Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-cb
April 23, 2000 - May 17, 2000
house south of the gravel pit with the huge walking drag line on route 57, 4
miles south of Wadsworth airport from which I operate my FS2.I have mowed a
500ft UL strip on the south side of the west end of runway 10/28 .Land to the
east and take off to the west.It is a nice open approach and keeps me out of
everyones hair. Every Saturday that is flyable finds me there. Welcome!
G.Aman FS2 38hrs 330-644-1174
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb MKIII Wheel Pants |
In a message dated 4/23/00 10:30:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
WGeorge737(at)aol.com writes:
<< Dunno. But tell us that you picked up an extra 5 mph or so and I will run
out
and install mine! :-) >>
Install my Vortex Generators and you just might, as well as lower your stall
speed by 5 mph.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
If you want a quick and easy source for lat longs anywhere in the country,
I picked up a program at OfficeMax last week called Precision Street Maps
USA, the company is Swift Platinum.
You can go to anywhere in the country, and if there is a street there, when
you drag the mouse cursor across it, the lat longs read out in the lower
right corner of the screen. If there are no streets, then you set the
options up to show lat long grids right on the screen, and it then gives
you a continuous readout of the cursor's position.
Best of all, this puppy only cost $4.99, runs off the CD, and uses less
than 2 meg of hard drive space.
A good resource for programming the GPS in the comfort of your own home...
It does not work outside the lower 48.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald Perry" <ronaldpe(at)shenessex.heartland.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Easy Lat Longs |
Found a website that will do essentially the same thing as your $50 CD.
Enter town, street-address, zipcode or airport designator and it will give
you lat/long. Haven't found a function for lat/long search out in the
countryside away from towns, but if you know a small town nearby, should get
you close enough for GPS use. Best of all, it's FREE.
Address: http://www.mapquest.com/myblast/index.mb
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 6:26 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Easy Lat Longs
>
> If you want a quick and easy source for lat longs anywhere in the country,
> I picked up a program at OfficeMax last week called Precision Street Maps
> USA, the company is Swift Platinum.
> You can go to anywhere in the country, and if there is a street there,
when
> you drag the mouse cursor across it, the lat longs read out in the lower
> right corner of the screen. If there are no streets, then you set the
> options up to show lat long grids right on the screen, and it then gives
> you a continuous readout of the cursor's position.
> Best of all, this puppy only cost $4.99, runs off the CD, and uses less
> than 2 meg of hard drive space.
> A good resource for programming the GPS in the comfort of your own home...
> It does not work outside the lower 48.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald Perry" <ronaldpe(at)shenessex.heartland.net> |
List,
I typed in the address wrong. It is:
http://www.mapblast.com/myblast/index.mb
Not
"mapquest"
----- Original Message -----
From: Ronald Perry <ronaldpe(at)shenessex.heartland.net>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Easy Lat Longs
>
> Found a website that will do essentially the same thing as your $50 CD.
> Enter town, street-address, zipcode or airport designator and it will give
> you lat/long. Haven't found a function for lat/long search out in the
> countryside away from towns, but if you know a small town nearby, should
get
> you close enough for GPS use. Best of all, it's FREE.
> Address: http://www.mapquest.com/myblast/index.mb
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 6:26 AM
> Subject: Kolb-List: Easy Lat Longs
>
>
> >
> > If you want a quick and easy source for lat longs anywhere in the
country,
> > I picked up a program at OfficeMax last week called Precision Street
Maps
> > USA, the company is Swift Platinum.
> > You can go to anywhere in the country, and if there is a street there,
> when
> > you drag the mouse cursor across it, the lat longs read out in the lower
> > right corner of the screen. If there are no streets, then you set the
> > options up to show lat long grids right on the screen, and it then gives
> > you a continuous readout of the cursor's position.
> > Best of all, this puppy only cost $4.99, runs off the CD, and uses less
> > than 2 meg of hard drive space.
> > A good resource for programming the GPS in the comfort of your own
home...
> > It does not work outside the lower 48.
> > Richard Pike
> > MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lawrence and Carey Dorn" <ldorn(at)sinclair.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel consumption |
Amsoil 100:1 runs AWESOME. Rotax is doing tests on it now. I know alot of
guys that run it on their rotaxs and all there 2 strokes. No carbon build
up! Try it and you will never go back. ( unless you run out and forget to
get more)
Lawrence
gyrocopter N420LD
----- Original Message -----
From: <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2000 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: fuel consumption
>
> Howard, I'm using Klotz Snowmobile TechniPlate TC-W3 KL-216 and can be
> ordered by calling 1-800-242-0489. It's $125.07 including shipping to
> your door for 4 gallons. The website is: http://www.klotzlube.com/
> I'm not a dealer for this.
>
> Ralph
> Original FireStar
>
> >
> > In a message dated 4/23/00 1:31:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > ul15rhb(at)juno.com
> > writes:
> >
> > << Since I use
> > a synthetic oil mix, I don't get the carbon buildup that others do
> > on
> > this list. I checked my spark plugs last night after a day of
> > flying and >>
> >
> > Hi, Ralph. What type of synthetic are you using. I have just about
> > talked
> > myself into switching from Pennzoil. I know synthetic is more
> > expensive, but
> > to not have to de-carbon seems like a good trade.
> >
> > Howard Shackleford
> > FS I
> > SC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: fuel consumption |
In a message dated 4/24/00 8:06:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ldorn(at)sinclair.net writes:
<< Howard, I'm using Klotz Snowmobile TechniPlate TC-W3 KL-216 and can be
> ordered by calling 1-800-242-0489. It's $125.07 including shipping to
> your door for 4 gallons. The website is: http://www.klotzlube.com/ >>
Larry, how much per gallon costs the Amsoil??
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Wheel pant brackets |
Took some pictures this morning before the rain started,
and just now got them on the web page,
shows what holds the wheel pant in place.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/pg6.htm
[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/pg6.htm
[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/pg6.htm
Modified=4075BDBE4FAEBF01ED
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel consumption |
> Amsoil 100:1 runs AWESOME. Rotax is doing tests on it now.
> Lawrence
> gyrocopter N420LD
Lawrence and Gang:
Sounds interesting. Who at Rotax and where is testing being
conducted? Any results yet that we can take a look at?
Sure would like to see them. What kind of testing is Rotax
doing?
100:1! Sure is a little bitty bit of oil in all that fuel.
:-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | setting prop pitch with a laser pointer |
i had mentioned on the list a couple of days ago about setting
the pitch with a laser pointer and had a few request off the
list to explain. so here it is on the list..
place wheel chocks under the wheels of the plane so it cant
move.
with the prop still on the plane
pull 1 blade to the horizontal position
place a level on the prop to make sure it is horizontal
make a mark on the propeller about 8 to 9 inches in from the
tip (dry erase marker)
cut a block of wood with a hook at the top and position the
hook over the top of the blade (leading edge) and make
sure the other end of the block is touching the other edge
of the blade (trailing edge) with the edge of the block on the
line
tape or glue a laser pointer on the edge of the block of
wood and shine it at the ground and mark the spot
repeat for the other blades
because the spot on the ground is over 5 ft from the prop a
small angle change shows up as an easy measurable distance
from the original mark
make sure the block is the same distance from the end of
each blade and that each blade is level. i figured the
distance on the ground is between 1 and 1.25 inches per
deg. depending on how hi the blade is off the ground.
clear as mud???
i will try to post a picture on the web asac. as soon as
convenient.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: fuel consumption |
Klotz KL-216 is 50:1. I forgot to mention that.
Ralph
Original FireStar
writes:
>
>
> Amsoil 100:1 runs AWESOME. Rotax is doing tests on it now. I know
> alot of
> guys that run it on their rotaxs and all there 2 strokes. No carbon
> build
> up! Try it and you will never go back. ( unless you run out and
> forget to
> get more)
> Lawrence
> gyrocopter N420LD
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2000 7:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: fuel consumption
>
>
> >
> > Howard, I'm using Klotz Snowmobile TechniPlate TC-W3 KL-216 and
> can be
> > ordered by calling 1-800-242-0489. It's $125.07 including
> shipping to
> > your door for 4 gallons. The website is: http://www.klotzlube.com/
> > I'm not a dealer for this.
> >
> > Ralph
> > Original FireStar
> >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 4/23/00 1:31:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > > ul15rhb(at)juno.com
> > > writes:
> > >
> > > << Since I use
> > > a synthetic oil mix, I don't get the carbon buildup that others
> do
> > > on
> > > this list. I checked my spark plugs last night after a day of
> > > flying and >>
> > >
> > > Hi, Ralph. What type of synthetic are you using. I have just
> about
> > > talked
> > > myself into switching from Pennzoil. I know synthetic is more
> > > expensive, but
> > > to not have to de-carbon seems like a good trade.
> > >
> > > Howard Shackleford
> > > FS I
> > > SC
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
| Subject: | setting prop pitch with a laser pointer |
Nice description of the process. Laser pointers can be had from Harbor
Freight for under 10 bucks.
John
N670JW
-----Original Message-----
From: b young [mailto:byoung(at)brigham.net]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 7:46 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: setting prop pitch with a laser pointer
i had mentioned on the list a couple of days ago about setting
the pitch with a laser pointer and had a few request off the
list to explain. so here it is on the list..
place wheel chocks under the wheels of the plane so it cant
move.
with the prop still on the plane
pull 1 blade to the horizontal position
place a level on the prop to make sure it is horizontal
make a mark on the propeller about 8 to 9 inches in from the
tip (dry erase marker)
cut a block of wood with a hook at the top and position the
hook over the top of the blade (leading edge) and make
sure the other end of the block is touching the other edge
of the blade (trailing edge) with the edge of the block on the
line
tape or glue a laser pointer on the edge of the block of
wood and shine it at the ground and mark the spot
repeat for the other blades
because the spot on the ground is over 5 ft from the prop a
small angle change shows up as an easy measurable distance
from the original mark
make sure the block is the same distance from the end of
each blade and that each blade is level. i figured the
distance on the ground is between 1 and 1.25 inches per
deg. depending on how hi the blade is off the ground.
clear as mud???
i will try to post a picture on the web asac. as soon as
convenient.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Head Set Ear Pads |
At S'nF I bought a pair of David Clark ear pads ($6) to replace the ones in
my old Comtronics standard helmet. The ones that came with the helmet (~ 15
years ago) were withered and the plastic skin was getting brittle. The new
ones were oval shaped and the old ones were almost rectangular but I figured
fresh new ones were better than those old ones regardless of the shape. WRONG
! During my test flight the engine noise was up about 50%. I have always
wondered why the price for these things varied so much. I called Comtronics
and the nice lady said she will send me some exact replacements for about $12
+ mail cost. If I fly again before they get here I will use ear plugs in
addition to the head set.
Another lesson learned.
Duane the plane in Tallahassee, FireFly SN007, 447, IVO, big wheels
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Seitzer <dale(at)gmada.com> |
| Subject: | fuel consumption |
Larry, how much per gallon costs the Amsoil??
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
The Amzoil 100:1 is $7.60 retail per quart--the 50:1 is $8.35 per quart,
injector oil is $4.45 per quart. I bought 4 gallons for $110 and signed
up for a 6 month dealership which meant a discount for me--this is a
multilevel marketing system--everybody makes money off the sale. It is not
cheap but it burns clean and a little bit cooler than others.
On another note--I was at the local Honda / Skidoo dealer and noticed a
premixed coolant for rotax snowmobile engines. It said silacate free and
distilled water mix--I imagine it is the right amount for their liquid
cooled engines. They make a 600cc that is similar to the 582--I wonder if
that would work for your liquid cooled engines--it is made for rotax and
has their brand on the bottle--"with a name like that, it has to be good"
[] Dale Seitzer--Original Firestar--447-IVO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Head Set Ear Pads |
Good point. Several years ago I bought a set of aftermarket thick foam ear
pads for my Blackhawk 4DX (El Cheapo) headsets, trying to get something
quieter and more comfortable, and they worked real well that first year.
But gradually it got harder and harder to hear the radio or a passenger. I
had about decided to buy a new intercom, because my wife and I couldn't
hear each other when we went flying. Instead, I called Flightcom, the
company that makes the headset, and ordered their best gel filled ear pads,
I forget the cost, wasn't much, and it is great, quiet, comfortable, and
very satisfactory. Sometimes those factories know their own stuff best...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>At S'nF I bought a pair of David Clark ear pads ($6) to replace the ones in
>my old Comtronics standard helmet. The ones that came with the helmet (~ 15
>years ago) were withered and the plastic skin was getting brittle. The new
>ones were oval shaped and the old ones were almost rectangular but I figured
>fresh new ones were better than those old ones regardless of the shape. WRONG
>! During my test flight the engine noise was up about 50%. I have always
>wondered why the price for these things varied so much. I called Comtronics
>and the nice lady said she will send me some exact replacements for about $12
>+ mail cost. If I fly again before they get here I will use ear plugs in
>addition to the head set.
>
>Another lesson learned.
>
>Duane the plane in Tallahassee, FireFly SN007, 447, IVO, big wheels
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | synthetic oil prices |
Someone asked the price of Amsoil 100:1 premix two-stroke oil. I made an
order for some more today so here's the facts:
Retail: $90.00 for a case of 12 quarts, plus $7.35 shipping. That works
out to 30 bucks a gallon, vitually the same per-gallon price as quoted for
the Klotz in the post below. But remember, the Amsoil is a 100:1 premix.
I believe the Klotz is formulated for use at 50:1. So using the Ams is
half the cost of Klotz, if purchasing each at retail.
If you are running a business, ask about establishing a Commercial account
with Amsoil (800-777-7094). The price for Commercial customers is about
2/3 of the retail quoted above. I do have a Commercial account, and I do
not profit from other people buying it. Just providing some facts, FYI.
Jim G
Amsoil 100:1 runs AWESOME. Rotax is doing tests on it now. I know alot of
guys that run it on their rotaxs and all there 2 strokes. No carbon build
up! Try it and you will never go back. ( unless you run out and forget to
get more)
Lawrence
gyrocopter N420LD
----- Original Message -----
From: <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2000 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: fuel consumption
>
> Howard, I'm using Klotz Snowmobile TechniPlate TC-W3 KL-216 and can be
> ordered by calling 1-800-242-0489. It's $125.07 including shipping to
> your door for 4 gallons. The website is: http://www.klotzlube.com/
> I'm not a dealer for this.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
>100:1! Sure is a little bitty bit of oil in all that fuel.
>:-)
>
>john h
John, and others: Your statement is similar to what I said when I learned
about 100:1 lubes. The Amsoil tech guy told me that all the synthetic
two-stroke oils are diluted for proper mixing. 100:1 is diluted much less.
I guess I'd rather buy lubricant than spend my money on dilutant and pretty
packaging.
At first it is wierd to imagine putting 1 quart of oil in 25 gallons of
fuel.
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darren Smalec" <smald(at)shianet.org> |
| Subject: | Vortex generators |
Howard- group :
I recieved plans to build the vortex generators, (ThanksHoward!!) and
whipped up 10, 5 for each wing, (being a 5 rib wing) of my FS1.
I have only flown it once, but it did seem to decrease stall speed by
about 2 mph, and come off the ground quicker. More experience (time) is
needed with them.
My old double sided tape didn't hold very well, and I lost one.
I wouldn't reccomend mounting them in front of the prop arc until adhesion
is assured!!
2 questions.
How many of these mounted on the wing would be optimal??
Is there a specific distance apart these should be spaced??
Darren, FS 1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "martin P" <tonibec(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 14 Msgs - 04/17/00 |
>
>Does anyone know the maximum height of the Mark III with a three bladed
>
>
>Leave 8' 4" and you will lots of room. Of course you can live with
less, if you turn the prop so that it is not pointing strait up.
Problems, if you forget. Your real problem is the tail, if you pick
up the boom to push out the aircraft.
Martin.
do not achive.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Scott <steve_scott(at)mcg.mot.com> |
I used amsoil 100:1 exclusively in my 503 inverted in a
Challenger for 2 years (160 hrs). The engine already had about
260 hrs when I bought the plane. Everyone at the Leroy airport
used the Amsoil 100:1 and no one seemed to complain. We all ate
lunch together on Saturdays so I would have heard the complaints
if there were any. I had very little carbon build up when I took
off the heads last.
It costs twice the price of regular 50:1 oil, but since you mix
it half as much, it's even. Besides, you don't need to carry so
much around either for cross country flights.
I will always use Amsoil because I trust it.
--
Steve Scott
Motorola Computer Group
Tempe, AZ
602-438-3540
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lawrence and Carey Dorn" <ldorn(at)sinclair.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel consumption |
I think its about 7$ quart retail. You can find a dealer at www.amsoil.com.
Lawrence
----- Original Message -----
From: <HShack(at)aol.com>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: fuel consumption
>
> In a message dated 4/24/00 8:06:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> ldorn(at)sinclair.net writes:
>
> << Howard, I'm using Klotz Snowmobile TechniPlate TC-W3 KL-216 and can be
> > ordered by calling 1-800-242-0489. It's $125.07 including shipping to
> > your door for 4 gallons. The website is: http://www.klotzlube.com/ >>
>
> Larry, how much per gallon costs the Amsoil??
>
> Howard Shackleford
> FS I
> SC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ggleiter(at)minn.net |
| Subject: | Re: More Ultra Violet |
Larry Bourne wrote:
>
>
> I enjoy your messages a lot Gil, but this time I have to brace my feet a
> bit. As Topher mentioned, light does travel at different speeds, etc.
> Instead of 'slowed down', I should have said 'changes frequency.'
As I mentioned in another post I did indeed not have my thinking cap
fully on in that I forgot about what happens inside another media such
as glass. Yes, since such materials have an index of refraction greater
than 1 the light does travel slower through it than in vacuum. This is
a result of richochetting (sp) around off molecules as it goes through
the glass.
Lets back up and look at what happens step by step. In vacuum light
travels at a velocity of c. It is governed by two equations (1)
(lambda)(nu) = c and (2) E = h(nu). The first says that wavelength
times frequency = velocity and the second says that the energy of the
photon equals Planck's constant times frequency.
When the photon travels through space and crosses an interface into a
material such as glass its velocity is decreased as mentioned above,
since the glass will have an index of refraction of the order of 1.2 -
1.3. However, the two equations still apply. For the first equation
the velocity is no longer c, but rather some lower value v. Thus the
left side of the equation (wavelength)(frequency) must also change.
Clearly there must be a change of either wavelength, frequency, or
both. However, by the second equation a change in frequency would mean
that there was a change in ENERGY of the photon and would be a violation
of conservation of energy. The wavelength changes and the frequency
remains the same. Does this mean that it is no longer UV? No, because
the definition of UV as electromagnetic ratiation with wavelength below
400 nanometers is specificically related to such radiation in vacuum and
does not apply in this case. The photon still has the high energy level
as before with the same capability to do damage to materials.
After the photon (with longer wavelength and original frequency)
completes its trip through the glass and passes the interface back into
space, it will resume its normal velocity of c. At this point it
returns to it's original wavelength and is indistinguishable from what
it was before its trip through the glass.
The change only existed within the media with the index of refraction
greater then 1.
It is possible to create materials that will permanently alter the
properties of the photon, but these are very specialized materials and
the change is executed by a completely different mechanism than the one
discussed above.
Normal glass will indeed pass much of the UV, and as I sit here now I
can look at the carpet beside the patio door and see that it is faded
very significantly in color from what it originally was. Most dyes are
very prone to degradation from UV. Certainly there is a diminuation of
UV, but certainly not a complete elimination. Again, special materials
can be made that will absorb most UV. For normal aircraft coatings the
use of aluminum particles serves as a physical barrier and blocks most
UV from the polyester. One can also add chemical additives (usual
benzoa Triatazoles) in the coatings to ABSORB UV, but they are not
nearly as effective as is the aluminum physical blocking.
Well, need to get going to the hangar and get to work if my Challenger
is ever to get off the ground.
gil
U/V is
> a high frequency radiation that goes right through ordinary car window
> glass, but in so doing its' frequency is changed, or 'slowed down' to the
> less energetic infra red, which can't penetrate glass, so is reflected back
> on the inside, and is therefore trapped as heat, and parked cars get hotter
> than H--- in the summer Specialty glasses I don't know about, except to
> note that if you look at the windows of an energy efficient house at an
> angle, they have a "sheen" kind of like an oil film on water. That must be
> what he meant about u/v reflective glass. Now, if we could only adapt
> that coating to our fabric, we just might have something.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Warning:exhaust gaskets |
As part of my "annual" I removed the screws holding the exhaust manifold to
the cylinder head. With confirmation from a fellow Kolber I peeked into the
exhaust port and found a moderate build up of carbon on the top of the piston
but all rings were free. Good to go. When I started to remove the gasket
between the lower half of the cooling shroud and the cylinder head I found
that to replace this gasket THE WHOLE CYLINDERS HAVE TO BE REMOVED !!! This
means the intake manifold and a whole lot of other gaskets etc must be
removed replaced etc etc $,$,$. Now I have to take the whole dammed thing
apart because I busted the integrity of those gaskets.
Duane the plane, disgusted, in Tallahassee
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vortex generators |
In a message dated 4/25/00 12:22:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
smald(at)shianet.org writes:
<< I wouldn't reccomend mounting them in front of the prop arc until adhesion
is assured!!
2 questions.
How many of these mounted on the wing would be optimal??
Is there a specific distance apart these should be spaced?? >>
Hi!! Once you are sure where they go you could use epoxy glue instead of
double sided tape.
I don't know how many are optimal; I just put one over each rib [I wouldn't
just put them on fabric with no support underneath]. With a 5 rib wing, if
you have a false rib half-way between the full ribs then I would put some
there; that would give you 9 or 10 per wing. Also, maybe put 3 on each side
of your fuselage at the widest part; should give better air flow to the
prop-therefore better gas mileage and cruise. Good luck!!
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
| Subject: | Using a Laser Level to Align the Horizontal Stabilizer... |
Hello Listers,
I set to work this week mounting my horz stab to the fuse and quickly
realized that getting a perfect fit might not be that easy. Earlier in
the week I had been talking to a friend, quite coincidently, about a
cool thing called a "laser level". For those, like myself, that don't
know what a laser level is or how it works here's the quick and dirty.
Basically the unit is a small square box with bubble level in the X, Y
and Z directions. On the top of the box is a turret of sorts with a
bright red laser diode. This turret is connected to a small electric
motor that spins at an adjustable rate from about 10 RPM up to about
600 RPM. This has the affect of drawing a red line in a 360 circle
around the box. Depending on how well and what you adjust to box to in
terms of "level" you can then align two plains together that are quite
some distance apart. I set the laser level box up on one of the forward
fuse. bulkheads, making sure that it was level with respect to the wing
spar attachments and then adjusted the laser so that it hit the horz.
stab right down the leading edge. It was then a no-brainer to adjust
the "levelness" of the stab in relationship to the wing spars using the
bright red line.
Bottom line is that its a pretty expensive little toy, er, I mean
tool, but I sure wish that I had had one when I was building the tail,
wing and fuse. jigs! Not to mention verifying the "straightness" of the
parts I was building in the jigs. Anyway, I've included a few links to
some pictures I took of the laser level in action. They are a bit
grainy because I had to get the room pretty dark so that the laser line
would show up in the photos. In practice, you don't really have to
work in the dark to use the laser level. :-)
http://www.matronics.com/MattsRV4/MiscPictures/Stab_LaserLevel1.jpg
http://www.matronics.com/MattsRV4/MiscPictures/Stab_LaserLevel2.jpg
http://www.matronics.com/MattsRV4/MiscPictures/Stab_LaserLevel3.jpg
http://www.matronics.com/MattsRV4/MiscPictures/Stab_LaserLevel4.jpg
Enjoy,
Matt Dralle
RV-4 #1763, N442RV to be...
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Henry <chhenry(at)plains.nodak.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Warning:exhaust gaskets |
>
>As part of my "annual" I removed the screws holding the exhaust manifold to
>the cylinder head. With confirmation from a fellow Kolber I peeked into the
>exhaust port and found a moderate build up of carbon on the top of the piston
>but all rings were free. Good to go. When I started to remove the gasket
>between the lower half of the cooling shroud and the cylinder head I found
>that to replace this gasket THE WHOLE CYLINDERS HAVE TO BE REMOVED !!! This
>means the intake manifold and a whole lot of other gaskets etc must be
>removed replaced etc etc $,$,$. Now I have to take the whole dammed thing
>apart because I busted the integrity of those gaskets.
>
>Duane the plane, disgusted, in Tallahassee
Hi Duane
What engine do you have?
I have done this on the Rotax 447 and the gasket just pulled straight out
and once off the studs, a little clean up of the area and slide a new one
on. That is the pits to find that a little preventive maintenance requires
that much more work. I always worry that a large teardown to fix one thing
will cause another problem. That's usually the way it works when I take my
car in to be repaired.
Charles Henry
Firestar I in ND
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Warning:exhaust gaskets |
This is follow-up on my dilemma with the necessity of taking the cylinder
heads off to replace exhaust gaskets. The engine is a 18 month old 447,
single carb. I could probably jamb wedges down between the barrels and the
lower half of the cooling shroud so I could slip the old gaskets out. I am
concerned about breaking cooling fins and access for cleaning the gasket seal
surfaces. I could probably slip the new ones in place after clipping off the
lower part of the gasket where it locks into the positioning clip of the
shroud. I will be out of town for the next four days so that will give me
time to get the new gaskets and ponder my options.
Constructive suggestions cheerfully accepted,
Duane the plane in Tallahassee, FireFly SN007, 447,IVO, big wheels
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
"RV-List: Using a Laser Level to Align the Horizontal Stabilizer..." (Apr
26, 11:52pm)
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: (More Info on:) Using a Laser Level to Align the |
Horizontal Stabilizer...
I've had quite a few requests for more information on the laser level I
described below. I have the Momentum XL and I picked it up at a local
tool store called "Post Tool". Below are some URLs to a company that
sells a variety of different styles and brands. In most cases the prices
are listed and appear to represent a discount from Mfg's List price.
Momentum
--------
http://www.instrumentsales1.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/laser-8.htm?L+scstore+khjg3971+961213490
LaserMark
---------
http://www.instrumentsales1.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/laser-12.htm?L+scstore+khjg3971+961213490
Agatec
------
http://www.instrumentsales1.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/laser-01.htm?L+scstore+khjg3971+961213490
Spectra-Precision
-----------------
http://www.instrumentsales1.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/laser-11.htm?L+scstore+khjg3971+961213490
Matt Dralle
RV-4 #1763, N442RV to be...
>--------------
>--> RV-List message posted by: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
>
>
>Hello Listers,
>
>I set to work this week mounting my horz stab to the fuse and quickly
>realized that getting a perfect fit might not be that easy. Earlier in
>the week I had been talking to a friend, quite coincidently, about a
>cool thing called a "laser level". For those, like myself, that don't
>know what a laser level is or how it works here's the quick and dirty.
>Basically the unit is a small square box with bubble level in the X, Y
>and Z directions. On the top of the box is a turret of sorts with a
>bright red laser diode. This turret is connected to a small electric
>motor that spins at an adjustable rate from about 10 RPM up to about
>600 RPM. This has the affect of drawing a red line in a 360 circle
>around the box. Depending on how well and what you adjust to box to in
>terms of "level" you can then align two plains together that are quite
>some distance apart. I set the laser level box up on one of the forward
>fuse. bulkheads, making sure that it was level with respect to the wing
>spar attachments and then adjusted the laser so that it hit the horz.
>stab right down the leading edge. It was then a no-brainer to adjust
>the "levelness" of the stab in relationship to the wing spars using the
>bright red line.
>
>Bottom line is that its a pretty expensive little toy, er, I mean
>tool, but I sure wish that I had had one when I was building the tail,
>wing and fuse. jigs! Not to mention verifying the "straightness" of the
>parts I was building in the jigs. Anyway, I've included a few links to
>some pictures I took of the laser level in action. They are a bit
>grainy because I had to get the room pretty dark so that the laser line
>would show up in the photos. In practice, you don't really have to
>work in the dark to use the laser level. :-)
>
> http://www.matronics.com/MattsRV4/MiscPictures/Stab_LaserLevel1.jpg
> http://www.matronics.com/MattsRV4/MiscPictures/Stab_LaserLevel2.jpg
> http://www.matronics.com/MattsRV4/MiscPictures/Stab_LaserLevel3.jpg
> http://www.matronics.com/MattsRV4/MiscPictures/Stab_LaserLevel4.jpg
>
>Enjoy,
>
>Matt Dralle
>RV-4 #1763, N442RV to be...
>
>
>--
>
>Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
>925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
>http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
>
>
>--------------
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Radio-feedback problem |
Hi Gang,
Finally got a harness made up for my new Microair 760 transceiver. Works fine
when headset/mic (David Clark) is plugged in but when used with the Telex
PC-1 intercom it emits a loud squeal (feedback) when the mike is keyed and is
thus unusable. Somehow the intercom is picking up the RF and routing it back
into the headset.
Wondered what intercoms are in use out in Kolb land that would work.
Thanks in advance.
Bill George
Mk-3 582 "C" Powerfin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio-feedback problem |
> Wondered what intercoms are in use out in Kolb land that would work.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Bill George
Bill and Gang:
As soon as I get my MK III airborne, once again, I will
start checking out my updated Sigtronic (SPA400 to SPA400N)
Intercom. I had a chance to talk to Mike Kelly of
Sigtronics while at Lakeland. He is anxious to help out the
Lt Plane, Ultralight community with a good workable intercom
system for our applications. Right now their expertise in
our area of "NOISE" is not too good compared to their work
in the GA, helicopter, and War Bird areas. Mike did not
hesitate when I mentioned some sponsorship with my flight
this summer. Sigtronics upgraded my intercom, sent me a new
wiring harness (the one that Mr. Swuirrel ate) and two new
M80HD mics and muffs, at no charge. I, in turn, will help
them come up with some numbers or whatever, plus test the
systems for them, so they can come up with a new improved
system.
The SPA400 worked great until I pushed up the power. Then
it just amplified the noise. One new feature of the updated
SPA400N is an additional wire to connect to a push to talk
intercom button, rather than using VOX. Mike suggested
turning up headset/earphone volume all the way, then adjust
the intercom volume as low as possible. This helps control
some of the noise.
We have another List member using the Sigtronics SPA400N.
He informs that there was a good increase in noise reduction
and "hearability".
Almost forgot to mention, one advantage of the Sigtronics
SPA400N is "artificial side tone." Makes for much better
voice control when one can hear ones self talking in the
headset, rather than having that feeling that one is totally
deaf.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Radio-feedback problem |
Thanks John,
I have had good sidetone even with the basic Comtronics set up, but even with
the hand held I was getting feedback during transmission. The telex has great
intercom; very little noise, VOX works great, but can't transmit with the
Microair due feedback.
The Sigtronics will be on my list once I can get some assurances that it is
resistant to feedback. The Microair, by the way, is really slick. It's tiny,
light and has lots of power.
Bill G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Radio-feedback problem |
In a message dated 4/27/00 1:24:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
WGeorge737(at)aol.com writes:
<< Wondered what intercoms are in use out in Kolb land that would work. >>
Bill: I use a softcom ATC-2, with the high noise environment modification.
I think it is great. Mostly because it is the only portable intercom I know
that will accept 2 9 volt batteries and AUTOMATICALLY turns itself off when
you unplug the pilot headset. No dead batteries when you go out to fly. Can
run off ship's power too.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dama Riddick <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
Has anyone bought an injected Rotax and decided to convert it to pre-mix? I
am leaning towards pulling the pump off for the sake of simplicity and am
wondering if there are any precautions. Thanks.
Kip Laurie
Atlanta FS-705
N111KX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Oil Injection |
Has anyone on the list had an oil injection pump failure on any rotax engine?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: More Ultra Violet |
i think that part of what is confusing people is the fact that some of the
light is absorbed by the glass and then that energy is then reradiated off
in the IR part of the spectrum. when the light goes into your car (most of
the spectrum) it gets absorbed in your cars interior. then as the interior
gets hot it radiates in the ir part of the spectrum and ir light tends to be
bounced off glass fairly well so it does indeed get stuck in there. so your
car is a great solar collector.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Oil Injection |
In a message dated 4/27/00 8:27:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dama(at)mindspring.com writes:
<< am
wondering if there are any precautions. >>
Kip:
I wouldn't do it. I hope to be corrected if I'm wrong here, but I have been
following Rotax accidents for 10 years now, I have never heard of an accident
that could be attributed solely to an oil injection pump failure. It's a
good and simple system that has considerable benefits beyond simply avoiding
the hassle of mixing fuel and oil by hand.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Radio-feedback problem |
In a message dated 4/28/00 12:12:21 AM, Cavuontop(at)aol.com writes:
<< I use a softcom ATC-2, with the high noise environment modification.
I think it is great. Mostly because it is the only portable intercom I know
that will accept 2 9 volt batteries and AUTOMATICALLY turns itself off when
you unplug the pilot headset. No dead batteries when you go out to fly. Can
run off ship's power too. >>
Thanks Mark,
What radio are you using now? Where is your antenna located?
Bill G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Radio-feedback problem |
In a message dated 4/27/00 11:05:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
WGeorge737(at)aol.com writes:
<< What radio are you using now? Where is your antenna located?
>>
I am using the Yasu handheld. I like it very much. Quite simple to operate
once you get the hang of it. I hit the tower at Trenton, NJ from Frenchtown
the other day, about 15 miles, with no problem. I asked for a radio check
and they replied I was loud and clear. That was before I installed the
resistor plugs and on the rubber ducky antenna. I have a whip antenna from
Chief installed on the curved aluminum piece at the front of the gap seal.
It points forward at about 45 degrees, but in flight bends back to straight
up. I haven't used it enough yet to say whether it is better than the rubber
duck. I fabricated a little pedestal mount to hold the radio and riveted it
to the sheet metal in front of the left seat. It is between my legs, but
low enough not to be in the way. Next step is to install a thumb operated
push to talk on the stick and I will be ready to go into Philly International.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
s12brian(at)prodigy.net
>_____________________________________________________________________________
>From: Dama Riddick <dama(at)mindspring.com>
>Subject: Kolb-List: Oil Injection
>
>
>Has anyone bought an injected Rotax and decided to convert it to pre-mix?
I
>am leaning towards pulling the pump off for the sake of simplicity and am
>wondering if there are any precautions. Thanks.
>Kip Laurie
>Atlanta FS-705
>N111KX
YES.
>From: ZepRep251(at)aol.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Oil Injection
>
>Has anyone on the list had an oil injection pump failure on any rotax
engine?
SORT OF.
Some of you may remember my story from last fall, an extra slight knocking
noise and additional vibration gradually coming up over 20 hours operation
in a 582. Well, after successful operation for 30 minutes last night,, the
jury is in. The problem was apparently oil-caused "carbon" deposits. For
those of you in the habit of visually inspecting for "carbon" thru the
exhaust port window or pulling the cyl head and looking at the piston
crown--WAKE UP AND READ THIS. Both cyls' bottom rings were stuck on the
intake side only. That's "intake side only". You know, the side you can't
see until you pull off the cylinder. There was no buildup at all on the
exhaust side, and almost nothing on the crown. Using the usual inspection
procedures, those rings looked fine and free. Compression measured good,
and there was no loss of power because the top rings were still sealing.
It became apparent from the evidence, after talking to every expert I could
show the parts to, or call on the phone, that unburned oil had built up on
the pistons. I believe the Rotax stock injection oil pump was putting out
too much oil. It was setup per Rotax manual instructions, using the cable,
proper adjustment, the mark lined up , etc. How much? I don't know. How
much is your own putting out? Are we ever really sure? Is it putting out
the right ratio? Do each of the cyls receive the same amount? Is it
blending with the fuel to completely distribute to all parts without
buildup, or is it pumping in in liquid form and not really atomizing to
give it a good shot at combustion? Lots of assumptions here. My best
local mechanic said it this way: "The only way you're going to know that
each cylinder is getting the right amount of oil every time you run the
engine is if you put it in the fuel at the desired ratio yourself". I had
already come to that conclusion, so I pulled off the entire injex system,
from the gear to the hoses. I cut out a little block-off plate and bolted
it over the hole in the manifold that used to accept the pump, removed the
tank and hoses, put the shorter head studs back in, blocked the oil-inlet
ports in the manifold, etc. Saved me 6 pounds over a 2/3 full oil tank
flight. And now I know my engine is receiving the correct lube at the
desired ratio (which I can confidently set at 100:1, 95:1, 50:1, 73:1 or
anywhere I want).
Of course Rotax knows best and the injex system is a fine pc of machinery.
It is so convenient, just dump in the oil, no measuring, no thinking.
Pre-Mixing is so messy and time-consuming (not!). I am not advocating
removal of your system. I am simply telling you my experiences.
The answer to your next question is: "I was / am using Amsoil". The engine
was spotless everywhere but on the intake side of the pistons. The
cross-hatching was all still perfect, the bearings were shiny clean and
free and quiet, the crank was clean and perfect. The combustion chambers
were nearly clean. Admittedly, different oils will mix and atomize and
protect with different properties. It is likely that another brand oil
mixes more readily and may not have caused this buildup. It is also likely
there are many oils with lower film strengths, poor corrosion protection,
combustion deposits, etc. After three years in a dirt-floor hangar I was
happy to see such great corrosion protection. I feel satisfied with the
oil's performance, but wish to control its distribution and ratio closer
than is possible with the stock pump. And it is one less thing that can
fail, even if the odds are small.
A completely failed pump would be the end of the entire engine. By the
time it came to a stop (probably seizing and sizzling), the crank would be
scarred and possibly bent, the bearings and rods would be overheated badly,
the cylinders would have piston smeared into them. You could salvage the
exhaust and the carbs I guess. And you'd never even have an indication on
a liquid-cooled engine until it started to slow down. And if you're lucky
you'd land without bending your airframe.
As side benefits besides eliminating possible pump failure, I saved six
pounds weight, the blunt non-aerodynamic flat front-end of my engine just
got 25% smaller with removal of that oil tank way up top out front, my
cylinder-to-cylinder EGT difference is smaller now, the engine is
noticeably simpler-looking now, and inspection and service on the intake
side is easier.
OK, let me have it.
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: oil injection |
Jim:
I should admit my bias up front in responding to your post on oil
injection. I premixed when I had a Mark 2 with a 503, and when I built the
Mark 3 chose the 582 in part because I wanted oil injection.
I have two observations right off the bat: first, you were using Amsoil,
which as I understand it is recommended at 100:1. If you were running it in
the stock 582 you were getting 50:1. That's twice as much oil as you were
supposed to get. Do I have that right?
Second, is my understanding that Amsoil is not a Rotax approved oil.
(I'm sure I will be corrected if I am wrong about that, but I'm looking at
10.2.3 of the 5/1/99 revision of the opperator's manual and it's not there.)
You didn't mention your total time on the engine. Did you do the
recommended 150 hour teardown?
I'm on the other side of the fence from you on this but I am vitally
interested in the debate, because I am running a 582 as well. I set a lot of
store buy the guys at lockwood. They are Rotax approved and run 582s in
their aircams. When Kerry Yunck told me he had a 582 with 1200 hours on it
with NO problems he got my attention. They run Amoco premium, Pennzoil and
they follow the Rotax recommended maintenance schedule religiously, including
crank replacement at 300 hours.
My approach to running my engine is "monkey see, monkey do." I am doing
exactly what lockwood does. And I am operating my engine rigidly within the
book temperature parameters.
I understand your view that premixing removes a possible mechanical
failure scenario. But don't fool yourself, it introduces another: human
error. I think the esteemed Mr. Pike pointed out a while back that the
ratio-rite cup, which is the almost universal tool for making premix, has a
noticeable error built right into it.
I would welcome your thoughts.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Radio-feedback problem |
In a message dated 00-04-28 9:48:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
paulv(at)digisys.net writes:
<< Please explain the "High Noise Environment Mod". >>
I have used my atc-2 for years in the kolb as an intercom and it worked
great. I recently started using a Yasu vxa-100 and plugged it into the
intercom. I found that the extra added noise from the radio overwhelmed the
squelch. So I called softcom and they told me that for $20.00 they would do
their "hi noise environment" mod. I can't really comment on it yet, but the
stock atc-2 was fine, it was just adding the radio tot he mix that prompted
me to need more squelch.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lawrence and Carey Dorn" <ldorn(at)sinclair.net> |
| Subject: | Re: oil injection |
you can get amsoil in 50:1 or 100:1 blends
----- Original Message -----
From: <Cavuontop(at)aol.com>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: oil injection
>
> Jim:
>
> I should admit my bias up front in responding to your post on oil
> injection. I premixed when I had a Mark 2 with a 503, and when I built
the
> Mark 3 chose the 582 in part because I wanted oil injection.
>
> I have two observations right off the bat: first, you were using
Amsoil,
> which as I understand it is recommended at 100:1. If you were running it
in
> the stock 582 you were getting 50:1. That's twice as much oil as you were
> supposed to get. Do I have that right?
>
> Second, is my understanding that Amsoil is not a Rotax approved oil.
> (I'm sure I will be corrected if I am wrong about that, but I'm looking at
> 10.2.3 of the 5/1/99 revision of the opperator's manual and it's not
there.)
>
> You didn't mention your total time on the engine. Did you do the
> recommended 150 hour teardown?
>
> I'm on the other side of the fence from you on this but I am vitally
> interested in the debate, because I am running a 582 as well. I set a lot
of
> store buy the guys at lockwood. They are Rotax approved and run 582s in
> their aircams. When Kerry Yunck told me he had a 582 with 1200 hours on
it
> with NO problems he got my attention. They run Amoco premium, Pennzoil
and
> they follow the Rotax recommended maintenance schedule religiously,
including
> crank replacement at 300 hours.
>
> My approach to running my engine is "monkey see, monkey do." I am
doing
> exactly what lockwood does. And I am operating my engine rigidly within
the
> book temperature parameters.
>
> I understand your view that premixing removes a possible mechanical
> failure scenario. But don't fool yourself, it introduces another: human
> error. I think the esteemed Mr. Pike pointed out a while back that the
> ratio-rite cup, which is the almost universal tool for making premix, has
a
> noticeable error built right into it.
>
> I would welcome your thoughts.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: oil injection |
In a message dated 4/28/00 1:00:20 PM, gerken(at)us.ibm.com writes:
<< I believe the Rotax stock injection oil pump was putting out
too much oil. >>
<>
Thanks for the interesting post. It would seem to me that you were running
oil that should have been mixed at 100 to 1 in a system that automatically
averaged 50-1. Could that be where the "too much oil" came from?
Bill G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: oil injection |
Nope, twern't Mr.Pike on that one. Never owned a ratio-rite.
(But thank you for the undeserved "esteemed" part)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
> I understand your view that premixing removes a possible mechanical
>failure scenario. But don't fool yourself, it introduces another: human
>error. I think the esteemed Mr. Pike pointed out a while back that the
>ratio-rite cup, which is the almost universal tool for making premix, has a
>noticeable error built right into it.
>
> I would welcome your thoughts.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/27/00 |
Has anyone on the list had an oil injection pump failure on
any rotax engine?
not on a rotax but i did on a yamaha snowmobile. i know
that they are a simple positive displacement pump. but
anything mechanical can go haywire. the question is-- with
all the other moving stuff in the engine what are the
chances the oil pump will be the first to quit? and what
would be the consequences if it did? when the oil pump
quit on the snowmobile i was about 15 to 20 miles in the
back country. and if i had been alone it would have been a
long hike. we was able to drain some oil out of my
friends snowmobile and put in my fuel tank in order to get
back home. luckily the engine was not hurt badly and when
i checked on the price of a replacement pump i was convinced
that premixing was not all that bad. it was just one less
thing to worry about.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WingManBill2(at)aol.com |
Hi folks, there was a guy on here a while back that said he bought the manuel
for the Raven Redrive conversion with the Geo Metro engine and realized that
it was too much weight for the aircraft. Was wondering if that person is
still within ear shot, I might be interested in taking the manuel off his/her
hands for a price! They can email me off list:
wingmanbill2(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WingManBill2(at)aol.com |
Hi folks, there was a guy on here a while back that said he bought the manuel
for the Raven Redrive conversion with the Geo Metro engine and realized that
it was too much weight for the aircraft. Was wondering if that person is
still within ear shot, I might be interested in taking the manuel off his/her
hands for a price! They can email me off list:
wingmanbill2(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WingManBill2(at)aol.com |
Hi folks, there was a guy on here a while back that said he bought the manuel
for the Raven Redrive conversion with the Geo Metro engine and realized that
it was too much weight for the aircraft. Was wondering if that person is
still within ear shot, I might be interested in taking the manuel off his/her
hands for a price! They can email me off list:
wingmanbill2(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WingManBill2(at)aol.com |
Hi folks, there was a guy on here a while back that said he bought the manuel
for the Raven Redrive conversion with the Geo Metro engine and realized that
it was too much weight for the aircraft. Was wondering if that person is
still within ear shot, I might be interested in taking the manuel off his/her
hands for a price! They can email me off list:
wingmanbill2(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "michael highsmith" <firehawk54(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil Injection |
>
>
>Has anyone bought an injected Rotax and decided to convert it to pre-mix? I
>am leaning towards pulling the pump off for the sake of simplicity and am
>wondering if there are any precautions. Thanks.
>Kip Laurie
Hey Kip,
I have I000 hours on a 582 with oil injection. No problems with the system
at all. The problem is forgeting to put oil in the system. It seem to run
better now than it ever has. I vote to leave it on and make sure you always
check the oil level before you fly.
Rings usually stick on the intake side right below the upper ring gap and
above the lower ring gap. I can't see the resoning for tearing down a 2
stroke just because a ring is slightly stuck if it starts fine and performs
fine. I also can't see the rings stuck at 6000 RPM either, although there is
a slight possibility that I could be "Wraung".
I have been running my 582 at or above 5800 ever since John Hauck told me
how he ran the 2 strokes he used in his early days of flying ULs. It sure
has helped to keep the carbon down and the power up. The fuel consumption
has gone up per hour but I get there sooner and the miles per gallon are
about the same if not a little better. It's been over 350 hours since I went
into the top end down to the pistons. I plan on doing a lot of flying this
year (300 hours or more) and hope to see some of you at fly-ins around the
country. I don't plan on doing any tear downs until this flying season is
over, maybe this winter. I am not worried about my 582 or the oil injection
system getting me there and home again. I worry a lot more now about
T-storms and fog and rain and wind and all the other things that can go
wrong on long cross countries.
We had a little of it all going down to Sun-N-Fun this year. That made for a
very interesting flight. And by the way you might get to read about me and
my plane in UL Flying Mag sometime this year if they don't run out of space.
Running your Rotax at below 5800 rpm for extended periods will some times
cause a build up of carbon.
100LL will cause a lot of carbon build up. I have been told for those who
premix with Amsoil that it has a hard time mixing with 100LL in certain
conditions even at 100-1.
Lockwood does have the record of good performance with Pennsoil and the
injection system. If you stay with it and learn to operate it correctly I am
sure you will have many hours of trouble free flying just don't ever forget
to check the oil in the oil tank every time you put fuel in the fuel tank.
Firehawk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Oil Injection |
I have been running 100LL and using the injection pump with Pennzoil for
about 40hrs.The exhaust pipe runs light tan and there is only a light trace
of oil on the prop after 4hrs running.Cruise at 5000/5500 with exhaust temps
1050-1080 cyl temps240-275 burning about 2.5GPH in a FS2.I hope to inspect at
about 70 hrs this fall.Maybe by then I will change my mind about 100LL.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Oil Injection |
In a message dated 4/28/00 11:29:09 PM, firehawk54(at)hotmail.com writes:
<< I have I000 hours on a 582 with oil injection. No problems with the system
at all. >>
sopunds like great performance from the 582. Have you replaced the crankshaft?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Lawyers Make Lousy Engineers |
Gentlemen:
Permit me to stand on the soapbox for a moment.
One of the things I have complained about bitterly over the years has
been Rotax's incomprehensible stupidity in not publishing decent manuals for
their engines. Anyone who hangs around the aviation business knows that lots
of folks wring their hands and moan about how aviation companies get sued too
much. But if your customers have no idea how to operate your product they
are going to get hurt, and what can you expect? As a lawyer involved in the
defense of aviation manufacturers I sometimes shake my head and wonder why it
takes so long for the message to get through.
A simple example of this is aircleaners on Rotax engines. The barrel we
clamp the aircleaner to is smooth and relatively short. Not a lot of area
there to clamp to. As a result, departing aircleaners have been suspected as
a contributing factor in a number of accident with pushers. Finally, after
all these years, Rotax has started putting threads on the outside of the
barrel so the rubber aircleaner gets a better purchase on the carb. Hooray,
I say.
But I still shake my head a little. There was an accident in Ohio with a
582 where the carb/aircleaner attachment was a problem. By the time it is
over Rotax and bombardier will have spent enough money on legal fees to
thread the barrels on all our carbs and send us all new gold plated rubber
carb sockets. I will be the first person to point out that lawyers make
lousy engineers, but sometimes the only way to get a company's attention is
to put your hand in their pocket.
My point is this: I just love it when management gets the message that
tiny, incremental, product improvements can save huge dollars in the end.
Rotax seems to be getting the message guys, and that is good news for us.
Rotax has taken a step which I applaud. They have revised the service
manual and operators manual and put them on the web to download for free.
This is almost too smart for words. See them at http://www.kodiakbs.com/
As you might expect I have been pouring over them. There are some very
subtle and interesting changes. The guys in Austria are sending us messages .
. . we should pay attention.
As a 582 operator I am deeply concerned with the whole cold seizure
scenario. The first thing I did was turn to the operating parameters for the
582. Some very interesting changes. First, they have put a 5 minute
restriction on full power 6800 rpm operation. That's new and interesting.
They say cruising rpm is 6500. And the normal egt range is now from 930 f
(lower I think) to 1150 f, with a max differential of 43 f.
Most interesting to me is that they have significantly narrowed the
allowable water temp green arc for the 582. It was 140 to 180. The current
recommendation is 150 to 175. I think the message from Heinz is that we
should be running our engines hotter.
I think a lot of the bad rap two strokes get comes from folks who are
clueless about how to operate them in airplanes. Some of that can be
attributed to Rotax because they have done a lousy job of making that
information available. Some of it may be a result of the fact that most of
the gauges made for this application are of low quality and therefore produce
unreliable information.
The light experimental aircraft business is maturing, Rotax is trying to
make a better engine (witness the 582/2000) and they guys at Kolb are doing
their darndest to make a better product. We as operators have got to do our
bit too and lift our own level of sophistication. I encourage all Kolbers
with Rotaxes to check out the new manuals.
Mark Sellers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "michael highsmith" <firehawk54(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil Injection |
>
>
>In a message dated 4/28/00 11:29:09 PM, firehawk54(at)hotmail.com writes:
>
><< I have I000 hours on a 582 with oil injection. No problems with the
>system
>at all. >>
>
>sopunds like great performance from the 582. Have you replaced the
>crankshaft?
Yes, at 600 hours. I replaced it because the back connecting rod had worn to
its allowed limit. The front rod was still well within the limits. The seals
were still good and I wasn't having any problems with the mechanical parts
of the engine. I had gotten twice the life out of it I was suppose to and I
felt that that was enough. I will inspect this crank at 1100 or 1200 hours
for wear and don't expect any. I have run Pennsoil ever since 300 hours with
only minor ring sticking, found after I actually pulled the cylinders off
when I replaced the crank. My compression is still over 110 at any time. I
have to say that because if I check it stone cold it is always higher. A
warm or hot engine will give you a little lower reading on compression
sometimes. I've found that if the compression gets below 100 I start
suspecting ring sticking. It is harder to crank and the plugs have to be
change more often, not that the're worn but just because a new plug will
fire better than one that has a little time on it. I don't quite understand
why that is but it happened to my 582 back when I was using Walmart oil.
Hard to crank, lower compression and having to change plugs to get it to
crank sometimes. I'm not trying to plug Pennsoil but it sure has made my
flying a lot less hassle and worry free. All our club members (about 15
flyers) use it and all of us get very good performance. I had been thinking
about another engine but with the way this 582 is performing I might just
see how many hours I can get on it. Heck, I've never even had to do anything
to the starter which is mounted in the E-box. I did check it at 600 hours
but it looked new and the brushes were just beginning to show a little wear.
I've never had to change the exhuast springs either. They just don't seem to
wear at all. But then I do lube them once in a while with silicon and I do
have a safety cable run through them just in case. It has had it's problems
but they were for the most part caused by me. I suppose I could say I have
gotten my $s worth out of this 582, now it is paying me back in dividens,
hour after hour.
Firehawk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "michael highsmith" <firehawk54(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lawyers Make Lousy Engineers |
Mark, You said a mouth full. And I agree. It is like this in almost every
industry. We are the ones that have to force the change but it takes a lot
of energy to change the course of an ocean liner if you want to do it in a
hurry. But all energy that is placed upon it will eventually change its
course.
The squeeky wheel gets the grease.
Firehawk
>Gentlemen: Permit me to stand on the soapbox for a moment.
Finally, after
>all these years, Rotax has started putting threads on the outside of the
>barrel so the rubber aircleaner gets a better purchase on the carb. My
>point is this: I just love it when management gets the message that
>tiny, incremental, product improvements can save huge dollars in the end.
>Rotax seems to be getting the message guys, and that is good news for us.
The guys in Austria are sending us messages .
>. . we should pay attentio
> I think a lot of the bad rap two strokes get comes from folks who are
>clueless about how to operate them in airplanes. Some of that can be
>attributed to Rotax because they have done a lousy job of making that
>information available. Some of it may be a result of the fact that most of
>the gauges made for this application are of low quality and therefore
>produce unreliable information. The light experimental aircraft business is
>maturing, Rotax is trying to
>make a better engine (witness the 582/2000) and they guys at Kolb are doing
>their darndest to make a better product. We as operators have got to do
>our bit too and lift our own level of sophistication. I encourage all
>Kolbers with Rotaxes to check out the new manuals.
>Mark Sellers
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lawyers Make Lousy Engineers |
> Rotax has taken a step which I applaud. They have revised the service
> manual and operators manual and put them on the web to download for free.
> This is almost too smart for words. See them at http://www.kodiakbs.com/
> Mark Sellers
Mark:
I must be dumber than a brick. I cannot find "revised
service and operators manuals" on the Kodiak web site.
Please help!
Thanks,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lawyers Make Lousy Engineers |
> Rotax has taken a step which I applaud. They have revised the service
> manual and operators manual and put them on the web to download for free.
> This is almost too smart for words. See them at http://www.kodiakbs.com/
> Mark Sellers
Thanks Mark:
Rotax has really taken one of their first steps forward,
during the last 15 years I have been using their products.
I haven't had time to go over the new manuals, but will at
earliest opportunity.
If you were around the ultralight world back in the medieval
times, you know how it felt to be a mushroom, when it came
to info from Rotax. Back then they sold you an engine and
that is the last you heard from them .
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RWilliJill(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | fuselage tube alignment |
Fellow Kolbers
I'm building a Firestar II and I got a question. I'm in the process of the
fuselage
boom alignment with the cage and then the h-section installation. I very
accurately
measured the center of the fuselage with the paper strip method several times
to
make sure it was right and am confident it is. If I use the 7/16 in. spacing
between
the cross member at the rear of the cage to the boom tube it puts the center
of the
boom tube almost a 1/4 inch out of center with the two 3/8 inch holes that
are to
be bored in the boom tube for the h section. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the
h section is going to fit so tight in the fuselage that it has to be aligned
down the center of the fuselage tube. If I bore the 3/8 inch holes were they
end up using the
7/16 distance from the cross member, I don't think the h section would be
able to line up with the 3/8 inch holes in the tube unless it was permanently
mashed out of round. The main thing that worry's me is that if I don't use
the 7/16 inch spacing it's
going to change the angle the boom tube makes with the fuselage cage but if I
do, then the h section ain't gonna fit fuselage tube. Has anybody else out
there
ran into this situation?
Ron Williams
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com> |
I see Grainger has an inexpensive sandblaster and I'm thinking of
getting one. There are various occassions where it would come in
handy, but right now I need to clean up my cage for spray epoxying.
The low-end model is a small SpeedAire portable for $45. It looks like
it has a ceramic nozzle, and same as more expensive SpeedAire portables
except for its small bead container, which would be fine for my
purposes. Has anyone had any experience with these good or bad, and
does anyone know what glass-bead type is good for light duty surface
cleaning?
Thanks in adv,
-Ben Ransom
FS KXP in rebuild
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Sometime ago, and more lately, the question has been asked re:
stream-lined strut fairings. Just been cleaning old brochures out and
find this:
Stream-Line strut fairings--Aero-Works, POB 103 Millersburg OH 44654,
ph (330) 674-9715, Fax (330) 674-1559.
Paintable extruded plastic, UV stabilized, fits struts 1'-2'. 5 oz/ft,
comes in 10' lengths. Kit includes 4 ea 10' fairings--$150 + shipping.
Landing gear gits available.
bn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RWilliJill(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: fuselage tube alignment |
Ray,
Mines not quite the same problem. It's in the vertical alignment of the
fuselage
tube. In effect, the plans say with the tube in the steel ring to pick the
tube up in the vertical until it is 7/16 of an inch from the small horizontal
cross member tube
that is about 3 inches above the 3/8 inch holes in the fuselage. When I do
pick
the fuselage tube up to within 7/16 of an inch from the cross member then the
center line of the fuselage tube goes past the center of the pre-drilled 3/8
inch
hole in the fuselage frame by almost a 1/4 inch. If I were to drill it there
i would
never get the h section to line up with the holes. The only problem I see now
if I do drill it in the center of the tube where it looks like it should go
any way
is that the fuselage tube will be slightly closer to the aileron bellcrank
arms by
about 3/16 of an inch. which already looks mighty close. Thanks for your reply
Ray. I'll just have to give it some more thought before I drill.
Ron
>I think you may have the same problem I encountered on my Mark III. If
>you put a 4 or 5 foot rod thru the 3/8 holes in the cage, is it at a
>right angle to the cage? Mine was noticeably off.
I think you may have the same problem I encountered on my Mark III. If
you put a 4 or 5 foot rod thru the 3/8 holes in the cage, is it at a
right angle to the cage? Min
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: sandblasting |
Hi Ben: My experience so far is a little limited, but what I've found is
that glass beads do a great job for general cleanup, and seem to be fairly
"gentle" on the material being cleaned. For tougher work, such as hard
scale, and heavy rust, silica sand works like magic, and leaves more texture
on the part. I think care would be advised on structural components like
fuselage tubes, etc., to make sure the base material isn't eroded too much.
Co-incidentally, when I was involved with this - with an inexpensive
blaster - I happened to pay a visit to my local powder coating outfit for
another problem. I mentioned what I was up to, and he offered me all the
sand I could use or want - free for the shovelling. He says that after a
couple of uses, the sand gets too fine for his needs, and he has to throw it
away. I took home 15 gallons that day. Fine or not, it sure works "fine"
for me. I'll say this too - after using the blaster, sandpaper will only be
used for small jobs that don't rate setting up the blaster, or where getting
the sand near sensitive components would cause a problem, such as engine
intakes, etc. I've also learned to put a large sheet of visqueen under my
work area, with the edges propped up a foot or 2, to catch the worst of the
media. Sure makes clean-up a lot easier. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 2:38 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: sandblasting
>
> I see Grainger has an inexpensive sandblaster and I'm thinking of
> getting one. There are various occassions where it would come in
> handy, but right now I need to clean up my cage for spray epoxying.
> The low-end model is a small SpeedAire portable for $45. It looks like
> it has a ceramic nozzle, and same as more expensive SpeedAire portables
> except for its small bead container, which would be fine for my
> purposes. Has anyone had any experience with these good or bad, and
> does anyone know what glass-bead type is good for light duty surface
> cleaning?
>
> Thanks in adv,
> -Ben Ransom
> FS KXP in rebuild
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
| Subject: | PLEASE READ: Network Problems To Matronics... |
Dear Listers,
My ISP is upgrading their network today 4/30 and tomorrow 5/1. I
noticed that Nameservice (DNS) went down last night around 3am which
causes all sorts of problems. If your message post was rejected between
about 3am 4/30 and 1pm 4/30, please repost as it was rejected do to the
DNS being down. I've redirected my systems to a different DNS server in
the mean time and things seem to be working right now. In any case, be
aware that there may be continuing issues over the next couple of days
both posting email messages and accessing the web server.
My ISP *promises* that things are going to be so much better after the
upgrade! We'll see... ;-)
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
Great minds discuss ideas,
Average minds discuss events,
Small minds discuss people...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lloyd McFarlane <lrmcf(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | FSII Tube Alignment |
> From: RWilliJill(at)aol.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: fuselage tube alignment
>
>
> Fellow Kolbers
>
> I'm building a Firestar II and I got a question. I'm in the process of the
> fuselage
> boom alignment with the cage and then the h-section installation. I very
> accurately
> measured the center of the fuselage with the paper strip method several times
> to
> make sure it was right and am confident it is. If I use the 7/16 in. spacing
> between
>
I have just finished the mechanical assembly of a FireStar II from The New Kolb
and am ready to start the covering. I had the same problem and ended up using
a
9/16" shim to get the 3/8" holes on the tube centerline. Most important to have
these
holes on the centerline to properly configure your "H" section.
Lloyd McFarlane
Fullerton, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary r. voigt" <johndeereantique(at)uswest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: sandblasting |
Ben, I have been sandblasting my antique tractors and stationary gas
engines for about 23 years, and I could talk to about a week on this
subject. anyway remember, sandblasting or bead blasting is a process as
well as silica sand. depending on what type of steel or cast iron ( gray
cast or white cast) you are blasting and how rusty or pitted the metal may
be, you should probably start with a medium or course bead, it comes in
fine, medium and course. the fine grit for example would be used for
polishing the top of a piston head, also remember to match your compressor
cfm to you gun (recovery rate) or you will be blasting 20 seconds and
waiting 4 minutes for you compressor to catch up, it's like cutting a hole
in the tank of the compressor, they take alot of cfm's to operate a
blaster. tank a look at this site and see if it will give some good info
about blasting, if not you can e-mail me and I will try and help you out.
http://old-engine.com/abrasive.shtml
Ben Ransom wrote:
>
> I see Grainger has an inexpensive sandblaster and I'm thinking of
> getting one. There are various occassions where it would come in
> handy, but right now I need to clean up my cage for spray epoxying.
> The low-end model is a small SpeedAire portable for $45. It looks like
> it has a ceramic nozzle, and same as more expensive SpeedAire portables
> except for its small bead container, which would be fine for my
> purposes. Has anyone had any experience with these good or bad, and
> does anyone know what glass-bead type is good for light duty surface
> cleaning?
>
> Thanks in adv,
> -Ben Ransom
> FS KXP in rebuild
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: fuselage tube alignment |
Ron, mine was the same way.I could only suspect that the cross bar was not
welded in the correct location.You HAVE to put the H section in the middle of
the tube.G.Aman FS2 1274
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a MKIII ride |
| From: | Bruce E Harrison <bharrison(at)juno.com> |
Hey Bob:
Have you sold your FSII yet? I have seen it on the internet. Don't you
have the Red Baron German paint scheme? What are you asking for plane?
Are you willing to part out airframe, engine, etc? Do you have a trailer
with it?
writes:
>
>
> Paul
> I'm 10 minutes from Calabases, Ca. ( I know, I can't spell). I have
> a F/S
> II. If your're interested, call me at 818-348-7075
> Bob Doebler
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | oil injex "debate" |
>
>Jim:
>
> I should admit my bias up front in responding to your post on oil
>injection. I premixed when I had a Mark 2 with a 503, and when I built
the
>Mark 3 chose the 582 in part because I wanted oil injection.
>
> I have two observations right off the bat: first, you were using
Amsoil,
>which as I understand it is recommended at 100:1. If you were running it
in
>the stock 582 you were getting 50:1. That's twice as much oil as you were
>supposed to get. Do I have that right?
Nope, I was running Ams Oil Injection oil, designed for injex systems, and
in
fine print says also can be used as 50:1 premix. Amsoil ALSO sells a 50:1
bio-
degradable marine two-stroke oil, and a 100:1 premix oil. I have switched
to 100:1
product now that I am Pre-mixing.
> Second, is my understanding that Amsoil is not a Rotax approved oil.
>(I'm sure I will be corrected if I am wrong about that, but I'm looking at
>10.2.3 of the 5/1/99 revision of the opperator's manual and it's not
there.)
I am not familiar with this, I guess. My manual is original with the
engine from '96.
I remember my manual listing one particular brand of oil which is available
worldwide,
but then also saying any oil run must meet TC-Wx certification. Amsoil
(and most others)
easily exceeds all current and proposed certifications.
Is Pensoil on that list? Are there any synthetics listed? How about
Phillips Injex?
There are probably a dozen other excellent lubricants that people are using
successfully
that are not on Rotax's list.
I understand that one can now access the latest operators' manuals online.
I will
refer to that document.
> You didn't mention your total time on the engine. Did you do the
>recommended 150 hour teardown?
118 hours TT.
> I'm on the other side of the fence from you on this but I am vitally
>interested in the debate, because I am running a 582 as well. I set a lot
of
>store buy the guys at lockwood. They are Rotax approved and run 582s in
>their aircams. When Kerry Yunck told me he had a 582 with 1200 hours on
it
>with NO problems he got my attention. They run Amoco premium, Pennzoil
and
>they follow the Rotax recommended maintenance schedule religiously,
including
>crank replacement at 300 hours.
There really is no debate. It is a decision. Mine was based on my
first-hand evidence
of oil not atomizing well enough to find its way thru the combustion
process. It is
a statement of the oil and the delivery method. I no longer blindly hope
to pump
the oil in with no idea how much is reaching each cylinder, in liquid form
hoping it mixes
well enough to lube everything, having it pass into the process only
partially blended
with the fuel/air mix. I am now blending it finely into the fuel in the
proper ratio
(I can tell you what ratio my front cylinder is receiving, can you do
this?). If my engine is
running, it is receiving the proper lubricant, no question or debate there.
> My approach to running my engine is "monkey see, monkey do." I am
doing
>exactly what lockwood does. And I am operating my engine rigidly within
the
>book temperature parameters.
Congratulations, this is a great start. A wise man once said "Learn from
the mistakes
of others, life is too short to make them all yourself." I offer my story
not to change
your process, but to offer everyone the lesson of my "mistake" for their
consideration.
Take it for what it's worth to you.
> I understand your view that premixing removes a possible mechanical
>failure scenario. But don't fool yourself, it introduces another: human
>error. I think the esteemed Mr. Pike pointed out a while back that the
>ratio-rite cup, which is the almost universal tool for making premix, has
a
>noticeable error built right into it.
Yup, in small quantites especially, the process is prone to error. Today I
use a 33
gallon barrel with pump and filter, to transport my Amoco Silver to the
field. I mix at the
gas station pump.
I dump in two gallons of fuel, then add a quart of Ams 100:1, then slosh,
then 23 more gallons.
Driving the ten miles to the field over the worst road ever made doesn't
hurt the mix either.
Before using any fuel out of the barrel, I put the end of the fuel hose in
the barrel fill
bung-hole and recycle-pump it for a couple minutes. If forgotten
altogether, the absence
of the oil in the mix would be immediately visible in the filter housing as
the wrong color.
Thru all this handling and then the act of pumping it into three seperate
tanks, etc., it is
blended very well. My barrel-pump balked badly for two years on straight
fuel, now it purrs
like a kitty on premix.
FWIW, Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
Was wondering what product apply to covering to protect/enhance the lustre of
this fine finish. Airplane has been in a hangar for a few months and exposed
to much more light than the total darkness provided by its trailer. Looks to
me like the finish has dulled somewhat. Might be my imagination. Anyone use
wax? What kind? Pros & cons?
Thanks,
Bill George
Mk-3 582 "C" Powerfin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ggleiter(at)minn.net |
| Subject: | Re: sandblasting |
Larry Bourne wrote:
>
I have no personal experience with sandblasting. However, I have read
several accounts of major restorations of steel tube aircraft that had
been badly corroded and recall references to use of walnut shells as the
blast media. No idea where one would get such material, so guess this
is not a very useful comment. Sorry.
gil leiter
MAPLEWOOD, MN
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 2:38 PM
> Subject: Kolb-List: sandblasting
>
> >
> > I see Grainger has an inexpensive sandblaster and I'm thinking of
> > getting one. There are various occassions where it would come in
> > handy, but right now I need to clean up my cage for spray epoxying.
> > The low-end model is a small SpeedAire portable for $45. It looks like
> > it has a ceramic nozzle, and same as more expensive SpeedAire portables
> > except for its small bead container, which would be fine for my
> > purposes. Has anyone had any experience with these good or bad, and
> > does anyone know what glass-bead type is good for light duty surface
> > cleaning?
> >
> > Thanks in adv,
> > -Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
| Subject: | fuselage tube alignment |
Ron;
In building my FSII I found that the left and right parts did not have
the same for hole alignment and positioning. I had to fill the hole and
redrill or cut and reweld several of the chromally parts. I would put the H
section in where the plans indicate and fit the boom into the ring, align
the boom to reference strait to the fuselage cage and determine which of the
two hole needs to corrected, fill the one that is off and redrill. Others
may disagree with this process but it worked for me. You may also find that
the boom does not fit into the ring correctly. It may need to be notched as
per the plans or it may need to be trimed at an angle to get the correct
amount of material into the ring for the bolts to have the proper amount of
edge metal.
John N670JW
-----Original Message-----
From: RWilliJill(at)aol.com [mailto:RWilliJill(at)aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 12:32 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: fuselage tube alignment
Fellow Kolbers
I'm building a Firestar II and I got a question. I'm in the process of the
fuselage
boom alignment with the cage and then the h-section installation. I very
accurately
measured the center of the fuselage with the paper strip method several
times
to
make sure it was right and am confident it is. If I use the 7/16 in. spacing
between
the cross member at the rear of the cage to the boom tube it puts the center
of the
boom tube almost a 1/4 inch out of center with the two 3/8 inch holes that
are to
be bored in the boom tube for the h section. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
the
h section is going to fit so tight in the fuselage that it has to be
aligned
down the center of the fuselage tube. If I bore the 3/8 inch holes were they
end up using the
7/16 distance from the cross member, I don't think the h section would be
able to line up with the 3/8 inch holes in the tube unless it was
permanently
mashed out of round. The main thing that worry's me is that if I don't use
the 7/16 inch spacing it's
going to change the angle the boom tube makes with the fuselage cage but if
I
do, then the h section ain't gonna fit fuselage tube. Has anybody else out
there
ran into this situation?
Ron Williams
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sandblasting |
No idea where one would get such material, so guess this
> is not a very useful comment. Sorry.
>
> gil leiter
> MAPLEWOOD, MN
Gil and Gang:
Walnut shells are used to clean turbine engines. We used
them extensively to clean all turbines used in the Army
aircraft. I reckon civilians use them also, but that was 30
yrs ago. Maybe they have something new and spectacular to
use now days.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | aquila33(at)webtv.net (dann mann) |
| Subject: | Re: sandblasting |
Any industrial abrasives dealer will have it. There are corncobs and all
sorts of abrasives. Basically anything you can shoot will remove
something. For fine cleaning baking soda is good.
Mission Abrasives in San Dego has all this stuff. They are on Activity
Rd.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wax the Kolb? |
In a message dated 5/1/00 10:48:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
WGeorge737(at)aol.com writes:
<< Anyone use
wax? What kind? Pros & cons? >>
Bill:
Whatever product you use make sure it has NO SILICONE in it. I hope you
never need to do extensive fabric repairs, but if you do you will regret
using wax with silicone, it is almost impossible to get off and impairs the
adhesion of your patch. There is a company called Mother's that makes a car
wax product which is straight carnuba wax. Comes in a red can and is
distributed by most automotive places.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wax the Kolb? |
Geo.,
I use lemon Pledge--any other flavor is OK
bn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: sandblasting |
Re: Walnut shells. Go out to AZ where all the big forests are and shake
a walnut tree.
bn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: sandblasting |
In a message dated 5/1/00 11:22:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
<< Walnut shells are used to clean turbine engines. We used
them extensively to clean all turbines used in the Army
aircraft. I reckon civilians use them also, but that was 30
yrs ago. Maybe they have something new and spectacular to
use now days. >>
John:
Walnut shells are still used extensively on turbines. This isn't exactly
Kolb but it's a funny story. I have a client which is the largest overhauler
of turbine engines on the East coast. A few months ago a dot.com company was
buying a used Gulfstream. Their prepurchase inspection revealed a black spot
on one of the turbine blades pretty far in. The plane had been to the third
world some and everyone assumed it has sucked in a small bird or something
and that the black mark was a dent of some sort. So the dot.com company
refused to go ahead with the deal until the engine was fixed. Because my
client had overhauled the engine less then 100 hours earlier the owner called
them up and demanded that they fix it under warranty (translation: for free).
So the owner brings the plane to Jersey and my client washes the compressor
with walnut shells and then sends in the borroscope and the black spot is
still there.
Now everyone starts to moan and gnash their teeth. The broker is having
a fit, the owner is unhappy because they think their new engine will have to
be torn down, and the buyer won't go forward unless the spot is gone. So the
owner authorizes my client to open up the engine and take a look. (Think new
mid-sized American car, just for a peek).
So they take off the engine and open it up. I wasn't there, but I was
told that a representative of the buyer, the seller, the broker, and a
representative of the owner's insurance company were all there when they
pulled the housing off and a mechanic stuck his hand in and flicked the black
spot off with his thumbnail.
Then things really got exciting. The owner refused to pay for the
reassembly, test cell and consumables and the reinstallation, (think new
BMW), on the grounds that my client should have known the black spot was
nothing.
In the end it all worked out. But if you think you can spend money fast
on Rotax engines you ought to try turbines.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
San Diego ?? Is that your stomping grounds, Dann ??
----- Original Message -----
| From: | dann mann <aquila33(at)webtv.net> |
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 8:33 PM
>
> Any industrial abrasives dealer will have it. There are corncobs and all
> sorts of abrasives. Basically anything you can shoot will remove
> something. For fine cleaning baking soda is good.
> Mission Abrasives in San Dego has all this stuff. They are on Activity
> Rd.
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aileron/Flap Gap Seals ?? |
Hello list,
I know there was a thread on this a month or two back. I searched the
archive and
wasn't able to find what I was looking for.
The question I have is when is the best time to install the tapes for the
aileron and flap gap seals?
The covering video shows this being done after the Poly-Spray(silver) has
been applied. I guess the poly-brush and poly-spray could be brushed on the
gap seal.....
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks,
John Bickham
St.Francisville, LA
Mark III M3-308 (N308JB reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "INFO" <info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com> |
| Subject: | Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:51:24 -0400 |
" Whatever product you use make sure it has NO SILICONE in it. I hope
you
never need to do extensive fabric repairs, but if you do you will regret
using wax with silicone, it is almost impossible to get off and impairs the
adhesion of your patch. There is a company called Mother's that makes a car
wax product which is straight carnauba wax. Comes in a red can and is
distributed by most automotive places."
We agree strongly with Bill!
Jim just finished a call to the "800" number for S.C Johnson & Co., a
consumer hotline, & they said that all "Pledge" products HAVE silicone in
them!
Use a product that is straight carnauba, & repairs will work fine.
Film at eleven,
Thanx,
Jim & Dondi Miller
Aircraft Technical Support, Inc.
Poly-Fiber & Ceconite Distributors
(Toll Free) (877) 877-3334
Web Site: www.aircrafttechsupport.com
E-mail: info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vendor48(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Kolb components wanted/available |
Hello Group,
I recently purchased the remains of an Ultrastar. The pilot, "damn the
torpedoes...full speed ahead", flew in adverse wind conditions, knowing full
well it was too windy. Well,.. until turbulence ended the flight and flying
status of he and the plane. He is doing just fine now (a tribute to steel
tube cages!). The plane did not fair as well.
Kolb does not support the Ultrastar, but I understand that the wings and tail
group are the same as the Firestar. They want a lot of money for needed
items. I have a right wing (with minor damage) and a good tail group. I
have the choice of trying to locate a repairable Firestar fuse, as I can do
the steel tube fitting and welding, and build/buy a left wing and the other
necessary components. Or I can sell these components to someone needing
repair parts, or "prebuilt" tail group. The other options of scratch
building a fuse, such as the Legal Eagle will require more time than I can
provide right now.
Any words of wisdom? I have enjoyed reading the support info of this site.
I would prefer private responses to Vendor48(at)aol.com. Thanks, Jerry in
Indiana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Watson" <djwatson(at)olg.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:51:24 -0400 |
Hey "Info",
When are you going to get your site back up on line??
Dennis (stuck at work wishing I was flying)
----- Original Message -----
From: "INFO" <info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 9:52 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:51:24 -0400
>
> " Whatever product you use make sure it has NO SILICONE in it. I hope
> you
> never need to do extensive fabric repairs, but if you do you will regret
> using wax with silicone, it is almost impossible to get off and impairs
the
> adhesion of your patch. There is a company called Mother's that makes a
car
> wax product which is straight carnauba wax. Comes in a red can and is
> distributed by most automotive places."
>
>
> We agree strongly with Bill!
>
> Jim just finished a call to the "800" number for S.C Johnson & Co., a
> consumer hotline, & they said that all "Pledge" products HAVE silicone in
> them!
>
> Use a product that is straight carnauba, & repairs will work fine.
>
>
> Film at eleven,
>
> Thanx,
> Jim & Dondi Miller
> Aircraft Technical Support, Inc.
> Poly-Fiber & Ceconite Distributors
> (Toll Free) (877) 877-3334
> Web Site: www.aircrafttechsupport.com
> E-mail: info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Sandblasting |
In a message dated 5/1/00 11:22:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
<< Walnut shells are used to clean turbine engines. We used
them extensively to clean all turbines used in the Army
aircraft. I reckon civilians use them also, but that was 30
yrs ago. Maybe they have something new and spectacular to
use now days. >>
John:
Walnut shells are still used extensively on turbines. This isn't exactly
Kolb but it's a funny story. I have a client which is the largest overhauler
of turbine engines on the East coast. A few months ago a dot.com company was
buying a used Gulfstream. We are talking many millions of dollars here.
Their prepurchase inspection revealed a black spot on one of the turbine
blades pretty far in. The plane had been to the third world some and
everyone assumed it had sucked in a small bird or something and that the
black mark was foreign object damage (FOD). So the dot.com company refused
to go ahead with the deal until the engine was fixed. Because my client had
overhauled the engine less then 100 hours earlier the owner called them up
and demanded that they fix it under warranty (translation: for free). But
FOD is not covered by warranty. So the owner brings the plane to Jersey and
my client washes the compressor with walnut shells and then sends in the
borroscope and the black spot is still there.
Now everyone starts to moan and gnash their teeth. The broker is having
a fit because he's afraid he's going to lose the sale, the owner is unhappy
because they think their new engine will have to be torn down, and the buyer
won't go forward unless the spot is gone. So the owner authorizes my client
to open up the engine and take a look. (Think new mid-sized American car,
just for a peek).
So they take off the engine and open it up. I wasn't there, but I was
told that a representative of the buyer, the seller, the broker, and a
representative of the owner's insurance company were all there when they
pulled the housing off and a mechanic stuck his hand in and flicked the black
spot off with his thumbnail.
Then things really got exciting. The owner refused to pay for the
reassembly, test cell and consumables and the reinstallation, (think new
BMW), on the grounds that my client should have known the black spot was
nothing.
In the end it all worked out. But if you think you can spend money fast
on Rotax engines you ought to try turbines.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duane & Eloise Geater" <dgeater(at)sbtek.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar with 582? |
Are there any firestars flying with 582 engines and if so ,please tell me
the good and the bad.
Duane Geater
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vendor48(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb components wanted/available |
In a message dated 02-May-00 9:36:08 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
Flykolb(at)aol.com writes:
<< I would like to know what other kolbers consider "too windy". Comments
please.
>>
In the case of the Ultrastar that was destroyed, the wind was producing
turbulence over trees at the end of the runway. If you fly close to trees or
other large obstacles, as little as 5 to 7 can cause problems, JR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Swiderski <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar with 582? |
Duane,
I heard a rumor that some guy put a 582 on his Fire Star & when he rotated
on his test flight it went ballistic & he hasn't come down yet. I believe I
read some where that NASA is considering that configuration to nudge the space
station into a higher orbit. Sounds like fun to me, but then I'm told I am just
over top dead center of crazy. ...Richard S do not
archive
Duane & Eloise Geater wrote:
>
> Are there any firestars flying with 582 engines and if so ,please tell me
> the good and the bad.
>
> Duane Geater
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Swiderski <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar with 582? |
Duane,
I hope you took my previous post with a grain of salt... I've been drinking
too much of that cranberry-blackcherry juice. Before it wears off I tell you
what I really think! Before the days of the MKIII, a lot of the "big boys" were
putting 532's on their Twinstars, much to the chagrin of Homer. I haven't heard
of anything catastrophic happening because of that combination, but then there's
a lot of things I haven't seen & heard. Other than reliability, the 532 isn't
that much different than the 582 as far as power & weight goes. As far as I
fallibly understand, the FS-KX, FS-I, FS-II, Twinstar & MK-II all have the same
basic wing constuction. The FS's would almost certainly have a aft cg problem
to overcome & you probably would self destruct it in straight & level full
throttle flight. If you restricted full throttle to take-off & climbout & had
the will power to intelligently manage the throttle thereafter, it is not a
totally crazy thought. I wouldn't recommend it to my son, but if I had a Fire
Star I & a 582 laying around I would pursue the idea of that very tempting
match. The problem with this combination is that it would demand a vigilant
pilot that could not be lured into the "never to exceed" zone which it would
easily be capable of doing. ...Richard & still over top dead center
of crazy
Duane & Eloise Geater wrote:
>
> Are there any firestars flying with 582 engines and if so ,please tell me
> the good and the bad.
>
> Duane Geater
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Stuart" <cstuart(at)searnet.com> |
Got this from other chatlines (homebuilts and UL).
Just a note to say that SA has been turned off making our GPS units
about 10 times more accurate. Garmin says their hand held units will be
accurate to 20 to 30 feet, and the altitude function will actually be
useful
It's finally happened. Now, why exactly is the FAA still spending all that
money on WAAS/LAAS??
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 1, 2000
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT REGARDING
THE UNITED STATES? DECISION TO STOP DEGRADING
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM ACCURACY
Today, I am pleased to announce that the United States will stop the
intentional degradation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) signals
available to the public beginning at midnight tonight. We call this
degradation feature Selective Availability (SA). This will mean that
civilian users of GPS will be able to pinpoint locations up to ten times
more accurately than they do now. GPS is a dual-use, satellite-based
system that provides accurate location and timing data to users worldwide.
My March 1996 Presidential Decision Directive included in the goals for GPS
commercial and scientific applications worldwide; and to encourage private
sector investment in and use of U.S. GPS technologies and services.? To
meet these goals, I committed the U.S. to discontinuing the use of SA by
2006 with an annual assessment of its continued use beginning this year.
The decision to discontinue SA is the latest measure in an on-going effort
to make GPS more responsive to civil and commercial users worldwide. Last
year, Vice President Gore announced our plans to modernize GPS by adding
two new civilian signals to enhance the civil and commercial service. This
initiative is on-track and the budget further advances modernization by
incorporating some of the new features on up to 18 additional satellites
that are already awaiting launch or are in production. We will continue to
provide all of these capabilities to worldwide users free of charge.
My decision to discontinue SA was based upon a recommendation by the
Secretary of Defense in coordination with the Departments of State,
Transportation, Commerce, the Director of Central Intelligence, and other
Executive Branch Departments and Agencies. They realized that worldwide
transportation safety, scientific, and commercial interests could best be
served by discontinuation of SA. Along with our commitment to enhance GPS
for peaceful applications, my administration is committed to preserving
fully the military utility of GPS. The decision to discontinue SA is
coupled with our continuing efforts to upgrade the military utility of our
systems that use GPS, and is supported by threat assessments which conclude
that setting SA to zero at this time would have minimal impact on national
security. Additionally, we have demonstrated the capability to selectively
deny GPS signals on a regional basis when our national security is
threatened. This regional approach to denying navigation services is
consistent with the 1996 plan to discontinue the degradation of civil and
commercial GPS service globally through the SA technique.
Originally developed by the Department of Defense as a military system, GPS
has become a global utility. It benefits users around the world in many
different applications, including air, road, marine, and rail navigation,
telecommunications, emergency response, oil exploration, mining, and many
more. Civilian users will realize a dramatic improvement in GPS accuracy
with the discontinuation of SA. For example, emergency teams responding to
a cry for help can now determine what side of the highway they must respond
to, thereby saving precious minutes. This increase in accuracy will allow
new GPS applications to emerge and continue to enhance the lives of people
around the world.
30-30-30
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Monte Evans <Monte84(at)mindspring.com> |
Hello all,
Got one question about covering the fuselage. Is it necessary to
cover the area behind the seats. I believe I have seen a few pictures
of Mark3's without it covered. I would prefer to leave it opened if it
wouldn't cause any problems. Thanks.
Monte
N65ME
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
>
>Got this from other chatlines (homebuilts and UL).
>
>Just a note to say that SA has been turned off making our GPS units
>about 10 times more accurate. Garmin says their hand held units will be
>accurate to 20 to 30 feet, and the altitude function will actually be
>useful
>
>It's finally happened. Now, why exactly is the FAA still spending all that
>money on WAAS/LAAS??
>
<http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,36021,00.html>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | It's Tuesday Night! Story Time |
Tuesdays Story Hour
Since this is a bit long, Im making it a two-part story, with the
second part Friday night. If you gentle readers dont like a truncated
story, please tell me--and I wont do anymore cutting. May have to have
a long one once in a while. Ok, settle down, and listen:
Eyes Toward the Skies
The bleak Nebraska plain had few interruptions to the monotonous sight
of prairie meeting endless sky. A lonely cottonwood tree breached the
near horizon, keeping company with the barn and other outbuildings.
Otherwise nothing. Robbie's father said he could see fifteen miles
sitting in the saddle, ten more of the same standing in the stirrups.
An occasional chicken hawk circled overhead, some carrion-eater watched
for the leavings of a coyote, nothing else but the ranks of towering
cumulus clouds inhabited the vast dome smothering Robbies provincial
world.
Not until the day the air mail planes started their erratic crossings of
his private sky did he ever spend any time looking up. There was no
reason to look up, except to gauge the time of day from the sun, or to
judge the weather. Now a new object of interest made its way across the
blue dome, passing beneath the clouds, outlining the plane's image
against the brilliant white, much like the moving pictures shown against
the near-by town's white feed mill wall on Saturday nights.
The mail flights became more regular, but even then there were times in
bad weather when the plane was so low the pilot could be seen peering
from the cockpit to find his way in the torrential rains, locally called
frog-stranglers. With thousands of acres of board-flat land, it wasn't
uncommon for mail planes to make precautionary landings - off times
reported in the local weekly as a "forced landing." One early pilot,
after an abrupt descent into a barnyard, telegraphed his home field:
FORCED LANDING. KILLED COW. SCARED ME.
As the airmail route seemed to pass over the ranch, the
189
young boy was soon able to mark the schedule, and sometimes waved a bed
sheet at the passing plane. Usually the plane was too high to see him,
or more probably the pilot was not looking straight down. One day there
had been ominous weather conditions all morning, lines of marching
cumulus, with gray-green bottoms, and a heavy stillness shutting out the
usual prairie winds that seemed never to cease.
Rob kept watch after lunch, looking up from hoeing sweet corn in the
truck patch, listening for the now-familiar engine in the afternoon sky.
The clouds were quite low, lightning was forking down in the west,
accompanied by a distant gray haze that he knew was literally sheets of
water. How would the mail plane get through this deluge? He had no idea
how pilots guided their machines, even through clear skies, much less in
what was now becoming a black wall.
Unexpectedly the mail plane swooped low over the cottonwood, turned, and
headed for the farm house at what appeared to be windmill-height. The
boy could clearly see the aviator, with his goggles, brown leather cap
and ear flaps fastened under his chin. The pilot made another turn over
the windmills vane, then headed out towards the west. Rob was greatly
excited, thinking the pilot had "cut some didos" just for him, and
chagrined he had been too awed to wave.
His disappointment turned to joy, then concern, and finally terror when
the plane's engine turned from the familiar roar to a sputtering cough,
then silence. The plane, very low, seemed to hang in the increasingly
strong wind. Finally it dropped with a gentle bounce to the almost
endless sod. The boy raced across the farm yard, scaling the "bob-wire"
strands and hoping the plane would stay there long enough for him to
approach it. The
190
slightly curved wooden blades at rest; popping sounds came from the hot
engine as it cooled. The De Havilland DH-4, with its mighty Liberty
engine loomed above Rob, larger now that it was finally in his pasture.
The pilot levered himself out of the rear cockpit, shucked off his cap
and goggles, and swung over the side, dropping to the dry sod. Rob
panted up, completely out of breath, unable to say a word in the
presence of this airborne hero. "D'you think it's gonna rain, son." Rob
found his tongue at last and replied in his flat Nebraska accent: "When
the sky looks all green in the west, we're gunna have a real bad
thunderstorm."
To be Concluded on 5/6/00
From Flying Tales of The Grey Baron, ch 5, pp189&190
This was a winner in The Shenandoah Writers Guild contest, stories for
young people.
bn aka The Grey Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "plane" <plane(at)atomic.net> |
| Subject: | Re: sandblasting |
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 5:38 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: sandblasting
>
> I see Grainger has an inexpensive sandblaster and I'm thinking of
> getting one. There are various occassions where it would come in
> handy, but right now I need to clean up my cage for spray epoxying.
> The low-end model is a small SpeedAire portable for $45. It looks like
> it has a ceramic nozzle, and same as more expensive SpeedAire portables
> except for its small bead container, which would be fine for my
> purposes. Has anyone had any experience with these good or bad, and
> does anyone know what glass-bead type is good for light duty surface
> cleaning?
>
> Thanks in adv,
> -Ben Ransom
> FS KXP in rebuild
>
Hi Ben
Here my few cents worth, I do sandblasting as a profession I use
a deisel poward air compressor that puts out 250 cfm at 70 lbs of tip
pressure. I can use up to 1500 lbs of sand in a hour. I do a fair amount of
aircraft parts. a J - 3 fuselodge costs about 250.00 to sand blast. or at
lest that is what I charge. smaller ones would be cheaper. the average small
garage air compressor has a hard time keeping up with even a very small
sand pot. some of the larger garage compessors can put out up to 175 lbs
this much presure can do more damage then good. it will warp light sheet
metal and make it look like it came out of a hot fire,. pecan shells work
very good for cleaning up small parts and aluminum sheet metal. you can
clean up motors and not worry about sand getting in were it is not suposed
to be. pecan shells will not etch the metal. A small pot should be a
pressure type not a syphone. do not use play sand to try to blast with.It
is not graded for sandblasting you can not adjust the sand flow. It also
clogs up the nozzle the best place to buy a real good hobby type
sandblaster is from tip tools and equiptment 1 800 321 9260 they have a very
good catologe that every body should have. They have welding and spray paint
equipment to.
wow looks like I said 5.00 worth, hope this helps
>
Randy soob poward ultrastar in NC
> _============================================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: It's Tuesday Night! Story Time |
Good stuff Bob. I see why it's a winner. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 4:42 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: It's Tuesday Night! Story Time
>
> Tuesdays Story Hour
>
> Since this is a bit long, Im making it a two-part story, with the
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a MKIII ride |
| From: | Robert L Doebler <robertdoebler(at)juno.com> |
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruce E Harrison <bharrison(at)juno.com>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 19:14:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Looking for a MKIII ride
Hey Bob:
Have you sold your FSII yet? I have seen it on the internet. Don't you
have the Red Baron German paint scheme? What are you asking for plane?
Are you willing to part out airframe, engine, etc? Do you have a trailer
with it?
I"M NOT SELLING MY PLANE< PAUL JUST WANTED TO LOOK AT IT! But thanks for
the interest....Bob Doebler
> Paul
> I'm 10 minutes from Calabases, Ca. ( I know, I can't spell). I have
> a F/S
> II. If your're interested, call me at 818-348-7075
> Bob Doebler
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory W. Moravan" <moravan(at)seanet.com> |
| Subject: | Anyone Install Kolb's Dual Sticks (Dual Controls)? |
Hi Kolbers,
A friend of mine with a Mark III purchased Kolb's dual stick kit; but it
came with no installation instructions/drawings.
My friend is not on the internet, so he asked me to post this question for
him.
Anybody out there have Kolb's instructions/drawings that they can send me,
so I can forward them on to him?
If Kolb doesn't supply any instructions/drawings, is anybody out there
willing to give me your name/phone # so that he can call you with some
questions he has?
If you don't want your personal info posted to the archives, then jut send
me a personal e-mail at moravan(at)seanet.com.
Anyway, thanks for all of your help.
Best regards,
Greg Moravan
425 450-9745
FAX 425 450-0195
Issaquah, WA
N82GM Mark III/912
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | monte84(at)mindspring.com |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone Install Kolb's Dual Sticks (Dual Controls)? |
To Greg asking about the Dual Controls,
I have a print of the dual controls that they sold about two years ago. They have
changed to a different type now I think. Do you know how long ago he bought
them? I would be happy to scan the print I have and e-mail it to you. Just
let me know.
Monte
N65ME
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Herren" <wmdherren(at)hotmail.com> |
>From: "Clay Stuart" <cstuart(at)searnet.com>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Kolb-List: SA on GPS
>Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 17:15:14 -0400
>
>
>Got this from other chatlines (homebuilts and UL).
>
>Just a note to say that SA has been turned off making our GPS units
>about 10 times more accurate. Garmin says their hand held units will be
>accurate to 20 to 30 feet, and the altitude function will actually be
>useful
>
>It's finally happened. Now, why exactly is the FAA still spending all that
>money on WAAS/LAAS??
>
> THE WHITE HOUSE
>
> Office of the Press Secretary
>
> _______________________________________________________
>For Immediate Release May 1, 2000
>
>
> STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT REGARDING
> THE UNITED STATES? DECISION TO STOP DEGRADING
> GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM ACCURACY
>
>
>Today, I am pleased to announce that the United States will stop the
>intentional degradation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) signals
>availab. Civilian users will realize a dramatic improvement in GPS
>accuracy
>with the discontinuation of SA. For example, emergency teams responding to
>a cry for help can now determine what side of the highway they must respond
>to, thereby saving precious minutes. This increase in accuracy will allow
>new GPS applications to emerge and continue to enhance the lives of people
>around the world.
>
>
> 30-30-30
>I wonder if the fact that there is a complete usable alternative system in
>place (Russian - different frequencies) has anything to do with
>discontinuing SA. Bill in Lousyana
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
Someone posted;
>
>I would like to know what oter kolbers consider "too windy". Comments
please.
This really depends on the model you are flying, its ramp weight, and your
skill level. I can
speak for my situation. Mine is the MKiii, it takes off at about 790
pounds with me, gear and fuel. I have flown when winds aloft were 28-35
mph, but at ground level were 15-18. This would be frustrating if you were
trying to go somewhere, but it was an interesting experience since I was
only goofing around the patch. I could register very low (0-5mph) speeds
on the GPS if carefull (at 3000 feet for safety!). Ground handling is
tricky above 15-18 mph, I have made cross-wind landings now with 90 degree
15 mph winds and that is close to all the rudder is good for. If the wind
is constant it adds more interest to the flight. If it is gusty, it makes
the flight much less fun, and those are the days you may bend landing
gear..
I will answer your question by saying that FOR ME "too windy would be winds
straight down the runway greater than 20 mph, 90 degree crosswinds greater
than 15, or very gusty conditions". If I was using oil injection, I would
have to subtract 5 mph from each of those values (just kidding!).
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Miller" <jim(at)aircrafttechsupport.com> |
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wax the Kolb?
Now hold on just a second here. Isn't wax a surface coating ?? Seems like
penetration would be very limited. When doing a repair, aren't you
supposed to strip the coatings down to fabric to get the best bonding, then
re-coat ?? So, with that reasoning, when you strip the paint, the silicone
would be gone first, along with the paint under it. I haven't done this
myself, just seems reasonable. So, now that my neck's a way out there -
again - how 'bout some of you pro's agreeing, or shooting me down ??
Big Lar.
The problem is when you are finishing the patch, & spraying on the finish
coat. Feathering it on to the adjacent areas is very difficult if the area
has silicone on it...........Fisheye time!!!!!!!!!
Also, when you are removing the finish to make the repair, the silicone gets
into the fabric.
It's REALLY difficult to remove, and you don't know if you got it all until
stuff won't stick, then it's a mess!
Jim & Dondi Miller
Aircraft Technical Support, Inc.
Poly-Fiber & Ceconite Distributors
(Toll Free) (877) 877-3334
Web Site: www.aircrafttechsupport.com
E-mail: info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | aquila33(at)webtv.net (dann mann) |
As far as I know there is no actual solvent for silicone. And it seems
to migrate. Once on a surface it kinda gets everywhere. Glad to know
this about waxes and siicone. OI geuss this applies to vinyl
preservatives like Arrmor All. Since PolyFibre coatings are really just
vinyl suspended in solvents wouldn't Armor All be a good protectant?
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JJohn22222(at)aol.com |
Hello list.
I'm a new guy to the list. Private Pilot SEL rated but haven't been PIC for
8 years. Looking to get back into flying, considering ultralights and really
like the Kolb design. Painted lots of cars and some airplanes 20 years ago,
and did a bit of A&P work back then too. I live in Concord, California.
Fabric repair and painting with silicon on the surface is a dog. Most
important is to clean the surface thoroughly before starting any repair.
Clean well beyond the "feather range". Ditzler made (makes?) a good wax and
grease remover, DX-440, for this purpose. Make sure to wipe it on wet and
wipe it off while still wet with a dry cloth, repeat this process several
times and the silicon problem will be reduced or eliminated.
Best,
Jeff Johnson
aka jj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Update on N101AB (Miss P'fer) |
Morning Gang:
My hands and fingers are so stiff and sore it is difficult
to type this morning. That's what happens when we age,
spend several days trying to get the fuel system and lines
in the right positions and configurations. Its a bear
pushing neoprene lines on AN fittings, then pulling them off
and trying something again, and again, and again. Heck, I
thought I had it right the first time in 1992. :-) Finally
got it together the way I wanted it (the fuel system) about
2000 last night. I have a loop of fuel line from the tank
outlet (lowest point of 25 gal fuel tank) down under the
tailboom and up to the Facet fuel pump. At the bottom of
the loop is a "T" fitting, drain line runs forward to the
lowest point of the fuselage where there is a drain valve.
A very inexpensive "gascolator" that gets the job done.
Lengthened the fuel site gauge to indicate when the engine
is going to stop because of fuel starvation. Old sytem was
good to about 4 gal remaining, but that was with the fuel at
the bottom of the site gauge. The last 4 gal was run on the
clock and guessing. Very uncomfortable feeling. New site
gauge is accurate down to .5 gal remaing when fuel is at the
bottom of the site gauge. Right now, before I get to
actually fly and test the new 912S, looks like about 6
minutes flight time left when gauge indicates empty. No 20
minute warning light here, Gang. Miss P'fer better be on
the ground before fuel hits the bottom of the gauge.
Still got to rewire intercom, radio (damage the squirrel
did, and something I have been putting off until the last
because I do not want to do it); install throttle and
enricher cables; fill with oil and prime oil pump; fill
cooling system; check out everything real good, then hit the
start button for the first time (maybe today, I hope).
Woops! Forgot to put the 72" Warp Drive on. Better do that
before I hit the start button.
After we get the engine running we will finish up the BRS
installation in the center section. Took several weeks to
figure out how to install the new parachute. A little more
difficult than my old 2d Chantz. Coming up with the best
workable solution for installing equipment is time
intensive.
As soon as we get everything "tidy" (wash 4 months of dust
and crud off the MK III) we will be ready to test fly.
One other thing and I will shut up, "the wind." Don't know
that there are any hard numbers for max wind or crosswind
component capability. My rule of thumb is, "I don't fly if
it is not comfortable." When it ceases to be fun, time to
land. All Homer Kolb's airplanes have the ability to fly in
a lot a wind. I do not know how much. We demonstrate their
capability, pretty much, at Lakeland and Oshkosh almost
every year. We feel this is a "feather in our cap" because
usually when things get real rough, only the Kolbs will
still be in the air.
On most of my long XC flights I encounter extreme winds,
winds I do not want to be up in. Sometimes I have to fly
these winds to make it to the next place to land. Several
times during 1994 flight the wind overpowered the rudder. I
mean I could not overcome the "weather vane" effect of the
wind. Usually, if the wind is blowing that hard, the Kolb
will land into the wind in a couple feet, which means at a
"real" airport you can land across the runway instead of
down it. I was ready to land at Grenada, California, but
the wind, out of the west, was overpowering the rudder. The
single runway was 36/18. I decided to fly a little further
to Montague. They had a crosswind strip. No problem. Next
leg was to Ashland, Oregon, up I-5, thru the pass. Wind
beat me up and scared Hell outta me. Landed at Ashland with
the wind on my nose. Did not roll out more than a plane
length. Very cautiously taxied to tie-down.
I think the important thing to remember when "caught in high
wind" is to stay "cool", keep the nose of the aircraft into
the wind, let the airplane fly, keep a good margin of
airspeed over stall, do not try to overcome or fight the
wind, take your time and find a safe place to put it on the
ground. A bush pilot in Alaska told me not to worry about
terrific downdrafts, I would not be blown into the ground.
The wind has to go somewhere and it is not into the ground.
I believe him.
This is how I do it. I am not telling you to fly like I do,
but it does work for me.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "martin P" <tonibec(at)hotmail.com> |
Further to the Intercom issue,I use a Flightcom 11 sx. With an Icom IC-A21
radio The Intercom works very well, but I have had to have the radio fixed
twice At a cost of $200.00 each time.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Scott <steve_scott(at)mcg.mot.com> |
Arizona is a flying heaven, with over 306 days per yr of VFR
weather. In the Phoenix area, October through April is great,
with temps in the 40-50 range every morn, and 70-80 range every
afternoon. Summers get rather hot and can be very turbulent in
the afternoons so most of us don't fly ultralights much in June,
July, and August.
I've explored all over southern arizona and have landed all sorts
of places in the desert, on the indian reservations, on dry lake
beds, and of course on the zillions of dirt runways and old
airstrips all over the place. It's the safest place to fly in the
US IMHO, engine out, no problem.
Now, Northern parts of AZ are more scenic but loaded with canyons
and mountains. Much prettier, but treacherous. I'd like to fly
the Moggolon rim, Monument Valley, Meteor Crater, and Marble
Canyon. Now, the Grand Canyon would be fun to fly too, but very
illegal, and you would annoy a lot of people who would be sure to
turn their photos of your plane over to the Feds.
Let me know if you want info on flyin Arizona.
--
Steve Scott
Motorola Computer Group
Tempe, AZ
602-438-3540
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar with 582? |
but if I had a Fire
>Star I & a 582 laying around I would pursue the idea of that very tempting
>match. The problem with this combination is that it would demand a vigilant
>pilot that could not be lured into the "never to exceed" zone which it would
>easily be capable of doing.
I agree with richard on this one. The firestar performs so good on a 477
why go to the extra expense of a 582 even if you are rich and have money to
burn. If you have one kicking around I would be tempted to go for it. On my
MK111 I may be installing a Hirth f30 (110) hp just because I have one
kicking around. I can see Dennis turning pale right now.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BERNDSENCO(at)aol.com |
Is it just me or is anyone else having trouble getting through to TNK on the
phone? I've been trying repeatedly for 3 days and just get a busy signal!
I'm calling 606 862-9692. I want to place an order with them but I'm ready
to go elsewhere. I'm frustrated!
Jon Berndsen
SlingShot, 582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randy Settle <rsettle(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Aileron alignment |
Just a short up date on my progress of repair and set up on my Firestar.
Stits repair almost done and poly brushed. Brake install next.
I am having a bit of trouble with the aileron alignment. Not having the
builders manual, I am requesting some help here.
Any help would be appreciated.
I looked in the archives till I was blue.....
Thanks
rsettle(at)flash.net
--
Randy & Val Settle
Original Firestar I
The Lazair News Letter
http://www.flash.net/~rsettle/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ggleiter(at)minn.net |
Jim Miller wrote:
>
>
> From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wax the Kolb?
>
>
> Now hold on just a second here. Isn't wax a surface coating ?? Seems like
> penetration would be very limited. When doing a repair, aren't you
> supposed to strip the coatings down to fabric to get the best bonding, then
> re-coat ?? So, with that reasoning, when you strip the paint, the silicone
> would be gone first, along with the paint under it. I haven't done this
> myself, just seems reasonable. So, now that my neck's a way out there -
> again - how 'bout some of you pro's agreeing, or shooting me down ??
> Big Lar.
>
> The problem is when you are finishing the patch, & spraying on the finish
> coat. Feathering it on to the adjacent areas is very difficult if the area
> has silicone on it...........Fisheye time!!!!!!!!!
>
> Also, when you are removing the finish to make the repair, the silicone gets
> into the fabric.
> It's REALLY difficult to remove, and you don't know if you got it all until
> stuff won't stick, then it's a mess!
> Jim & Dondi Miller
I can assure you that silicone is VERY difficult to remove anything like
COMPLETELY. Also, it takes VERY little to produce Fisheyes. Anyone who
has ever encountered fisheyes knows what a struggle you have ahead of
you if this happens. The surface energy altering properties of
silicones is exactly what makes them very useful in some areas and very
deadly in other areas. It is for this reason that PolyFiber warns
against using "used and recycled" shop towels, as they may have been
contaminated in the past. The shop towel "recycling" and cleaning
process will NOT get the silicones out.
gil leiter
MAPLEWOOD, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry & Karen Cottrel" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
Now how in the world are you going to manage to reply to all that send you
your address. I would love to have one, send me the cost and I will
reimburse you.
Larry Cottrell
10440 Simpson Canyon Rd
Klamath Falls, Or. 97601
----------
> From: Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 10:35 PM
>
>
> >
> >You surely can't be serious. Isn't putting rockets on a civilian
> >airplane kinda foolish anyway? What were you shooting at? This has gotta
> >be a joke.
> >Dan
>
> Not hardly-want to see a viedo tap-send me your snail mail address.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Battery - Voltage Regulator |
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Jones, Bryan D."
<bryan.jones@lyondell-citgo.com>
>
>Isn't the Odyssey a dry cell type battery? If so, what type voltage
>regulator does it require? Same as for lead-acid battery?
The Odyssey is not a dry cell, it has liquid water and
sulphuric acid in it. It's also a lead-acid battery.
It requires no special attention in terms of voltage
regulation.
see http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/rg_bat.html
The majority of my builders are using a 17 a.h. recombinant gas
batteries which which can be found on hte following links.
These batteries can be purchased from a variety of battery
specialty shops. We have some little convenience store sized
Battery Patrols around Wichita that handle these batteries
for $60-70 each.
Powersonic: PS-12180
http://www.power-sonic.com/12180.html
Hawker: Check out the first 6 batteries on this page . . .
http://www.hepi.com/products/genesis/genprod.htm
Panasonic: particularly the LCRD1271P
http://www.panasonic.com/industrial_oem/battery/battery_oem/images/pdf/lc-rd
1217p.pdf
http://www.panasonic.com/industrial_oem/battery/battery_oem/chem/seal/seal.htm
Yuasa-Exide: Check out the NP18-12B at this site . . .
http://www.yuasa-exide.com/np-prod.html
Handle these like any other lead-acid battery. Bus volts no
less than 13.8 - 14.2 is about ideal - no more than 14.6
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( still understand knothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Watson" <djwatson(at)olg.com> |
| Subject: | Key West Regulator |
Hi Kolbers,
Installed a Key West regulator on the Firestar last night, fired it up and
put the meter on the output, I'm getting a solid 15 volts at all RPM's---
That is with no load other than the hobbs meter--- This can't be correct.
Any words of wisdom from the list would be welcome.
Thanks in advance,
Dennis
PS. Can't find a web site for them.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key West Regulator |
<< nstalled a Key West regulator on the Firestar last night, fired it up and
put the meter on the output, I'm getting a solid 15 volts at all RPM's---
That is with no load other than the hobbs meter--- This can't be correct.
Any words of wisdom from the list would be welcome.
Thanks in advance,
Dennis >>
Isn't the constant voltage output regardless of load the purpose of having a
voltage regulator in the first place...or do you think it is too high?
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Key West Regulator |
>
>Hi Kolbers,
>
>Installed a Key West regulator on the Firestar last night, fired it up and
>put the meter on the output, I'm getting a solid 15 volts at all RPM's---
>That is with no load other than the hobbs meter--- This can't be correct.
>Any words of wisdom from the list would be welcome.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Dennis
It is higher than we normally call "good" . . . however please
consider this: Last September, the flooded battery in my GMC
mini-van died. I was just about ready to run down to Sam's
for a new battery when I spotted an almost new, Hawker
Genesis battery on the shop floor. I purchased this battery
to power some test equipment in some Beechjet flight tests
last year. The tests were done, the battery was sitting there . . .
I installed it in the van, cranked the engine up and put a
voltmeter on the battery . . . WHoops!!! 15.1 volts. Hmmmmm . . .
the old battery ran over three years. Did the voltage come
up recently and kill the battery? Or has it always been
15 volts and the old battery went three years anyhow. No
way to answer that question except to leave it alone and
see what happens.
As of this writing, the battery has been in place for 6+ months
and it still cranks the engine fine. I'll do a capacity check
on it pretty soon and see how it's holding up with what
we've traditionally called abusive maintenance . . . will
let everyone know how this experiment progresses . . .
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( still understand knothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Watson" <djwatson(at)olg.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Key West Regulator |
Thanks Everyone,
Yes, I was concerned about the high voltage! And, I was impressed with
the nice constant output, I guess I should have been more specific in my
original post.
I was thinking about using the regulator to power my new Icom A-22,
however, the Icom book says the max voltage should be no more than 15 volts
and I would hate to be running at the max allowable voltage if you know what
I mean. The book also stated at 18 volts an over-voltage screen would appear
and you should disconnect the radio from the power source when this
happens. ----Like I'm really going to notice a warning on the screen if the
regulator decides to put out another couple of extra volts.
Dennis
>
> >
> >Hi Kolbers,
> >
> >Installed a Key West regulator on the Firestar last night, fired it up
and
> >put the meter on the output, I'm getting a solid 15 volts at all RPM's---
> >That is with no load other than the hobbs meter--- This can't be correct.
> >Any words of wisdom from the list would be welcome.
> >
> >Thanks in advance,
> >Dennis
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Geezer810(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | MKIII Single Person Trim for Level Flight |
Hey you MKIII drivers,
How do you get your bird to fly level without using your leg to push the
stick to the right? Most of my time is spent flying alone and it is kind of
a nuisance to not be able to fly hands-off.
Any ideas would be appreciated.
The Old Geezer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Single Person Trim for Level Flight |
In a message dated 00-05-04 4:29:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Geezer810(at)aol.com writes:
<< Most of my time is spent flying alone and it is kind of
a nuisance to not be able to fly hands-off. >>
I only fly from the left seat, but I have heard a number of guys say that
sitting on the right side helps quite a bit.
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III
N496BM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Single Person Trim for Level Flight |
I use a bungee cord to hold pressure on the stick to offset the lack of
weight. Works for me.
Merle
Twinstar in Orlando
now building Firefly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Monte Evans <Monte84(at)mindspring.com> |
I sent this message a few days ago but not sure if got through so here
it is again. Thanks for any help.
Hello all,
Got one question about covering the fuselage. Is it necessary to
cover the area behind the seats. I believe I have seen a few pictures
of Mark3's without it covered. I would prefer to leave it opened if it
wouldn't cause any problems. Thanks.
Monte
N65ME
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Love letter virus---No it's NOT The Love thing, just a warning |
from old bn
List people: Re the love letter virus--
Got this from my old company, and they don't fool with scams.
More detail unedited from Symantec:
Symantec Platinum Support Bulletin
>
**********************************************************************
> There is a mass breakout of a new worm, which the Symantec AntiVirus
> Research Center is currently calling VBS.LoveLetter.A.
>
> It was discovered a few hours ago in Europe, and has already hit
> several large European Corporations. It is likely to hit the US
quickly.
>
> Symantec European tech support has already received many calls
> from corporations ht by this new virus and SARC believes
> it could be as bad as the Melissa virus that hit last year.
>
> Although SARC does not yet have a cure for this worm, we hope by
> providing this preliminary information, it will help admins make
> email configurations which can filter for the subject line and
attachment name.
> SARC is currently working on a new virus definition for this.
>
> This is preliminary information. It is subject to change as we
> learn more about this virus.
>
> For current information, please check the SARC web site:
>
> http://www.symantec.com/avcenter
>
> ***
>
> VBS.LoveLetter.A is an email worm, mIRC worm, and file infector.
> Threat Assessment: High
> Payload:
> Large scale e-mailing: All the addresses in
> Microsoft Outlook address book
> Degrades performance: May clog mail servers
>
> Distribution: email
>
> Subject of e-mail: ILOVEYOU
> Name of attachment: LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs
> Size of attachment: 10307
>
> SARC recommends Administrators filter on the attachment name
> And Subject line immediately.
>
> Technical description:
>
> This is a preliminary writeup. The information contained within
is
> to provide as much information as possible at this time, and is
> VBS.LoveLetter.A is an email worm, mIRC worm, and a file
> infector.
>
> VBS.LoveLetter.A will use Microsoft Outlook and email
> itself out as an attachment with the above subject line and
> attachment name. The body of the message will be
> kindly check the attached LOVELETTER coming from me.
>
> The virus will also infect files with the following extensions:
vbs,
> vbe, js, jse, css, wsh, sct, hta, jpg, jpeg, mp3, and mp2
>
> The virus will drop the following files:
>
> MSKernel32.vbs in the Windows System directory
> Win32DLL.vbs in the Windows directory
> LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU. TXT.vbs in the Windows System
> WinFAT32.EXE in the Internet download directory
> script.ini in the mIRC directory
> SARC recommends Administrators filter on the attachment name
> And Subject line immediately.
>
> Removal: Delete found infected files.
>
Fortunately I have one of those computers who usually shrugs off these
things, but since I know that none of you out there would even send me a
Like letter, I'm safe.
bn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron alignment |
Randy,
All I have is the FireFly builders' book and set of drawings. If this
will help, I'll send asap to ur FailMail address, whatever it is since I
forgot!
bn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Rains" <rr(at)htg.net> |
Just a thought from El Paso. I fly a FS II in the high desert of El Paso.
We have both thermals from hell, and high winds. I have no problem
flying/landing in cross winds up to about 15 knots, and fly regularly in
winds 10 knots faster if somewhat up and down the runway. I guess it's what
your used to. I would like to here what other Firestar drivers are
experiencing.
Dave Rains
USUA 16-UDR
-----Original Message-----
From: gerken(at)us.ibm.com <gerken(at)us.ibm.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 7:07 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: too windy
>
>Someone posted;
>>
>>I would like to know what oter kolbers consider "too windy". Comments
>please.
>
>This really depends on the model you are flying, its ramp weight, and your
>skill level. I can
>speak for my situation. Mine is the MKiii, it takes off at about 790
>pounds with me, gear and fuel. I have flown when winds aloft were 28-35
>mph, but at ground level were 15-18. This would be frustrating if you were
>trying to go somewhere, but it was an interesting experience since I was
>only goofing around the patch. I could register very low (0-5mph) speeds
>on the GPS if carefull (at 3000 feet for safety!). Ground handling is
>tricky above 15-18 mph, I have made cross-wind landings now with 90 degree
>15 mph winds and that is close to all the rudder is good for. If the wind
>is constant it adds more interest to the flight. If it is gusty, it makes
>the flight much less fun, and those are the days you may bend landing
>gear..
>I will answer your question by saying that FOR ME "too windy would be winds
>straight down the runway greater than 20 mph, 90 degree crosswinds greater
>than 15, or very gusty conditions". If I was using oil injection, I would
>have to subtract 5 mph from each of those values (just kidding!).
>
>Jim G
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Top end de-carbon report |
Following Stratman's analytical engine tear down procedure I found that, with
the cylinders removed, 3 of the studs were only finger tight and showed no
evidence of Loctite as recommended by Rotax. This could explain the oily
seepage found on the back of the engine at the cylinder-to-head interface.
The head gaskets did not show any signs of a blowing leak or erosion. All
studs were locktited (new verb), retorqued to 60 in/Lbs.This same engine's
factory-set electronic ignition was out of time and had to be reset.
Resetting did not make it run any cooler. It must have been assembled on a
Monday after Octoberfest.
One problem I plan to solve is the possibility of pieces of carbon/grit
falling into the crankcase while the pistons are being cleaned. Stuffing rags
in all the openings looks like a poor solution. I think I'll try to make a
closure from .016 Al that will fit under the piston skirts to make sure the
crankcase stays clean. As usual I will make the patterns available to the
List.
Duane the plane in Tallahassee, FireFly, 447, IVO, big wheels
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 5/4/00 6:11:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Monte84(at)mindspring.com writes:
<< Is it necessary to
cover the area behind the seats. I believe I have seen a few pictures
of Mark3's without it covered. I would prefer to leave it opened if it
wouldn't cause any problems. >>
I left mine open and am glad I did. Easier to get at the tanks and other
stuff back there
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Windsor club update |
Just wanted to keep you guys informed on the club project. We have been
working on it for 6 weeks now one night a week for 2 1/2 hrs a night. The
owner of the workshop spends a bit more time in there when he has some free
time. So far one wing is done, the other wing has the ribs rivited on and is
ready for the false ribs and the wing tip. Last night we got the fuselage up
on the wheels and bolted together. Didn't do the brakes yet but we can push
the frame around a bit easier. We are painting the frame with a white rust
paint. It makes it a lot easier to repair or see any cracks if they decide
to appear. The club is now deciding between a Hirth 2706 engine with factory
rebuild or a Rotax 582 with 180 hrs on it. Even I am amazed at the speed we
are going. We are also getting to work as a team now and I do not have to
supervise every job. Hopefully it is because they are starting to listen
when I say "What does the plan call for". Now they are more confident in
reading the plans and will check before asking me. This is a great learning
experience for them. My own project should start moving now I have the ribs
made for the new airfoil and last week Andy and I cleaned out the hanger and
we can even move around in it now. No more excuses not to build my wing.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wndean(at)webtv.net (William Dean) |
| Subject: | Fuselage boom FS1 |
I am restoring and when doing the W&B I feel it will be necessary to cut
about 18" off the boom in order to achieve acceptable CG without putting
considerable weight in the nose. Has anyone done this, if so how much
and what were the results?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Key West Regulator |
The voltage is OK without a load and just a hobbs but with a
battery load should see no more than 14.3v since after that point
the electrolyte in a sealed/gelled battery will start to boil
away/degrade. Either of these units are not really hermetically
sealed and will outgas....difference is you cannot replace
electrolyte as with a conventional battery.
A voltage regulator is a really easy project to build as I've done
several for old Lowrance Eagle units some friends had. Four
components are required, all available at Radio Shack or other
electronics source
1. a voltage regulator IC ( a 7812 is a 12 volt output, 7809 a 9 volt
output).....input voltage can range up to 35v for either of these ICs
2. one 1 amp rectifier diode, 1N4004 or 1N4007
3. C1 .... one 4.7uF tantalum capacitor
4. C2 .... one 1uF tantalum capacitor
The IC has three legs - one input, one output, and a leg that goes
to ground (the center leg). The diode is connected to the
battery/supply + , then the other leg is connected to the input leg
of the IC. Capacitor C1 bridges between the IC input and the
battery ground, C2 bridges between the IC output and battery
ground. That's it. Done. Nice regulated power. Should you wish to
see an example of the circuit, search for GPS NUTS and look at
the home-brew connector for Lowrance and Eagle GPS's. It's really
easy to build and works like a charm. About the only thing that
could go wrong is getting the diode turned around so current
doesn't flow...just check with a DVM or VOM before soldering and
you'll easily tell which way the diode passes current.
> Yes, I was concerned about the high voltage! And, I was impressed with
> the nice constant output, I guess I should have been more specific in my
> original post.
> I was thinking about using the regulator to power my new Icom A-22,
> however, the Icom book says the max voltage should be no more than 15 volts
> and I would hate to be running at the max allowable voltage if you know what
> I mean. The book also stated at 18 volts an over-voltage screen would appear
> and you should disconnect the radio from the power source when this
> happens. ----Like I'm really going to notice a warning on the screen if the
> regulator decides to put out another couple of extra volts.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >Hi Kolbers,
> > >
> > >Installed a Key West regulator on the Firestar last night, fired it up
> and
> > >put the meter on the output, I'm getting a solid 15 volts at all RPM's---
> > >That is with no load other than the hobbs meter--- This can't be correct.
> > >Any words of wisdom from the list would be welcome.
> > >
> > >Thanks in advance,
> > >Dennis
> >
>
>
>
>
>
J.Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "michael highsmith" <firehawk54(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flying Arizona |
>From: Steve Scott <steve_scott(at)mcg.mot.com>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb
>Subject: Kolb-List: Flying Arizona
>Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 12:16:06 -0700
>
>
>Arizona is a flying heaven, with over 306 days per yr of VFR
>weather
>Let me know if you want info on flyin Arizona.>--
>Steve Scott
>Tempe, AZ
>602-438-3540
>
You should not have told us that. I have been thinking about flying to
Arizona from hear in the Panhandle of Florida for a while now and you just
gave me lots of incentive. You may be hearing from me and my wingman in late
summer. Maybe there are others on the list that might want to tag along,
group up at a central local and start together from there.
Firehawk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb components wanted/available |
In a message dated 5/2/00 4:21:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Vendor48(at)aol.com
writes:
<< << I would like to know what other kolbers consider "too windy". Comments
please.
>>
In the case of the Ultrastar that was destroyed, the wind was producing
turbulence over trees at the end of the runway. If you fly close to trees
or
other large obstacles, as little as 5 to 7 can cause problems, JR
>>
Been there done that...in a Pteradactyl getting too low and slow near the
ground ..under the tree tops that were breaking the wind comin at me from the
side and my upwind wing almost was forced down to the ground...as the
crosswind ...probably only 15 mph tumbled over the top of the treeline at me
forcing my windward tip DOWN!
It would have been no problem if I had enough speed to have authority over
the crosswind..and that is the key having enough speed to secure control
authority over the prevailing gusts. I have flown in 35 mph crosswinds in
my Firestar with no real concerns...course I make sure that I land HOT!
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb components wanted/available |
I have flown in 35 mph crosswinds in
> my Firestar with no real concerns...course I make sure that I land HOT!
> GeoR38
GeoR38:
Do you have fully castering main gear?
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage boom FS1 |
-----Original Message-----
From: William Dean <wndean(at)webtv.net>
Date: Thursday, May 04, 2000 7:43 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Fuselage boom FS1
>
>I am restoring and when doing the W&B I feel it will be necessary to cut
>about 18" off the boom in order to achieve acceptable CG without putting
>considerable weight in the nose. Has anyone done this, if so how much
>and what were the results?
When you move the tail feathers forward you move the aerodynamic center of
the plane forward and the acceptable cg of the plane is defined relative to
the aerodynamic center of the plane. so this is a very ineffective way to
get a plane into cg limits. worse yet the dynamic stability of a plane is a
function of "tail volume" which is deffined as the area of the tail times
its length from the cg. if you shorten the tail the tail volume goes down
and your dynamic stability gets worse. a nice handleing airplane gets
squirely feeling, or even uncontrollable. Do some very serious stability
and control engineering before shortening your tail.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb components wanted/available |
In a message dated 5/4/00 11:23:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
<< I have flown in 35 mph crosswinds in
> my Firestar with no real concerns...course I make sure that I land HOT!
> GeoR38
GeoR38:
Do you have fully castering main gear?
john h >>
Good point John, no I don't but I haven't tripped yet, but always wondered
about the stress that the wheel/gear must be taking, and whether I should be
crabbing during the landing or straight to lessen the forces on the
gear......whaddya think
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim T99" <townsend(at)webound.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb components wanted/available |
John,
Hummmmm that's allot.
35 for me at 170 lbs. is hard to walk in.
My limit is 15mph. Cross Wind.
Our Best
Tim T99
----- Original Message -----
From: <GeoR38(at)aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb components wanted/available
>
> In a message dated 5/4/00 11:23:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
>
> << I have flown in 35 mph crosswinds in
> > my Firestar with no real concerns...course I make sure that I land HOT!
> > GeoR38
>
>
> GeoR38:
>
> Do you have fully castering main gear?
>
> john h >>
>
> Good point John, no I don't but I haven't tripped yet, but always
wondered
> about the stress that the wheel/gear must be taking, and whether I should
be
> crabbing during the landing or straight to lessen the forces on the
> gear......whaddya think
> GeoR38
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Hundley" <rhundley(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: MK III for sale |
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Hundley <rhundley(at)erols.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 9:31 AM
Subject: Fw: MK III for sale
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rick Hundley <rhundley(at)erols.com>
> To: Kolb List
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 5:19 PM
> Subject: MK III for sale
>
>
> > 1996 Mark III for Sale
> >
> >
> > 70 hours TT
> > Rotax 582 w/ electric start
> > GSC 3 blade prop
> > Full Enclosure
> > Matco Hydraulic brakes and wheels
> > Dual throttles
> > Comtronics intercom and headsets
> > Transceiver and CB radios
> > Full instruments with Center console
> >
> >
> > Aircraft is in Delaware. I will email pictures upon request.
> > This is a beautiful airplane. Looks and flies great!
> >
> > Call Rick at 302-537-0939 or 703-447-5979 or email at rhundley(at)erols.com
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <NeilsenR(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage boom FS1 |
Your should check the archives because this has been discussed a few times before
but... I would not recommend Homer's designs in an area like this. If you cut
the tube you may change the weight and balance that you see on your bathroom
scales but you are also changing the moment arm of the tail. You will decrease
the effectiveness of the tail. You WILL reduce the CG range possibly to the
point were you could not be able to recover from a stall. I suggest you move
something heavy to the nose cone. If you feel you must make a change like this
get the Kolb's blessing first.
>>> wndean(at)webtv.net 05/04/00 08:40PM >>>
I am restoring and when doing the W&B I feel it will be necessary to cut
about 18" off the boom in order to achieve acceptable CG without putting
considerable weight in the nose. Has anyone done this, if so how much
and what were the results?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage boom FS1 |
if you shorten the tail the tail volume goes down
> and your dynamic stability gets worse. a nice handleing airplane gets
> squirely feeling, or even uncontrollable. Do some very serious stability
> and control engineering before shortening your tail.
>
> Topher
Topher and Kolbers:
Amen!
I shortened the tailboom of my MK III 12 inches. Never
could get the airplane to settle down, felt terrible.
Replaced with standard length tailboom and I had a new
airplane.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vendor48(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Key West Regulator Fix |
Regarding the regulator issue, and secondary voltage regulator "fix".
On occasion a primary voltage regulator will be found to have output voltage
which is outside of the desired 13.8 - 14.6 range. There is a much easier
way to correct the problem, with simple diodes. Yes, a secondary voltage
regulator can be used, but I would approach this with caution. Jim Baker has
described a simple system, however most 7812s are only good for 1.5 amps, and
typically will go into shut down if they get too hot. Most are not happy
without some kind of a load on them (Hobbs does not qualify). Regulator
circuits can be designed to provide protection for themselves, but the
circuit listed has none of this protection, or a heat sink. Spikes can be
generated through starting circuits, etc., that can destroy ICs!
A much simpler approach is to add a pair of healthy diodes (two in parallel,
one each direction) in series with the charging regulator output-to-battery
connection. With a diode "forward biased" (that is conducting), it will drop
six to seven-tenths of a volt. Two diodes are required in most circuits, as
the charging circuit will not "see" the battery, unless the second diode is
available, biased in the opposite direction. What you now have is a
bi-directional conductor that automatically drops six-tenths of a volt or so,
in both directions of conduction. Make connections to the starting circuit
direct to the battery. You will find that the diode voltage drop puts
everything in line. Charging circuits should still be isolated via a
breaker. Should the diode fail (open), everything on the battery buss will
still be powered, but the battery will not be charging. If the failure mode
is a short, then you are back to the original problem of temporary
overcharging. Good ol fail safe.
Make sure the diodes are isolated on a heat sink, but the amount of power
they will have to dissipate is very low. (P=E*I.. 0.6 V x your current..)
Stud mount diodes can be purchased with opposite polarity on the screw stud.
Therefore both diodes can be mounted to a small chunk of 1/8" aluminum
direct, with one lug/wire under either stud. Both of the "loose ends" are
soldered together, forming the other lead for a neat two terminal assembly.
Isolate this from the frame! One lead (either one) goes to the charging
output breaker, other to the battery positive terminal. I used to design
industrial electronic controls...they needed to be bullet proof. Questions?
Jerry with usable US/FS rt. wing and tail group
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "martin P" <tonibec(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 27 Msgs - 05/04/00 |
>From: Geezer810(at)aol.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: MKIII Single Person Trim for Level Flight
>
>
>Hey you MKIII drivers,
>How do you get your bird to fly level without using your leg to push the
>stick to the right? Most of my time is spent flying alone and it is kind
>of
>a nuisance to not be able to fly hands-off.
>Any ideas would be appreciated.
>The Old Geezer
>
>
>I use a very small bungie to pull the stick to the right! My Mk 111
flys hands off. It only takes a little bit.
Martin
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Epbonsell(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage boom FS1 |
When I built my 86 firestar I melted down fishing and tire weights. Poured
the lead into little bars and put them way out in the nose. Worked great. I
only weighed 120 lbs. at the time and needed some weight to balance it up.
The weight is more effective out there. I've also heard of someone putting
their battery out there to kill two birds with one stone.
Ed Bonsell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re-drive Chatter |
Last week, when I was raving about the trip to see the Vimy, I dropped a
question in the middle of the message, and I really had hoped for some
feedback. Question was: why do Rotax re-drives chatter and rattle so
badly below 2000 rpm or so, while the engines / re-drives on the Vimy idled
right down, silky smooth, and so slow you could just about count prop blades
going past...................and that with 4 bladed props. What makes the
difference ?? How can I make sure my Hy-Vo chain re-drive will do the same
?? It really looks funny, but to my eyes highly desirable. C'mon Guys ! !
! Curious Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WingManBill2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb components wanted/available |
Crab right down to before touchdown and then center her down the runway
before touching the ground. Ya don't wanna land unless your inline.
Bill J
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Key West Regulator Fix |
> Yes, a secondary voltage
> regulator can be used, but I would approach this with caution. Jim Baker has
> described a simple system, however most 7812s are only good for 1.5 amps, and
> typically will go into shut down if they get too hot. Most are not happy
> without some kind of a load on them (Hobbs does not qualify). Regulator
> circuits can be designed to provide protection for themselves, but the
> circuit listed has none of this protection, or a heat sink. Spikes can be
> generated through starting circuits, etc., that can destroy ICs!
Very good point. The 7812 was used only to provide power to a
single GPS unit or small handheld radio *only*...nothing else on
the circuit.
J.Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TK <tkrolfe(at)epix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Re-drive Chatter |
Larry Bourne wrote:
>
>
> Last week, when I was raving about the trip to see the Vimy, I dropped a
> question in the middle of the message, and I really had hoped for some
> feedback. Question was: why do Rotax re-drives chatter and rattle so
> badly below 2000 rpm or so, while the engines / re-drives on the Vimy idled
> right down, silky smooth, and so slow you could just about count prop blades
> going past...................and that with 4 bladed props.
Lar,
I'm interested in the same question!!! Just helped a friend install
a new 447 on his old drifter with belt drive. He can idle back to
almost nothing without skipping a beat. Boy am I envious. I have to
carefully manage my rpm on start up so as not to shake the engine off
the mounts. That means keeping the rpm up over 2500 when first
starting, which also means my FireFly wants to start moving. When
warm 2200 is as low as I can throttle back to keep from chattering -
still a little pushy. I'm swinging a two blade wood prop that is
balanced and tracking true.
Is it because of the amount of backlash I feel when moving the prop
by hand? Seems like more than it should be.
Terry K. FireFly # 095 74 hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re-drive Chatter |
Because the Rotax engines have fixed ignition advance. I have the
aftermarket CDI ignition from Arizona (forgot the company name, it's the
guy in Arizona that rebuilds crankshafts, he is very helpful) and the 532
will rattle just like every other Rotax at around 2000 rpm, it is still at
full ignition advance, but when it drops to 1500 rpm, the ignition timing
retards notably, and then the idle smoothes right out, and it will sit and
idle smooth as silk at 1000 RPM. Just for the heck of it, we tried to see
how slow it would run, we got it down to 800 rpm smoothly, and then it
started to get unreliable, kind of like it was losing interest.
Years ago my father in law had an old BSA English Army courier motorcycle,
and it had one grip for the throttle, and the other was for spark advance.
When you retarded the spark, that thing would sit and idle wonderfully
slow, a really smooth thumper. So it's all a function of ignition timing IMHO.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Last week, when I was raving about the trip to see the Vimy, I dropped a
>question in the middle of the message, and I really had hoped for some
>feedback. Question was: why do Rotax re-drives chatter and rattle so
>badly below 2000 rpm or so, while the engines / re-drives on the Vimy idled
>right down, silky smooth, and so slow you could just about count prop blades
>going past...................and that with 4 bladed props. What makes the
>difference ?? How can I make sure my Hy-Vo chain re-drive will do the same
>?? It really looks funny, but to my eyes highly desirable. C'mon Guys ! !
>! Curious Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
A main contributer to gearbox chatter is torsional resonance. the whole
system, from the pistons to the prop has a natural frequency that can be
excited by the power pulses of the engine. Once resonance starts each power
pulse adds energy to the system and will eventually break something. You
dont want to operate the engine at any frequency that feels rough for any
length of time. A belt drive or chain drive will have very different
natural frequencies then a gear drive. When we designed the redrive for the
Powersport 215 HP rotary engine we designed it to be so stiff that its
natural resonance frequencies were around 12000 hz. this keeps the 1st-4th
order frequencies of the engine all below the natural frequency of the
system. our reduction drive runs very smoothly. we put a glass of water on
the engine mounts and the water barely moves at all. we can idle the engine
down to 800 rpm, which gives a prop rpm of only 350 rpm. We cant expect a 2
stroke to idle that slowly and the rotax gearboxes are designed just the
oposite, instead of being stiff they are soft, with natural frequencies that
are very low, trying to keep them below the operating range of the engine.
but if you run the engine slow enough you start to get some low order
resonance. A belt drive will be very soft and a chain drive could be
moderately stiff.
topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re-drive Chatter |
> Recip engines do not turn at a constant rpm, especially in a
> single or two cyl varieties and at low rpm, like idle
> speed. Power stroke, prop speeds up and slows down. Not a
> constant speed in one revolution. Causes back lash in
> transmissions and/or gear boxes.
> Does that make sense.
Actually, its the cylinder configuration in conjunction with John's
stated torsional loading/unloading. Some engines are much better
than others but primarily because of the number of cylinders and
the arrangement of those cylinders (firing order, too).
Two cylinder, two cycles have a 1st order rotating unbalanced
moment of 1.0, while a three cylinder's is the sqrt of 3. The second
order unbalanced forces of a two cylinder are 2.0 while the three
cylinder is 0. The bottom line is that the three cylinder can be in
balance with the second and first order forces at the same time
while the two cylinder engine will never achieve that state. The
same can hold true for any engine based upon a multiple of 3.
J.Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
"kolb-list(at)matronics.com"
>>> sarry wrote
Last week, when I was raving about the trip to see the Vimy,
I dropped a
question in the middle of the message, and I really had
hoped for some
feedback. Question was: why do Rotax re-drives chatter
and rattle so
badly below 2000 rpm or so, while the engines / re-drives on
the Vimy idled
right down, silky smooth,>>>>>
larry
i think it has to do with a couple of things. one is
the load on the propeller. with more load on the prop i
think that there is a more constant pressure on the gears.
and second it is a v8 they run smother than the rotax 2
or 4 cyl engines
the reason the gearbox and prop chatter is that when a plug
fires it pulses the prop and if the inertia of the prop
caries it ahead of the crank (the crank slows down between
power strokes) then there is some slack in the gears and
the next power stroke slams the gears back tight. while
the v8 runs smother because there are twice to four times
the power strokes ( depending on 2 or 4 cyl engine) and the
v8 crank and flywheel have more mass and do not speed
up/slow down between power strokes.
when the 2 - 4 cyl engines speed up then the power strokes
are close enough together that the load on the prop keeps
things tight.
i beat around the bush a bit here but i hope you can see
what i mean
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Yah, I think you're right, up to a point, but did you read Richard Pikes'
message about the effect of timing on the Rotax engines ?? I think that
between the 2, we've got an answer. That message about system rigidity
balancing the firing impulses makes sense too, but it's over my head, and
beyond my skills. My timing will be fully adjustable, and if that doesn't
do it, then she'll just have to idle fast enuf to smooth it out. Sure hope
it works out to where I can idle it right down. The Vimy was quieter,
smoother, and didn't try to run away. Looked neat too, with the props kind
of paddling around. That was sure a good weekend.
Thinking of trips, my vacation this year will be the last part of Aug., till
the 1st part of Sept. Three weeks worth, so I'll most likely be coming down
thru your area about 5 or 10 days into Sept. Don't have the exact dates
yet. Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: b young <byoung(at)brigham.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 8:05 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: redrive
>
> larry
> i think it has to do with a couple of things. one is
> the load on the propeller. with more load on the prop i
> think that there is a more constant pressure on the gears.
> and second it is a v8 they run smother than the rotax 2
> or 4 cyl engines
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
In a message dated 5/6/00 8:07:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
WingManBill2(at)aol.com writes:
<< Crab right down to before touchdown and then center her down the runway
before touching the ground. Ya don't wanna land unless your inline.
Bill J >>
that's what I have been doing as of late bill, and it seems to work out
great...I said I land in 35 Mph crosswinds but the only indicator I really
have is a stiff windsock so, I'm not really sure how fast it is, but thanks
for the response. Hawke said something about full castoring gear, but there
was no additional response to that.
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
In a message dated 5/8/00 2:56:03 AM, GeoR38(at)aol.com writes:
<< I said I land in 35 Mph crosswinds but the only indicator I really
have is a stiff windsock so, I'm not really sure how fast it is, >>
There are very large airplanes that are not happy with 35 knot crosswinds.
And they are at an approach speed of 135 kts or better. If you perform the
trig function you will see that what looks like a 35 kt cross really isn't. I
am guessing that with the Mk-3 you would be limited to about 15 kts. The only
way to beat the limitation would be to land across the runway, and with the
great short-field capabilities of our Kolbs we could do just that. :-)
Bill George
Mk-3 582 "C" Powerfin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Kearbey" <kearbey(at)jps.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
In all I have MkIII and 8 to 10 mph crosswing is full rudder deflection.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: <WGeorge737(at)aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Landin in crosswind
>
>
> In a message dated 5/8/00 2:56:03 AM, GeoR38(at)aol.com writes:
>
> << I said I land in 35 Mph crosswinds but the only indicator I really
> have is a stiff windsock so, I'm not really sure how fast it is, >>
>
> There are very large airplanes that are not happy with 35 knot crosswinds.
> And they are at an approach speed of 135 kts or better. If you perform the
> trig function you will see that what looks like a 35 kt cross really
isn't. I
> am guessing that with the Mk-3 you would be limited to about 15 kts. The
only
> way to beat the limitation would be to land across the runway, and with
the
> great short-field capabilities of our Kolbs we could do just that. :-)
>
>
> Bill George
> Mk-3 582 "C" Powerfin
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | First Solo in a FireStar |
Greetings,
Last Saturday Dave Rains gave me the opportunity to fly his FireStar.
Although I hand flown an UtraStar a couple of years ago this was the first
time I flew a Kolb Solo.
The plane climbs like an elevator, after take off I felt more vertical
motion then horizontal. I did some flybys over the runway before I committed
to a landing. My first landing was not the greaser I had hoped for and the
second one was worst. On my second landing I started swerving the left then
I over corrected to the right. I almost came off the runway but I gave it
some power which made the rudder respond.
I loved flying Dave's Firestar so much it got me motivated into finishing my
own FireStar. Today I assembled the tail feathers and got it ready for
rigging the wings, will update my webpage soon.
If you want to see some pictures taken Saturday morning on my first FireStar
Solo please visit the URL below. I also added some video.
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/Fun.html
Regards
Will Uribe
building a FireStar II
own a "land-o-matic" Cessna 172
El Paso, TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WingManBill2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: First Solo in a FireStar |
I'm also looking for a ride in a Mark III in the DC metro area if anybody's
listening, will pay even!
Bill J.
Wingman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Seitzer <dale(at)gmada.com> |
I have a Tiny Tach in an original Firestar--I bought the plane used so I do
not know alot of history--The Tiny Tach has been giving eratic readings.
Does it have a battery inside? If so, how do I get it open? I removed
it from the panel and see no obvious opening places. The tach registers
flight time up to one hour and is on all the time and is resetable. I
checked the wires leading to it and the sensor wire--it looks ok.
Topic 2--I see alot of pictures of pilots who do not wear helmets--less
than half of the people who use the UL airport I go to, wear helmets. One
trainer wore a helmet and the other did not. Is there any data on deaths
in ultralights correlated with helmet use? Any other reports? I've ridden
motorcycles for 30 years and I always wear one--in the winter I wear a full
face and summer a regular one.
Dale Seitzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Tiny Tach |
I frequently wore a helmet when I flew my Hummer because;
1) That's what the headset was mounted in, and
2) it had no forward overhead protection and was marginal when landing in
crosswinds.
If I was going flying on calm evenings and didn't plan to need a radio,
then sometimes I used earplugs and left the helmet home.
I feel that flying the MKIII is essentially the same as flying a Cub or
Champ, would you wear a helmet in one of those?
Both my two main flying buddy's have Drifters, and wear helmets at all
times, but in their case, they have more of a wind problem that the Kolbs
do. Helmets are great places to attach face shields.
Wear what you are comfortable with.
Wear what will help keep your spouse from worrying. An unworried spouse
helps make a happy Kolb.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>Topic 2--I see alot of pictures of pilots who do not wear helmets--less
>than half of the people who use the UL airport I go to, wear helmets. One
>trainer wore a helmet and the other did not. Is there any data on deaths
>in ultralights correlated with helmet use? Any other reports? I've ridden
>motorcycles for 30 years and I always wear one--in the winter I wear a full
>face and summer a regular one.
>
>Dale Seitzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Howard Ping" <howard.ping(at)gte.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Tiny Tach |
----- Original Message -----
From: Dale Seitzer <dale(at)gmada.com>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 9:20 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: RE: Tiny Tach
>
> I have a Tiny Tach in an original Firestar--I bought the plane used so I
do
> not know alot of history--The Tiny Tach has been giving eratic readings.
> Does it have a battery inside? If so, how do I get it open? I removed
> it from the panel and see no obvious opening places. The tach registers
> flight time up to one hour and is on all the time and is resetable. I
> checked the wires leading to it and the sensor wire--it looks ok.
>
> Topic 2--I see alot of pictures of pilots who do not wear helmets--less
> than half of the people who use the UL airport I go to, wear helmets.
One
> trainer wore a helmet and the other did not. Is there any data on deaths
> in ultralights correlated with helmet use? Any other reports? I've
ridden
> motorcycles for 30 years and I always wear one--in the winter I wear a
full
> face and summer a regular one.
>
> Dale Seitzer
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Geezer810(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Single Person Trim for Level Flight |
Thanks Ray,
Geezer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Geezer810(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Single Person Trim for Level Flight |
Thanks Merle
Geezer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Geezer810(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Single Person Trim for Level Flight |
Thanks Mark.
Geezer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Tiny Tach |
Dale,
Check the wrap of the pickup wire of the Tiny Tach around the plug wire.
Jerry, the guy who sold you the FireStar, had to splice the pickup wire
to make it long enough. He may not have soldered the splice causing it to
be erratic.
I wear a helmet to block out the noise and save my ears. It also keeps
the wind out of my eyes so I can see better using a full-faced shield.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
> I have a Tiny Tach in an original Firestar--I bought the plane used
> so I do not know alot of history--The Tiny Tach has been giving eratic
> readings.
> Topic 2--I see alot of pictures of pilots who do not wear
helmets--less than half of the people who use the UL airport I go to,
wear helmets.
> Dale Seitzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert L Doebler <robertdoebler(at)juno.com> |
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dale Seitzer <dale(at)gmada.com>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 20:20:16 -0500
Subject: Kolb-List: RE: Tiny Tach
When mine went bad, I threw it away an ordered another!
I have a Tiny Tach in an original Firestar--I bought the plane used so I
do
not know alot of history--The Tiny Tach has been giving eratic readings.
Does it have a battery inside? If so, how do I get it open? I
removed
it from the panel and see no obvious opening places. The tach registers
flight time up to one hour and is on all the time and is resetable. I
checked the wires leading to it and the sensor wire--it looks ok.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
>
>
>In a message dated 5/8/00 2:56:03 AM, GeoR38(at)aol.com writes:
>
><< I said I land in 35 Mph crosswinds but the only indicator I really
>have is a stiff windsock so, I'm not really sure how fast it is, >>
>
>There are very large airplanes that are not happy with 35 knot crosswinds.
>And they are at an approach speed of 135 kts or better. If you perform the
>trig function you will see that what looks like a 35 kt cross really
isn't. I
>am guessing that with the Mk-3 you would be limited to about 15 kts. The
only
>way to beat the limitation would be to land across the runway, and with the
>great short-field capabilities of our Kolbs we could do just that. :-)
I, or should say "we" have done the x-wind landings in a Firestars at
something close
to this. It can be done straight down the runway. You have to come in a
little bit (make that a lot)-- hot, to make it work. It helps a LOT if you
"center the stick when you touch down and push "forward" on the stick a
just after the mains touch the ground. Don't worry, your nose won't hit
the ground-&-the wind or air speed will keep the tail down. BTDT.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duane & Eloise Geater" <dgeater(at)sbtek.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar with a 582 again ? |
I have orderd a Firestar II kit.
I have a 582 with a 3 blade warp on hand. I am still
looking for some one that has used this combination in real life.
Duane
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar with a 582 again ? |
Duane,
A fried had a 582 on an orignal Firestar while his 377 was being rebuilt.
He reported only 1200 fpm climb, and said that he couldn't use the power in
level flight because of exceeding the VNE. I said "only 1200 fpm" because the
377 gave about 900 fpm.
One problem that you would have is CG. Most 503 powered Firestar II's are
right at the aft CG. A 582 is heavier and you would likely have to add weight
in the nose.
Plus, I am sure that the company doesn't want people to exceed engine
recommendations.
John Jung
Duane & Eloise Geater wrote:
>
> I have orderd a Firestar II kit.
> I have a 582 with a 3 blade warp on hand. I am still
> looking for some one that has used this combination in real life.
> Duane
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
Attn: helmet non-wearers. If you would like to see what happens when you
have a heart attack at 1700 and come in on a Kolb, go to
http://members.aol.com/TCowan1917/page1.html My friend Frank Hamby did just
such thing. Could never get him to wear head protection. He took a limb
across the frontal lobe of his brain, temple, and lost most of his long time
memory and has a hard time with short time. Blood on his brain etc. Hurt
both feet but they healed. His left eye had to be corrected straight, lost
control of it and now is fixed straight ahead so to focus he needs to adjust
his head to see. Thinking is clouded, cannot remember a lot of things after
one minute. If you ever think you do not need head protection, go back and
look at those pics again! You need not hit your head hard, just hit it. I
wear one and find it no problem - like the man says, nice place to hang a
face shield. If he would have been wearing a helmet, he would still be
flying today. by the way, his head set he was wearing cut the top of his
left ear off. - you might notice the survivability of the Kolb, crushed and
protected him. Just think of what I have said. Thinking is an option!!!
Ted Cowan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Rains" <rr(at)htg.net> |
Yes Ted, thinking is an option. However, when given specific data, each
individual will come to a different conclusion, not necessarily wrong, just
different. I see enough carnage each year in performance of my duties to
understand how fragile the human body is, I do not let that emotion cloud my
thinking. I'm very sorry about your friend. Any time someone is injured in
our sport each of us (at least I do) says a prayer. We except the risk of
our sport, minimize it as we can, and learn from the misfortune of others,
(see sentence 2).
One more thing, I haven't seen a tree here abouts in a long time, I think
there's one downtown in the park, but I don't fly there.
Dave Rains
FSII 16UDR
El Paso
-----Original Message-----
From: TCowan1917(at)aol.com <TCowan1917(at)aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 5:34 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: helmets
>
>Attn: helmet non-wearers. If you would like to see what happens when you
>have a heart attack Thinking is an option!!!
>Ted Cowan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
In a message dated 5/8/00 11:57:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
possums(at)mindspring.com writes:
<< I, or should say "we" have done the x-wind landings in a Firestars at
something close
to this. It can be done straight down the runway. You have to come in a
little bit (make that a lot)-- hot, to make it work. It helps a LOT if you
"center the stick when you touch down and push "forward" on the stick a
just after the mains touch the ground. Don't worry, your nose won't hit
the ground-&-the wind or air speed will keep the tail down. BTDT. >>
Good points possum....with the wind the way it has been around the
Akron/Warren Ohio area lately, I'll get an opportunity very soon probably
Wed, to try out your nose down treatment after touchdown!
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "INFO" <info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com> |
Wear what will help keep your spouse from worrying. An unworried spouse
helps make a happy Kolb.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
Dondi says "roger that!!!!!!"
Jim & Dondi Miller
Aircraft Technical Support, Inc.
Poly-Fiber & Ceconite Distributors
(Toll Free) (877) 877-3334
Web Site: www.aircrafttechsupport.com
E-mail: info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darren Smalec" <smald(at)shianet.org> |
>>The Tiny Tach has been giving eratic readings. <<
Dale& Listers,
I use a similar unit from Sky Sports, made by SenDEC corp.
When I first installed it I put it in the instrument panel, but I found that
if you have too much wire from the plug pickup to the unit, it will not work
correctly. I moved it to the cage behind my left shoulder, lost about 6 ft.
of wire, and it worked much better with approximately 4 ft. of wire.
Also, don't run the pickup wire with other wires, it may affect
operation.(per instruction sheet)
Fly Safe,
Darren Smalec FS1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TK <tkrolfe(at)epix.net> |
First, thanks for the information some of you provided concerning
the gearbox chatter! I guess I have to resign myself to living
with the problem or looking at retrofitting to a variable timed
ignition. Based on a comment awhile ago (forgot who) I'm trying
synthetic gear lube in my gearbox. Couldn't find 85-140 EP in
synthetic at the local auto supply store's, but the local AMSOIL
dealer had it for a higher price of course. Hope it functions as
well as was described.
Question for anyone who might be able to help. A couple of days ago
I wrote about helping a friend mount a new 447 on his old Drifter and
how it idle so much smoother because of the belt drive. Well now his
tack doesn't work, it pins out. His old 447 was a point ignition
system and of course his new one is Ducati. So on the advice of
another Kolb owner I cut the wire loop sticking out of the back of
his tack. It still pins itself when running. Does he need to buy a
new tach because of the Ducati ignition? I don't want him flying
with out a tach.
Terry K. FF #095
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Ted and Group,
I think that your pictures should be viewed by all Kolb flyers.Not just
to encourage wearing helmits, but to dispell the notion that the 4130 cage will
protect them. Where is the cage now? Yes he did survive, but is surviving
enough? I believe that we all have a right to wear a helmet or not, but we may
want to consider those that will have to care for us after an accident.
John Jung
TCowan1917(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Attn: helmet non-wearers. If you would like to see what happens when you
> have a heart attack at 1700 and come in on a Kolb, go to
> http://members.aol.com/TCowan1917/page1.html
snip.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar with a 582 again ? |
I bet you would have no trouble finding someone that would swap you a good
503 for your 582.
Or buy the single carb manifold, a 582 with one carb should be managable,
if you really want to keep your same engine.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>I have orderd a Firestar II kit.
>I have a 582 with a 3 blade warp on hand. I am still
>looking for some one that has used this combination in real life.
>Duane
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
John ,
I don't mean this rude or crass at all , but what are you trying to say???
Are you wanting to promote some other material for cockpit area structure or
just that nothing is safe. I think everybody understands the laws of
physics to some extent that no matter what you are in if you make contact
with an immoveable object at enough velocity you ARE going to die!!! Mass X
Velocity = Kinetic energy and your body can only handle so much...the more
the structure around you can absorb then the better your chances for living.
If your promoting weaker structures to ensure that your poor family doesn't
have to care for you as a vegetable then I'll take the risk and hope that I
come out on the better of the stick and LIVE!!! If your promoting a flying
Sherman Tank than I'm all for that too..can you make it fly on a 52
horsepower Rotax and make it take off in a couple hundred feet??? I know of
an accident that really was minor by most standards that wiped the front end
clear away from a Challenger ultralight 2 - seater. The rest of the
structure was hardly damaged...except for the guy in it... Now I'm not
knocking Challenger cause they are fine aircraft with some great qualities ,
but I personally don't think crash survivability is one of them. The 4130
cage doesn't mean that you can't get hurt but it will absorb a heck of a lot
more kinetic energy that an aluminum tube structure which will basically
snap and twist and break (limiting this discussion to the general methods
and materials used in 99% of ultralights those are the choices...) 4130 on
the other hand will deform a great deal before it just breaks and its
tensile and compressive strength is much higher then even larger diameter
aluminum tubes and hence will absorb more energy before it hits its yield
point. We all accept the risk every time we get up in the morning and if
your going to live life you have to accept it and get on with it. I'm
paraphrasing this quote , but Orville Wright once said after being asked
about a aviation-related fatality , that if you want perfect safety you
better sit on the fence and watch the birds fly...but then again you could
fall off the fence and break your neck!!!
Sincerely,
Jeremy Casey
P.S. Sorry for the long post....
Ted and Group,
I think that your pictures should be viewed by all Kolb flyers.Not
just
to encourage wearing helmits, but to dispell the notion that the 4130 cage
will
protect them. Where is the cage now? Yes he did survive, but is surviving
enough? I believe that we all have a right to wear a helmet or not, but we
may
want to consider those that will have to care for us after an accident.
John Jung
TCowan1917(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Attn: helmet non-wearers. If you would like to see what happens when you
> have a heart attack at 1700 and come in on a Kolb, go to
> http://members.aol.com/TCowan1917/page1.html
snip.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
Somehow in my move I have lost my original Rotax 503 manual. Does anybody
have one they will part with/ sell/ barder/ etc.....
please email me directly.
Thanks
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Jeremy,
What I am saying is, "I would not want someone to decide not to wear a helmet,
or
not buy a chute, because they think that the 4130 cage will protect them". I would
prefer that they make decisions like that with more information. I have personally
seen four Firestars that have been crashed. They were similar to Ted's pictures.
The
front of the cages were gone. I believe that Kolbs are good, strong designs, but
I
still wear a helmet and my Firestar has a BRS chute. I know that there is always
risk, but I prefer to keep the risk reduced.
John Jung
Jeremy Casey wrote:
>
> John ,
> I don't mean this rude or crass at all , but what are you trying to say???
> Are you wanting to promote some other material for cockpit area structure or
> just that nothing is safe.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> Somehow in my move I have lost my original Rotax 503 manual.
> tim
Tim and Gang:
Supposed to be able to download Rotax manuals from this
page:
http://www.kodiakbs.com/tiintro.htm
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-MK3 912 S |
| From: | Pam & Scott Trask <PTrask(at)diisd.org> |
> New man on site
> My name is Scott 38st , I have 700+ HRS. on my MK3 500+ HRS. on my 912UL.
I
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Rains" <rr(at)htg.net> |
| Subject: | Re: First Solo in a FireStar |
Hey Will, how come I can't open your site? I would like to see the
pictures. Are you working on the plane this weekend? I'll be working both
days, bummer. I'll be flying tomorrow morning at first light, Dave.
-----Original Message-----
From: WillUribe(at)aol.com <WillUribe(at)aol.com>
Date: Monday, May 08, 2000 1:05 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: First Solo in a FireStar
>
>Greetings,
>Last Saturday Dave Rains gave me the opportunity to fly his FireStar.
>Although I hand flown an UtraStar a couple of years ago this was the first
>time I flew a Kolb Solo.
>The plane climbs like an elevator, after take off I felt more vertical
>motion then horizontal. I did some flybys over the runway before I
committed
>to a landing. My first landing was not the greaser I had hoped for and the
>second one was worst. On my second landing I started swerving the left
then
>I over corrected to the right. I almost came off the runway but I gave it
>some power which made the rudder respond.
>I loved flying Dave's Firestar so much it got me motivated into finishing
my
>own FireStar. Today I assembled the tail feathers and got it ready for
>rigging the wings, will update my webpage soon.
>
>If you want to see some pictures taken Saturday morning on my first
FireStar
>Solo please visit the URL below. I also added some video.
>http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/Fun.html
>
>Regards
>Will Uribe
>building a FireStar II
>own a "land-o-matic" Cessna 172
>El Paso, TX
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Solo in a FireStar |
>
>Greetings,
>Last Saturday Dave Rains gave me the opportunity to fly his FireStar.
>Although I hand flown an UtraStar a couple of years ago this was the first
>time I flew a Kolb Solo.
>If you want to see some pictures taken Saturday morning on my first FireStar
>Solo please visit the URL below. I also added some video.
>http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/Fun.html
Great pictures...but you guys ain't got nothin to hit out there. You need
some trees.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "plane" <plane(at)atomic.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: <TCowan1917(at)aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 7:24 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: helmets
>
> Attn: helmet non-wearers. If you would like to see what happens when you
> have a heart attack at 1700 and come in on a Kolb, go to
> http://members.aol.com/TCowan1917/page1.html My friend Frank Hamby did
just
> such thing. Could never get him to wear head protection. He took a limb
> across the frontal lobe of his brain, temple, and lost most of his long
time
> memory and has a hard time with short time. Blood on his brain etc. Hurt
> both feet but they healed. His left eye had to be corrected straight,
lost
> control of it and now is fixed straight ahead so to focus he needs to
adjust
> his head to see. Thinking is clouded, cannot remember a lot of things
after
> one minute. If you ever think you do not need head protection, go back
and
> look at those pics again! You need not hit your head hard, just hit it.
I
> wear one and find it no problem - like the man says, nice place to hang a
> face shield. If he would have been wearing a helmet, he would still be
> flying today. by the way, his head set he was wearing cut the top of his
> left ear off. - you might notice the survivability of the Kolb, crushed
and
> protected him. Just think of what I have said. Thinking is an option!!!
> Ted Cowan
>
Ted you have said it all !! I would rather fly with no pants on then
fly with out a helmet.
>
Randy soob poward ultrastar
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: First Solo in a FireStar |
In a message dated 5/9/00 10:29:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rr(at)htg.net
writes:
> Hey Will, how come I can't open your site?
I was updating my builders log.
If anyone is interested I added more pictures to my builders log webpage.
I also ordered the fabric covering kit today.
Will Uribe
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
What I am saying is, "I would not want someone to decide not to wear a
helmet, or
not buy a chute, because they think that the 4130 cage will protect them". I
would
prefer that they make decisions like that with more information. I have
personally
seen four Firestars that have been crashed. They were similar to Ted's
pictures. The
front of the cages were gone. I believe that Kolbs are good, strong designs,
but I
still wear a helmet and my Firestar has a BRS chute. I know that there is
always
risk, but I prefer to keep the risk reduced.
John Jung
I agree 100%.....I had my brain in neutral and took your previous post the
wrong way I guess...when I was shopping survivability was one of my top
requirements. I don't think there are any ultralight designs any
tougher...sure there are planes that might be tougher but they are definetly
out of the "ultralight" category...Just my worthless opinion...
Jeremy "grumpy today I guess" Casey
jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
Me thinks you have grossly overestimated that Xwind speed. I can't
picture landing a FS in much more than a 15mph Xwind component ...at
least not without substantial risk of trouble. Finding another field
is just too easy an alternative. Even 15mph is darn good -- that is
50% of stall speed!! Remember, with winds approaching 30+mph you
should be able to settle a Kolb down vertically (or maybe even
backward) wrt the ground. (I've seen windsocks standing at full
attentention at 20mph windspeed.) Also, somebody mentioned landing
fast and then pushing stick forward. Does keeping the tail up make
sense? I've always thought it better to have the tail on the ground
for the tailwheel to help keep things pointed straight ahead. I can
see wanting to keep a low angle of attack so-as not to pop airborne
again in a gust, but I would think the tendency to weathervane would be
severe -- greater than available rudder authority as the plane slows
down -- so I'd be careful about holding stick forward very long (other
opinions/experience on this anyone?). I do know that I've had better
luck keeping some power for prop wash over the tail even tho the idea
is to slow to taxi speed. This helps a lot with controllability during
the slow down, even tho all your brain wants to do is slow down and
finish the thing.
-Ben Ransom
--- GeoR38(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 5/6/00 8:07:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> WingManBill2(at)aol.com writes:
>
> << Crab right down to before touchdown and then center her down the
> runway
> before touching the ground. Ya don't wanna land unless your inline.
>
> Bill J >>
> that's what I have been doing as of late bill, and it seems to work
> out
> great...I said I land in 35 Mph crosswinds but the only indicator I
> really
> have is a stiff windsock so, I'm not really sure how fast it is, but
> thanks
> for the response. Hawke said something about full castoring gear, but
> there
> was no additional response to that.
> GeoR38
>
>
>
>
>
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Sudlow" <suds77(at)earthlink.net> |
A chute is insurance when you need it. I would think that a helmet would be
desirable for the cage cross member directly behind your head. Haven't flown
mine yet, but I can imagine that in turbulence or a rough landing that a
helmet would be indispensable to reduce headaches. Any comments on that from
fliers?
chris
-----Original Message-----
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: helmets
>
>Jeremy,
>
> What I am saying is, "I would not want someone to decide not to wear a
helmet, or
>not buy a chute, because they think that the 4130 cage will protect them".
I would
>prefer that they make decisions like that with more information. I have
personally
>seen four Firestars that have been crashed. They were similar to Ted's
pictures. The
>front of the cages were gone. I believe that Kolbs are good, strong
designs, but I
>still wear a helmet and my Firestar has a BRS chute. I know that there is
always
>risk, but I prefer to keep the risk reduced.
>
>John Jung
>
>Jeremy Casey wrote:
>
>>
>> John ,
>> I don't mean this rude or crass at all , but what are you trying
to say???
>> Are you wanting to promote some other material for cockpit area structure
or
>> just that nothing is safe.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 00-05-10 4:51:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
suds77(at)earthlink.net writes:
<< Any comments on that from
fliers? >>
My hangarmate threw a rod out of his 582 powered Titan at 435 hours
("Hey, I use Amsoil, I don't need to decarbon, and that 300 hour crank
replacement stuff is crap.") over southern Connecticut. The NTSB estimated
that he decelerated from approx. 45 mph to zero in 8 feet (length of skid
marks). He says the only reason he's alive is because he had a helmet on.
The Dave Clark company makes a very nice and rather expensive helment
that is quite light and any Dave Clark clone headset snaps right into it. I
got one so my regular GA headset can do double duty.
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III
N496BM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <NeilsenR(at)state.mi.us> |
Please........ Haven't we just about beaten this helmet thing to death????
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
>
>Me thinks you have grossly overestimated that Xwind speed. I can't
>picture landing a FS in much more than a 15mph Xwind component ...at
>least not without substantial risk of trouble.
Your right, of course, that finding another field would be a good idea.
I never said that we did these kind of things on puropse or just for fun.
But sometimes on these long trips when the wind picks up, you have to fly
or get left behind in the middle of nowhere. I have landed when you cound't
turn the engine off without someone chocking the wheels or tying down the
plane first.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald Perry" <ronaldpe(at)shenessex.heartland.net> |
Safety issues can never be beaten to death!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Neilsen <NeilsenR(at)state.mi.us>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: helmets
>
> Please........ Haven't we just about beaten this helmet thing to death????
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Rains" <rr(at)htg.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
Sounds right to me, I seldom have a calm day out here in the desert. 15 MPH
is about all the x-wind I can handle in my FSII, and that includes the
pucker factor! I do as a rule hold the plane down with forward pressure on
the stick and keep some throttle up for positive control until I can drop
the tail. I do have the advantage of a rather large runway...... (a good
thing as Will Uribe needed all of it last Saturday). Regards,
Dave Rains
FS-II 16UDR
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Landin in crosswind
>
>Me thinks you have grossly overestimated that Xwind speedFinding another
field
>is just too easy an alternative. Even 15mph. I can't
>picture landing a FS in much more than a 15mph Xwind component ...at
>least not without substantial risk of trouble
>-Ben Ransom
>
>--- GeoR38(at)aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In a message dated 5/6/00 8:07:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> WingManBill2(at)aol.com writes:
>>
>> << Crab right down to before touchdown and then center her down the
>> runway
>> before touching the ground. Ya don't wanna land unless your inline.
>>
>> Bill J >>
>> that's what I have been doing as of late bill, and it seems to work
>> out
>> great...I said I land in 35 Mph crosswinds but the only indicator I
>> really
>> have is a stiff windsock so, I'm not really sure how fast it is, but
>> thanks
>> for the response. Hawke said something about full castoring gear, but
>> there
>> was no additional response to that.
>> GeoR38
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WingManBill2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Covering methods |
Well guys, I'm bout ready to start the covering process and trying to decide
on which of two systems to go with:
Poly Fiber Aircraft Coatings-Jim and Dondi Miller
Aircraft Finishing Systems-Paul and Tammy Yedinak
I like the fact that the latter is a water-borne system without the chemical
hazards, but is it as good as the first system?
Let me know what you guys think, what most are using?
Thanks again!
Bill J
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrodebush" <jrodebush(at)cinci.rr.com> |
While at Sun and Fun I spent a day at Fantasy of Flight. While there a man
introduced himself (I was wearing a Kolb T-shirt) and said he worked with
British aviation safety. He made a point to suggest that I consider using a
hard seat with "energy adsorbing foam" (I assume Temper Foam or equal). He
said they have had several bad incidents with major injuries caused by sling
seats.
I intend to use a hard shell with foam for comfort anyway. The safety may
be a bonus.
The sling vs. hard shell safety issue may have been hashed out before...???
"Rody" Mark III
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
>
>Sounds right to me, I seldom have a calm day out here in the desert. 15 MPH
>is about all the x-wind I can handle in my FSII, and that includes the
>pucker factor! I do as a rule hold the plane down with forward pressure on
>the stick and keep some throttle up for positive control until I can drop
>the tail.
I know we have talked about why the "Kolbs" or any taildragger tends to
bounce down the runway with a strong headwind or crosswind. The fact that
the tail is "heavy" and if you hit a little hard-the tail will drop to the
ground and put your wings in flying attitude again. That is why I
suggested pushing the stick a little forward into a strong
headwind/crosswind. In the winds approaching 35 knots, in my experience,
if you pull the stick back too soon-- you will be doing "bunny hops" down
the runway and replacing your $80 landing gear.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Sharp" <mlsharp_1(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering methods |
If you don't use the polyfiber you don't get to see the visions.....
I also found out that MEK is great for finding small paper type cuts in you
hand........
And Jim and Dondi are GREAT!!!!!!! will talk to you untill you are
comfortable and no question has been laughed at... (so far!)
mike
>From: WingManBill2(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: Covering methods
>Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 21:30:17 EDT
>
>
>Well guys, I'm bout ready to start the covering process and trying to
>decide
>on which of two systems to go with:
>
>Poly Fiber Aircraft Coatings-Jim and Dondi Miller
>
>Aircraft Finishing Systems-Paul and Tammy Yedinak
>
>I like the fact that the latter is a water-borne system without the
>chemical
>hazards, but is it as good as the first system?
>
>Let me know what you guys think, what most are using?
>
>Thanks again!
>
>Bill J
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
Also, somebody mentioned landing
>fast and then pushing stick forward. Does keeping the tail up make
>sense? I've always thought it better to have the tail on the ground
>for the tailwheel to help keep things pointed straight ahead
In my training in a citabria I was taught two ways to land; full stall and
wheel. the wheel landing was ussually used for crosswinds and basically was
to fly it right on to the runway, lift the tail to reduce angle of attack
and stop the lift and then slow down while rolling down the runway in a tail
high, no lift attitude intill you were below flying speed but still
controlable and then you lower the tail to the runway gently. full stall
landing involved flying down to the runway and slowing down while jusst off
the runway so that when the wing stalls you drop about an inch landing tail
low or even all three wheels at the same time. the full stall landing was
deffinately not a good way to land in a cross wind.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
In a message dated 5/10/00 10:21:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Tophera(at)centurytel.net writes:
<< n my training in a citabria I was taught two ways to land; full stall and
wheel. the wheel landing was ussually used for crosswinds and basically was
to fly it right on to the runway, lift the tail to reduce angle of attack
and stop the lift and then slow down while rolling down the runway in a tail
high, no lift attitude intill you were below flying speed but still
controlable and then you lower the tail to the runway gently. full stall
landing involved flying down to the runway and slowing down while jusst off
the runway so that when the wing stalls you drop about an inch landing tail
low or even all three wheels at the same time. the full stall landing was
deffinately not a good way to land in a cross wind.
Topher >>
J Hauk brought up the full swivel gear ....does anyone know anything about
them..I can almost feel the pain the gear goes through during part of a high
crosswind landing and I suspect that a swiveling wheel would take the stress
out of the hardware fighting the turf and the wind fed direction of the plane
at the same time!
You folks are right of course that the long chord of the Kolb causes very
quick weather vaning into the wind as the plane slows on landing (good thing
I have a very wide grass strip to land in)...and if the wind is Hard enough,
I can crab across the runway into it...lord knows there is enough drag on
such a light plane as the Kolb that ...as Ben says you could STOP if the
velocity of the wind is high enough!
Whenever I see that STIFF cross sock trying to pull its pole over, I do
about 55 on landing for a wheel job then let it weather vane into the wind as
I bring the tail down into the soft turf....Soft cause this is Ohio....where
sky color is usually grey.
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven S. Green" <GREENSS(at)Bowater.com> |
A1-type: MAIL
Bill wrote:
Well guys, I'm bout ready to start the covering process and trying to
decide on which of two systems to go with:
Poly Fiber Aircraft Coatings-Jim and Dondi Miller
Aircraft Finishing Systems-Paul and Tammy Yedinak
I like the fact that the latter is a water-borne system without the
chemical hazards, but is it as good as the first system?
Let me know what you guys think, what most are using?
Thanks again!
Bill J
Bill,
I have just finished covering my Mark III using the poly fiber system.
This was my first experience covering a plane (with the exception of
models) so I know nothing about any other system, but I do know that the
customer support that Jim and Dondi Miller offer is the best I have ever
seen in any business. I have called after hours and even on weekends
and they always answer, one time they were on the road going out to eat
when Dondi answered on the cell phone and took my order and answered my
questions. I can't say enough about their customer support and their
prices are very competitive too.
Steven Green
Mark III
N58SG
Hope to be flying by Aug.
PS My spell checker keeps wanting to replace Dondi with Dandy, it must
Know them also!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Morning Gang:
Well, yesterday was a "red letter" day for me and Miss
P'fer. After sitting quietly since 2 Jan 2000, she got
noisy when we cranked her new 912S for the first time. Only
adjustments to carbs prior to and after start were
mechanical synchronization. Turned on the Facet fuel pump
to prime the system, pulled the enricher full on, hit the
starter and before she turned a couple blades the engine was
running. All gauges worked (lucked out and got them all
hooked up correctly). I believe this engine runs smoother,
out of the box, than my old 912. My initial pitch setting
was 14 deg on the 72 inch 3 blade fast taper Warp Drive. I
could only turn 5100 rpm static, so we may be a tad heavy on
pitch. I may wait to do a pitch change after I do the first
test flight. The engine may loosen up enough to pick up
another 100 or 200 rpm. If not, I still have plenty power
to fly and I will be better educated on how much pitch
change is required. The 912S is idling very smoothly at
1600 rpm. There are no flat spots, that I can tell, between
idle and full throttle. This engine seems to run somewhat
hotter than the old 912, which is good. The 912 usually ran
too cool with oil cooler hooked up and 50/50 antifreeze.
The real truth in temps will come once we are flying and, of
course, when we encounter our first cool weather in Canada
and Alaska. We plan to have an oil cooler cover that will
be easy to install and remove when required. Nope, have to
do that on the ground with the blade stopped. :-) I did
not measure the prop clearance to boom tube, but looks like
about 1.5 inches, running a two inch prop extension.
Got to go back and remove two AN "T" fuel fittings that are
leaking. I did not use thread sealer and some of the hose
barb fittings are oozing a little. Coolant and oil hoses
are all A-OK as of now. My fuel sight gauge seems to be
working. Increased visability of the lower range, down to
.5 gal will be a big help and comfort in the future. I also
have a mark for 2.5 gal, then 5 gal marks up to 25 gal.
Will be another day or two before we fly for the first time
with the new engine. As anxious as I am to see how the new
setup will perform, I have to discipline myself to finish
all the little things that need to be done. If I don't, it
is even harder to get them accomplished after I begin
flying.
BTW: The new oversized rudder trim tab looks like it will
probably do the job. During static run up yesterday, the
rudder was really deflecting to the right. During updating
I discovered part of my yaw trim problem. For some reason I
leveled the aircraft, using a bubble level. Low and behold,
the slip/skid indicator was about 1/3 bubble out to the
right. Since I went to a much larger trim tab, I can now,
most likely, move the vertical stabilizer back to the
centered position where it belongs, rather than being bent
in a curve to the left.
Got a lot of testing, checking, and flying to do in the next
six weeks before I depart for Oshkosh via Point Barrow,
Alaska. Times a wasting and I will not depart until I am
satisfied that the airplane and I are completely ready to
go.
Does anyone have a source for US, Alaska, and Canadian
Sectionals, other than Sporty's and AOPA (my membership has
expired)?
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert E. Kearbey, D.D.S." <kearbey(at)jps.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
This definition of a crosswind wheel landing is the best yet with one
exception. A wheel landing in a cross wind doen't require any lifting of the
tail other than to lessen the back pressure slightly so as to let the
airplane stay on the ground as airspeed decreases allowing the plane to
settle on both main gear and then the tail.
Robert Kearbey CFII ASMEL
----- Original Message -----
From: <GeoR38(at)aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Landin in crosswind
>
> In a message dated 5/10/00 10:21:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Tophera(at)centurytel.net writes:
>
> << n my training in a citabria I was taught two ways to land; full stall
and
> wheel. the wheel landing was ussually used for crosswinds and basically
was
> to fly it right on to the runway, lift the tail to reduce angle of attack
> and stop the lift and then slow down while rolling down the runway in a
tail
> high, no lift attitude intill you were below flying speed but still
> controlable and then you lower the tail to the runway gently. full stall
> landing involved flying down to the runway and slowing down while jusst
off
> the runway so that when the wing stalls you drop about an inch landing
tail
> low or even all three wheels at the same time. the full stall landing
was
> deffinately not a good way to land in a cross wind.
>
> Topher >>
>
> J Hauk brought up the full swivel gear ....does anyone know anything about
> them..I can almost feel the pain the gear goes through during part of a
high
> crosswind landing and I suspect that a swiveling wheel would take the
stress
> out of the hardware fighting the turf and the wind fed direction of the
plane
> at the same time!
> You folks are right of course that the long chord of the Kolb causes very
> quick weather vaning into the wind as the plane slows on landing (good
thing
> I have a very wide grass strip to land in)...and if the wind is Hard
enough,
> I can crab across the runway into it...lord knows there is enough drag on
> such a light plane as the Kolb that ...as Ben says you could STOP if the
> velocity of the wind is high enough!
> Whenever I see that STIFF cross sock trying to pull its pole over, I do
> about 55 on landing for a wheel job then let it weather vane into the wind
as
> I bring the tail down into the soft turf....Soft cause this is
Ohio....where
> sky color is usually grey.
> GeoR38
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul VonLindern <paulv(at)digisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering methods |
Bill,
I used the Aircraft Finishing System process and couldn't tell you enough good
things about it.
My partner and I were concerned about the open flame of the furnace in the shop
where we covered and painted so the AFS process eliminated the worry. We also
liked the idea of no odor.
Paul and Tammy are very helpful and easy to reach.
Paul V
http://www.aircraftfinishing.com/
1-800-653-7200
WingManBill2(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Well guys, I'm bout ready to start the covering process and trying to decide
> on which of two systems to go with:
>
> Poly Fiber Aircraft Coatings-Jim and Dondi Miller
>
> Aircraft Finishing Systems-Paul and Tammy Yedinak
>
> I like the fact that the latter is a water-borne system without the chemical
> hazards, but is it as good as the first system?
>
> Let me know what you guys think, what most are using?
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Bill J
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: Cross wind landing gear (swivel gear) |
In a message dated 5/11/00 1:59:45 AM Central Daylight Time,
kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
<< J Hauk brought up the full swivel gear ....does anyone know anything about
them. >>
Hi Kolbers,
In the 1960s I did a lot of flying in the Cessna 195 with "cross wind gear".
I am currently a retired air line pilot with about 17,000 hours in the log
books. I have been lurking here on the Klolb-list Digest for about a year and
enjoy the comments very much.
After a lot of flying with the cross wind gear, in the 1960s, I learned that
I could simulate it for the learner on grass runways when they were wet with
dew in the morning. Tires skid nicely on wet grass runways when you do a
little braking. If you are sure that you have good wet grass and you apply
the brakes before landing the airplane would skid in the direction on the
momentum, just like on glare ice or a new fresh snow or landing with cross
wind gear on pavement or any kind of surface.
This kind of experience would prepare the learner to cope with icy runways,
hydroplaning, and or crosswind gear. Using a little power and selecting long
runways for these experiences were part of good judgment, as many of you have
already suggested for many other types of learning experiences.
Daniel Bindl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
Topher and Group,
Maybe Kolbs are not like Citabrias on landing. I have been landing Firestars
on a 500
ft grass strip for the last 4 or 5 years. The only time I ever ran out of rudder
was on
takeoff. And that only happened when I was new to a Firestar and a little slow
to get on
the left rudder on taakoff, conbimed with a crosswind. I land three point on grass
and
crosswinds have just not been a factor. My technique is to crab until just before
touchdown. But even when the plane quits flying earlier than I expect, the plane
has been
easy to straighten out with the rudder. The plane has always been easy to control
on
grass. Crosswind landings on pavement are a different story and I can understand
why
people are concerned about them. My limit for crosswind landing on grass is easily
over
15 mph, probably 20 to 25 mph. My limit for a Quicksilver MX was 15 mph, and my
Quicksilver Sprint handled about 20.
Here is a suggestion for builders. Make sure that the rudder is not smaller
than the
plans. The rudder on my Firestar to is just slightly larger. I did not want to
error on
the small side.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
SE Wisconsin
Christopher John Armstrong wrote:
> snip....
>
> In my training in a citabria I was taught two ways to land; full stall and
> wheel.
snip....
> the full stall landing was
> deffinately not a good way to land in a cross wind.
>
> Topher
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: Cross wind landing gear (swivel gear) |
<< After a lot of flying with the cross wind gear, in the 1960s, I learned
that
I could simulate it for the learner on grass runways when they were wet with
dew in the morning. Tires skid nicely on wet grass runways when you do a
little braking. If you are sure that you have good wet grass and you apply
the brakes before landing the airplane would skid in the direction on the
momentum, just like on glare ice or a new fresh snow or landing with cross
wind gear on pavement or any kind of surface.
This kind of experience would prepare the learner to cope with icy runways,
hydroplaning, and or crosswind gear. Using a little power and selecting long
runways for these experiences were part of good judgment, as many of you
have
already suggested for many other types of learning experiences.
Daniel Bindl >>
thank you Daniel, and please don't lurk so long without sharing!..You have a
lot of experience that we could all benefit by. ...and I know a little of
what you speak about the morning icy dew on the ground serving as a forgiving
landing site ....as I know of someone who has no wheels at all ...just
pontoons and sometimes he needs to land his ..Chief? ....or something like it
on land! ...he waits for early morning and brings it in carefully and leaves
it for the summer. In Fall he mounts his plane on a 4 wheeled dolly that he
made and takes it off to fly from Ohio to Canada!!....I took a video of it
once. ....neato!!
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: Cross wind landing gear (swivel gear) |
Daniel,
Welcome to the contributing portion of the list. I suspect that there are
many more people lurking out there that have something to contribute, but don't
for whatever reason. Thanks for taking that first step.
John Jung
DBindl(at)cs.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 5/11/00 1:59:45 AM Central Daylight Time,
> kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
>
> << J Hauk brought up the full swivel gear ....does anyone know anything about
> them. >>
>
> Hi Kolbers,
>
> In the 1960s I did a lot of flying in the Cessna 195 with "cross wind gear".
> I am currently a retired air line pilot with about 17,000 hours in the log
> books. I have been lurking here on the Klolb-list Digest for about a year and
> enjoy the comments very much.
>
> After a lot of flying with the cross wind gear, in the 1960s, I learned that
> I could simulate it for the learner on grass runways when they were wet with
> dew in the morning. Tires skid nicely on wet grass runways when you do a
> little braking. If you are sure that you have good wet grass and you apply
> the brakes before landing the airplane would skid in the direction on the
> momentum, just like on glare ice or a new fresh snow or landing with cross
> wind gear on pavement or any kind of surface.
>
> This kind of experience would prepare the learner to cope with icy runways,
> hydroplaning, and or crosswind gear. Using a little power and selecting long
> runways for these experiences were part of good judgment, as many of you have
> already suggested for many other types of learning experiences.
>
> Daniel Bindl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
In a message dated 5/11/00 6:36:40 PM, jrjung(at)execpc.com writes:
<< The only time I ever ran out of rudder was on
takeoff. >>
This will happen on my Mk-3 also in a fairly strong right x-wind. The problem
is that the propeller swirl hits the vertical stab on the right side pushing
the tail left and the nose right. The weathervaning effect of the right
slowly, allowing the increasing air over the rudder to create some control
authority. Once you have a bit of airspeed the rudder becomes effective
enough to handle both the prop swirl and the x-wind.
Bill George
Mk-3 582 "C" Powerfin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
In a message dated 5/11/00 9:05:04 PM, WGeorge737(at)aol.com writes:
<< This will happen on my Mk-3 also in a fairly strong right x-wind. The
problem
is that the propeller swirl hits the vertical stab on the right side pushing
the tail left and the nose right. The weathervaning effect of the right
slowly, allowing the increasing air over the rudder to create some control
authority. Once you have a bit of airspeed the rudder becomes effective
enough to handle both the prop swirl and the x-wind.
>>
Correction-----------
Don't have a clue as to how some of the above got left out. Perhaps CRS?
Anyhow, what the above SHOULD have said was: The prop swirl and the
weathervaning effect of the right x-wind combine to make the airplane head
for the right side boonies. The trick is to apply power a bit slowly to
permit the airflow over the rudder to take effect.
Sorry.....
Bill George
Mk-3 582 "C" Powerfin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ggleiter(at)minn.net |
Steven S. Green wrote:
>
>
> Bill wrote:
>
> Well guys, I'm bout ready to start the covering process and trying to
> decide on which of two systems to go with:
>
> Poly Fiber Aircraft Coatings-Jim and Dondi Miller
>
> Aircraft Finishing Systems-Paul and Tammy Yedinak
>
> I like the fact that the latter is a water-borne system without the
> chemical hazards, but is it as good as the first system?
>
> Let me know what you guys think, what most are using?
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Bill J
>
> Bill,
> I have just finished covering my Mark III using the poly fiber system.
> This was my first experience covering a plane (with the exception of
> models) so I know nothing about any other system, but I do know that the
> customer support that Jim and Dondi Miller offer is the best I have ever
> seen in any business. I have called after hours and even on weekends
> and they always answer, one time they were on the road going out to eat
> when Dondi answered on the cell phone and took my order and answered my
> questions. I can't say enough about their customer support and their
> prices are very competitive too.
>
> Steven Green
The PolyFiber system (using PolyTone as color coat) is famous for
it's user frendlieness. Many people have had good luck on their first
attempt at covering/spray painting with this system, and I am one of
them. I have reached the point where I would rather pay for PolyFiber
than get and use any other system free of charge.
gil leiter
MAPLEWOOD, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 29 Msgs - 05/09/00 |
| From: | Pam & Scott Trask <PTrask(at)diisd.org> |
on 5/10/00 1:58 AM, Kolb-List Digest Server at
kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com wrote:
> User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-MK3 912 S
> From: Pam & Scott Trask <PTrask(at)diisd.org>
>
>
>> New man on site
>> My name is Scott 38st , I have 700+ HRS. on my MK3 500+ HRS. on my 912UL.
> I
>
>
>
>
>
My name is Scott. I'm the "new man on the site" with the 912. What you
read earlier on Kolb web site was the start of a letter that I didn't finish
and it was accidentally sent. I'm new at this! My wife's still laughing at
me. I was sitting here reading my posting with a red face 'cause I didn't
realize I had sent it. Makes me feel very computer illiterate! Oh well, at
least I can fly.
What I was going to address was the 912UL vs. 912S. From the postings I've
read, I saw no mention of fuel consumption. I can get on my 912UL 2 1/2 t 3
gallons per hour. With the 912S, I wonder how much fuel that would burn at
the same speed. Having more horsepower, I'm sure you could cruise at a
lower rpm. It's something to look into if you're thinking of the 912S.
We'll know more after John H.'s trip.
--Scott 38ST
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
I'd be interested in some long term comments on the water borne ( no pun
intended ) systems' longevity. I've heard some good things about
installing the water borne coatings, but then some negative things - on good
authority - about quality of the surface after a year or 2. Has anyone been
there, done that, a couple of years or more ago ?? All joking aside, I've
found that the MEK fumes aren't all that bad; at least on an open porch. I
know I've made an awful fuss about the covering process, and had a lot of
fun on the List in the meantime, but my problem with the covering involves
Tedium, not Chemicals. My experience with Jim and Dondi has also been
GREAT ! ! ! Mekky Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven S. Green <GREENSS(at)Bowater.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 7:11 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Covering
>
> Bill wrote:
>
> Well guys, I'm bout ready to start the covering process and trying to
> decide on which of two systems to go with:
>
> Poly Fiber Aircraft Coatings-Jim and Dondi Miller
>
> Aircraft Finishing Systems-Paul and Tammy Yedinak
>
> I like the fact that the latter is a water-borne system without the
> chemical hazards, but is it as good as the first system?
>
> Let me know what you guys think, what most are using?
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Bill J
>
>
> Bill,
> I have just finished covering my Mark III using the poly fiber system.
> This was my first experience covering a plane (with the exception of
> models) so I know nothing about any other system, but I do know that the
> customer support that Jim and Dondi Miller offer is the best I have ever
> seen in any business. I have called after hours and even on weekends
> and they always answer, one time they were on the road going out to eat
> when Dondi answered on the cell phone and took my order and answered my
> questions. I can't say enough about their customer support and their
> prices are very competitive too.
>
> Steven Green
> Mark III
> N58SG
> Hope to be flying by Aug.
>
> PS My spell checker keeps wanting to replace Dondi with Dandy, it must
> Know them also!!!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Holding yourself back must be really tough, John. Hang in there. A couple
of questions: I've seen 13 - 14 of initial pitch mentioned several
times. But, what is your reference ?? Level the plane ?? Each blade
horizontal when measured ?? I plan on using the laser method mentioned a
week or so ago, but don't know quite where to start. Also, about your
fuel indicator, I think fuel in a clear tube may be hard to see at some
angles or lighting conditions, so I called A/C Spruce, and a couple other
places - long ago - and asked about the little colored balls that some
airplanes put in the wing root sight gauges. Seems like they'd be much
easier to see under all conditions, but nobody knew nothin'. I flat out
could not find them. What are your thoughts ?? I'll bet that
thing sounds awful good. Good luck. Envious Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 7:29 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Stuff!
>
> Morning Gang:
>
> Well, yesterday was a "red letter" day for me and Miss
> P'fer. After sitting quietly since 2 Jan 2000, she got
> noisy when we cranked her new 912S for the first time. Only
> adjustments to carbs prior to and after start were
> mechanical synchronization. Turned on the Facet fuel pump
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 29 Msgs - 05/09/00 |
Stick around, you'll boo-boo again somewhere, as we all have. You gotta
learn somewhere, and this is an easy-going place to do it. Just grin thru
the red face and keep going. I doubt if you'll hear any chomps from this
crew. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Pam & Scott Trask <PTrask(at)diisd.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 7:22 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 29 Msgs - 05/09/00
>
> on 5/10/00 1:58 AM, Kolb-List Digest Server at
> kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com wrote:
>
> > User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
> > Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-MK3 912 S
> > From: Pam & Scott Trask <PTrask(at)diisd.org>
> >
> >
> >> New man on site
> >> My name is Scott 38st , I have 700+ HRS. on my MK3 500+ HRS. on my
912UL.
> > I
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
Also, about your
>fuel indicator, I think fuel in a clear tube may be hard to see at some
>angles or lighting conditions, so I called A/C Spruce, and a couple other
>places - long ago - and asked about the little colored balls that some
>airplanes put in the wing root sight gauges. Seems like they'd be much
>easier to see under all conditions, but nobody knew nothin'. I flat out
>could not find them. What are your thoughts ??
I tried the same thing a few years ago because I had an alumimun tank with
a sight tube.
1. Like you said they were hard to find-impossible to find.
2. Tried to make my own out of "battery acid balls" - didn't work
3. Tried to make my own out of outside "temp floating balls"- that didn't
wortk either.
Gas eats them both up-they sink in a few days and generally make a mess.
Best you can do with a sight tube is use a clear tube and if your not using
oil injection-
you can see the gas/oil "pretty good till the sight tube gets old.
One other suggestion is to put a few drops of coloring in the gas, like
drafting ink-mostly carbon based anyway- a little goes along way.
PS. I don't use a tank I can't see through any more-think I hold the record
for running out of gas. The sight tube only works when your plane is
flying at the same level as your original calibration. Flying on long
trips not knowing if you have 2 gallons or 1/2 gallon of gas can be
stressful! I used to just turn up the stereo real loud and try not to
think about it once I was committed to the next field.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
But, what is your reference ?? Level the plane ?? Each
blade
> horizontal when measured ?? I plan on using the laser method mentioned a
> week or so ago, but don't know quite where to start. Also, about your
> fuel indicator, I think fuel in a clear tube may be hard to see at some
> angles or lighting conditions
Envious Lar.
Lar and Gang:
I use the protractor that comes with the Warp Drive.
Since I am going to put the same degree of pitch in all
three blades, I need to get a zero and a "K" factor. Zero
degrees is the face of the prop hub. Rotate the center ring
with the bubble level until the bubble is between the
lines. Then read what the angle is, + or - a number of
degrees. Now I use a level to get the blade horizontal, add
or subtract the 14 degrees (or whatever pitch you want to
pull in) to the "K" factor, twist the blade to level the
bubble. Do the same to the other two blades, then go back
and double check my work.
I have been using Tygon tubing for fuel site gauges since my
Firestar days. That Tygon was yellow. The new Tygon I now
have is clear. Never needed any "little colored balls" to
see how much fuel I had, even at night. Absolutely no
problem during daylight hours or dark. At night I hit the
gauge with my minimag flash light. Fuel level stands right
out.
BTW: Even though my MK III is signed off to fly at night, I
do not make it a habit to go out and toot around the area at
night for funsies. Usually get to log night flight when I
get caught out on cross countries. It is nice to have the
capability, but not recommended to fly single engine
experimental at night on a regular basis. When I am XC'ing
I have a minimag flahlight with red lense and one with white
lense. It helps to have some way to read sectional and
supplements. Also a back up if panel lights go belly up.
There is also a good chance loosing the single landing
light. NO, I don't use the minimags for backup landing
lights. :-) They have a very short life. I installed a
new halogen landing light bulb for the trip to Point
Barrow. Haven't had a chance to fly with it yet, but
tonight it seemed brighter than the old one and it is
supposed to last longer.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: Cross wind landing gear (swivel gear) |
> I could simulate it for the learner on grass runways when they were wet
with
> dew in the morning. Tires skid nicely on wet grass runways when you do a
> little braking. If you are sure that you have good wet grass and you apply
> the brakes before landing the airplane would skid in the direction on the
> momentum, just like on glare ice or a new fresh snow or landing with cross
> wind gear on pavement or any kind of surface.
so instead of developing a complicated castering mechinism for our landing
gear we just need to get teflon tires....
or you can slip it to the runway instead of crabing. you would land one
wheel first but that should not be as big a deal as landing sideways.
John Jung,
i would be less worried about running out of rudder then geting flipped up
and cetch a wing tip when your just at stall speed and a big crosswind gust
comes along. the lack of dihedral of the kolbs is probably a great help
here compared to the citabria and most other planes. I have never run out
of rudder but I have had to choose between staying in line with the runway
and keeping a wing down. if a wing starts to lift you stomp on the rudder
to get it down, which points you off the runway. I've been tought that i'm
a bit better off wheel landing in tough winds but I am a very low time pilot
and if you have the skill to full stall in a crosswind then have at it.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re:cross wind landings |
Does keeping the tail up make
sense?
i asked a cfi certified flight instructor that very
question in a training question last week his
reply was that in either a full stall landing or a wheel
landing you still needed rudder authority in order to keep
it straight and not ground loop. he also mentioned the use
of breaking once the main wheels were firmly planted on the
ground (wheel landing) to assist the rudder in maintaining
the authority needed to keep it straight. i think that
one would take a lot of practice.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Well Possum, I'd still like to know how that out of gas situation too far
from the airport worked out in your video. Didja get killed ?? That was a
real Hitchcock ending. Never knew you to worry about gas anyway. Trees
either. Seem to remember you turning a FireStar into a submarine one time
?? Trees again ?? Gas ?? Didja ever send that guy the pic of your
"SwimStar ??" Seriously, actually I did find the little gas
balls, I think at Wag-Aero if memory serves, but they're too big for our
lines. I guess they're treated with something, cause they told me not to
try cutting them up. Also saw something in a mag a long time ago, about
making a strip of diagonals, like a long row of chevrons to put behind the
tube. Refraction shows the gas right up. Don't think I'll worry over-much
about it anymore, if John's never had a problem, I doubt if I will. The
ole eyeballs still work pretty good, and I - Most Definitely - don't plan on
any night flying. Had to do it to get my pilot's license, and hated every
second. Think I'd rather swim in a river full of Crocodiles. Safer. Steve
Irwin does it all the time - why not me ?? Har har. Then again, I guess
he's the "Crocodile Hunter" for a reason.
ChickenSh_ _ Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Stuff!
>
> Also, about your
> >fuel indicator, I think fuel in a clear tube may be hard to see at some
> >angles or lighting conditions, so I called A/C Spruce, and a couple other
> >places - long ago - and asked about the little colored balls that some
> >airplanes put in the wing root sight gauges. Seems like they'd be much
> >easier to see under all conditions, but nobody knew nothin'. I flat out
> >could not find them. What are your thoughts ??
>
> I tried the same thing a few years ago because I had an alumimun tank with
> a sight tube.
> 1. Like you said they were hard to find-impossible to find.
> 2. Tried to make my own out of "battery acid balls" - didn't work
> 3. Tried to make my own out of outside "temp floating balls"- that didn't
> wortk either.
>
> Gas eats them both up-they sink in a few days and generally make a mess.
> Best you can do with a sight tube is use a clear tube and if your not
using
> oil injection-
> you can see the gas/oil "pretty good till the sight tube gets old.
> One other suggestion is to put a few drops of coloring in the gas, like
> drafting ink-mostly carbon based anyway- a little goes along way.
>
> PS. I don't use a tank I can't see through any more-think I hold the
record
> for running out of gas. The sight tube only works when your plane is
> flying at the same level as your original calibration. Flying on long
> trips not knowing if you have 2 gallons or 1/2 gallon of gas can be
> stressful! I used to just turn up the stereo real loud and try not to
> think about it once I was committed to the next field.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
All this talk about fuel lines, etc. got me to thinking, and it hurts, so I
just gotta talk this out. I believe quite a few people have ordered the 15
or 16 gal aluminum fuel tank for their Mk III's, as I did. ( Does anyone
know for sure just what they do hold ?? ) Can't remember if I said this a
couple of yrs. ago or not, so here we go again. Every solid mounted
aluminum tank I've ever seen has been cracked. That's why I've seen them -
they're out for repairs, and the thought doesn't fill me with confidence.
When it came time to mount mine, I ordered 1 sq. ft. of 1/8" gum rubber
from McMaster-Carr, along with a short piece of 5/8" surgical tubing. Cut
strips of gum rubber, and glued them to the frame rails that the tank sits
on, and to the mounting tabs. Then, carefully, drilled out the mounting
bolt holes on the frame and on the tank. It's awkward, and doesn't look
real pretty, but that's OK. Took 3/16" bolts, and put on each, a
washer, a 3/4" piece of the tubing, another washer, and a lock nut.
Installed one in each drilled out hole, and tightened them down, so they
acted like the expander cork in a thermos bottle. There's 8 of those bolts,
and along with the gum rubber, let the tank move just a little, and then
STOP it solid. I don't want it coming loose if I hit something.
Hopefully all this will eliminate any cracking of the tank. If not, it
won't be from lack of trying. If anyone's interested, I have one 1/2 assed
pic of the whole thing. If there's enuf interest, I'll take some better
ones. Guess maybe I should anyway. Manana. Cautious
Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
The original comment on holding the stick forward struck me a little
odd. I could recall holding the stick back a little for XWind
take-offs, but I think for Xwind landings I've mostly just left the
stick neutral (in pitch, not in roll) and that has worked okay. As I
slow down to taxiing speed I've used the practice of keeping the stick
pushed in the same direction as the wind (to avoid a flip over from
incorrect aileron or elevator position). The most Xwind I've landed in
is about 12mph 90deg. I had never really known that the correct idea
for stronger Xwind landings is to do a wheel landing. Glad to know
what the experience and CFI knowledge out there is, so thanks all. BTW
George (38, and/or Curious George), I wouldn't worry a bit about the
side strain put on a tail wheel with Xwind forces. My experience and
opinion is that it will not suffer, and that is what it is there for.
I'm sure it skids sideways a little as the Xwind forces (and light tail
weight) dictate -- no way is it going to plant and get overpowered to
any breaking point.
-Ben Ransom
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ggleiter(at)minn.net |
Larry Bourne wrote:
>
>
> I'd be interested in some long term comments on the water borne ( no pun
> intended ) systems' longevity. I've heard some good things about
> installing the water borne coatings, but then some negative things - on good
> authority - about quality of the surface after a year or 2. Has anyone been
> there, done that, a couple of years or more ago ?? All joking aside, I've
> found that the MEK fumes aren't all that bad; at least on an open porch. I
> know I've made an awful fuss about the covering process, and had a lot of
> fun on the List in the meantime, but my problem with the covering involves
> Tedium, not Chemicals. My experience with Jim and Dondi has also been
> GREAT ! ! ! Mekky Lar.
I use a 3M mask when using PolyFiber Products. For MEK one does'nt
need anything like what is required for the urethane coatings, only
something to remove the vapors. This is NOT the paper filter type of
mask used for cold weather breathing, or for surgical purposes. Rather
it is the simple activated charcoal type of mask. It really eliminates
the "smell" of MEK almost entirely. While MEK exposure CAN be a
problem, it is not at such a level that one should accept less in
performance of a product in order to avoid it.
Do the water based coatings "less in performance"? That remains to be
seen. PolyFiber has been around since the late '60s, almost 35 years
with many thousands of aircraft covered and has a well established track
record. The new kid on the block has been around in significant numbers
for less than a decade. In reality it is sold mainly on the
"environment". Age testing you say? I am sure they have done
artificial aging testing (note that I do not use the phrase
"accellerated ageing - I hate those words}. However, I have done a very
large amount of testing to attempt to predict how well something is
going to age. Such tests are better than nothing, but are full of
potential misleading factors.
In short, these new coatings might very well turn out to be great.
Always happy to see new ideas that prove to be breakthroughs. However,
I do not like the idea of being a test pilot.
gil leiter
MAPLEWOOD, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <NeilsenR(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Fuel Sight Tube (Gage) |
I use a clear fuel line sight gage on my MKIII. I found that the accuracy of the
gage was best closest to the tank. If the gage(sight tube) is put out in front
of the pilot were you can see it the level changes with every pitch change.
I placed mine just to the right of my right shoulder app 4 inches in front of
the tanks. I quickly found it worked will on the ground but for a quick look
while flying these old eyes couldn't make out the fuel level. I tried spiral wrapping
the tube with thin instrument marking tape with some improvement. Finally
I found a small cork stopper that I have trimmed down in size so that it fits
the sight tube but is too large to pass through the T fittings that connect
the tube to the fuel system. So far the cork has been floating for 3 months.
Rick Neilsen
VW powered MKIII 27Hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | more cross wind landing thoughts |
Hi Kolbers,
During the 1970s, while I managed a one runway 2100' grass strip airport, I
watched and taught a lot of cross wind stuff. When the approach was arranged
such that the ground roll could be diagonally into the wind, the pilot could
produce the slowest landing speed and shortest ground roll. In fact with 30
Knot winds occasionally Cubs and Cessna 140s would be so diagonal that they
were nearly crossways to the runway, as has been recommended by some of our
other contributors. Of course with this line of thinking, the width of the
runway, and the condition of the space on the 'role out' side of the runway
become important considerations. Power management during approach, touchdown,
and role out, also was a key factor in making this a comfortable, safe,
operation.
With cross wind gear, and on icy runways one must continue to yaw, more and
more, into the wind during the role out or one is pushed off the other side
of the runway by the winds. As the speed decreases, the into the wind crab
angle needs to increase. It is safe to stop facing directly into the wind.
I expect that if I flew the current Kolb, with the source of thrust above the
wing, I would do more NEW learning. I have had some experience flying the
UltraStar #306 (which I built) back in the mid 1980s.
Daniel Bindl
Southern Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "VIC" <vicw(at)vcn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 05/11/00 |
I have used both Poly Fiber and Aircraft Finishing Systems. I will NOT use
Poly Fiber again.
I recommend attending the covering class that AFS. You will learn a lot of
tricks that make covering easier
Vic (Wyoming Firestar)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Website forms mailer back up . . . |
Our website is back up using a generic forms mailer that came
with the original configuration. I seem to have been swallowed
up in the policies and procedures swamp at my host's offices.
Couldn't get an expert to look at the problem until a form had
been filled out and dropped on somebody's desk; a day later expert
takes a peek and then phones me at the wrong number to leave voicemail
on quote to fix; a day later expert is out for the day; etc. etc.
Gave up and went back to square one.
In any case, the system is functioning as of this hour. I'm really
warming to the idea of having my site-server site in dedicated
hardware right in my office . . . we'll have DSL in our neighborhood
this fall so that just might be the ultimate solution.
Thanks to everyone for their patience.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( still understand knothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vendor48(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-Not using Poly fiber |
<< I will NOT use Poly Fiber again. >>
Vic,
Care to be more specific with problems (?), or results (?) that were
undesirable? Jerry want repairable FS fuse, or have RT. wing and tail for
sale
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: more cross wind landing thoughts |
In a message dated 5/12/00 8:46:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, DBindl(at)cs.com
writes:
<< I expect that if I flew the current Kolb, with the source of thrust above
the
wing, I would do more NEW learning. I have had some experience flying the
UltraStar #306 (which I built) back in the mid 1980s.
Daniel Bindl
Southern Wisconsin >>
I'm guessing that with the weight of the engine and its thrustline so high on
the Kolb that your concern about having a forgiving slippery connection
between the gear and the ground would be even more important than on another
lower center of thrust/gravity type of plane relative to tippiness and ground
loopiing..... just a thought
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
| Subject: | Landin in crosswind |
My understanding of the wheel landing is that one has more control in a
adverse landing situation. Since the pilot still has speed when landing it
is possible to simply apply additional power with the proper rudder and
aileron corrections and just take off thereby avoiding a possible ground
loop. With a full stall landing control of the plane is subject to the
available rudder and aileron depending on the speed and direction of the
wind. I always wheel land and have landed with 15 kts. @ 45 degress with no
problems. I believe Ben's 12 @ 90 deg is still stronger and kolbs seem to
handle that just fine. The other reason I paractice and do wheel landings is
to save the landing gear. So far it has worked.
John N670JW
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Ransom [mailto:bwr000(at)yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Landin in crosswind
The original comment on holding the stick forward struck me a little
odd. I could recall holding the stick back a little for XWind
take-offs, but I think for Xwind landings I've mostly just left the
stick neutral (in pitch, not in roll) and that has worked okay. As I
slow down to taxiing speed I've used the practice of keeping the stick
pushed in the same direction as the wind (to avoid a flip over from
incorrect aileron or elevator position). The most Xwind I've landed in
is about 12mph 90deg. I had never really known that the correct idea
for stronger Xwind landings is to do a wheel landing. Glad to know
what the experience and CFI knowledge out there is, so thanks all. BTW
George (38, and/or Curious George), I wouldn't worry a bit about the
side strain put on a tail wheel with Xwind forces. My experience and
opinion is that it will not suffer, and that is what it is there for.
I'm sure it skids sideways a little as the Xwind forces (and light tail
weight) dictate -- no way is it going to plant and get overpowered to
any breaking point.
-Ben Ransom
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landin in crosswind |
In a message dated 5/12/00 1:10:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bwr000(at)yahoo.com
writes:
<< Glad to know
what the experience and CFI knowledge out there is, so thanks all. BTW
George (38, and/or Curious George), I wouldn't worry a bit about the
side strain put on a tail wheel with Xwind forces. My experience and
opinion is that it will not suffer, and that is what it is there for.
I'm sure it skids sideways a little as the Xwind forces (and light tail
weight) dictate -- no way is it going to plant and get overpowered to
any breaking point.
-Ben Ransom >>
Ben, I appreciate your input on the tailwheel, which i would suspect does
feel some pain, or stress, or extra force..for sure on a crosswind landing,
but my main consern was for the mains, as I have not had good luck with my
wheel bearings and gear..so far I am on my 6th and 7th gear and my 3rd pair
of wheels and 8th set of bearings there. Which really means that each set of
wheels has had its own set of bearings, ie. 6 total plus one new set for the
last set of bigger wheels. I found that the cheapos that came with the kit in
1992 were very cheap and so I befriended the Bearings inc. guy locally and
put in new ones there after no more than 10 landings (I'm guessing).
Crosswinds have probably been a contributor to the degradation of my chronic
main bearing syndrome, but a more probable deleterious aspect is the slight
bending of the gear legs, causing a partial side thrust on the main bearings.
My increase in weight has also hastened the life sapping forces on the
bearings as well, I assume.
I went from 185 to 220 and am back down to 207....gotta get back to 185!!!
Gimme more grass to eat!!...I HATE it!!
GeoR38/Curious george...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more cross wind landing thoughts |
> I'm guessing that with the weight of the engine and its thrustline so high on
> the Kolb that your concern about having a forgiving slippery connection
> between the gear and the ground would be even more important than on another
> lower center of thrust/gravity type of plane relative to tippiness and ground
> loopiing..... just a thought
> GeoR38
GeorR38 and Kolbers:
Airplanes with a lot of weight on the tailwheel are much
more prone to ground looping than Homer Kolbs designs.
Homer designed his airplanes with most of the weight on the
main gear to make them easier to ground handle and less
likely to ground loop. Then there are people like me who
change his design to gain somethings that are lost in making
the Kolbs easy to fly. I pushed the main gear 8 inches
forward on my MK III. I felt I needed more weight on the
tailwheel to keep from nosing over in rough field, soft
field, no field high weeds and brush conditions. By doing
this I sacrificed the gentle taxi/landing characteristics of
the standard design. Now I have a heavy pendalum sticking
way out behind me. The track of the main gear is aprx 72
inches or 84, CRS. This keeps the aircraft level during
ground loops, like my initial landing at Oshkosh 98. Lost
the right tailwheel spring somewhere between taking off from
Joliet, IL, and landing at Oshkosh. A blustery 90 degree
crosswind from the west. Could not understand why I was no
longer in control of my airplane after touchdown. :-) Had
I known, I could have gotten down hard on the right brake
and maybe, just maybe saved it. However, everything turned
out ok. Miss P'fer stayed level. I taxied over to the
fence like nothing out of the ordinary had happened.
Everybody thought I was "hot dogging" and intended to do the
short fancy roll out with a twist.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: more cross wind landing thoughts |
In a message dated 5/12/00 4:27:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
<< The track of the main gear is aprx 72
inches or 84, CRS. This keeps the aircraft level during
ground loops, like my initial landing at Oshkosh 98. Lost
the right tailwheel spring somewhere between taking off from
Joliet, IL, and landing at Oshkosh. A blustery 90 degree
crosswind from the west. Could not understand why I was no
longer in control of my airplane after touchdown. :-) Had
I known, I could have gotten down hard on the right brake
and maybe, just maybe saved it. However, everything turned
out ok. Miss P'fer stayed level. I taxied over to the
fence like nothing out of the ordinary had happened.
Everybody thought I was "hot dogging" and intended to do the
short fancy roll out with a twist.
>>
John, I had a similar experience ferrying an N3 pup for a friend of mine 100
miles after he bought it and didn't know how to get it home to Bristolville
Ohio.
I took off from grass in a Global underpowered 1/2 VW engine with the wrong
prop as it turned out, and when I landed on concrete, I thought I had turned
into a human squirrel as the Pup went all over the VERY WIDE AND I'M GLAD
runway!! It is amazing how quick God and mother nature combine in their
efforts to teach when things ain't goin so good!! Needless to say, I sped up
and tried to keep the tail up as long as I could so that I could ultimately
steer the airplane and everyone lived happily ever after...including those
with a cup of coffee behind the glass of the restaurant with the smug
chuckles!
That taught me how to land without a tailwheel spring and how to go for the
chuckle!!
Geo38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 05/11/00 |
to lar and all
i got a small cork had to carve it into a round ball and
put it in some red dye and let it soak for a while. then
put it inside the 1/4 in clear fuel tube, it is real easy
to see. also to make some stops in the fuel line so the
cork did not get lost i cut a 1/4 inch or so of tubing and
pushed it side wards into the fuel line with a welding rod
, had to get it wet with gas first so it would go in
easier. i had tried small ball of wood and even tried a
small light from a set of christmas lights neither one
would float. hope it helps.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ggleiter(at)minn.net |
bob n wrote:
>
>
> Possum,
>
> For another try at gas-dyeing, see pg 149 of Flying tales of The Grey
> Baron:
>
> Dye-job #1
>
> At a certain airfield an owner was known to occasionally top off his
> tanks with mogas. A friend from the FAA told him that when any two
> grades were mixed, the resultant mixture turned clear. This worried Mr.
> Economical, as the field was known for Ramp Checks.
> But on landing there was the dreaded Ramp Checker, all toothy smiles and
> Were here to help you make flying safer. Log books and aircraft papers
> please. Alles was in ordnung until a request for a fuel check. Each
> wing dutifully dribbled a short shot of bright green, then clear mogas.
> The dye was water soluble, and mixing with the usual few drops in the
> bottom of the tanks, flowed out bright green, unmixed with the gas.
>
> bn aka The Grey Baron
Is this supposed to suggest that one cannot use mogas in a certificated
aircraft?
EAA has STC's for many, many combinations of certificated engines in
certificated aircraft. No reason not to have one and use mogas.
gil leiter
MAPLEWOOD, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
Sue
had the faa inspection this week and the inspector did not
like the way the seat belts attached to the airframe. i
showed him the drawings in the booklet. he still was not
impressed. he wanted a metal bracket sewed to the belt and
bolted to the airframe. Anyone else had this problem.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dboll" <dboll(at)ndak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 05/11/00 |
Hi Vic
I saw your post and if I'm on the right track I met you at McGill field in AZ this
winter. I farm in ND and was flying the black and white kolb. I tryed to get
hold of you on the way home in march but you were out that day. I would like
to look at you firestar and see about picking up the nose cone you offerd me.
It sure would make my plane look better and it would be a fun project. I left
the kolb in AZ and met a man form MN in tthe same park I was in . He has a mark
3 and is going to bring it to AZ next winter. If you come out it would be
fun to get together and swap some stories.
I will be going to Denver May 27 and would stop by if you are around. We will be
returning a few days latter so ether way would work. Boy If I have the wrong
Vic this dosn't make any sense to you at all. Anyway if you are a insurance man
from Sundace, please get back to me.
Don in Dakota
----------
>
>
> I have used both Poly Fiber and Aircraft Finishing Systems. I will NOT use
> Poly Fiber again.
> I recommend attending the covering class that AFS. You will learn a lot of
> tricks that make covering easier
>
> Vic (Wyoming Firestar)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | power management in crosswind landings |
In a message dated 5/13/00 2:00:14 AM Central Daylight Time,
kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
<<
I'm guessing that with the weight of the engine and its thrustline so high
on
the Kolb that your concern about having a forgiving slippery connection
between the gear and the ground would be even more important than on another
lower center of thrust/gravity type of plane relative to tippiness and
ground
loopiing..... just a thought
GeoR38 >>
All relative, but not exactly Geo.
In the traditional tail wheel (engine up front) airplanes, 'managing power'
would manage tail surface responsiveness and, that increase in ground effect
under the high wing, (especially with flaps extended), resulting in a stall
speed for landing that was several miles per hour slower then with the
propeller turning at idle speed.
John h contributed very valuable information about 'main gear location.' The
early Cessna 140s, also, had a near center of gravity, main gear location,
but users were continually 'nosing over' so they moved the gear forward on
the later models by about 4 inches to solve the problem for the normal user.
My guess is that 'wheel landings' would then be a little more vulnerable to
'porposing'.
In talking with the Cessna factory people and experimenting, we found that
with proper management of power (prop blast over the tail surfaces and under
wings), we could land a Cessna 140 with brakes engaged and skid to a stop,
even on pavement.
Daniel Bindl
Southern Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: power management in crosswind landings |
The
> early Cessna 140s, also, had a near center of gravity, main gear location,
> but users were continually 'nosing over' so they moved the gear forward on
> the later models by about 4 inches to solve the problem for the normal user.
> My guess is that 'wheel landings' would then be a little more vulnerable to
> 'porposing'.
>
> In talking with the Cessna factory people and experimenting, we found that
> with proper management of power (prop blast over the tail surfaces and under
> wings), we could land a Cessna 140 with brakes engaged and skid to a stop,
> even on pavement.
>
> Daniel Bindl
Daniel:
Have to agree with you on the above. If you don't stay
ahead of your wheel landing in my MKIII, you will certainly
pop up as the mains hit and the tail comes down.
Your second point sounds like you are describing a normal
landing in my MK III. There is no indication to nose over
on all surfaces except dry pavement. Can lock up on wet
pavement with not problem, but dry will get the tail up.
Normally do not make wheel landings because of ease in
getting into a pop up situation. However, come in with a
little power and she will fly or settle back down and stop
flying.
Take care,
john h
PS: Spent all day yesterday working on parachute
installation in center section. Tends to wear down my poor
old brain trying to think far enough ahead as I engineer the
project. The center section on the MK III is unique, to
install it has to be clean on the bottom. My parachute
installation will have the the BRS rocket laucher protruding
thru the bottom into the cockpit near the bulkhead behind
the left seat (copilot seat in my MK III). So, I have to
install the rocket after the parachute is installed in the
center section and after the center section is installed on
the aircraft. However, since I lowered the rocket 4 inches,
I will not have the rocket protruding out the top of the
center section. The parachute egress will be thru a piece
of black "hair cell" plastic sheet (provided by BRS) that is
22"X16", secured with alum pop rivets and sealed with
silicone seal. You can tell BRS what size you want. I had
them send me two pieces in case I screwed up one. Now I
have a BRS 1050 Softpack, completely inclosed, with a 6 year
repack and 12 rocket replacement. Hopefully will not have
to worry about keeping the water out, resealing around
rocket and deployment door as I did with the old 2d Chantz
Chute.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrodebush" <jrodebush(at)cinci.rr.com> |
| Subject: | cross-wind landings / cork fuel indicatiors |
The closest thing to an ultralight that I've flown is a J-3 Cub. The
procedure that was taught for cross-wind landings was to slip it in straight
down the runway at a little hotter speed, then as soon as a wheel (or
wheels) touch down push the stick slightly forward to "plant" the wheels and
to make sure you have killed the wing lift. Then keep pushing the stick
forward as you slow down until the tail cannot be kept up. Then the stick
is pulled completely back to stick the tail wheel for control. Don't know
how this would work for a Kolb.
Also, the fuel indicator in a Cub is a wire produding through the cas cap
with a cork float on the bottom. The wire goes down as the fuel is used.
The cork seems to last forever.
Rody (Building a Mark III)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: cross-wind landings / cork fuel indicatiors |
Thanks, but what do they use to seal that cork ?? Wonder if nail polish
would work ?? My girlfriend's got lots of that. Is it soluble in gas ??
Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: jrodebush <jrodebush(at)cinci.rr.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2000 8:50 AM
> Also, the fuel indicator in a Cub is a wire produding through the cas cap
> with a cork float on the bottom. The wire goes down as the fuel is used.
> The cork seems to last forever.
>
> Rody (Building a Mark III)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cross-wind landings / cork fuel indicatiors |
Big Lar and Gang:
I forgot to mention when I was talking about my fuel site
gauge, but I use 3/8 ID clear Tygon, not 1/4 ID. For
fittings I use the old Kolb fuel tank "push in" fittings
that were installed with a large rubber gromet. The big end
of the fittings fits the 3/8 ID tubing nicely, the 1/4 end
of fitting goes thru alum or steel tangs in the bulkhead,
top and bottom. The fuel line is pushed on the fitting
after it is pushed thru the bulkhead, held in place with a
SS hose clamp. With this set up you will not need "little
colored balls", fish bobbers, artificial snow, or Easter egg
dye. You will be able to see the fuel level, no sweat GI.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | OV protection w/built in regulator |
>My experience has been that most of the hardware old enough to use an
>external regulator is also less reliable. Note that I said 'my
>experience' and 'most.' I went through 4 externally regulated
>alternators & at least that many regulators in about 4 months before
>switching to an internally regulated alt. almost 5 years ago, with not a
>single glitch since. None of the above failures were of the o/v nature &
>none damaged any avionics.
Agreed . . . and MOST of the externally regulated alternator
hardware out there is specific to aircraft and designed/certified
20-30 years ago. Check the service difficulty reports using keyword
"alternator" and then filter for single engine aircraft . . .
Everything that might be deduced in the way of alternator failures
happens every month in a TC aircraft . . . "casting broke, thru-bolts
stripped, brushes worn out, windings burned, bearings siezed, diodes
shorted, etc. etc." FBO's love 'em . . . regulated job security well
into the new century.
On the other hand, when you take a brand new, Nipon-Dienso, 40 or
60 amp alternator, disassemble for modification to run external
regulation, balance the rotor to about 10x tighter specs than
they come out of the factory and re-assemble with due care, you
end up with an alternator that runs well for a very long time.
I have first hand knowledge of 2,000+ such alternators sold over
the last 8 years . . . not one has returned for wear-out or
repair. It's the difference between a 1990's product and a
1960's product.
>I don't use o/v protection, but if I did, it would probably be the very
>simple zener/fuse arrangement. I'm sure Bob's solid state system is more
>sophisticated & works better, but as the guy used to write in BYTE
>Magazine, 'Better is the enemy of good enough.'
The zener fuse combo was certified onto early American and subsequently
Grumman-American aircraft. It's a sort of poor-man's crowbar ov
protection scheme. When I first heard of it, I was skeptical.
It has been about 15 years since I brass-boarded this system onto
an alternator-battery system in the lab. Here's what I found.
Proper operation of the system depended heavily on two things.
(1) A fuse (fast acting) had to be used upstream of the zener
and (2) the zener had to be a 1W glass encapsulated device -
p/n 1N4745.
It works like this: In an ov condition, the zener tries its
best to keep the bus voltage from rising above 16 volts. In so
doing, internal disipation rises well above the diode's 1W
rating and it commits electronic suicide by becoming a dead
short. The resulting short opens the fuse and corrals the runaway
alternator.
Over the years, folk who did not understand the "balance of
power" implicit the this design made well meaning-changes to
this scheme with the unintended consequences of degrading
performance or even making the system ineffectual. Common
errors include:
(1) Replace pesky fuse with a real circuit breaker: Opening
times for breakers vs. fuses is 10x to 50x longer. The slow
response of the breaker stresses the zener to explosive
destruction. The altenrator runaway continues unabated.
(2) Substituted any ol zener with the number "1N4745"
printed on it: Plastic parts were unable to withstand
the rapid onset of heat dissipation and explosive
destruction of the zener results. The runaway continues
unabated.
(3) Substitute a really husky 16 volt zener for the itty-
bitty 1W device. This change was often combined with
a change from fuse to circuit breaker. The general idea
was to make the protection scheme "reusable" . . . no
fuses -or- zeners to replace: The general effect of this
modification was to push the time-constant for tripping
OV protection out by hundreds of milliseconds to perhaps
several seconds. Contemporary OV protection is designed
to react to a step from 14-20 volts on the bus in 50
milliseconds or less.
>My personal feeling about external regulators & o/v protection is this:
>Once I reach a certain (hard to define) comfort level about the
>reliability of a system, I'd rather not add failure modes. Over-voltage
>type failures in self-regulated alternators seem to be so rare that you
>hear about every one. Generator/regulator & alt/regulator failures are
>so common that they are treated like dry vac pump failures, you know
>they are going to happen sometime in the near future.
No argument about comfort levels . . . I'll suggest that
the greatest body of experience with aircraft alternators
comes from the world of certified aircraft. My best
recommendation is to see what's happening with true
state-of-the art designs and fabrication techniques.
There's a mistaken perception that the certified aircraft
world is benefiting from the advance of technologies
in all respects . . . I'll suggest it happens only in
area of things you bolt into holes on the instrument
panel. Stuff under the cowl has evolved very slowly if
at all in 50 years or so that have passed since
the first generator was bolted to a single engine
airplane. If you want to know what a modern alternator
can really do for you, you'll have to limit your
observations to the real leading edge of aviation
technologies . . . check out the flight line at
OSH.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( still understand knothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: cross-wind landings / cork fuel indicatiors |
Ogay John, we'll give'er hell. Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2000 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: cross-wind landings / cork fuel indicatiors
>
> Big Lar and Gang:
>
> I forgot to mention when I was talking about my fuel site
> gauge, but I use 3/8 ID clear Tygon, not 1/4 ID. For
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WingManBill2(at)aol.com |
Anybody out there running a 503 Rotax on a Mark III? My budget might force
me to consider this powerplant and was wondering if Kolb's advertized
performance is close? 52 hp doesn't sound like alot to me! Any input would
be appreciated! Thanks guys!
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrodebush" <jrodebush(at)cinci.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Cork fuel indicators / J3 |
Lar,
I don't have any idea what with or if the cork was sealed. As I remember
the cork was dark and relatively smooth. There was no obvious seal
material.
Rody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dboll" <dboll(at)ndak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
I have a friend that had a 503 on his Mark111 and it flew just great. I have a
503 on a firestar and we flew together and I never saw a time when he needed more
power. He did fly solo but I took it up with two of us in it and all went
fine
Don in Dakota
----------
>
>
> Anybody out there running a 503 Rotax on a Mark III? My budget might force
> me to consider this powerplant and was wondering if Kolb's advertized
> performance is close? 52 hp doesn't sound like alot to me! Any input would
> be appreciated! Thanks guys!
>
> Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
Bill
I have a 503 on my Mark III. It gives great performance if I'm flying by
myself and I have not had anby problems with it. It is not so great if I want
to take another adult over 180lbs., especially on a hot summer day. For this
reason alone I often wish I had a 582. So I guess it depends on what type of
flying you will be doing.
Jim
Serial #003
do nt archive
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Flying into Canada |
| From: | Pam & Scott Trask <PTrask(at)diisd.org> |
Hi John H
What's involved in legally flying into Canada?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flying into Canada |
> Hi John H
> What's involved in legally flying into Canada?
Scott Trask
Hi Scott and Gang:
Pretty easy to fly into Canada now days. I assume you are
referring to "US Experimentals."
First get a copy of a letter from Transport Canada
authorizing entry into Canada in a Experimental. Go here to
get the letter.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/mainten/regs&docs/download.htm
Click on the second button to download the file for the
letter.
You must have on board the aircraft and in your possession
all the usual paper work required to fly you experimental in
the US.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: power management in crosswind landings |
John,
Might have to just catch you around before long and get some shots of
your chute installation....sounds slick. Do you happen to know what a
repack of a softpack cost? I have been kicking that decision around
awhile...softpack would be more compact but canister lasts longer. Oh yea ,
I don't have the benefit of a brother for a parachute rigger!!!
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
> john h
>
> PS: Spent all day yesterday working on parachute
> installation in center section. Tends to wear down my poor
> old brain trying to think far enough ahead as I engineer the
> project. The center section on the MK III is unique, to
> install it has to be clean on the bottom. My parachute
> installation will have the the BRS rocket laucher protruding
> thru the bottom into the cockpit near the bulkhead behind
> the left seat (copilot seat in my MK III). So, I have to
> install the rocket after the parachute is installed in the
> center section and after the center section is installed on
> the aircraft. However, since I lowered the rocket 4 inches,
> I will not have the rocket protruding out the top of the
> center section. The parachute egress will be thru a piece
> of black "hair cell" plastic sheet (provided by BRS) that is
> 22"X16", secured with alum pop rivets and sealed with
> silicone seal. You can tell BRS what size you want. I had
> them send me two pieces in case I screwed up one. Now I
> have a BRS 1050 Softpack, completely inclosed, with a 6 year
> repack and 12 rocket replacement. Hopefully will not have
> to worry about keeping the water out, resealing around
> rocket and deployment door as I did with the old 2d Chantz
> Chute.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | BRS Soft Pack 1050 Mounted in Center Section |
Do you happen to know what a
> repack of a softpack cost? I have been kicking that decision around
> awhile...softpack would be more compact but canister lasts longer. Oh yea ,
> I don't have the benefit of a brother for a parachute rigger!!!
>
> Jeremy Casey
Jeremy and Gang:
Do not know what the fee is fto repack soft Pack, but with
the entire system inside the airplane, including the rocket,
the repack interval is 6 years. I'll worry about the repack
when the time comes. BRS uses a hydraulic press, or
something similar to pack the 1050 and larger softpacks. If
we wanted to invest in the machine, then Brother Jim could
repack for me. Not sure what the press cost.
Got the BRS installed and center section on the airplane.
What a "first time" job. Next time I have to do it I will
know how. This first installation was a lot of trial and
error, sitting and thinking, and scratching my head. Will
take some getting used to the bottom of the rocket launcher
inside the cockpit, but after installation I sat in the left
seat and it did not interfere with my normal sitting
position. May need to fabricate some type of padding to
cover the 1/8 inch alum plate and the launcher. I am sure
one could get his "chimes rung" in a crash.
Thought for sure I would fly today, but first flight is
scheduled for tomorrow afternoon, if Miss P'fer and I are
ready. Got a couple little things to take care of, clean
her up, final preflight, and test fly.
Finally found out this afternoon that the varmint that has
taken up residence in my MK III is not a squirrel, but a
"dirty rat." Local expert identified the droppings as rat
shit, not squirrel shit. Doesn't matter, little varmint
loves my airplane and everything in it. I hope so anyhow,
cause I left him some rat bait at the tailwheel, where I
think he is getting inside up thru the boom tube. Another
tray of bait inside on the deck. He still comes back
everyday and leaves me a couple turds in the bottom of the
airplane. Do not know why he likes that plane. Have had
airplanes in that hanger for 16 years and he is the first
airplane lover.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: power management in crosswind landings |
In a message dated 5/13/00 7:37:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, DBindl(at)cs.com
writes:
<< In talking with the Cessna factory people and experimenting, we found that
with proper management of power (prop blast over the tail surfaces and under
wings), we could land a Cessna 140 with brakes engaged and skid to a stop,
even on pavement.
Daniel Bindl
Southern Wisconsin >>
WOW! what a great way to shorten my Firestar landings from 750 ft to
100ft...or something like that...maybe 300 ft then....I always land 2 wheel
and fast as a result of my soaring training and therefore I take more runway
than anyone else...I have squeeze brakes but could never figure out a way to
use them ...and I haven't yet. I'll give it a try...although my Firestar gear
location is stock.
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ggleiter(at)minn.net |
| Subject: | Re: Cork fuel indicators / J3 |
jrodebush wrote:
>
>
> Lar,
> I don't have any idea what with or if the cork was sealed. As I remember
> the cork was dark and relatively smooth. There was no obvious seal
> material.
>
> Rody
By chance I am currently reading the second volume of the Waco story by
Kobernus. At one point they refer to the fuel gage cork float as being
treated with shellac. I would consider a urethane varnish myself, and
would run a test piece submerged completely in a small jar of fuel for a
long term while the rest of the airframe was being built.
gil leiter
MAPLEWOOD, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
I had a 503 on my Marklll and was disappointed with the performance. I refuse
to fly planes that need to be coaxed into the air. It flew O.K. when I was
alone but getting her up with any thing more than the 50 LB bag of dog food I
used for initial testing required some careful consideration of OAT,
humidity, gross weight etc etc. Both my Firestar KXP (503) and current
FireFly (447) jump into the air and are glad to be there. They are more fun
to fly because I never have to worry about marginal performance and can
concentrate on neat stuff like where I'm going, where I am and how to get
down.
Flame away !!! Duane the plane in Tallahassee, FL FireFly sn007, 447, IVO,
big wheels.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "VIC" <vicw(at)vcn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 05/12/00 |
I don't wish to give the wrong impression about Poly Fiber. It is a system
that works and has been proven but when covering with the Poly Fiber process
I had a constant headach, even when working with the shop doors wide open.
With AFS I did most of my covering this past winter in my heated shop with
the doors closed and the heat at 72 degrees using an open flame gas heater.
On several weekends I worked two full days gluing and got no headach. I did
have a little glue stuck to my fingers and cloths but the glue comes off the
fingers rather easy. The cloths are a different story. Also I can pait
using a normal carbon based mask instead of rebreathing equipment and get a
nice shine.
The one draw back to AFS is that it doesn't work as fast because of the
water, but I am not in a hurry.
Vic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Carbon Removal Tips |
Part of my "annual" on my FireFly led me to the task of removing the
cylinders, heads etc to clean the carbon from the pistons and rings. It was
new territory for me but with the help and advice of my fellow Rotax owners
at the airport things went pretty well. Here are some of the things I learned
during this work:
1/ Start by re-reading Stratman on Care and Feeding of Rotax engines,
2/ Consult someone who knows about this job at your Rotax parts supplier and
get all the right gaskets you will need before you start.
3/ Special tools required include a good torque wrench, picks to clean the
ring gooves, and Scotchbright to remove carbon from the piston tops and
rings. Rotax makes a cylinder alignment tool (~$20) which would be a help
during reassembly and a wrist pin and bearing extractor which is required if
the pistons are to be removed (nice option but I did not do it this time).
3/ Clean the outside of the engine before you start to keep loose dirt from
falling into the crankcase when you remove the cylinders.
4/ Note and or mark all parts as they are removed. It is critically important
that they all go back in exactly the same place they came from and with the
same side up!
5/ Carefully examine all mating surfaces and check the torque on the nuts and
bolts being removed. You are looking for signs of leakage and or potential
causes.
6/ Keeping the carbon being chipped off of the piston and rings from falling
into and contaminating the crankcase is a problem. I used clean/oiled shop
rags and that seemed to work. As a former ground support equipment designer I
longed for some neat little flexible skirts that would fit snug around the
connecting rods and extend out to the studs or drape over the side of the
engine with the studs removed. I gave up the idea because I did not want my
engine sitting open while I went through a design/test/fabrication effort.
7/ Plan to spend some time carefully scraping carbon from the rings and
grooves. The objective is to get it all off without scratching any machined
surfaces.
8/ The really delux job would include removing the pistons and having them
cleaned in a shop that has a cleaning tank but that involves removing the
wrist pins and cageless needle bearings. Without the Special Rotax removal
tool there is a fair possibility of dropping one or more of those little
bearings into the crankcase followed by some extreme anguish. The snap rings
that hold the wristpins in place are also subject to damage and or loss.
9/ When the pistons and rings are really clean and the rings are back where
they came from it's clean up time. Removing the oiled rags from around the
piston skirts requires that extreme care be used to keep any falling
particals from contaminating the crankcase.
10/ Caution... the gasket at the base of the cylinder can be installed
backwards, restricting the passageway from the crankcase to the inlet ports.
11/ Reassembly was fairly easy although while fitting the cylinders over the
pistons I did used some special explitives that are not part of my normal
vocabulary,
12/ Align the intake ports before tightening the head bolts. Use the Rotax
tool or you can probably get by with a good straight edge if you are careful.
14/ Have a pal check all your torques. In the aerospace bussiness every
torque value is witnessed by a Quality Control Inspector and signed off in a
log. It's worth the effort.
15/ With all due confidence I am staying close to home base for the next few
hours just to make sure all's well before I venture out on any trips.
16/ Retorque heads after 2 hours (per Rotax manual), compression check while
you are at it (per me).
Good Luck, Duane the plane in Tallahassee, FireFly sn007, 447,IVO, big wheels
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "martin P" <tonibec(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 05/14/00 |
>From: Kolb-List Digest Server <kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: Kolb-List Digest List
>Subject: Kolb-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 05/14/00
>Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 23:58:00 -0700
>
>*
> Kolb-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Sun 05/14/00: 12
>
>
>From: WingManBill2(at)aol.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: (no subject)
>
>
>Anybody out there running a 503 Rotax on a Mark III? My budget might force
>me to consider this powerplant and was wondering if Kolb's advertized
>performance is close? 52 hp doesn't sound like alot to me! Any input
>would
>be appreciated! Thanks guys!
>
>Bill
>
>
>I had a 503 on my Mk 111 and it just was not enough, I,m 220 lbs
aircraft is 510lbs. Yes it will fly but with very little performance.
Put two people in it and the poor old 503 is working its heart out.
My strip is at 1730 asl. 3 blade wooden prop. 10 Imp gal tank. Stits
covered.
I'm now installing a 582.
Martin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Coolant pressure problems? Try a lower-pressure cap! |
Coolant over-pressure on the 582 with stock dual radiator setup was a
problem for me last year (peak pressures of 18 psi. were typically recorded
on a liquid-filled hardline stainless gauge during first half-hour of every
flight, despite the use of a 13 lbs. cap!) . After trying a few things,
and testing the present solution for 10 hours, I am convinced I have it
licked. Now my system runs 7-8 lbs pressure or less, and retains the
expansion-tank feature as designed. The solution was to fit a lower
pressure-rated radiator pressure cap, and since I could not find one to
buy, I modified the stock cap to maintain the lower pressure. It is as
simple as bending the spring. I made a fancy spring-pressure gauge out of
a torque-wrench and carefully measured the force the stock cap spring was
making (the values I measured have no standard units because the setup used
was only for relative comparison before and after modificatoin, so I cannot
tell you what the spring force was). I then bent the spring little by
little to lower the measured value to 75 % of what it was originally.
That's it. Works great, home-built 7 lbs cap.
Of course, I switched to the silicate-free and phosphate-free anti freeze
this spring, and as always it is mixed with only distilled water.
So maybe, with a little luck, we can say goodbye to the potential for RV
shaft seal problems...
Do we have everyone coinvinced to monitor their coolant pressure yet?
Jim G
"Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by
questioning answers." - Bernhard Haisch, astrophysicist
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RUnder1680(at)aol.com |
I just stopped the shipment on my MK 3 Classic fuselage and ordered a Xtra
instead, still putting a 912 S on hope it's a rocket. I have to build a new
tail for the Xtra unfortunately I have to build the rear tail again, does any
one want to save some time or need a replacement.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim T99" <townsend(at)webound.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Carbon Removal Tips |
Mitch,
Well that is exactly the way I did it.
Very nice post.
Our Best
Tim T99
----- Original Message -----
From: <MitchMnD(at)aol.com>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 10:35 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Carbon Removal Tips
>
> Part of my "annual" on my FireFly led me to the task of removing the
> cylinders, heads etc to clean the carbon from the pistons and rings. It
was
> new territory for me but with the help and advice of my fellow Rotax
owners
> at the airport things went pretty well. Here are some of the things I
learned
> during this work:
> 1/ Start by re-reading Stratman on Care and Feeding of Rotax engines,
> 2/ Consult someone who knows about this job at your Rotax parts supplier
and
> get all the right gaskets you will need before you start.
> 3/ Special tools required include a good torque wrench, picks to clean
the
> ring gooves, and Scotchbright to remove carbon from the piston tops and
> rings. Rotax makes a cylinder alignment tool (~$20) which would be a help
> during reassembly and a wrist pin and bearing extractor which is required
if
> the pistons are to be removed (nice option but I did not do it this time).
> 3/ Clean the outside of the engine before you start to keep loose dirt
from
> falling into the crankcase when you remove the cylinders.
> 4/ Note and or mark all parts as they are removed. It is critically
important
> that they all go back in exactly the same place they came from and with
the
> same side up!
> 5/ Carefully examine all mating surfaces and check the torque on the nuts
and
> bolts being removed. You are looking for signs of leakage and or potential
> causes.
> 6/ Keeping the carbon being chipped off of the piston and rings from
falling
> into and contaminating the crankcase is a problem. I used clean/oiled shop
> rags and that seemed to work. As a former ground support equipment
designer I
> longed for some neat little flexible skirts that would fit snug around the
> connecting rods and extend out to the studs or drape over the side of the
> engine with the studs removed. I gave up the idea because I did not want
my
> engine sitting open while I went through a design/test/fabrication effort.
> 7/ Plan to spend some time carefully scraping carbon from the rings and
> grooves. The objective is to get it all off without scratching any
machined
> surfaces.
> 8/ The really delux job would include removing the pistons and having them
> cleaned in a shop that has a cleaning tank but that involves removing the
> wrist pins and cageless needle bearings. Without the Special Rotax removal
> tool there is a fair possibility of dropping one or more of those little
> bearings into the crankcase followed by some extreme anguish. The snap
rings
> that hold the wristpins in place are also subject to damage and or loss.
> 9/ When the pistons and rings are really clean and the rings are back
where
> they came from it's clean up time. Removing the oiled rags from around the
> piston skirts requires that extreme care be used to keep any falling
> particals from contaminating the crankcase.
> 10/ Caution... the gasket at the base of the cylinder can be installed
> backwards, restricting the passageway from the crankcase to the inlet
ports.
> 11/ Reassembly was fairly easy although while fitting the cylinders over
the
> pistons I did used some special explitives that are not part of my normal
> vocabulary,
> 12/ Align the intake ports before tightening the head bolts. Use the Rotax
> tool or you can probably get by with a good straight edge if you are
careful.
> 14/ Have a pal check all your torques. In the aerospace bussiness every
> torque value is witnessed by a Quality Control Inspector and signed off in
a
> log. It's worth the effort.
> 15/ With all due confidence I am staying close to home base for the next
few
> hours just to make sure all's well before I venture out on any trips.
> 16/ Retorque heads after 2 hours (per Rotax manual), compression check
while
> you are at it (per me).
>
> Good Luck, Duane the plane in Tallahassee, FireFly sn007, 447,IVO, big
wheels
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cork fuel indicators / J3 |
Sounds reasonabubble. I had kind of thought of that anyway, after reading a
suggestion by Tim Hrib, but in the meantime, I'll be taking John's advice
about the larger dia tubing for the sight gauge. That makes sense too. I'm
also gonna crawl under that thing, and look at the gum rubber tank mounts I
made. Dell Vinal made a good point about the longevity of that stuff. I
think black closed cell neoprene - like wet suit material - would make a
better choice for longer term resilient padding for the tank. For a
good read, try the "Cannibal Queen" by Coontz. Sure makes you wanna be
there. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: <ggleiter(at)minn.net>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Cork fuel indicators / J3
>
> jrodebush wrote:
> >
> >
> > Lar,
> > I don't have any idea what with or if the cork was sealed. As I
remember
> > the cork was dark and relatively smooth. There was no obvious seal
> > material.
> >
> > Rody
>
>
> By chance I am currently reading the second volume of the Waco story by
> Kobernus. At one point they refer to the fuel gage cork float as being
> treated with shellac. I would consider a urethane varnish myself, and
> would run a test piece submerged completely in a small jar of fuel for a
> long term while the rest of the airframe was being built.
>
> gil leiter
> MAPLEWOOD, MN
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 05/12/00 |
I got to thinking about this the other night - couldn't sleep, as usual -
and wondered about a couple of things: 1.) After it's cured, what is
the solvent for it, like, how do you repair it ?? 2.) A few years
ago, I painted a wooden boat with water based latex porch paint. It took a
long time to cure, and got rained on - this was in Port Angeles, WA. -
causing the paint to soften and run. After a few weeks it was fine. How
will the water based coating compare to that ?? Curious
Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: VIC <vicw(at)vcn.com>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 4:14 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 05/12/00
>
> I don't wish to give the wrong impression about Poly Fiber. It is a
system
> that works and has been proven but when covering with the Poly Fiber
process
> I had a constant headach, even when working with the shop doors wide open.
>
> With AFS I did most of my covering this past winter in my heated shop with
> the doors closed and the heat at 72 degrees using an open flame gas
heater.
> On several weekends I worked two full days gluing and got no headach. I
did
> have a little glue stuck to my fingers and cloths but the glue comes off
the
> fingers rather easy. The cloths are a different story. Also I can pait
> using a normal carbon based mask instead of rebreathing equipment and get
a
> nice shine.
>
> The one draw back to AFS is that it doesn't work as fast because of the
> water, but I am not in a hurry.
>
> Vic
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FlyColt45(at)aol.com |
ONE OF THE BEST EVER IS CALLED "FLIGHT OF PASSION" (AUTHOR - RINKER). ABOUT
2 BROTHERS WHO FLEW A CUB FROM EAST TO WEST COAST. MAKES YA WANT TO TRY IT!
JIM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gtalexander(at)att.net.by.mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net.with.SMTP (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 |
201-229-119-122)
Minor corrections.....
Title: "Flight of Passage"
A little additional info...
...the brothers were 16 and 14 when they made the trip.
...their father was a barnstormer.
...they (the boys)did most of the work to restore the cub
prior to trip.
...they flew from Basking Ridge, NJ to San Juan
Capistrano, CA. (and back).
Great read!
>
> ONE OF THE BEST EVER IS CALLED "FLIGHT OF PASSION" (AUTHOR - RINKER). ABOUT
> 2 BROTHERS WHO FLEW A CUB FROM EAST TO WEST COAST. MAKES YA WANT TO TRY IT!
> JIM
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Coolant pressure problems? Try a lower-pressure cap! |
In a message dated 00-05-15 6:03:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gerken(at)us.ibm.com writes:
<< Do we have everyone coinvinced to monitor their coolant pressure yet? >>
Jim:
Excellent report. I am running the expensivo westberg electronic water
pressure gauge. It hurt to write the check, but I'm glad I did it. I
typically run somewhere around 6 lbs. Though sometimes during the warm up it
will spike higher with no rpm change. I suppose the swings have something to
do with the thermostat opening.
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III
N496BM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cork fuel indicators / J3 |
Dell Vinal made a good point about the longevity of that
stuff. I
> think black closed cell neoprene - like wet suit material - would make a
> better choice for longer term resilient padding for the tank. Big
Lar.
Big Lar:
I second Dell's recommendation on surgical rubber. Not much
longevity.
I used some nice heavy wall heater hose, split to fit the
tubes the tank sits on. Stuck em on with a little "gorrila
snot". Been on there 9 years now without a problem. Got to
have something with some resilience and tuff enuff to
withstand the pressure of the weight of the fuel (times and
the G's being pulled) plus the pressure exerted by the fuel
tank straps.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Mornin Gang:
About 1800 hours yesterday, Miss P'fer and I went for our
first flight with the new 912S and 6 foot Warp Drive. WOW!
First thing I noticed was I had way too much rudder trim
with my new "oversized trim tab." Instead of right pedal,
now I have to used left pedal. It is almost like the engine
turns opposite from the 912. First I will move the vertical
stabilizer back to the orginal centered position. If that
is not enough, then I will cut 1/3 of the trim tab off. I
had to use .040 alum to make it stiff enough to work
properly. I do not think I can take some of the bend out of
it without damaging the rudder. I certainly do not want to
create anymore work for myself.
I knew the prop was pitched a little heavy, would only turn
5200 static. But in the air it would only turn a little
over 5000 strainght and level, about 5100-5200 climbing from
70 mph down to 40 mph. Climb rate was a consistent 1500 fpm
with 20 gals of fuel on board.
A quick ASI/Static Pressure adjustment got the ASI
calibrated. 80 mph indicated is actually 79 mph average
speed across the ground measured in opposite directions.
Right off there is an overall sense that the 912S is a lot
more engine than the 912. I got this sensation in sound,
feel (seems much smoother), and throttle response (lots of
power even though the engine is way over pitched). Can't
wait to get the prop dialed in so the engine is really doing
its thing. I want to see 5500 rpm WOT straight and level
flight. I may be like John Russell and his new 912S/Sling
Shot. He's still not ready to see WOT straight and level
speeds. :-)
Everything worked! All gauges, lights, intercom/radio,
switches, did what they were supposed to do. That is a
relief after changing out all that stuff.
On the way to Gantt International Airport to get Miss P'fer
(P fer plane) dialed in and ready to fly to Moon Town
Airport Flyin (east of Huntsville, Alabama) Friday or
Saturday, then Sunday on over to Chesnut Knolls Air
Foundation for a few days to do a little work on the MK III.
Times a flying. Five weeks and days til time to head
north. Still got lots to do to get ready, but things are
falling into place nicely.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clive Hatcher" <clive_hatcher(at)connectfree.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re Carbon Removal Tips |
Hi Duane
An excellent detailed post! I use almost the same procedure but would
add that instead of using the Rotax cylinder alignment tool, I remove
the exhaust manifold from the muffler assembly and bolt it back onto
the cylinders (without the gasket)before tightening the cylinder
bolts. This ensures that if there is a small misalignment in the
exhaust manifold faces, I do not build in any high stresses when I
remove the manifold and replace the exhaust gasket. It works for me -
so far I have not had an exhaust manifold crack in 130 Hours.
Best regards,
Clive. Mk III / 582 UK
Original message :-
_________
From: MitchMnD(at)aol.com
Subject: Kolb-List: Carbon Removal Tips
-snip-
3/ Special tools required include a good torque wrench, picks to
clean the
ring gooves, and Scotchbright to remove carbon from the piston tops
and
rings. Rotax makes a cylinder alignment tool (~$20) which would be a
help
during reassembly and a wrist pin and bearing extractor which is
required if
the pistons are to be removed (nice option but I did not do it this
time).
-snip-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> Congratulations!!! Read you data very carefully --how did the rat do?
> Lindy
Lindy and Kolbers:
Do not get too carried away with data from first flight. It
was windy as hell, engine was loaded up with way too much
pitch, I had adverse right yaw for the first time, and I had
not flown the airplane in 4 1/2 months.
Will give you a better description of how she flies
tonight. Have repositioned the vert stab to the center and
pulled 1 degree of pitch out of the prop. That should give
me about 200rpm, I theeeeeeeeeenk I read that someplace.
Reconfigured my fuel site gauge. Had to go back to the way
it was set up before with one exception. It is longer and
has a little more range than before. I am on the way to get
fuel to recalibrate the lower end of the site gauge. The
top end should be the same.
Times a wasting.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Test Flight MK III/912S |
Evening Gang:
I love it when daylight savings time comes around, it gets
warm, and I can fly and play around the air strip til 8 or 9
o'clock.
Today I respositioned the vertical stabilizer back to the
original centered position. That helped the left yaw
problem a little, but not enough. Do not recommend trying
to offset adverse yaw by displacing leading edge of vert
stab. It is not that effective and puts stress and a
bending moment on vert stab. After I landed I removed the
rudder trim tab (attached with alum fabric rivets). Will
cut 1/3 off it, now 22 inches down to a little over 15
inches, and try again tomorrow.
Pulled 1 deg of pitch out of the Warp Drive, down from 14
deg to 13 deg. Increased rpm on climb out from 5000 to 5200
rpm, straight and level WOT from 5200 to 5400 rpm,
indicating 97 to 98 mph. The MK III is so draggy it is
uncomfortable to fly for long over 85 or 90 mph depending on
how smooth or turbulent the air is. We are going to
fabricate a windshield fairing for my MK III similar to the
one on the MK III Extra. This may help streamline some of
the air going to the prop and overcome the dead air space
between the windshield and leading edge of the wing. One of
these days I am going to take a lot of the bow out of the
doors and rear quarter windows. This should also clean up
air flow.
The way the airplane is set up now it will cruise 87 to 88
mph at 5000 rpm.
Tomorrow will take another deg of pitch out of the Warp
Drive, down to 12 deg. This should increase climb rpm to
5400, and WOT straight and level rpm to 5600. By staying
with this pitch and rpm now in hot weather, when I get into
colder weather I should be right in the ball park. During
the 1994 flight I did not take this into consideration.
When I got into cold weather, especially above the Arctic
Circle, I was down on rpm. Instead of climbing at 5300 it
was down to 5000 to 5100 rpm. This makes a lot of
difference and can make or break you in some circumstances.
I reconfigured my the fuel site gauge. Now I am indicating
down to the last three gals. At that point I have it marked
in red, my "30 minute warning fuel light."
I have flown the new eng 2 hours and am still getting
accustomed to the larger prop and eng. I think when I get
the trim and rpm dialed in correctly, the aircraft will
start feeling more familiar and comfortable.
Temperatures are running much warmer with this eng compared
to the 912. This eng also seems to warm up much quicker.
Maybe I will not have the cold weather problems with this
one I had with the old one.
The eng seems to be dialed in correctly. I actuated the
enricher at cruise, immediately lost rpm. If the eng is
running real close to over lean, by opening the enricher eng
rpm will increase about 200 rpm.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RWilliJill(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Stits poly Fiber |
Hello fellow builders
I got a question that I wish someone would clear up for me concerning the
weight of the stits poly fiber fabric. Do they still manufacture the 1.6 oz
fabric or are we allowed to use the 1.7 oz? I thought I had read somewhere
that
the 1.7 oz was more prone to bowing the framework due to needing to be shrunk
more. Sure wish someone could set me straight.
Ron W.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Billie Futrell" <Bill-Jo(at)prodigy.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Test Flight MK III/912S |
Hi John I have been followin your progress, my guestoin is. I am building a
M 111 Extra. Do you think I should have the vertical stab centered or moved
on the left side like the one they have down in London. My power will be a
912 80H. I wish you luck on your trip,i dont know if I can get down to Ky to
see you off or not.See/Ya Bii Futrell
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 7:10 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Test Flight MK III/912S
>
> Evening Gang:
>
> I love it when daylight savings time comes around, it gets
> warm, and I can fly and play around the air strip til 8 or 9
> o'clock.
>
> Today I respositioned the vertical stabilizer back to the
> original centered position. That helped the left yaw
> problem a little, but not enough. Do not recommend trying
> to offset adverse yaw by displacing leading edge of vert
> stab. It is not that effective and puts stress and a
> bending moment on vert stab. After I landed I removed the
> rudder trim tab (attached with alum fabric rivets). Will
> cut 1/3 off it, now 22 inches down to a little over 15
> inches, and try again tomorrow.
>
> Pulled 1 deg of pitch out of the Warp Drive, down from 14
> deg to 13 deg. Increased rpm on climb out from 5000 to 5200
> rpm, straight and level WOT from 5200 to 5400 rpm,
> indicating 97 to 98 mph. The MK III is so draggy it is
> uncomfortable to fly for long over 85 or 90 mph depending on
> how smooth or turbulent the air is. We are going to
> fabricate a windshield fairing for my MK III similar to the
> one on the MK III Extra. This may help streamline some of
> the air going to the prop and overcome the dead air space
> between the windshield and leading edge of the wing. One of
> these days I am going to take a lot of the bow out of the
> doors and rear quarter windows. This should also clean up
> air flow.
>
> The way the airplane is set up now it will cruise 87 to 88
> mph at 5000 rpm.
>
> Tomorrow will take another deg of pitch out of the Warp
> Drive, down to 12 deg. This should increase climb rpm to
> 5400, and WOT straight and level rpm to 5600. By staying
> with this pitch and rpm now in hot weather, when I get into
> colder weather I should be right in the ball park. During
> the 1994 flight I did not take this into consideration.
> When I got into cold weather, especially above the Arctic
> Circle, I was down on rpm. Instead of climbing at 5300 it
> was down to 5000 to 5100 rpm. This makes a lot of
> difference and can make or break you in some circumstances.
>
> I reconfigured my the fuel site gauge. Now I am indicating
> down to the last three gals. At that point I have it marked
> in red, my "30 minute warning fuel light."
>
> I have flown the new eng 2 hours and am still getting
> accustomed to the larger prop and eng. I think when I get
> the trim and rpm dialed in correctly, the aircraft will
> start feeling more familiar and comfortable.
>
> Temperatures are running much warmer with this eng compared
> to the 912. This eng also seems to warm up much quicker.
> Maybe I will not have the cold weather problems with this
> one I had with the old one.
>
> The eng seems to be dialed in correctly. I actuated the
> enricher at cruise, immediately lost rpm. If the eng is
> running real close to over lean, by opening the enricher eng
> rpm will increase about 200 rpm.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry" <tswartz(at)hydrosoft.net> |
| Subject: | Test Flight MK III/912S |
Hi Bii
I know you wrote this to John, but I would like to jump in with a comment.
I have a MK III with a 912. I first had the vertical stab centered and a
trim tab on the rudder and it flew real well but at around 5000 rpm the
leading edge of the vertical stab would vibrate enough that you could feel
it. I was concerned about metal fatigue and something coming apart
eventually. I saw the offset vertical stab on John's plane at Sun-n-Fun and
I thought it might help the trim and the vibration by putting tension on the
vertical stab leading edge, so I offset it. It did eliminate the vibration
but I could tell no difference in the trim. I still have the same trim tab
on my rudder.
For what it's worth.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Billie Futrell
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Test Flight MK III/912S
Hi John I have been followin your progress, my guestoin is. I am building a
M 111 Extra. Do you think I should have the vertical stab centered or moved
on the left side like the one they have down in London. My power will be a
912 80H. I wish you luck on your trip,i dont know if I can get down to Ky to
see you off or not.See/Ya Bii Futrell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Test Flight MK III/912S |
Do you think I should have the vertical stab centered or
moved
> on the left side like the one they have down in London.
Bii Futrell
Bill and Gang:
I had adverse yaw on the MK III with the 582 to the right
and the 912 to the left. I waited on the factory to do some
experimenting with the leading edge of the vertical
stabilizer. I wanted them to drill all those extra holes in
their tailboom testing different locations, not mine. About
two years ago I gave up, bit the bullet, and started
drilling out rivets and moving the leading edge of the vert
stab. I tried in two locations, about 3/4 inch left and
finally as far to the left as I thought I could safely bend
it, 1 3/8 inches. I discovered several things:
1. My tests proved this modification was not effective.
2. A rudder trim tab has much more trim authority.
I am not familiar with the MK III Extra, but on my airplane
the vertical stabilizer is bent in a bow shape in order to
get the leading edge moved to the left. To do it right the
tail post would have to be fabricated with the socket for
the lower tube of the vert stab oriented to the left for the
off set. That would keep the vert stab in a straight plane,
giving more trim authority. I do not know if that is the
case with the Extra. Recommend you seek advice from The New
Kolb Aircraft.
The 21.75" X 3" tab bent 30 deg is too much trim. I will
cut it down to 14.75" X 3" and test again. Most likely I
will stay this dimension since I do not want to drill out
anymore rivets, even though it is easy to drill the alum
fabric rivets. I use a 2" lip to attach the trim tab to the
ribs on left side of rudder.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "INFO" <info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com> |
| Subject: | Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:30:39 -0400 |
____
From: RWilliJill(at)aol.com
Subject: Kolb-List: Stits poly Fiber
Hello fellow builders
I got a question that I wish someone would clear up for me concerning the
weight of the stits poly fiber fabric. Do they still manufacture the 1.6 oz
fabric or are we allowed to use the 1.7 oz? I thought I had read somewhere
that
the 1.7 oz was more prone to bowing the framework due to needing to be
shrunk
more. Sure wish someone could set me straight.
Ron W.
Hi Ron & Kolbers!
Some are using 2.7 oz. fabric on the wings, and some are using it on
everything (cage, controls, stabs, & wings).
The shrinking of all weights of fabric is controllable by shrinking to 250
degrees, then shrinking in 25 degree increments.
You can use any weight you want, with very little weight penalty, and a very
large increase in puncture strength, longevity, etc.
The difference between 1.7 oz., and 2.7 oz. for an entire flying machine is
only about 2.5 lbs., & the stronger fabric is really worth it when going
into rough fields (grass, gravel, hay, tundra, etc.) Or when you leave a
seatbelt hanging out.........
Give us a call, & we'll answer any questions you might have about this.
We have plenty of 1.6 oz., 1.7 oz., 2.7 oz., and 3.4 oz. fabric available.
By the way, we have enlisted a new and FANTASTIC web manager, & will have
our webpage on line in about a month, so we will be looking for pictures of
your projects (both under construction, and complete) to put on the site!
Thanks,
Jim & Dondi Miller
Aircraft Technical Support, Inc.
Poly-Fiber & Ceconite Distributors
(Toll Free) (877) 877-3334
Web Site: www.aircrafttechsupport.com
E-mail: info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Streamlined lift struts angle of attack? |
Greetings
Are the Streamlined lift struts installed parallel to the bottom of the wing
or parallel to the horizontal stabilizer?
Regards
Will Uribe
building a FireStar II
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sling seat comfort |
Tim and group,
Here is what I did to improve the comfort of the Firestar sling seat. I added
a foam pad for lumbar support. They are available at stores like Target for
about $10.00. Then to hold the lumbar support in position, I attached it to a
padded car seat. It was like a "night and day" difference. I could only stand
the original seat for about an hour. The modified seat was so comfortable, that
I could fly the tank out, about 1 hour and 45 minutes, and still be comfortable.
I just wish that my current Firestar II was as comfortable.
John Jung
SE Wisconsin
Artdog1512(at)aol.com wrote:
snip...
> i gotta firestar with the standard
> web seat. its o.k. for about an hour then my hemroids let me know its time to
> take a break. no suh, if i was to fly a firestar long distance that stock
> seat would have to go ........ tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vic" <vicw(at)vcn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Water based paint |
The AFS paint is not water based but is water born. Don't ask me to explain
the difference. It is a two part paint and when it cures the water is all
gone and the paint no longer reacts with water.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Final Flight Test MK III/912S |
Good Evening Gang:
Well, I finally got everything dialed in the way me and the
airplane wanted them.
Vertical stabilizer centered, rudder trim tab 3X15.75" with
a two inch lip to attach to rudder ribs, she now flies with
neutral rudder for the first time. Almost seems unnatural
to fly this airplane without putting in a lot of right
rudder, and then the previous two flights I had to input
mucho left rudder.
Pulled another degree of pitch out of the 72" Warp Drive
(now at 12 deg). She climbs at 5300 to 5400 rpm, 1500 to
2000 fpm, 40 to 70 mph. Straight and level WOT she turns
5600 rpm and 98 mph. 5000 rpm equals about 88 mph, and 4800
rpm gives up 85 mph. The ASI has been calibrated to within
1 mph at 80 mph indicated.
Miss P'fer now flies like my old airplane. I have to admit
I was really uncomfortable the way the flew on the first two
days of testing. Yukky! Didn't like it. But now, she
flies like a Kolb. You can stand her on her tail at 45 mph
and climb damn near straight up. Never quits climbing. Not
bad for an airplane that weighs well over 600 lbs empty. I
am now happy with my old airplane once again.
Friday I am flying to Moon Town Airport Flyin east of
Huntsville, Alabama. Will depart Moon Town for Chesnut
Knolls Air Foundation Sunday. Will be at the Kolb Factory
for several days, then return to hauck's holler, Titus,
Alabama. This XC will help me get better acquainted with
the new setup under actual XC conditions. Should be able to
narrow down fuel burn plus learn a lot about how the new
engine is going to perform on the long haul. Hopefully will
get a shot or two at Pucker Patch International Airport,
Kentucky. Will not be happy until I have been into this one
way in, one way out air strip in the Kentucky mountains,
home of Howard Ping. If you haven't seen his airstrip and
airplane, it is at:
http://www.hyperaction.net/hping/
Hyperaction is an apt discription of Pucker Patch, which BTW
is about 12 miles west of Chesnut Knolls Air Foundation.
Put a lot of hours in Miss P'fer upgrading engine and
systems. A lot more than I ever thought I would. But when
I can get her to fly the way I want her to, it is worth
every minute. I am impressed with my new airplane, serial
number: M3-011, N101AB, 4.0 hours on the 912S and 1,349.9
on the airframe.
April 23, 2000 - May 17, 2000
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-cb