you guys, I am aiming for 6100 or so, Static. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: nose heavy Kolb

Skip, Ralph can answer for his original Firestar, but here is how my original Firestar responds to weight added behind the seat. The CG moves forward causing me to hold back on the stick to keep altitude at my normal cruise. To fly without pressure on the stick, I increase the rpm's until the pressure is off and I find myself cruising faster. Basicly I don't have adjustable trim, so I use the throttle. John Jung skip staub wrote: > > but when I'm on my return trip home after using > >up the fuel in my auxiliary gas cans, the FireStar's cruise drops ~ 5 > >mph. > > Didn't you mention that the (2) three gal aux tanks were behind the seat? > That would move your cg aft and would cause your airplane to fly faster. > When the aux tanks are dry, it would seem that the cg would then move > forward giving you a forward cg and causing the stability to go up and the > airspeed down. It sounds as if things are working as conventional theory > would dictate. > > - ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: engine out landing

Larry, I carry the extra airspeed anytime the runway is long enough, even when the engine is running. John Jung Larry Cottrell wrote: > I have done quite a few and I always found that they wern't as smooth as > when the engine was idling. It finally occurred to me that when I landed > nbormally I need to keep 50 MPH airspeed. I can flare when close to the > ground and the stall comes at about 35-40 IAS. When I landed without the > engine I attempted to duplicate the engine landing and always dropped it > how ever high I was when I started the flare. What happens is that the > airspeed bleeds off instantly when the flare is begun- you stall however > high you were at the time. I strongly suggest that you carry at least 5 > mph more speed and 10 wouldn't be too much. That way when you flare you > will have a chance to land without stalling. > > Larry ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

long Windshield

So how long is this windshield? Mine is made from a 2' by 4' piece of Lexan. Is your larger than that? What is the dimension up the center? John Jung Raymond L Lujon wrote: > Both Ralph and I use the small windshield made of .090 lexan, > that is extended 6 inches longer so no slipstream strikes the face. The > additional advantage is the increased cruise airspeed. I have a FS, 447 > Rotex. Cruise in summer, 60mph at 4800rpm and 60mph in winter at 4000rpm. > I highly recommend this larger version of the short windshield. Ray Lujon > , Woodbury ,MN > - ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: engine out landing

> Larry Cottrell wrote: > > ground and the stall comes at about 35-40 IAS. When I landed without the > > engine I attempted to duplicate the engine landing and always dropped it > > how ever high I was when I started the flare. What happens is that the > > airspeed bleeds off instantly when the flare is begun- you stall however > > high you were at the time. I strongly suggest that you carry at least 5 > > mph more speed and 10 wouldn't be too much. That way when you flare you > > will have a chance to land without stalling. Adding my experience to the above and similar comment by someone else yesterday ...sorry i can't recall who. The FS pitch forces get even lighter when the prop stops, and you do feel the lack of top thrust keeping the nose down. It is therefore easy to let the nose up and lose airspeed very quickly. You can try this at good altitude over a long field; my first time I thought it felt tail heavy and whispering "stall" as I slowed down thru 40-35mph. So, w/ engine out, i want to hear lots of wind whistling by and feel some stick resistance, e.g. 45 minimum in glide, 50-55 even better, till over the numbers. Note, on my FS, 47mph seems to be my best glide angle. I think the lighter stick (in pitch) tends to make you want to fly a little faster as this stiffens up the pitch forces to what we're used to, so this is good. In my engine out on Sunday i found myself flying a little fast and thought later that i never did even think of using my best glide speed, so that was maybe a bit of a mistake. However, i also felt i had the runway easily within reach by cutting the base leg. -Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

Subject:

Kolb Long Windshield

From:

rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon)

John, here is the information you requested,,,,,,This windshield was cut from ,090 lexan and the shape follows the curved version that came with my quick-build kit. If you spread the windshield out on a flat surface the dimensions are ......Curved rear section; 79 inches, Two side sections; 13 inches each, Front section that goes around nose cone;42 inches. Distance from center of windshield from front to back; 31 inches. In addition on my firestar the overlap of lexan on the nose cone in the middle is 2.5 inches and 3 inches on the sides. Two nearly identical windshields were cut from a ( as I remember ) 48"x60" piece of lexan obtained from Commercial Plastics & Supply, St. Paul, MN...Telephone (612) 645-1666, cost about $52. I remember at the time it was the minimum they would sell me. On the outer edge of the 79" curved rear section I attached black plastic truck door edge molding. It has its own self-adhesive that makes attaching a snap. Covers up any imperfections in your cutting job and makes for a very attractive finishing touch. This can be obtained at most auto supply stores. Use your current windshield as a pattern for the front and sides and with a little trail and error I found you can use even the rear section as a pattern, just making sure you keep it symmetrical throughout. I fly with a motorcycle helmet with a bubble face shield. Prior to installing this larger, thicker windshield, every time I turned my head to the right or left, the slipstream nearly tore my head off. No problem now. Ray Lujon ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

From:

"Bill Weber (DVNS)" <bweber(at)micom.com>

Subject:

Re: Propellers

On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, skip staub wrote: > >In many cases, a 3-blade prop > >can be set up to outperform a 2 blade in both climb and top speed. > > Considering the above conditions, some examples might be in order. :) > (under some circumstances, climb might improve) > ---snip-- > I would tend to believe that all combinations of props, etc., can be > made to run smoothly at some RPM, but not necessarily all usuable > RPMs. That considered, prop length and tip speed limitations considered, > I, still believe that the 2 bladed prop (all other conditions being > equal - such as blade efficiency, weight, etc.) will be more efficient. > > OK, have at me. :) One situation when a 3-blade prop would be more efficient than a 2 blade (i.e. it will provide more thrust) is when a 2-blade would require a pitch angle that would put it near its critical angle of attack. This can occur when the prop length limit requires a larger pitch to properly load the engine. It can also occur in high drag, slow speed planes. Slower forward motion results in a larger angle of attack on the prop airfoil. An airfoil becomes increasingly less efficient (provides less lift/thrust) as it approaches its critical angle of attack. There are probably other instances, but that is all I can think of at the moment. While building a Kolb, I am flying a QS Sprint with a single carb 503 Rotax. My 3-blade Powerfin gives me much better climb and equal top speed that any 2-blade setup provided (same diameter prop). I have yet to hear a 3 blade that was noisier than a 2-blade on the same engine, even with the same prop diameter. *********************************************** * Bill Weber * Keep * * MICOM Communications Corp. * the shiny * * Simi Valley, CA * side up * *********************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Treker3150 <Treker3150(at)aol.com>

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

Subject:

cancel mail

Please cancel automatic mail coming to my e-mail address: treker3150(at)aol.com. Thank You. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

From:

Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net>

Subject:

Lexan Sources

To Ray and all, ...cost about $$$.... OUCH! If any of you are lucky enough to be near a Cadillac Plastics warehouse... I don't know if they are nation wide in metro areas or not... but they might be. I buy Lexan there by the pound... usually from scrap pieces that are not full sheets at $1.50/lb. You have to dicker with them a little as they will ask a lot more at first. I reported earlier that the piece of Lexan to build my half doors cost $6.00. At first they wanted $20. Good hunting, er. I mean bargaining. Later, -- Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (37.3 hrs) (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel ____________________|_____________________ ___(+^+)___ (_) 8 8 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Treker3150 <Treker3150(at)aol.com>

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

Subject:

cancel automatic e-mail

Please cancel automatic e-mail being sent to by address: treker3150(at)aol.com. Thank you. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"friend" <friend(at)bright.net>

Subject:

503 exhaust ports

Date:

Nov 13, 1997

FELLOW KOLBERS I removed Y pipe to inspect for carbon deposits and noticed sheet metal (schroud) has a smaller hole than the exhaust port ~1/16" ,will this reduce HP very much? ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Lexan Sources

Another comment about lexan. It is pretty heavy. I know there is the issue of lexan rigidity, but keep in mind that .090" lexan weighs 50% more than .060". The standard FS KX/KXP long center windscreen is .060 and I used .030 for the side panels, which i'll admit, was barely adequate, and i even added a 5/16 AL tube brace on each side panel. But it is still lighter and ounces do add up. -Ben ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: 503 exhaust ports

On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, friend wrote: > FELLOW KOLBERS > I removed Y pipe to inspect for carbon deposits > and noticed sheet metal (schroud) has a smaller hole than > the exhaust port ~1/16" ,will this reduce HP very > much? I personally would (and have) removed ridges created by gaskets and intake manifold casting lines. I'd go after the ridge made by the sheet metal as well, but i don't have that problem on mine. Make sure you don't just have an alignment problem with the shrowd as you don't want to cut away too much and invite an air leak. Any removal you do will probably make negligible, undetectable differences in performance but you'll feel better knowing it is as good as reasonably possible. -Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

Subject:

Kolb Long Windshield

From:

rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon)

Clarification...The Lexan overlaps the fiberglass nose cone in the middle ( top ), 2.5 " and 3 " on each side of the fuselage steel frame. The long windshield is heavier than the short windshield but much lighter than the full enclosure. It provides more than adequate protection from the elements even during the Minneasota winter but it does not have what I found objectionable with the full enclosure; annoying light reflections, difficult to get in and out, rattled while taxing, complicated access to the recoil starter, stuffy, can become uncomfortable on the ground during mild weather and it interfered with the fabulous view. Ray Lujon, Woodbury, MN ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: stuck rings and things...

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

I was using Valvoline 2 - cycle engine oil with a 50:1 mix for the first 200 hrs. I have since switched to "Klotz" all synthetic at 50:1. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar writes: > Ralph B.: One of your last appends talked about a Rotax you had stuck >rings in, at 200 hours. At that time, what oil were you using, what ratio >(assuming no injex system)? Thanks > ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: Lexan Sources

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

Ben and others, Maybe my increased cruise speed was partly do to reduced drag and partly due to even more weight up front. I was concerned about the added weight of that .090" lexan windshield (I mean it weighed ~ 3 times the old one), but I have no problem flaring on touchdown. It's such a big improvement over the old. Not only does it look great, but is very functional as well. I think you hit on something Ray L ........ Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar writes: >Another comment about lexan. It is pretty heavy. I know there >is the issue of lexan rigidity, but keep in mind that .090" >lexan weighs 50% more than .060". The standard FS KX/KXP long center >windscreen is .060 and I used .030 for the side panels, which i'll >admit, was barely adequate, and i even added a 5/16 AL tube brace on >each side panel. But it is still lighter and ounces do add up. >-Ben > ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: long Windshield

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

John, When I'm sitting in the seat, the top of the windshield is about 6 inches horizontal and about even with the top of my helmet. It comes back much further than the original supplied with the kit. Like I said earlier, it definitely improved my cruise by 5 mph. Please don't confuse the faster cruise, with the new windshield and the added weight issue . I've always had the faster cruise, even with the old windshield, with added weight up front. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar >So how long is this windshield? Mine is made from a 2' by 4' piece of >Lexan. Is your larger than that? What is the dimension up the center? >John Jung > >Raymond L Lujon wrote: >> Both Ralph and I use the small windshield made of .090 lexan, >> that is extended 6 inches longer so no slipstream strikes the face. >The >> additional advantage is the increased cruise airspeed. I have a FS, >447 >> Rotex. Cruise in summer, 60mph at 4800rpm and 60mph in winter at >4000rpm. >> I highly recommend this larger version of the short windshield. Ray >Lujon >> , Woodbury ,MN >> - >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: nose heavy Kolb

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Jan 06, 1998

John,

Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-aj

Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-aj