Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-ef
March 12, 2003 - March 27, 2003
Yes those hi revs is a concern. Where did you get your Simonini? was it from
Canada?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1997 Sea Doo 787 XP Parts Finder |
Huh..Simonini? not me, I dont have one. Must bethinking of somebody else. I
did look at em at Oshkosh last year...but I have doubts about their HP
claims at such low rpms. Being from the engine industry, I have personal
expierience with euro manufacturers not using the generally accepted (in the
USA) Hp formulas (James Watts) in their marketing and lit.
Someday when we meet, remind me to tell you of a Boss I used to have asking
me "Just who the hell do you think James Watts was anyway? No law says we
have to caculate hp by his formula.!" As a young engineer I thought there
was only one way to caculate hp from Measured torque..... BOY...did I have
alot to learn about marketing!
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Don Gherardini-
FireFly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax-787 100hp question |
If you really want a hundred horses on your Kolb I can give you a deal
on a Hirth F30 (110 hp). Needs gearbox and carbs. Contact me off line.
________________________________________________________________________________
Ed,
My Brock seat tank on my old US held 9 gal.
...Richard Swiderski
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Seat tanks
>
> Kolbers,
> I have a Ken Brock seat tank that I bought awhile ago from
someone on the list and am curious as to the determination of the capacity.I
was told it was 6 gallons but there is no part number or label.I don't
really want to put gas in it yet(or any other liquid) to find out.The reason
I am wondering is I may try to keep the modified Ultrastar I am building in
the UL category . I have the light 2SI 35hp without the lighting coil and
the belt drive and have been careful with weight and may be able to stay
under the 254 even with a partial enclosure. (Probably dreaming?)
> How many sizes of Brock seat tanks are there and does any one else
manufacture similar units.I was not able to find any info on the Brock site.
> Also , Is it possible to install a permanent gap seal and still
fold an Ultrastar without removing the gap seal ?
> Ed (still shoveling) in Western NY
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax-787 100hp question |
Ron,
I converted a SeaDoo 587 for my SlingShot. The case had to be machined,
drilled & tapped to accept a gear box. The PTO end of the crank was
threaded. I got hold of a broke 582 crank that had a good pto end, pulled
it apart & pressed it on the Seadoo crank. the water pump was a bolt on
item. I'm not sure how this compares to the 787. ...Richard Swiserski
----- Original Message -----
From: "CaptainRon" <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Rotax-787 100hp question
>
> In what is fast becoming the eternal quest for the *right* motor. I came
> across a Rotax rotary model 787 110hp two cycle engine. Went and visited a
> shop where they will sell me this motor, for my undisclosed project.
> New with all the stuff attached it came to about 4K. Only show stopper
that
> I could discern is lack of a water pump. This engine is found in the
Seadoo
> line of water splashers.
> Questions;
> 1 anyone familiar with this engine, and if so is it adoptable for aviation
> use?
> 2. I measured the mount on the engine base it is 90mm wide and 150mm long
or
> (9cm-x-15cm). I have not measured but it looks exactly like the regular
Kolb
> Rotax aviation mount.
> 3. where does the rotax water pump attach at on the 582, thinking maybe
its
> not integral to the motor and thus I can fit any standard Rotax water pump
> onto this plant? I took a bunch of photo's of this engine, and if someone
> wants to post them for general viewing I'll email them.
>
> I am not happy to give money to Rotax but for the right engine/HP and a
> reasonable bill, I'd do it.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax-787 100hp question |
Guys
Here is an f30 for sale with carbs and gear box. Herb
http://www.donateyourplane.com/hirth_.htm
>
>
> If you really want a hundred horses on your Kolb I can give you a
> deal
> on a Hirth F30 (110 hp). Needs gearbox and carbs. Contact me off
> line.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 787 vs. 670 |
>
>Hi all, Gosh I am wondering if Ron has any pic's of his masterpiece in the
>making. Since he seems to know more about building a Kolb than the other of
>us on the list. Mine as been flying for 10 years, course it may not last
>much longer, since I made it by the plans that came with the kit I got from
>KOLB.
>
>
>Richard Harris
I wonder about this type of thing too. Seems that a lot of people that
have never built a
kolb or anything close seem to want to make their first attempt into a
showplane.
That's OK, but then they seem to want to change the plans (God knows I sure
changed
the plans, but it wasn't my first ultralight or my first kolb). Then they
want to put a
100 HP four stoke engine on it that weighs only 70 pounds and uses 1 gph
that nobody
has ever heard of.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | R&D to remarket the weedhopper |
| From: | "Jim Gerken" <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
03/13/2003 07:31:30 AM
I followed the link to R&D Aerosports (we call them Rev & Destroy
Aeroplanes), and WOW they are now selling something that looks suspiciously
like a weedhopper with an improved wing. These guys are really out of
touch. It's like they sat down with a case of beer and brainstormed on how
to have all the worst products possible.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EVO/AIR Update |
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
3/12/03 21:48Paul Petty
> who wants to be the first to test fly it on a Kolb?.....
====================
How smooth will it be? and will it fit the Kolb mount?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Allman" <fisherallman(at)earthlink.net> |
As a long time lurker on the list I'd like to say thanks for all the great
info.
I was wondering if anyone could share their thoughts regarding flaps and
usefulness. I've
got 25 or 30 hours in a slingshot. Learned to fly it without flaps (on the
advice of a friend) but I've been experimenting a little lately.
Thanks,
Joe
SS-582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
>
>
>As a long time lurker on the list I'd like to say thanks for all the great
>info.
>
> I was wondering if anyone could share their thoughts regarding flaps and
>usefulness. I've
> got 25 or 30 hours in a slingshot. Learned to fly it without flaps (on the
> advice of a friend) but I've been experimenting a little lately.
>
> Thanks,
>
Joe,
Before landing with flaperons, be sure to practice landing approach decents at
altitude to be sure that you have enough stick left to pull up the nose and to
flair.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List: |
> Before landing with flaperons, be sure to practice landing approach decents at
altitude to be sure that you have enough stick left to pull up the nose and
to flair.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
Jack/Gang:
If you keep a good cross check of your airspeed
indicator, keep 10 mph over the stall with full
flaperons, you will not run out of elevator and
you will not stall.
If you let your airspeed get too low, at or just a
hair over stall speed, you will probably stall the
airplane before you are ready to land, not
necessarily run out of aft stick, i.e., elevator
authority. The wings will stall before the
elevator.
Forgot to mention, assumed you already knew, to
stall the aircraft at a safe altitude (1,000 feet
or higher) clean and with full flaperons. Note
the airspeed at which it stalls in each
configuration. Keep 10 mph above that and you
will be home clean.
The Fire Fly will not run out of elevator. If it
would, it would do it when Brian Blackwood was
flying it. He is a big man, goes well over 200
lbs. I mean "well" over 200 lbs. It flies well
with Brian.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BILLBEAM(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Sling Shot Flaperons |
Hey folks,
I'm selling out lots of stuff from my Firestar. Great helmet and vhf radio
system
up for bid on Ebay. Click eBay
item 2717142194 (Ends Mar-19-03 16:15:14
PST
) - Ultra light Airplane VHF
Bill Beams
308 Jessamine Station Road
Wilmore, Kentucky 40390
Phone: 859-858-3168
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <peterv(at)etsmiami.com> |
| Subject: | Sling Shot Flaperons |
John, out of curiosity... what is your maximum crosswind component with
full flaps? Where do you draw the line?
I really enjoy making steep approach / full flap landings on my Mk III
almost as much as I enjoy the expressions on first time full-flap
landing passengers (usually GA types). You can almost read their
minds... "is this normal???"
Peter
Joe/Gang:
I love my flaps on my MK III. I use them normally for every landing,
unless there is a tremendous cross wind or
turbulence.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neitzel" <neitzel(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | mount dimensions |
Greetings
I had just removed my engine in preparation to cover the cage on my MARK III so
it was easy to get the dimensions of the mount. Measuring to the center of the
Lord mounts it is 7 inches wide by 9 7/16 long.
Hope this helps
Dick Neitzel
Sayner WI Mark III 582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List: |
>
>
>> Before landing with flaperons, be sure to practice landing approach decents
at altitude to be sure that you have enough stick left to pull up the nose and
to flair.
>>
>> Jack B. Hart FF004
>
>Jack/Gang:
>...........
>The Fire Fly will not run out of elevator. If it
>would, it would do it when Brian Blackwood was
>flying it. He is a big man, goes well over 200
>lbs. I mean "well" over 200 lbs. It flies well
>with Brian.
>
>john h
>
John,
My FireFly with full flaperons (about 20 degrees), at 50 mphi and with the engine
at an idle, the stick will be back against the stop, and it is dropping like
a rock. I weigh close to 200 pounds. It is impossible to flair my FireFly
in this condition. One must remove flaperons before advancing the throttle, or
it will get worse. The horizontal stabilizer is set for cruise at 55 mphi with
the stick and elevator in neutral (mid point of elevator travel) position.
My FireFly has nine chord flaperons. The current eleven or the original fifteen
inch flaperons would only make it worse.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
.
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax-787 100hp question |
>
>Guys
> Here is an f30 for sale with carbs and gear box. Herb
>
>http://www.donateyourplane.com/hirth_.htm
>
If I was hunting for an engine I would have gone for it. great deal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EVO/AIR Update |
>
>We want to make sure this thing will turn the prop that John Cooley loaned
>us ok without turning it into tooth pick's! If this engine works out, who
>wants to be the first to test fly it on a Kolb?.....
>No gut's No Glory!
>EXPECT NO MERCY!
ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [ Paul Petty ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
Uh, Paul, are you sure this isn't for a C-130? Those 4 wide blades are very
impressive!
Ed in JXN
MkII/503/3 skinny blades
> A new Email List Photo Share is available:
>
> Poster: Paul Petty <ppetty@c-gate.net>
>
>
> Subject: The Harley test w/ p47 prop
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/ppetty@c-gate.net.03.08.2003/index.html
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EVO/AIR Update |
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
3/13/03 11:47Paul Petty
>
> Good question Ron. Send me the dimensions of the Kolb mount and I will draft
> a mount.We and any others that want to share can work out the mounting angle
> and so forth. We will the build the housing for the redrive and use a dual
> belt/pulley set up.Run that for several hours and fine tune it. Then I'll
> ship it out to who ever wants to give it a spin!
> pp....
> N4958P
>
=============================
Greetings
I had just removed my engine in preparation to cover the cage on my MARK III
so it was easy to get the dimensions of the mount. Measuring to the center
of the Lord mounts it is 7 inches wide by 9 7/16 long.
Hope this helps
Dick Neitzel
Sayner WI Mark III 582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List: |
We very seldom land our FireFly with full flapperons. Were running a
little heavier than you, 260#. Learned to keep the speed up on approach
(55-60) down to the flare as the speed bleeds off rapidly as you start to
flare with the sink rate increasing. If you were using just one or two
notches of flapperons, I would say you might see a higher stall speed and a
more noticeable sink rate since you have effectively reduced the wings
surface area.
With full flapperons applied I would expect to see a higher sink rate as
they would still produce a noticeable amount of drag compared to two
notches on our plane producing more lift than drag. I know we don't like
to be below 50 unless were near the ground.
jerb
>
> >
> >
> >> Before landing with flaperons, be sure to practice landing approach
> decents at altitude to be sure that you have enough stick left to pull up
> the nose and to flair.
> >>
> >> Jack B. Hart FF004
> >
> >Jack/Gang:
> >...........
> >The Fire Fly will not run out of elevator. If it
> >would, it would do it when Brian Blackwood was
> >flying it. He is a big man, goes well over 200
> >lbs. I mean "well" over 200 lbs. It flies well
> >with Brian.
> >
> >john h
> >
>John,
>
>My FireFly with full flaperons (about 20 degrees), at 50 mphi and with the
>engine at an idle, the stick will be back against the stop, and it is
>dropping like a rock. I weigh close to 200 pounds. It is impossible to
>flair my FireFly in this condition. One must remove flaperons before
>advancing the throttle, or it will get worse. The horizontal stabilizer
>is set for cruise at 55 mphi with the stick and elevator in neutral (mid
>point of elevator travel) position. My FireFly has nine chord
>flaperons. The current eleven or the original fifteen inch flaperons
>would only make it worse.
>
>Jack B. Hart FF004
>Jackson, MO
>
>.
>
>
>Jack & Louise Hart
>jbhart(at)ldd.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Allman" <fisherallman(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Sling Shot Flaperons |
Thanks for all the advice on flaperons. There's just no substitute for
experience!
I have stalled the airplane in all configurations and I do recognize that I
can steepen the glide path with flaperons down. However, with my 200 pounds
in the seat it already glides about like my car keys.
With all that said, next time out I'm going to give it a try. I'd
considered that I could probably cross the fence slower but I had not
considered what John said about the rollout being shorter. There's that
experience again.
As far as running out of elevator, I have never noticed it and I think
that's the kind of thing I probably wouldn't forget. However, I'll be sure
and experiment with a little altitude first.
Land slower and stop quicker-what could be wrong with that?
Thanks guys,
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List: |
Jack/Gang:
Boy! It would be nice to sit down and talk face
to face about some of these problems we encounter
with our little airplanes. Would be much easier
and more beneficial doing it in person.
> My FireFly with full flaperons (about 20 degrees), at 50 mphi and with the engine
at an idle, the stick will be back against the stop, and it is dropping like
a rock.
The above statement tells me you are in a
mush/stall. As long as you hold the stick back to
the stop, in that configuration or with clean
flaperons, you will never recover until you mush
it into the ground. If it ain't flying, it is
stalling and falling, even though most Kolbs can
be controlled in roll in the mush.
I have flown the Kolb Factory Firefly quite a bit
in different configurations of the ailerons.
Everything else on the airplane is rigged
according to the plans and instructions. You have
done some of your own rigging of the horizontal
stabilizer, as far as I am aware of. Do not know
if that is affecting flight characteristics or
not.
Have you experimented with 60 MPH, without the
stick aft to the stop? Seems you may need to
increase your landing speed somewhat.
> I weigh close to 200 pounds. It is impossible to flair my FireFly in this condition.
One must remove flaperons before advancing the throttle, or it will
get worse.
Adding power will not help when the aircraft is
mushing and stalling. Any airplane. Even though
you are still in a level attitude and your brain
is telling you you are flying, you are most likely
in a full mush/stall. Kolbs are fabulous and
devious in this case. I have a good friend that
busted his butt in an Ultrastar because he thought
he was flying and he was actually in a level
mush. I experienced the same sensation when the
582 on my MK III seized for the second time in a
few minutes on takeoff. My mind told me I should
be flying because the airplane was level in pitch
and roll, but she was stalled and mushing in.
Ouch! They sure hit hard in that state and the
ground in that cow pasture was awfully hard.
The horizontal stabilizer is set for cruise at 55
mphi with the stick and elevator in neutral (mid
point of elevator travel) position. My FireFly
has nine chord flaperons. The current eleven or
the original fifteen inch flaperons would only
make it worse.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Junkyard wars motors |
> I have really been enjoying the close up pix of Miss Pfer, but all the ones
> in this digest are a no go. Error 404. Bill George
Hi Bill/Gang:
I did some shuffling around on the index page. Go
to the main directory and click on Miss P'fer
file. You'll get all the pics that Paul Petty and
John Cooley donated recently.
http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/
The Ron File is the pics of the Desert Rat from
Sierra Vista with the baby blue fuselage. hehehe
Where did you get that color from Ron? That
should go on a baby bed!
> Flew 1.2 today in glass smooth air. The Verner is running splendidly and gas
> consumption looks to be about 2.75 gph. Cruise rpm of 3800 give a TAS of 64
> mph. We ain't burning a hole in the sky but we're havin' fun.
Looks like you are having fun. Glad you have not
sold your Kolb. When you wear out the Verner,
spring for a 912S and really have some fun. Burns
twice as much fuel, but kicks you in the butt
twice as hard! Don't tell me you can not afford
it. Airline Captains (real ones) have lots of
money. hehehe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: R&D to remarket the weedhopper |
>
>This post also reminds me of how basic emailing
>is. Very difficult to get across how we really
>feel and what we are trying to convey and in what
>frame of mind we are in.
>
>john h
> > I wonder about this type of thing too. Seems that a lot of people that
> > have never built a
> > kolb or anything close seem to want to make their first attempt into a
> > showplane.
> > That's OK, but then they seem to want to change the plans (God knows I
sure
> > changed
> > the plans, but it wasn't my first ultralight or my first kolb). Then they
> > want to put a
> > 100 HP four stoke engine on it that weighs only 70 pounds and uses 1 gph
> > that nobody
> > has ever heard of.
Thisone/mine is a prime example of that. After I read it online it
didn't come out at all like I meant it to.
Sorry guys - not trying to put anyone down.
Keep up the experiments, just don't kill yourselves.
Possum
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List: |
> The horizontal stabilizer is set for cruise at 55
> mphi with the stick and elevator in neutral (mid
> point of elevator travel) position. My FireFly
> has nine chord flaperons. The current eleven or
> the original fifteen inch flaperons would only
> make it worse.
>
> john h
Gang:
The paragraph above is from Jack's original msg.
I failed to cut it before I hit the send button.
Xin Loi!
john h
hauck's holler aviator of the year (I'm the only
aviator at hauck's holler) :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Landing Attitude |
Hi You All!
We have been talking a little bit about landing
configurations/attitudes, etc. This pic shows
Miss P'fer about to land. Airspeed is about 45
mph, full (40 deg) flaps:
http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/Miss%20P'fer/Final.JPG
She is in a level attitude. Notice how high the
tail flies, i.e., the tail boom in relation to the
ground. Engine is at idle. She'll touch down in
a second.
http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/Miss%20P'fer/Final%202.jpg
Both these pics are the same. The first was
cropped quite a bit. The second gives a better
perspective of where the aircraft is in relation
to the ground.
Also notice that the horizontal stabs and are
parallel with the ground and the elevator is in
line with the horizontal stabs. You would think
that I would have the stick pulled back to the
stop with the elevators full up. If I did, I
would have the nose pointing to the sky
momentarily before I stalled and crashed. Many
times what we perceive in the cockpit is not what
our control surfaces are doing out there in the
airstream.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Danny Bradshaw ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Danny Bradshaw
Subject: Hot Box and Battery installation on Firestar
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/PIPERJ5@shtc.net.03.13.2003/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Chris Sudlow ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Chris Sudlow
Subject: Kolb Mark III Photos
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/sudlow77@earthlink.net.03.13.2003/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Captain Ron ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Captain Ron
Subject: M3X under construction March-2003
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/CaptainRon@theriver.com.03.13.2003/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
Hi Everyone,
As a few of you have noticed, from the accident reports, my Firestar was
involved in an accident this past Saturday. I was reluctant to discuss it
until the FAA and a chance to look at it. What they had determined is that
my "new" Powerfin prop delaminated and consequently struck the aileron tube.
The new prop had only about 12 hrs on it. I was about 1500 agl when this
occurred. It made a very loud noise and got the attention a several folks on
the ground. I immediately pulled the power back and began setting up for
landing the plane. Below me was a grass field. I positioned the plane to
take advantage on the long direction of the field. As I got closer to the
ground it became apparent that is was not grass but 18" new growth from the
recent rains. The ground was soft and wet. As the rollout continued, I could
see the tires were starting to settle into the soft ground. A combination of
the soft ground the tall grass a plowed field and the recent rains, the
plane came to an abrupt stop at about 25 mph and as in slow motion the nose
dipped forward and the rest of the plane followed coming to rest upside
down. My passenger and I were left hanging upside down. I undid my seat belt
and the then undid hers. I was conducting young eagle flights which I have
done ever since I have started flying my Firestar. We were both not injured.
With all the forces in play, had the cage not been made of chromally, I am
sure the outcome would have been different.
The insurance representative, I could tell, was having a hard time trying to
figure out how he was going to evaluate the damage. He was new at this and
had not probably reviewed too many experimental homebuilt airplanes. How do
you value a homebuilders time or apply a standard when there are no shops
that would even work on one of our planes. I do have hull coverage, so I
will be compensated in some way. The actual damage includes bent cage front
and top, both wings bent, wing struts bent, prop broken and rudder bent. As
the engine was still operating at idle at the time of the flip, the engine
would have to be at least completely gone through.
I was so looking forward to Monument Valley. I am not sure now what my plans
will be. I love flying my plane and I usually get out at least once a week
and take a little jaunt around the countryside. I am going to miss this
while I work on getting a flying solution in place.
Take care,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dama(at)mindspring.com |
Sounds like you did all you could. Great job, John.
Kip
-------Original Message-------
From: "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil>
Subject: Kolb-List: Accident
>
Hi Everyone,
As a few of you have noticed, from the accident reports, my Firestar was
involved in an accident this past Saturday. I was reluctant to discuss it
until the FAA and a chance to look at it. What they had determined is that
my "new" Powerfin prop delaminated and consequently struck the aileron
tube.
The new prop had only about 12 hrs on it. I was about 1500 agl when this
occurred. It made a very loud noise and got the attention a several folks
on
the ground. I immediately pulled the power back and began setting up for
landing the plane. Below me was a grass field. I positioned the plane to
take advantage on the long direction of the field. As I got closer to the
ground it became apparent that is was not grass but 18" new growth from
the
recent rains. The ground was soft and wet. As the rollout continued, I
could
see the tires were starting to settle into the soft ground. A combination
of
the soft ground the tall grass a plowed field and the recent rains, the
plane came to an abrupt stop at about 25 mph and as in slow motion the
nose
dipped forward and the rest of the plane followed coming to rest upside
down. My passenger and I were left hanging upside down. I undid my seat
belt
and the then undid hers. I was conducting young eagle flights which I have
done ever since I have started flying my Firestar. We were both not
injured.
With all the forces in play, had the cage not been made of chromally, I am
sure the outcome would have been different.
The insurance representative, I could tell, was having a hard time trying
to
figure out how he was going to evaluate the damage. He was new at this and
had not probably reviewed too many experimental homebuilt airplanes. How
do
you value a homebuilders time or apply a standard when there are no shops
that would even work on one of our planes. I do have hull coverage, so I
will be compensated in some way. The actual damage includes bent cage
front
and top, both wings bent, wing struts bent, prop broken and rudder bent.
As
the engine was still operating at idle at the time of the flip, the engine
would have to be at least completely gone through.
I was so looking forward to Monument Valley. I am not sure now what my
plans
will be. I love flying my plane and I usually get out at least once a week
and take a little jaunt around the countryside. I am going to miss this
while I work on getting a flying solution in place.
Take care,
John
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List: |
John,
>Boy! It would be nice to sit down and talk face
>to face about some of these problems we encounter
>with our little airplanes. Would be much easier
>and more beneficial doing it in person.
Since it is not possible, and that is why we have this list.
>
>> My FireFly with full flaperons (about 20 degrees), at 50 mphi and with the engine
at an idle, the stick will be back against the stop, and it is dropping
like a rock.
>
>The above statement tells me you are in a
>mush/stall.
You have got to be kidding. This FireFly will maintain altitude with no flaperons
at about 35 mph true or 18 mphi. This is no mush/stall. Adding flaperon
increases wing chamber and in doing so increases the nose down moment on the wing.
At full flaperon, there was/is not enough horizontal tail surface authority
to counteract this nose down moment. I could hold it in a flying decent at
50 mphi, but I could not lessen the rate of decent. I was not about to let the
stick go forward to pick up more speed and steepen the decent. To add power
would steepen the decent. The only solution is to remove flaperon and then
add power.
This is why you go to altitude to check these things out. The trick is to idle
back, drop the nose until one hits the desired mphi of decent. Then slowly start
adding flaperon and use the stick to maintain the same mphi of decent. If
and when you reach the point where the stick is full back, there is no way to
flair. If you are well over your stall speed mphi, this indicates insufficient
elevator authority.
>
>Have you experimented with 60 MPH, without the
>stick aft to the stop?
My normal (no flaperons) final approach is at 55 to 60 mphi. After the flaperon
experience, I temporarily installed VG's on the bottom leading edge of the horizontal
stabilizer to increase available tail down force so that the FireFly
would stall clean rather than stall/mush and to see if it would help with the
above condition. But I thought the Victor 1 was ready and I removed the Rotax
447. With warm weather coming and the Victor 1 installation problems mostly
solved, I will be getting back to checking out the flaperons again but only at
altitude. I really don't see much need for them.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> done ever since I have started flying my Firestar. We were both not
injured.
So glad neither of you were injured.........Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Allman" <fisherallman(at)earthlink.net> |
John,
Sorry to hear about your recent accident. So glad everyone's alright!
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> What they had determined is that
> my "new" Powerfin prop delaminated and consequently struck the aileron tube.
> John
John/Gang:
Check and see if something came off the engine to
initiate your prop failure. Usuallly that is what
happens. Exhaust system nuts, washers, bolts,
etc., is usually all it takes.
On the other hand, it may have been a poorly
constructed prop, and 12 hours is how long it took
to reach failure.
I have used wooden and carbon fiber props. Would
not swap the Warp Drive for wooden, and definitely
would not go to an IVO or Powerfin. Both use
similar construction. Both fly well as long as
they stay together. Both seem to lack a lot in
the area of durability.
That is my own personal opinion................
Warp Drive has sponsored me with props since a GSC
three blade wooden prop came apart on my 582
powered MK III. Cost me a new tail boom, and some
fabric repair. Shook the starter off the mag end
of the engine and both carbs. Bent the tail boom
out of column aprx'ly 5 deg. Because of 40 deg of
flaps was able to stick the MK III in a shoe box
sized LZ completely surrounded by high power
lines, trees, and a large bamboo thicket. Landed
with no further damage in chest high Johnson
grass. Hauck landing gear kept her on her gear.
An intentional ground loop kept her out of the
bamboo. Losing the carbs probably kept the engine
on the mounts. Went to a solid carbon fiber prop
and have never looked back.
For insurance purposes I would claim an engine
teardown and inspection as a minimum based on the
prop strike. In reality, I personally, would not
hesitate to fly the same engine without a tear
down, not with a wooden blade strike or a
Powerfin/IVO strike at idle.
Avemco pays $15.00 an hour for repair work by the
owner/builder. That is nothing compared to shop
charges for an A&P. Make sure you estimate plenty
hours for repair, if you should decide to repair.
Also leave the estimate open to add more hours, as
required, as you get into the repair job.
If you have serious damage to fuselage, both
wings, engine, rudder, and probably other areas,
sounds to me like a total. Then buy the salvage
and repair. Some companies will go that route.
Glad you and your Young Eagle are ok. That is the
most important part.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List: |
> >The above statement tells me you are in a
> >mush/stall. john h
>
> You have got to be kidding. This FireFly will maintain altitude with no flaperons
at about 35 mph true or 18 mphi. This is no mush/stall.
Jack/Gang:
Nope! I am definitely not kidding. And yes, from
your description you are stalling. You might be
level, loosing a lot of altitude quickly, with the
stick full back, and idle power, but you ain't
flying. Adding power will only add to your
problems. The only way to get out of a stall is
to put the nose down to reduce the angle of attack
of the wings to the relative wind. Whether you
believe me or not is your business.
> Adding flaperon increases wing chamber and in doing so increases the nose down
moment on the wing. At full flaperon, there was/is not enough horizontal tail
surface authority to counteract this nose down moment.
Jack, if the horizontal stab was stalled or did
not have enough authority to keep the airplane
level, the nose would drop.
> I could hold it in a flying decent at 50 mphi, but I could not lessen the rate
of decent. I was not about to let the stick go forward to pick up more speed
and steepen the decent. To add power would steepen the decent. The only solution
is to remove flaperon and then add power.
Wrong! You were stalling at 50 mph IAS in a level
attitude, something that Kolbs do really well. To
get out of a stall you got to push the nose down
and leave the power at idle unless you want to
risk a possible overspeed. By raising the
flaperons and adding power, you simply powered
your way out of a level stall. You flew it out of
a level stall with power. What would you do if
you got into that situation and lost the engine?
I know what I would do. Push that damn stick
forward, raise the flaperons, and fly.
>
> This is why you go to altitude to check these things out. The trick is to idle
back, drop the nose until one hits the desired mphi of decent. Then slowly
start adding flaperon and use the stick to maintain the same mphi of decent.
If and when you reach the point where the stick is full back, there is no way
to flair. If you are well over your stall speed mphi, this indicates insufficient
elevator authority.
You are not over your stall speed when you are
stalling at 50 mph IAS.
Again, if you lose elevator authority, the nose is
going down, unless you have a severe aft CG
problem. I don't think you do.
> My normal (no flaperons) final approach is at 55 to 60 mphi. After the flaperon
experience, I temporarily installed VG's on the bottom leading edge of the
horizontal stabilizer to increase available tail down force so that the FireFly
would stall clean rather than stall/mush and to see if it would help with the
above condition.
Jack, didn't you also raise the leading edge of
the horizontal stabilizers on your Fire Fly, well
above called for rigging?
I'll have a chance to play with the Fire Fly again
at Lakeland. I'll try to remember to put it
through some of the maneuvers that you describe
and see what happens. I may have a poor memory,
but not bad enough to remember how the Fire Fly
flew a couple years ago.
I can duplicate the same maneuver with the MK
III. Full flaps, get it into a mush, maintain
level pitch and roll attitude with elevator and
aileron. It'll mush at aprx'ly 2,000 feet minute
rate of descent, right into the ground if I don't
put the nose down and get it flying again.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
Gentlemen, I have seen advice hear to spray a coat of white over the poly-spray
alum UV-coat. This makes sense and I have some white 2 part epoxy-primer left...enough
to cover i believe. Can this be used instead of ordering another can
of poly or aerothane white?
I should mention...my final colors are gonna be Cub yellow with Pontiac red trim...Ever
see a bird like that???(LOL)
Not goint to be exactly like yours John, but definately inspired by Miss P'fer
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Don Gherardini-
FireFly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List: |
I dont know for sure Jack, but it makes me wonder ....this surely sounds
like some sort of stalling condition...maybe by an aft CG ..or possibly a
wing/horizontal stab incedence being mis matched....or something really
funny....Im worried about you now my virtual friend, and looking really hard
at my firefly in the shed trying to see what is going on here! Trouble is..I
have never flown it..or any Firefly yet for that matter...so I'm really at a
loss.
Don G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <peterv(at)etsmiami.com> |
Glad you and your Young Eagle are around to tell the tale John. I hope
the experience hasn't "cured" her enthusiasm for flying.
If the fault proves to be delamination of the prop without outside
assistance (such as something going through it), shouldn't Powerfin be
assuming at least some of the responsibility and/or cost? It would be
interesting to hear how they respond.
Peter
Hi Everyone,
As a few of you have noticed, from the accident reports, my Firestar was
involved in an accident this past Saturday.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Paint Question? |
> Gentlemen, I have seen advice hear to spray a coat of white over the poly-spray
alum UV-coat. This makes sense and I have some white 2 part epoxy-primer left...enough
to cover i believe. Can this be used instead of ordering another can
of poly or aerothane white?
> Don Gherardini-
Jim and Dondi told me to use some white epoxy
primer over "feather coat" on my nose cone to seal
it, but I don't think it will be flexible enough
for fabric.
Best check with the experts on that one.
I always us Insignia White for an undercoat to
colors.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net> |
Jack,
I know you know more than the designer of the plane your
flying(working on... tongue in cheek as I say that) but DON'T use your
plane as a baseline for how a Firefly flies. Just a quick look through
your website shows that you raised (significantly) the leading edge of
your horizontal stabilizer. (Reread the name of that part you didn't
mount per plans...h-o-r-i-z-o-n-t-a-l s-t-a-b-i-l-i-z-e-r...since you
significantly changed the angle that it's mounted...then don't say that
"KOLB FIREFLIES" are elevator limited...say YOUR Kolb Firefly is
elevator limited.
Jeremy Casey
P.S. Flaperons down not only increases wing camber, it increases the
chord line, which is in effect increasing the angle of attack
P.P.S. Delta shaped wings (Which the horizontal stabilizers are) require
large angle of attack to generate lift (even negative lift) Why do you
suppose the Concorde, Mirage, Delta Dart, Griffon, etc. fighters land
with their noses stuck up in the air. The elevator is dealing with all
the down force on your plane, because the horizontal is at such a small
angle of attack it is not helping handle the job.
P.P.P.S. One question Jack. On your website, you mentioned that you
had to adjust the horz. Stab. To cruise with the horizontal, elevator,
and STICK centered. Did you adjust out some of your control throw by
adjusting the push-pull tube to make it "centered"?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List: |
John,
>
>
>> >The above statement tells me you are in a
>> >mush/stall. john h
>>
>> You have got to be kidding. This FireFly will maintain altitude with no flaperons
at about 35 mph true or 18 mphi. This is no mush/stall.
>
>Jack/Gang:
>
>Nope! I am definitely not kidding. And yes, from
>your description you are stalling. ..... Whether you
>believe me or not is your business.
>
I disagree. If this was a tractor configuration, one would just power out and
not think much about it.
>> Adding flaperon increases wing chamber and in doing so increases the nose down
moment on the wing. At full flaperon, there was/is not enough horizontal tail
surface authority to counteract this nose down moment.
>
>Jack, if the horizontal stab was stalled or did
>not have enough authority to keep the airplane
>level, the nose would drop.
>
Ah, since the nose did not drop, you agree that the horizontal stab was not stalled,
therefore it there must not be enough elevator authority.
>> I could hold it in a flying decent at 50 mphi, but I could not lessen the rate
of decent. I was not about to let the stick go forward to pick up more speed
and steepen the decent. To add power would steepen the decent. The only solution
is to remove flaperon and then add power.
>
>Wrong! You were stalling at 50 mph IAS in a level
>attitude, something that Kolbs do really well.
If it had stalled the nose would have dropped.
>>
>> This is why you go to altitude to check these things out. The trick is to idle
back, drop the nose until one hits the desired mphi of decent. Then slowly
start adding flaperon and use the stick to maintain the same mphi of decent.
If and when you reach the point where the stick is full back, there is no way
to flair. If you are well over your stall speed mphi, this indicates insufficient
elevator authority.
>
>You are not over your stall speed when you are
>stalling at 50 mph IAS.
Again, the nose did not drop.
>
>Again, if you lose elevator authority, the nose is
>going down, unless you have a severe aft CG
>problem. I don't think you do.
There was no loss of elevator authority, there just was not enough of it.
>
>Jack, didn't you also raise the leading edge of
>the horizontal stabilizers on your Fire Fly, well
>above called for rigging?
When building the FireFly, I recognized that with the original design that in the
three point stance the wing airfoil was much too flat. This would lead to
much higher take off speeds and much banging of the tail wheel in trying to make
three point landings. To counteract this I shortened the tail wheel spring,
and I drilled the main spar attachment holes so give a higher incidence angle
(I believe this is the correct term). To compensate for this, I had to raise
the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer. The incidence angle difference
between the wing (11 deg) and the horizontal stabilizer (9 deg) is 2 degrees.
I would venture to guess this is not much different than other FireFlys.
With the VG's it lets me get off and land at about 25 mphi in and out of ground
effect.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List: |
>
>I dont know for sure Jack, but it makes me wonder ....this surely sounds
>like some sort of stalling condition...maybe by an aft CG ..or possibly a
>wing/horizontal stab incedence being mis matched....or something really
>funny....Im worried about you now my virtual friend, and looking really hard
>at my firefly in the shed trying to see what is going on here! Trouble is..I
>have never flown it..or any Firefly yet for that matter...so I'm really at a
>loss.
>
>Don G
>
Don,
The only time I have had a control problem with the FireFly has been with full
flaperons which I don't see any need for except to make it meet AC 103-7.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Firefly Flight Characteristics After Owner Modifications |
Jack/Kolbers:
It is quite obvious that you are not going to hear
a word I say, and if by chance you do, you will
misinterprete it. I will not argue with you. I
have stated previously all I have to say on the
matter.
I only hope you wake up soon before you hurt
yourself or others. I am dead serious about that.
I firmly believe you have the wrong impression on
how your airplane flies and what it is doing when
you are flying it.
I also believe that you have changed the rigging
of your airplane with the intention to improve it,
but have only agrevated your perceived problem.
Lengthening the main gear legs would have been the
way to go to put your Fire Fly in a better three
point stance for for take offs and landings. Take
a look at my MK III. That is one of the primary
reasons my MK III sits a couple feet higher in the
three point stance than the standard MK III. My
Firestar had the same three point stance.
Again, good luck with your project and fly safely,
john h
PS: I'm looking forward to getting back into a
Firefly at Lakeland. Hopefully, I can fly enough
to check out what Jack is trying to tell us.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Junkyard wars motors |
I work with a gal who is the girlfriend of one of the Americans that
participiated in the Junkyard show. I have not met him yet, but we will now
that we have a connection. He sounds very interesting. She said he had a
great time. Said they all talked about the designs, everone tried to make a
vintage design, at least somewhat, except the british who basically made a
ultralight "type" design. Anyways, she was great to chat with. I still ike
the "Monster Garage" show beter.
Tim
DO NOT ARCHVE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ian Heritch" <iheritch(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Paint Question? |
Don, call Jim & Dondi, I think they will reccomend you use white Poly Tone.
Please, give them a try before you paint.
Ian Heritch
Slingshot 912
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Paint Question?
>
> Gentlemen, I have seen advice hear to spray a coat of white over the
poly-spray alum UV-coat. This makes sense and I have some white 2 part
epoxy-primer left...enough to cover i believe. Can this be used instead of
ordering another can of poly or aerothane white?
>
> I should mention...my final colors are gonna be Cub yellow with Pontiac
red trim...Ever see a bird like that???(LOL)
>
> Not goint to be exactly like yours John, but definately inspired by Miss
P'fer , for I just think shes a beauty!
> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
> Don Gherardini-
> FireFly 098
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
Jeremy,
Someone asked a question about flaperons. Another person on the list responded
with:
"If you keep a good cross check of your airspeed
indicator, keep 10 mph over the stall with full
flaperons, you will not run out of elevator and
you will not stall."
If I had followed this advice, I may not be writing this today, and so I recommended:
"Before landing with flaperons, be sure to practice landing approach decents at
altitude to be sure that you have enough stick left to pull up the nose and to
flair."
This brought a response that all Kolb designs had no problems with flaperons.
I have only cited what has happened to me in my FireFly. But if it can happen
to me why not someone else? My purpose was not to be an expert on all Kolb designs
or all FireFlys, but it was to try and prevent someone from bending a landing
gear or may be worse.
> ..............
>P.P.P.S. One question Jack. On your website, you mentioned that you
>had to adjust the horz. Stab. To cruise with the horizontal, elevator,
>and STICK centered. Did you adjust out some of your control throw by
>adjusting the push-pull tube to make it "centered"?
>
The horizontal stabilizer was raised, and then the cable turn buckles were adjusted
so that the stick was centered with the elevator in plane with the horizontal
stabilizer. This gives equal up and down displacement of the elevator.
Enough! This has been fun, but it is warm enough to go fly.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firefly Flight Characteristics After Owner |
Modifications
>
>I also believe that you have changed the rigging
>of your airplane with the intention to improve it,
>but have only agrevated your perceived problem.
>Lengthening the main gear legs would have been the
>way to go to put your Fire Fly in a better three
>point stance for for take offs and landings. Take
>a look at my MK III. That is one of the primary
>reasons my MK III sits a couple feet higher in the
>three point stance than the standard MK III. My
>Firestar had the same three point stance.
>
John,
If I do not use the flaperons, there is no problem with my FireFly. I only checked
them out because they were there.
As for lengthening the main gear legs, it is not a viable option due the added
weight.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net> |
When building the FireFly, I recognized that with the original design
that in the three point stance the wing airfoil was much too flat. This
would lead to much higher take off speeds and much banging of the tail
wheel in trying to make three point landings. To counteract this I
shortened the tail wheel spring, and I drilled the main spar attachment
holes so give a higher incidence angle (I believe this is the correct
term). To compensate for this, I had to raise the leading edge of the
horizontal stabilizer. The incidence angle difference between the
wing (11 deg) and the horizontal stabilizer (9 deg) is 2 degrees. I
would venture to guess this is not much different than other FireFlys.
With the VG's it lets me get off and land at about 25 mphi in and out of
ground effect.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
So let me get this straight..."When building the Firefly..." in other
words boys and girls, before you ever flew a Firefly you changed the
angle of attack in relation to the fuselage/landing gear and then had a
problem with the horizontal stabilizer needing to be adjusted. I didn't
get that from your web page that made me believe there was something
inherently wrong with the Firefly. This goes back to what Possum said
about at least building one by the plans first time around...you might
find out the designer knew a thing or 2...
I'm done on this topic as well...I figured the truth would come out
sooner or later...
Jeremy Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RWilliJill(at)aol.com |
Can anyone tell me what color of white best matches the white powder coating
on my cage and tail boom?
Ron Williams
Firestar II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RWilliJill(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Color match? |
I meant to say what color Poly Tone matches the powder coating.
Ron W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
>
>
>So let me get this straight..."When building the Firefly..." in other
>words boys and girls, before you ever flew a Firefly you changed the
>angle of attack in relation to the fuselage/landing gear and then had a
>problem with the horizontal stabilizer needing to be adjusted. I didn't
>get that from your web page that made me believe there was something
>inherently wrong with the Firefly. This goes back to what Possum said
>about at least building one by the plans first time around...you might
>find out the designer knew a thing or 2...
>
>I'm done on this topic as well...I figured the truth would come out
>sooner or later...
>
>Jeremy Casey
>
Jeremy,
So what is the truth?
The shortening of the tail wheel spring has nothing to do with the relationship
between the inclination of the wing relative to the horizontal stabilizer. But
by shortening the spring, one reduces weight, and it lets the FireFly get off
and on the ground at slower speeds which reduces the chance of bending a gear
leg.
The raising of the main spar attachment points by may be 1/2 inch was another attempt
to improve take off and landings. This change is equivalent to a one degree
inclination increase. Raising the front of the horizontal stabilizer 1.5
inches is about a three degree increase. So if I had left the main wing attachment
centered as called for in the plans, I would have had to raise the horizontal
stabilizer one inch.
There are all kinds of reasons for my FireFly being different. I believe the most
probable is that my rib profile may be different. When I was trying to assemble
ribs as to the plans, I had trouble trying to fit the preformed ribs.
I requested copy of the airfoil shape. Dennis faxed me a full size drawing.
From this I laid out a full sized pattern. As I recall, I had to reshape the
upper ribs to fit the pattern. But for whatever reason, most of these changes
are insignificant.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the FireFly. If you got that impression
from my web site, I apologize and that was not my intent. Once the FireFly flew
the first time, the important thing is to trim it out so that it is a good
handling plane. My flaperon problem can be cured by placing a stop on the activation
lever so that it cannot be moved past 15 degrees. But since I am the
only person to fly it and I never use them for landing, why bother.
Homer Kolb did us a tremendous favor by designing these planes. But there is no
way he could envision what builders/owners want to do with his planes. Also,
there are probably few on this list who have built their own Kolb who have kept
their plane "stock". To expect all Kolb designs to be kept pure is nonsense
although some of the most staunch defenders of the designs appear to be the
most guilty of modification. Everyone has their personal need to make his plane
into what he wants it to be. The trick is to be safe while doing it.
Earlier, I said I was going to fly, but a cold front has come through and visibility
is poor. So this will have to do for today.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vincehallam(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:john hauk on mush stall |
John
Thatr last one of yours ,mushing at 2000 ft / min with good roll
authority,,,,what was your indicated airspeed?
Vnz
________________________________________________________________________________
Joe,
I used the flaperons on my SlingShot from the get go. No problems or
any unusual tendencies to report.
...Richard Swiderski
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Allman" <fisherallman(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Kolb-List:
>
>
> As a long time lurker on the list I'd like to say thanks for all the great
> info.
>
> I was wondering if anyone could share their thoughts regarding flaps and
> usefulness. I've
> got 25 or 30 hours in a slingshot. Learned to fly it without flaps (on
the
> advice of a friend) but I've been experimenting a little lately.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joe
> SS-582
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:john hauk on mush stall |
> Thatr last one of yours ,mushing at 2000 ft / min with good roll
> authority,,,,what was your indicated airspeed?
> Vnz
Hi Vince/Kolbers:
Not IAS but reading from VSI (vertical speed
indicator). It pegs at 2,000 feet per min up or
down. IAS is aprx 65 to 70 to get that rate of
descent. A real plus when the engine stops and
the LZ is shoe box size.
Are you going to make it over to our side of the
pond this year?
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
I think Jack is learning alot about aircraft rigging with his plane.
incidence angle of the wing is all about optimising fuselage drag at a given
aoa, which sets which speed the plane flies best at. ground angle, aoa with
the wheels on the ground, sets your minimum (tail wheel or max nose gear)
lift off speed. Jack wanted to be able to land and fly real slow, so he
increased both his ground angle and incicence angles by rigging the wing
higher, and raised the ground angle a bit more with a shorter tail wheel
spring. then to minimise trim drag in cruise he lifted the tail to be at
the same angle with the wing, like it would have been on the regular plane.
Or maybe even higher??? This is also fairly logical, but the resulting
flight characteristics flapperons down dont sound great. But he doesnt use
them so not real importent. I would be curious to see if lowering the
stabiliser back down a bit improved the situation. Since the origonal goal
was to land slow, which is what the flapperons are good for in theory, it
would be nice to get them usable and see if the landing slow speed
characteristics are worth using them.
Both partial stalling the wing and running out of tail power result in no
more nose up. stalling the tail would result in a nose bob. full stall of
the wing would result in a nose drop. but if you are descending fast,
without the nose pointed down then your wing is partially stalled. Stall
with flaperons down is going to come at a very shallow angle on your plane,
since your wing has a few extra degrees in it to start with, and flapperon
defflection increases aoa alot. I wont claim to know whats happening from
here, but it is interesting, and I am glad your being real carefully with
the plane in this flight configuration. You should be able to fly slower
flaps down then flaps up, but at less incidence angle. you gotta let the
nose go down when the flaps come down.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neitzel" <neitzel(at)newnorth.net> |
Greetings
I trial fit the windshield on my Mark III today by pulling it into place with some
nylon straps. With the lexan on the outside of the top lip of the nose cone
there is a considerable gap between the windshield posts and the lexan near
the instrument panel. Is this appropriate? Looks to me that air flow would
be better and that the lexan would fit better if it were tucked underneath the
top lip of the nose cone.
Also I attended a ultra light safety seminar a few days ago and the last speaker
was from Rotax. I learned a couple of things that I will pass along. When
I mounted the exhaust manifold to my 582, Kolb instructs to use three Allen head
bolts per port. Rotax says that either use two bolts per port (opposite corners)
or four bolts to avoid warping of the manifold. I didn't like the idea
of only two bolts so I went to the local hardware store and purchase two of the
longest all thread metric bolts that I could find. I cut the heads off and
spun the studs in and carefully put nuts on the studs. Takes about three hands
to hold the manifold back till both nuts are started and hold the gaskets in
place, but it can be done. I then drilled small holes in the remaining Allen
head bolts and after applying the correct torque I secured them with safety
wire. If the nuts come loose they can not come off because of studs close proximity
to the manifold.
The other thing that the Rotax guy said was after shutting down it is a good idea
to spray fogging oil in the intakes and plug holes. Then put a plug in the
exhaust pipe and bag the carburetors. He said to do this after every flight.
Still have not run my 582 but have been fogging and turning engine over regularly.
I was wondering if you guys fog and how often?
Thank you all ahead of time
Dick Neitzel Mark III 582 Sayner WI neitzel(at)newnorth.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alderson, James" <James_Alderson(at)jdedwards.com> |
| Subject: | Kolb Firestar II for Sale |
Hate to do it, but I think I am going to feel a little more comfortable
learning and getting a couple hours on a tricycle gear two place trainer, so
here goes. I know, I just bought it and haven't given it a chance yet, but I
gotta do what feels right.
2002 Kolb Firestar II For Sale or Trade - 29 hours TTAE, 503 DCDI, 3
Blade ground adjustable IVO prop / B-box, Tundra Tires, BRS-750, EIS with
VSI/Fuel/Altitude (vertical card compass and ASI on panel as well),
Steerable tailwheel, beautiful custom interior, full and partial enclosure
included, external antanae, differential heal brakes, custom paint. Pictures
can be seen at http://www.shutterfly.com/os.jsp?i=67b0de21b336399b2568 .
Want a two seat trainer 3 Axis or trike, tandem or side by side as this is
too much of a hot rod taildragger for me (novice pilot). Asking 13,500 and
will include a Compaq Ipaq with GPS in the deal. Fairly firm on price for
sale, however would be willing to work a better deal for a trade. Plane is
in Charlotte NC, phone 704-236-6953 or email at aldersonjames2002(at)yahoo.com.
James Alderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Color match? |
Hi Ron and Gang,
Who powder coated your cage? If it was done by Kolb I would call them and
ask. If not, good luck. There are many shades of white powder coating. One
thing you might do if you plan on using the poly-tone or aerothane is to get
the poly-fiber color card and try to match your coating. I believe you have
a distributor nearby as best I remember from off list email. I would carry
one of the powder coated parts to the distributor and try to match it there
if you have a smaller part that you can carry. With that being said, I had
my Twinstar powder coated white at a nearby shop and then ordered insignia
white poly-tone. It matched perfect.
Good Luck,
John Cooley
.
> Can anyone tell me what color of white best matches the white powder
coating
> on my cage and tail boom?
>
> Ron Williams
> Firestar II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Paint Question? |
Hi Don/Gang,
I thing your color choices are in very good taste. This next part I say with
reluctance because of the Miller's, (great people) but I personally wouldn't
use the Poly-tone or aerothane cub yellow again after the experience I've
had with it. Let me explain as I have been wanting to get this off my chest.
I spent a lot of time and money on my Firestar in the covering / painting
process. I used finish tapes on all the surfaces, used the full silver
process etc. I painted the boom tube, landing gear, lift struts etc with cub
yellow aerothane and the fabric with poly-tone. I had to mix poly-tone cub
yellow and orange yellow poly-tone to get a decent match to the cub yellow
aerothane. I didn't mind doing this. The problem started about 1 year after
the painting process. I started noticing bluish looking spots in the yellow
paint. It almost looks like you took a rag that was saturated with Pennzoil
and slung it on the paint. It has a mottled look in most places. In other
places it is a cluster of small spots. Even the aerothane cub yellow has
similar streaks/spots in it. My belief is that it is the pigmentation in the
cub yellow paint and or reaction to the sun and elements. I don't know this
for sure and if it was just my plane that was like this I would have wrote
it off as being my fault in the painting process. It is mostly on the top
surfaces, but not all of it.I have seen another plane that is painted with
cub yellow aerothane that has similar spots. Again I have only seen this in
the cub yellow. I have tried all kinds of cleaning methods including what is
in the Poly-Fiber manual. The only way to remove them is to start removing
the paint. I have also used insignia white and bahama blue without problem.
Would be interested in hearing others experiences with the cub yellow or any
yellow poly-fiber paint.
Later,
John Cooley
> I should mention...my final colors are gonna be Cub yellow with Pontiac
red trim...Ever see a bird like that???(LOL)
>
> Not goint to be exactly like yours John, but definately inspired by Miss
P'fer , for I just think shes a beauty!
> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
> Don Gherardini-
> FireFly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
I thought the same way when I trial fit my windshield, so I built it to be
in-line with the nose cone. Figured there'd be less noise, and wind
intrusion. We'll soon find out. There's a brief description on my website
under "Building Vamoose," "Gull Wing Doors." Sorry, I don't have a picture
handy. What I did was epoxy strips of lexan around the inside of the nose
cone lip, for the windshield to seat against. Gogittum Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Neitzel" <neitzel(at)newnorth.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Windshield
>
> Greetings
>
> I trial fit the windshield on my Mark III today by pulling it into place
with some nylon straps. With the lexan on the outside of the top lip of the
nose cone there is a considerable gap between the windshield posts and the
lexan near the instrument panel. Is this appropriate? Looks to me that
air flow would be better and that the lexan would fit better if it were
tucked underneath the top lip of the nose cone.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
I'm sure glad you and your passenger are OK, John; and I'm sure that as has
been said, it's an experience she'll never forget. You either for that
matter. Too bad that her introduction to flying ended so dramatically.
Too bad, too, about your plane................I still think yours is (was
??) one of the prettiest airplanes I've ever seen. The tremendous amount of
thought, quality of workmanship, and precision of detail is incredible.
Saddened Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil>
Subject: Kolb-List: Accident
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> As a few of you have noticed, from the accident reports, my Firestar was
> involved in an accident this past Saturday. I was reluctant to discuss it
> until the FAA and a chance to look at it. What they had determined is that
> my "new" Powerfin prop delaminated and consequently struck the aileron
tube.
> The new prop had only about 12 hrs on it. I was about 1500 agl when this
> occurred. It made a very loud noise and got the attention a several folks
on
> the ground. I immediately pulled the power back and began setting up for
> landing the plane. Below me was a grass field. I positioned the plane to
> take advantage on the long direction of the field. As I got closer to the
> ground it became apparent that is was not grass but 18" new growth from
the
> recent rains. The ground was soft and wet. As the rollout continued, I
could
> see the tires were starting to settle into the soft ground. A combination
of
> the soft ground the tall grass a plowed field and the recent rains, the
> plane came to an abrupt stop at about 25 mph and as in slow motion the
nose
> dipped forward and the rest of the plane followed coming to rest upside
> down. My passenger and I were left hanging upside down. I undid my seat
belt
> and the then undid hers. I was conducting young eagle flights which I have
> done ever since I have started flying my Firestar. We were both not
injured.
> With all the forces in play, had the cage not been made of chromally, I am
> sure the outcome would have been different.
>
> The insurance representative, I could tell, was having a hard time trying
to
> figure out how he was going to evaluate the damage. He was new at this and
> had not probably reviewed too many experimental homebuilt airplanes. How
do
> you value a homebuilders time or apply a standard when there are no shops
> that would even work on one of our planes. I do have hull coverage, so I
> will be compensated in some way. The actual damage includes bent cage
front
> and top, both wings bent, wing struts bent, prop broken and rudder bent.
As
> the engine was still operating at idle at the time of the flip, the engine
> would have to be at least completely gone through.
>
> I was so looking forward to Monument Valley. I am not sure now what my
plans
> will be. I love flying my plane and I usually get out at least once a week
> and take a little jaunt around the countryside. I am going to miss this
> while I work on getting a flying solution in place.
>
> Take care,
>
> John
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Bourne <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Windshield
>
> I thought the same way when I trial fit my windshield, so I built it to be
> in-line with the nose cone. Figured there'd be less noise, and wind
> intrusion. We'll soon find out. There's a brief description on my
website
> under "Building Vamoose," "Gull Wing Doors." Sorry, I don't have a
picture
> handy. What I did was epoxy strips of lexan around the inside of the nose
> cone lip, for the windshield to seat against. Gogittum Lar.
>
Richard,
As Lar said, you surely want a strong lip for the windscreen to set on or it
will turn inside out and possibly land on your lap, setting on the nose cone
gives it a large part of its strength. I don't think the drag issue is a
concern, these are not RV-6s.
Denny
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, CA
> Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
> www.gogittum.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Neitzel" <neitzel(at)newnorth.net>
> To: "kolb list"
> Subject: Kolb-List: Windshield
>
>
> >
> > Greetings
> >
> > I trial fit the windshield on my Mark III today by pulling it into place
> with some nylon straps. With the lexan on the outside of the top lip of
the
> nose cone there is a considerable gap between the windshield posts and the
> lexan near the instrument panel. Is this appropriate? Looks to me that
> air flow would be better and that the lexan would fit better if it were
> tucked underneath the top lip of the nose cone.
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
Yah, the lip hasta be strong, cause there'll prob'ly be a fair amount of
force on it. My concern wasn't so much for drag, (on a Kolb ??) but for
possible whistling with the edges out in the main airstream, and for it
possibly acting as a scoop to funnel air right into my face, if it wasn't a
perfect fit..............considering my precision chop, hack & fit
techniques. Theory, yes, but sounds reasonable to me. Is it my turn now ??
Let's see - Aluminum Butcher is already taken, and I don't live in Branden,
anyway. How 'bout the Lexan Butcher of the Desert ?? Windy
Lar. (Hoooooo - wide open..........:-) )
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <rowedl(at)highstream.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Windshield
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Larry Bourne <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Windshield
>
>
> >
> > I thought the same way when I trial fit my windshield, so I built it to
be
> > in-line with the nose cone. Figured there'd be less noise, and wind
> > intrusion. We'll soon find out. There's a brief description on my
> website
> > under "Building Vamoose," "Gull Wing Doors." Sorry, I don't have a
> picture
> > handy. What I did was epoxy strips of lexan around the inside of the
nose
> > cone lip, for the windshield to seat against. Gogittum Lar.
> >
> Richard,
> As Lar said, you surely want a strong lip for the windscreen to set on or
it
> will turn inside out and possibly land on your lap, setting on the nose
cone
> gives it a large part of its strength. I don't think the drag issue is a
> concern, these are not RV-6s.
> Denny
>
>
> > Larry Bourne
> > Palm Springs, CA
> > Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
> > www.gogittum.com
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Richard Neitzel" <neitzel(at)newnorth.net>
> > To: "kolb list"
> > Subject: Kolb-List: Windshield
> >
> >
>
> > >
> > > Greetings
> > >
> > > I trial fit the windshield on my Mark III today by pulling it into
place
> > with some nylon straps. With the lexan on the outside of the top lip of
> the
> > nose cone there is a considerable gap between the windshield posts and
the
> > lexan near the instrument panel. Is this appropriate? Looks to me
that
> > air flow would be better and that the lexan would fit better if it were
> > tucked underneath the top lip of the nose cone.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Rains <rr(at)htg.net> |
Never fogged my 582, sounds like a real mess with all the blowing sand
around here. I just keep the plane indoors when not flying.
Dave Rains
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Neitzel [SMTP:neitzel(at)newnorth.net]
Subject: Kolb-List: Windshield
Greetings
I trial fit the windshield on my Mark III today by pulling it into place
with some nylon straps. With the lexan on the outside of the top lip of
the nose cone there is a considerable gap between the windshield posts and
the lexan near the instrument panel. Is this appropriate? Looks to me
that air flow would be better and that the lexan would fit better if it
were tucked underneath the top lip of the nose cone.
Also I attended a ultra light safety seminar a few days ago and the last
speaker was from Rotax. I learned a couple of things that I will pass
along. When I mounted the exhaust manifold to my 582, Kolb instructs to
use three Allen head bolts per port. Rotax says that either use two bolts
per port (opposite corners) or four bolts to avoid warping of the manifold.
I didn't like the idea of only two bolts so I went to the local hardware
store and purchase two of the longest all thread metric bolts that I could
find. I cut the heads off and spun the studs in and carefully put nuts on
the studs. Takes about three hands to hold the manifold back till both
nuts are started and hold the gaskets in place, but it can be done. I then
drilled small holes in the remaining Allen head bolts and after applying
the correct torque I secured them with safety wire. If the nuts come loose
they can not come off because of studs close proximity to the manifold.
The other thing that the Rotax guy said was after shutting down it is a
good idea to spray fogging oil in the intakes and plug holes. Then put a
plug in the exhaust pipe and bag the carburetors. He said to do this after
every flight. Still have not run my 582 but have been fogging and turning
engine over regularly. I was wondering if you guys fog and how often?
Thank you all ahead of time
Dick Neitzel Mark III 582 Sayner WI neitzel(at)newnorth.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Duncan McBride <duncanmcbride(at)comcast.net> |
I used 3/16 stainless machine screws every 6 inches or so to hold the front
of the windshield down. At the edge where the lexan has to be pulled in to
meet the posts it does deform a little but a well placed screw will hold the
corner down. If you're going to mount the compass nearby, use nonmagnetic
screws. To overcome the whistling of the wind around the protruding edges,
I just keep the rpm above 4000 ;<)
Duncan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Windshield
>
> Yah, the lip hasta be strong, cause there'll prob'ly be a fair amount of
> force on it. My concern wasn't so much for drag, (on a Kolb ??) but for
> possible whistling with the edges out in the main airstream, and for it
> possibly acting as a scoop to funnel air right into my face, if it wasn't
a
> perfect fit..............considering my precision chop, hack & fit
> techniques. Theory, yes, but sounds reasonable to me. Is it my turn now
??
> Let's see - Aluminum Butcher is already taken, and I don't live in
Branden,
> anyway. How 'bout the Lexan Butcher of the Desert ?? Windy
> Lar. (Hoooooo - wide open..........:-) )
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, CA
> Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
> www.gogittum.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rowedl(at)highstream.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Windshield
>
>
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Larry Bourne <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Windshield
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I thought the same way when I trial fit my windshield, so I built it
to
> be
> > > in-line with the nose cone. Figured there'd be less noise, and wind
> > > intrusion. We'll soon find out. There's a brief description on my
> > website
> > > under "Building Vamoose," "Gull Wing Doors." Sorry, I don't have a
> > picture
> > > handy. What I did was epoxy strips of lexan around the inside of the
> nose
> > > cone lip, for the windshield to seat against. Gogittum Lar.
> > >
> > Richard,
> > As Lar said, you surely want a strong lip for the windscreen to set on
or
> it
> > will turn inside out and possibly land on your lap, setting on the nose
> cone
> > gives it a large part of its strength. I don't think the drag issue is
a
> > concern, these are not RV-6s.
> > Denny
> >
> >
> > > Larry Bourne
> > > Palm Springs, CA
> > > Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
> > > www.gogittum.com
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Richard Neitzel" <neitzel(at)newnorth.net>
> > > To: "kolb list"
> > > Subject: Kolb-List: Windshield
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Greetings
> > > >
> > > > I trial fit the windshield on my Mark III today by pulling it into
> place
> > > with some nylon straps. With the lexan on the outside of the top lip
of
> > the
> > > nose cone there is a considerable gap between the windshield posts and
> the
> > > lexan near the instrument panel. Is this appropriate? Looks to me
> that
> > > air flow would be better and that the lexan would fit better if it
were
> > > tucked underneath the top lip of the nose cone.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vincehallam(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:john hauk on mush stall |
John
A flat stall at any high rate of descent would {I think} only show
the forward component as indicated airspeed even though asa you say the
total vector is 60 mph or above at 2000 ft/min If you were eally moving
forward at 50/60 I cant see that you would be stalled axcept momentarily in a
high speed stall involving a hard pullup with high G forces maybe there are
some funny airflows in the case we are discussing affecting pitot or static
pressures what do you think?
Vnz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)charter.net> |
In the Aircraft Spruce catalog, under Rubber Channel, there is one shaped
like a tuning fork, part # 05-01500, that fits the leading edge of the
windshield real well, seals it against the nose fairing. I fit the
windshield without it, and then slip it in place just before riveting the
windshield in place.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>Yah, the lip hasta be strong, cause there'll prob'ly be a fair amount of
>force on it. My concern wasn't so much for drag, (on a Kolb ??) but for
>possible whistling with the edges out in the main airstream, and for it
>possibly acting as a scoop to funnel air right into my face, if it wasn't a
>perfect fit..............considering my precision chop, hack & fit
>techniques. Theory, yes, but sounds reasonable to me. Is it my turn now ??
>Let's see - Aluminum Butcher is already taken, and I don't live in Branden,
>anyway. How 'bout the Lexan Butcher of the Desert ?? Windy
>Lar. (Hoooooo - wide open..........:-) )
>
>Larry Bourne
>Palm Springs, CA
>Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
>www.gogittum.com
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <rowedl(at)highstream.net>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Windshield
>
>
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Larry Bourne <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Windshield
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I thought the same way when I trial fit my windshield, so I built it to
>be
> > > in-line with the nose cone. Figured there'd be less noise, and wind
> > > intrusion. We'll soon find out. There's a brief description on my
> > website
> > > under "Building Vamoose," "Gull Wing Doors." Sorry, I don't have a
> > picture
> > > handy. What I did was epoxy strips of lexan around the inside of the
>nose
> > > cone lip, for the windshield to seat against. Gogittum Lar.
> > >
> > Richard,
> > As Lar said, you surely want a strong lip for the windscreen to set on or
>it
> > will turn inside out and possibly land on your lap, setting on the nose
>cone
> > gives it a large part of its strength. I don't think the drag issue is a
> > concern, these are not RV-6s.
> > Denny
> >
> >
> > > Larry Bourne
> > > Palm Springs, CA
> > > Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
> > > www.gogittum.com
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Richard Neitzel" <neitzel(at)newnorth.net>
> > > To: "kolb list"
> > > Subject: Kolb-List: Windshield
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Greetings
> > > >
> > > > I trial fit the windshield on my Mark III today by pulling it into
>place
> > > with some nylon straps. With the lexan on the outside of the top lip of
> > the
> > > nose cone there is a considerable gap between the windshield posts and
>the
> > > lexan near the instrument panel. Is this appropriate? Looks to me
>that
> > > air flow would be better and that the lexan would fit better if it were
> > > tucked underneath the top lip of the nose cone.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Help Stop Spam!
Delete all address information (especially mine) off everything you
forward, and make Blind Carbon Copy a way of life.
Thanks! And have a blessed day.
rp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firestar II for Sale |
> as this is
>too much of a hot rod taildragger for me (novice pilot).
Are you sure you are talking about a Firestar? I can't imagine it as
being a hot taildragger.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Allman" <fisherallman(at)earthlink.net> |
John and Gang,
Shot some landings this evening using full flaperons. It was a little
awkward- back to looking at the ASI a lot!
Seems as if the field of view-feel of the controls..... kept me from
feeling the airplane and flying by the seat of my pants.
Also, a little difficult lean forward, find the lever, and retract the
flaps to complete a touch and go. Let's just say I used a little more
runway than usual. (mostly from side to side)
However, I really liked the slower approach and rollout. All in all I think
I've been converted. Oh yea, full stalls were down from 47 indicated to 42
indicated. Plenty of elevator in all configurations.
Can anyone tell me if those airspeeds ring true for a 200 pound pilot and 7
gallons of fuel?
Everyone, thanks again for all your advice,
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:john hauck on mush stall |
> A flat stall at any high rate of descent would {I think} only show
> the forward component as indicated airspeed
> Vnz
Vnz/Gang:
My mistake. Had my head where it should not have
been.
I'll start over. Mush/stall (flat stall), full
flaps (40 deg), 2,000 fpm. I can not remember
what IAS is because I do not normally check it
unless the MK III starts flying again. This is
the biggest problem with this maneuver, trying to
keep the airplane stalled. It wants to fly.
Disregard the 60-70 mph. Of course the Mark III
would be flying if it was indicating those kinds
of airspeeds. If I get a chance to fly today I
will check it out again and pay particular
attention to IAS. I am thinking maybe 50-55 mph
IAS, but let's wait and see what I get.
I am supposed to fly for a Boy Scout Jamboree
being held on the other side of the farm from my
airstrip. The weather looks lousy this morning.
If it clears up a bit we will fly. Also plan to
fly to our EAA Chap 822 Steak Cookout at Wetumpka
AP for lunch.
Sorry about the confusion. Got too much going on.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alderson, James" <James_Alderson(at)jdedwards.com> |
| Subject: | Kolb Firestar II for Sale |
Well, opinions are wide ranging, and based on flight experience, and I have
none in taildraggers. I had some people whose opinions I trust fly it and
tell me what they thought. They said I could learn to fly it, but it was not
an extremely great ultralight to start out in. I suppose hot is probably a
little extreme, how about advanced... either way, I flew an XAir and a
Flightstar, and they were much more what I was comfortable with. Another
factor was training. I can't find anybody to train me in a Kolb two place
thats close to me. My airport is not a wide forgiving grass strip, its a
20-25 foot wide paved strip with a fence 10 feet off one side and a pond and
hangars on the other, no mistakes allowed.
james
-----Original Message-----
From: woody [mailto:duesouth(at)govital.net]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Firestar II for Sale
> as this is
>too much of a hot rod taildragger for me (novice pilot).
Are you sure you are talking about a Firestar? I can't imagine it as
being a hot taildragger.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
>
>In the Aircraft Spruce catalog, under Rubber Channel, there is one shaped
>like a tuning fork, part # 05-01500, that fits the leading edge of the
>windshield real well, seals it against the nose fairing. I fit the
>windshield without it, and then slip it in place just before riveting the
>windshield in place.
>
>Richard Pike
>MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Yep - that's what I put around mine.
The faster you go the tighter it seals and
I don't have the bar in the middle, just pure lexan.
http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/Airscoops.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:john hauk on mush stall |
----- Original Message -----
From: <Vincehallam(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List:john hauk on mush stall
>
> John
> A flat stall at any high rate of descent would {I think} only
show
> the forward component as indicated airspeed even though asa you say the
> total vector is 60 mph or above at 2000 ft/min If you were eally moving
> forward at 50/60 I cant see that you would be stalled axcept momentarily
in a
> high speed stall involving a hard pullup with high G forces maybe there
are
> some funny airflows in the case we are discussing affecting pitot or
static
> pressures what do you think?
>
> Vnz
I have a firestar, no flaps or flaperons, but I have put it into a "mush-
stall" that shows 40 to 45 on the airspeed indicator. This is of course with
the motor at idle. I control the mush with the up elevator. It is possible
to go to a full stall by holding more elevator. I haven't yet felt inclined
to do a full stall in that configuration. I don't have a variometer, but the
plane is falling at what seems to me to be about 20 degrees?? I did a check
on it last year and lost about a 1000 feet with about 200 forward. All that
I have to do to pull out of it is either drop the nose, or give it more
throttle to begin flying again. I retain the ability to control attitude
throughout, both side to side and up and down, but it "ain't flying".
Larry Cottrell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Allman" <fisherallman(at)earthlink.net> |
Dave,
I'm no expert by any stretch but here goes.
You can buy "Fogging" spray. It's an aerosol that sprays a very fine mist,
fog, of lubricant/corrosion inhibitor. As in the previous post stated, it's
sprayed into the engine via the intake and exhaust manifolds. I have only
used it for prolonged storage but I have no idea what the proper frequency
should be. Apparently Rotax advises we use it much more often.
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Windshield Rubber Channel |
Gang:
Check out rubber windshield channel. Used in on
the Firestar and MK III.
http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/Miss%20P'fer/P3020017.jpg
Used to attach with 3/16 alum rivets. Last
installation attached with SS cap head 3/16
screws. I use a few evenly spaced drops of super
glue all the way down in the bottom of the channel
to help secure the channel to the edge of the
windshield. Spacing is a couple 3 inches or so.
Careful not to get it on the lexan that shows
because it will craze the glass.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Gang:
Here is a better shot of the streamlined rubber
channel:
http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/Miss%20P'fer/Pb240022.jpg
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vincehallam(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:john hauk on mush stall |
Hi
Anyone got good info onthe design of th Kaspar wing and what made it
work????
Vnz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> I'm no expert by any stretch but here goes.
> You can buy "Fogging" spray.
> Joe
Joe/Gang:
Amen, Brother! I am not one of those either,
though I am sure plenty of you all have thought
that I think I am, and some of you have told me,
in one way or the other that I am not. hehehe I
never try to be an expert, just share the
experiences, mistakes, mishaps, screwups,
triumphs, tragedies, and a few things I have
learned along the way. Probably several reasons
why I spend my very valuable time trying to do
this. Yep, I have not been salaried in over 23
years when I retired from the Army, but as I get
older I realize how valuable one's time here on
earth is. None of us know how much we have, so I
do not want to waste a second.
In this month's Experimenter is an article
swapping out a blue head 582 for a 912S. Seems to
be a trend.......... I swapped out a 582 for a
912. According to the article, the gentleman was
flying his Adventura, I think, when it got
suddenly quiet. As soon as he got on the ground
he decided he wanted more reliability. Also seems
that this was the first flight after winter
storage which consisted of sitting in the barn all
winter exactly like he left it the year before
with absolutely not storage prep. After tear down
it was discovered that the con rod bearings had
rusted causing failure and lockup. It is always
something so simple when an engine quits. Hardly
ever hear of one falling apart. Some little
something, very minute, causes the start of a
chain reaction that eventually puts us on the
ground, one way or the other, whether we like it
or not.
Might be worth looking into this winter storage
thing, especially for two strokes.
Some folks use Marvel Mystery Oil for storage.
Some folks use fogging oil for storage. Some
don't do anything. I belong to the latter group.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
Uhhhh, sorry to be so dumb, but what's "fogging".
spraying oil in the engine to pickle it for storage. ussually done for
longer storage then just a week or two. One caution, though, your rotax can
run on the stuff. I had my 503 up on my plane and knew I would not be
working on it in my unheated shop over the winter here in the frigid wastes
of north west wisconsin. it has no fuel or electrical system yet, so the
spark is not grounded so it is fireing the plugs, but I didnt think to pull
the plug wires off. I sprayed both intakes with the fogging oil and then
pulled the starteer cord very slowly through a couple of times. the third
time I pulled maybe 1/2 the speed I would if I was going to try to start it
workshop! talk about scared stupid. ran for maybe 6 seconds never getting
above fast idle, lifted the tail off the tailwheel a foot or so, and then
ran out of the fogging oil. SO pull the plug wires if you are pickling your
engine and dont have the wireing done yet!!!!
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
I have not kept up on all the items on the list so if I repeat anything I'm
sorry
if you use synthetic oil it tends to not stick to metal for long periods of
time. (winter storage for example). in such a case I would fog or oil up in
some way.
remember if you dump oil in the spark plug hole you will need to spin the
engine over a few times without the plugs in before you try to start it after
the storage is done.
Mark H.
twinstar
south east mn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | : Kolb-List:john hauk on mush stall |
Hi
Anyone got good info onthe design of th Kaspar wing and what made it
work????
Vnz
try these:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/nasm/aero/aircraft/cascade.htm
http://www.kasperwing.com/
http://members.cox.net/twitt/KASPBIBLIO.html
topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christopher
Armstrong
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Fogging
try this again I errased a line in there somehow
Uhhhh, sorry to be so dumb, but what's "fogging".
spraying oil in the engine to pickle it for storage. ussually done for
longer storage then just a week or two. One caution, though, your rotax can
run on the stuff. I had my 503 up on my plane and knew I would not be
working on it in my unheated shop over the winter here in the frigid wastes
of north west wisconsin. it has no fuel or electrical system yet, so the
spark is not grounded so it is fireing the plugs, but I didnt think to pull
the plug wires off. I sprayed both intakes with the fogging oil and then
pulled the starteer cord very slowly through a couple of times. the third
time I pulled maybe 1/2 the speed I would if I was going to try to start it
I had a spinning propeller on my untied down plane inside my
workshop! talk about scared stupid. ran for maybe 6 seconds never getting
above fast idle, lifted the tail off the tailwheel a foot or so, and then
ran out of the fogging oil. SO pull the plug wires if you are pickling your
engine and dont have the wireing done yet!!!!
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
Has anyone thought or tried to build a fiberglass lip into which the
windshield will slip in?
After scoping all the posts on this, I am getting the idea Of simply
removing the gel/primer off the pod about an inch or two ahead of where the
WS meets the pod, and using the windshield as a mold(with a wrapper) build
up about four laminates of FG around it.
If I don't forget, I think I'll do just that. It should solve any an all
water leakage and wind into the pod. I can always add a bit of Silicon into
the mold to keep it nice and leak free.
=================
>
> Gang:
>
> Here is a better shot of the streamlined rubber
> channel:
>
> http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/Miss%20P'fer/Pb240022.jpg
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> Has anyone thought or tried to build a fiberglass lip into which the
> windshield will slip in? Ron
Ron/Gents:
Yes, people have gone to all that trouble to
accomplish the same thing we have been doing with
the windshields since the first original Firestar
kit was shipped. Just like in my msg and photo I
posted a short time ago, Kolb has used streamlined
windshield neoprene channel. One slight problem
with the channel on the MK III. Channel
manufactured for 1/16" thick glass. MK III
windshield is 1/8" thick. To get around that, I
used a die grinder and burr to bevel the upper lip
of the channel. Works great. Satisfied the
Judges at Lakeland and Oshkosh, but not near as
work intensive as laying up the fiberglass lip.
BTW: No problem with wind noise, wind leaks, or
rain water intrusion, with the rubber channel.
All those problems leak through the hinge line.
hehehe As far as wind noise? The engine and prop
are making so much noise the only way to hear wind
noise is to shut down the engine. Then if you are
wearing a good head set, you still do not hear any
wind noise, if there is any.
john h
DO NO ARCHIVE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Raeburn <raeburn(at)snowhill.com> |
I am planing on installing a BRS parachute on my Kolb MK III (Classic). It
has a Rotax 582 engine.
BRS recommends either using 1050 VLS or a 1050 canister system.
Any suggestions on which is the better type to buy?
John Raeburn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Duncan McBride <duncanmcbride(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BRS Parachutes |
I have the VLS and I've seen Mark III's with both the VLS and the canister.
If I had to choose between them I'd go with the canister. The VLS is too
big to fit in the overhead gap seal, so it has to stick out above. It
requires a much bigger hole and sealing around it is a problem. A canister
completely above the gap would fit better and I don't think it would have
that much more drag. The best solution? A soft pack fitted completely
within the airframe. That's what I'll do when I build another plane.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Raeburn" <raeburn(at)snowhill.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: BRS Parachutes
>
> I am planing on installing a BRS parachute on my Kolb MK III (Classic). It
> has a Rotax 582 engine.
>
> BRS recommends either using 1050 VLS or a 1050 canister system.
> Any suggestions on which is the better type to buy?
>
> John Raeburn
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Rains <rr(at)htg.net> |
I think I now understand the concept. You aren't flying during the winter, right?
No need to fog, pickle, preserve, engines around El Paso, they fly every weekend.
Dave.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hauck [SMTP:jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Fogging
Might be worth looking into this winter storage
thing, especially for two strokes.
Some folks use Marvel Mystery Oil for storage.
Some folks use fogging oil for storage. Some
don't do anything. I belong to the latter group.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "johnjung(at)compusenior.com" <johnjung(at)compusenior.com> |
Paul and Group,
I had around 25 dual hours in a 150 when I started flying a Firestar. I never got
comfortable stalling the 150 without an instructor with me, but the Firestar did
not bother me at all. My Firestar never dropped a wing and tried to spin. It was
fast to recover, just by putting the stick forward. I even stalled the Firestar
with the engine off. No prop cavitation warning in that mode.
John Jung
Folk's,
Had the chance to fly today after 4 weeks of bad weather on weekend's. Got
in 1.3
with my CFI and did stalls for the first time!!! OMG! first one scared the
living daylights out of me. It seemed to fall out of the sky! I was not ready
for what the plane (c-150) was going to do. First one was with power off,
and
it fell to the left and almost spun. Second I kept the ball in the center
and
was quick enough on the recovery to balance and power up and level off without
losing altitude, better, third was perfect and felt ok!:-) Next was power
on
stall's those went fine. I now know what it feels like to STOP FLYING! Anyway
to make this Kolb related I'm wondering? How do Kolb's (in relation to Cessna
150's) stall? Do you fall? Or do you more or less float with wind direction
with
them being lighter and a pusher rather than a tractor?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | John Woods accident |
John, isn't it amazing how focused you become at achieving the task at
hand, during an emergency? Seems as though you can hear every instructor
you've ever had, saying to you, "FLY THE PLANE !" You should be very proud
of yourself for doing an excellent job of just that. Things that were not
in your control were the shrubs, mud and soft ground. A good day for you and
your passenger, unhurt.
Fly Safe
Bob Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "johnjung(at)compusenior.com" <johnjung(at)compusenior.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firestar II for Sale |
James,
I would like to suggest another alternative for your consideration: Fly
the Firestar on another runway for a while before you sell it. Then
dicide if the Firestar will handle your runway. Here is why I suggest
this. I have flown 6 ultralights/light aircraft out of a short (550 ft),
narrow (28 ft) runway, and a Firestar would be my first choise for
narrow. It also has no problem with short, up to a limit.
Your runway does sound marginal, at best, for any plane.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alderson, James" <James_Alderson(at)jdedwards.com> |
| Subject: | Kolb Firestar II for Sale |
This has been quite amazing. I put the Firestar ad on several sites
(Barnstormers, UltralightHomepage, etc.) and have gotten a ton of responses
already. The amazing part is that the majority of the responses have been
people telling me that I should just fly the Firestar. I have even had
several responses from BFI's that have offered their instruction services to
teach me how to fly this ultralight, and one that was brought to me with the
help of a list member (thanks again Jim). He put me in touch with a guy in
my area that teaches out of a grass strip (his own) and has a huge hangar on
it. He said he will come and pick up the Firestar, fly it to his field,
hangar it, and teach me out of his or another larger grass strip close to
him. From what I can tell, alot of people think VERY highly of the Kolb and
do not think I am making the right move in selling it just because I have
been told its not the best first ultralight to learn on (in fact John, I
read through the archives and found one post from you that said that you
beleive one should be a private pilot before flying the Firestar). I think
it speaks very highly of the reputation for a great machine that the Kolb
has even with non Kolb pilots.
My field is pretty narrow, as one guy put it, its the kind of field that you
take off from, look back, and its gone. Its got trees on both ends, wires on
one of them, and water around it. I think its actually a fairly nice field
for ultralights, but doesn't offer a bunch of room for mistakes. There have
been a few ultralights end up in the pond. If you go to this link (
http://www.longaviation.com/Goose_Creek_Airport.html.htm ), you can find a
picture of it from the air, plenty long enough, but a little tight. The
trees create some interesting rotors across the runway.
Anyway, this wordy response was to say thanks for the advice, and I have
some thinking to do. I now believe I am over thinking the fear of the Kolb
and its taildragger. I don't like a few things about the Firestar, the
bouncing of the ailerons from the weights to balance them, the heal brakes
are not easy to get used to, and the rattling of the control wires in the
boom is unnerving.
Thanks,
James
-----Original Message-----
From: johnjung(at)compusenior.com [mailto:johnjung(at)compusenior.com]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Firestar II for Sale
James,
I would like to suggest another alternative for your consideration: Fly
the Firestar on another runway for a while before you sell it. Then
dicide if the Firestar will handle your runway. Here is why I suggest
this. I have flown 6 ultralights/light aircraft out of a short (550 ft),
narrow (28 ft) runway, and a Firestar would be my first choise for
narrow. It also has no problem with short, up to a limit.
Your runway does sound marginal, at best, for any plane.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
Regarding stalls, and other manuevers in the air...........................I
kind of think it's a matter of degree, and of training. On my 1st real solo
flight, the day after solo-ing, I didn't even like to change the throttle
setting. I needed the comfort of the steady roar up front. (C-172) Stalls
with the instructor bothered me at 1st, but I soon got used to them, and
actually started enjoying them, tho' not on this 1st day by myself. Several
years ago, I told the story of getting into an inadvertent over-the-top spin
later in that 1st solo flight. Talk about an upholstery ripper ! !
!................I doubt if I had ever really known "terrified" before that
incident. I thank a good instructor (Roger Hanson) for the preliminary
training that let me save my bacon that day. Six nervous months or so
later, I told my instrument ground school instructor (Richard Peterson)
about it, so - to shorten a long story - I rented a Cessna 150, and we went
flying. He put me thru right & left spins, then taught me wing-overs
(exciting & fun) and chandelles. We quit when I started getting
air-sick.............and it was a long, careful ride back to the airport.
Point is................I got used to stalls fairly quickly, and now I
really know the pre-stall symptoms & stall recovery. The 1st deliberate
spin was totally dis-orienting; the 4th or 5th had me counting turns before
pull-out, and discussing it with the instructor - while spinning. To this
day - 8 yrs later - I haven't done a spin without an instructor in the
plane, just in case, but I sure know what pre-spin feels like, how to avoid
it, and how to recover, if necessary. I plan to do the same when Vamoose is
flying. During training, I spent - due to financial concerns - a large
amount of time practising slow flight. Shortly after getting my pilot's
license, that saved my bacon, too, due to an idiot maneuver I pulled. Now,
I still play with slow flight from time to time, so's to stay comfortable
with it. You'll be amazed at what you can do while hanging on the prop. In
the near future I fully intend to find out for myself how all this
translates to a pusher aircraft. I firmly believe that if there's an aspect
of flight that you're not comfortable with - go do it (with an instructor) -
over and over - till you ARE comfortable with it. An emergency is not the
time to start school. Paul Petty, I really enjoyed your description of your
flight. It only gets better, believe me. I'm also enjoying your HD engine
progress. Keep 'er up. GoGittum Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> 18 names on the kolbpilot list so far. Don't be bashful. -BB
Good Morning Gang:
Looks like I will have plenty of time to
socialize, rest, and see the sights at S&F this
year. After asking me to fly their new Fire Fly,
New Kolb notified me that I was not needed.
Something about my name not being included on the
insurance that is necessary for manufacturers at
S&F.
Was not too fond of getting up every morning at
0530 to attend the daily briefing.
Guess I won't be able to reaffirm past flight
characteristics of the Fire Fly either.
However, there is a good side to it. List Member
John Williamson is flying in from Arlington, TX.
I haven't asked him yet, but he may invite me
along on his flight down to Key West. :-) We'll
see what happens after I get to Lakeland. It may
be cheaper flying to Key West than it is camping
at Sun and Fun, based on the outrageous fees they
charged folks last year. During that week, there
is some terribly expensive real estate in that
part of Florida.
Soon as I get my septic system operating again,
hopefully today, I will pull the tail section off
Miss P'fer to repair the upper vertical
stabilizer. Times a wasting. Two weeks until
time to go south.
john h
PS: My flight for the Boy Scout Jamboree got
weathered out. For one thing, my airstrip was too
wets to operate on, under normal conditions.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firestar II for Sale |
That's good news, James. Remember - you won't be a beginner for long. That
instructor sounds like a good guy, and he's giving you a good deal. I'd
say, "Go For It." When you 1st make an approach to your airport, there's
nothing that says you "have to land." If it doesn't feel right, go around,
again and again, if necessary, till it does feel right. The heel brakes get
more comfortable with time. I haven't flown with mine yet, but can already
hit them every time, due to lots of vroom vroom noises in the cockpit.
Tailwire clanging...............maybe tighten them a bit, or wear a good
headset ?? They won't do it in the air, in any case. I'm really not
sure what to think about "the ailerons bouncing due to the balancing
weights." Any of you guys have an answer ?? Seems to me that if they're
properly balanced, they shouldn't bounce. (???) Puzzled Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alderson, James" <James_Alderson(at)jdedwards.com>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Kolb Firestar II for Sale
>
> Anyway, this wordy response was to say thanks for the advice, and I have
> some thinking to do. I now believe I am over thinking the fear of the Kolb
> and its taildragger. I don't like a few things about the Firestar, the
> bouncing of the ailerons from the weights to balance them, the heal brakes
> are not easy to get used to, and the rattling of the control wires in the
> boom is unnerving.
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: johnjung(at)compusenior.com [mailto:johnjung(at)compusenior.com]
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Firestar II for Sale
>
>
>
>
> James,
>
> I would like to suggest another alternative for your consideration: Fly
> the Firestar on another runway for a while before you sell it. Then
> dicide if the Firestar will handle your runway. Here is why I suggest
> this. I have flown 6 ultralights/light aircraft out of a short (550 ft),
> narrow (28 ft) runway, and a Firestar would be my first choise for
> narrow. It also has no problem with short, up to a limit.
>
> Your runway does sound marginal, at best, for any plane.
>
> John Jung
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firestar II for Sale |
> My field is pretty narrow
> I don't like a few things about the Firestar, the
> bouncing of the ailerons from the weights to balance them, the heal brakes
> are not easy to get used to, and the rattling of the control wires in the
> boom is unnerving.
> James
James/Gang:
Your conception of a small restricted airstrip and
mine are far different. 2350 X 35 asphalt
airstrip is adequate for most single engine GA
aircraft. A Kolb Firestar could make two, three,
or four T/O's and landings on that piece of
pavement alone. I fly off 750' of grass and only
use a small part of it in the MK III. Take your
time, get good dual instruction, learn to fly your
Firestar. I don't think a private ticket has
anything to do with safe and successful flight in
a Kolb, but learning to fly Kolbs requires, to be
safe, the adequate amount of dual instruction.
After you learn to fly your airplane, a landing at
Goose Creek will be like landing at Hartsfield
International in ATL.
Don't worry about the ailerons and the
counterbalance weights. Be glad you have them.
The heel brakes you will get used to with
practice. My pedals are a lot smaller than
yours. Keep your headset on when you taxi and you
won't hear the cables in the tailboom. Cables
have been rattling in Homer Kolb's airplanes since
day one. A sure indication that it is a Kolb.
Have fun and fly safe,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firestar II for Sale |
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
If I read your link correctly the rwy is about 2300 feet. I can land my
Beech on that strip with no problems. I doubt that you would have any
problems at all with an Ultralight. My impression is that you will be
airborn and way high off the ground long before you will ever see the end of
the rwy, and same thing in reverse on landing. Your concerns are not related
to the Kolb's performance. What you do need to do is build confidence in
your general piloting skills.
===============================
3/16/03 7:30Alderson, James
>
>
> This has been quite amazing. I put the Firestar ad on several sites
> (Barnstormers, UltralightHomepage, etc.) and have gotten a ton of responses
> already. The amazing part is that the majority of the responses have been
> people telling me that I should just fly the Firestar. I have even had
> several responses from BFI's that have offered their instruction services to
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce McElhoe" <mcelhoe(at)cvip.net> |
Jim,
Give yourself a little more time before you give up on the Kolb. The BFI
with the grass field sounds wonderful.
I have flown GA airplanes for 50 years, and I found learning to fly my Kolb
to be a big challenge. I have about 5 hours now, and am just now beginning
to feel comfortable.
I can tell already that this is FUN flying. I can also tell that it is very
different from a big GA airplane. In some ways, it is like learning to fly
all over again.
Stay with it.
Regards,
Bruce McElhoe FireFly #88
Reedley, Calif.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firestar II for Sale |
In a message dated 3/16/03 9:31:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,
James_Alderson(at)jdedwards.com writes:
> My field is pretty narrow, as one guy put it, its the kind of field that you
> take off from, look back, and its gone. Its got trees on both ends, wires
> on
> one of them, and water around it. I think its actually a fairly nice field
> for ultralights, but doesn't offer a bunch of room for mistakes.
>
Jim, here's something I think will help.
Tie the tailwheel to a tree or you car's bumper with a good strong rope.
Leave about 15' between the two. Get in &, with the engine running, slowly
increase power, While holding neutral stick, eventually the tail will come
up. Don't worry, the tail can't go too high- no matter how much power.
At about 4500-5000 rpm the tail should stay up without any stick inputs.
Play with the elevator a lot so as to get a good feel for it. You can also
practice using the rudder while the tail is up.
When ready to set the tail back down, cut the throttle slowly so as to not
drop the tail hard.
You should not have any trouble flying the Firestar II. When I took my UL
lessons in a tricycle Quicksilver, I had never flown anything. After my
lessons, I just got in my Firestar & tied it down & ran it as above. I then
taxied it about an hour, going a little faster each trip up the runway. At
the end of the hour the tail was coming up & I was steering with the rudder
instead of the tailwheel. Do this with little wind.
Then I just took off & flew. After I calmed down a little, I landed &
immediately took off again. Did about 30 touch & go's in a row.
The Firestar II is in no way squirrely on the ground. The tail will come up
in about 3 seconds. Another 3 seconds & you're off the ground. You will
have to hold some right rudder to counteract torque, etc.
Within a week you can be a Kolb tailwheel pilot. Keep the Firestar- you
won't be sorry.
Shack
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Raeburn <raeburn(at)snowhill.com> |
| Subject: | Monument Valley trip |
Has anyone come up with an approx. number of aircraft flying in on the
Monument Valley trip in May?
John Raeburn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firestar II for Sale |
Hi James,
Been where you are with the Firestar and had the same concerns. Have to
agree with the Captain on this one in that it is not the aircraft you need to
worry about but your own comfort level as a pilot. My first successful
landing ever was in my Firestar. I was doing taxi practice and the beast
took off about a two weeks before I was planning on doing my first solo in
it. I was a low time ultralight student at that time ( 0 time in anything
else) and had never soloed or had a successful landing with my instructor at
that point (lessons were in a two seat T- Bird - flys like a truck). Being
25 lbs lighter than the "standard" pilot that the manual was written for, the
Firestar launched several miles an hour sooner than the book said it would.
It was an "interesting" experience. If I had been in anything other than a
Firestar I am sure I would have been a statistic. The features you are
concerned about saved my bacon ( as well as other parts) and I was able to
land it with no problem even though I had been having trouble with the less
responsive UL I had been taking lessons in.
Think long and hard before you sell it. Get a few hours and a few landings
in anything under your belt then put a few hours on the Firestar and you will
never care if you fly anything else.
Just my experience having been there and done that.
P.S. I am considering an out of country move and may have to sell mine and
it is killing me.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "boyd young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
"Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM"
| Subject: | rubber windshield channel |
Gang:
Check out rubber windshield channel. Used in on
the Firestar and MK III.
i overlaped my windshield over the nose cone and drilled some holes thropugh about
every 3 inches, then installes dome 8-32 bolts to hold it in place.... i
took some clear silicone and made a small bead that tapered the nosecone to the
windshile.... i was real happy with the results.
boyd
i can do pictures on request.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <peterv(at)etsmiami.com> |
| Subject: | Mk III vs Firestar |
I fly a Mk III. A buddy of mine just sold his Rans S14 and is about to
take delivery of a beautifully built single seat Firestar II. He can do
some dual time with me in my Mk III before going up ion the Firestar,
but as I've never flown a Firestar or a Rans, I can't tell him what to
expect in the way of similarities (or differences) between either the Mk
III or the Rans and the Firestar before he tests it.
Any pointers would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mk III vs Firestar |
> I can't tell him what to
> expect in the way of similarities (or differences) between either the Mk
> III or the Rans and the Firestar before he tests it.
> Peter
Peter/Gang:
The only difference to me between Firestar and MK
III is weight and width. MK III you are sitting
to one side or the other. Firestar you sit in the
middle. All the Kolbs fly alike with very minute
differences because of weight, wing span, length.
They all fly good!
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firestar II for Sale |
Hi James and Gang,
I think Mr. Pike touched on your concerns about the ailerons and I also
would like to add to that. On the ground with the plane sitting still the
ailerons have a swinging motion due to the counter balances momentum when
moving the stick side to side. Once the plane is moving enough to get some
air pressure on the ailerons this completely goes away. You cannot tell the
counter balances are there. You're just thankful that they are because they
are assurance you won't experience aileron flutter like some others have
that don't or didn't have the counter balances.
The heel brakes get easier to use with practice and as you get use to them.
The control wires rattling are just like the bumps....it's one of the things
that distinguishes it as a Kolb.
Hope this helps some, especially about the ailerons because they do seem
funny feeling when sitting still on the ground.
John Cooley
Firestar II
> I don't like a few things about the Firestar, the
> bouncing of the ailerons from the weights to balance them, the heal brakes
> are not easy to get used to, and the rattling of the control wires in the
> boom is unnerving.
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Duncan McBride <duncanmcbride(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Mk III Wheel Pants |
I searched the archives for wheel pants and got a few ideas but when I look
at the mounting arrangements, it looks like the Matco hydraulic brakes will
require some special accomodation. Has anyone fit wheel pants around the
Matco disks and can share the adventure? Thanks guys.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: winshield rubber needed |
That would be great. I need 4 feet. I just miked mine, my original
windshield was 60, my new one measures about 70, I bought some generic sheets
of Lexan from a local supplier, just took what they had to build the winter
enclosure. Almost nice enough to switch back to the summer windshield, hence
needing the new piece of rubber. I cut my existing one to fit the new set up
with the doors.
Thanks.
Tim Loehrke
610 Merlins Lane
Herndon, VA 20170
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firestar II for Sale |
In a message dated 3/16/03 9:31:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,
James_Alderson(at)jdedwards.com writes:
> My field is pretty narrow, as one guy put it, its the kind of field that you
> take off from, look back, and its gone. Its got trees on both ends, wires
> on
> one of them, and water around it. I think its actually a fairly nice field
> for ultralights, but doesn't offer a bunch of room for mistakes. There have
> been a few ultralights end up in the pond. If you go to this link (
> http://www.longaviation.com/Goose_Creek_Airport.html.htm ), you can find a
> picture of it from the air, plenty long enough, but a little tight. The
> trees create some interesting rotors across the runway.
>
Geeeez....this field looks like HEAVEN compared to mine!!!....2350 Feet
long...I do 3 hops in that distance!! and can land my Firestar in less than a
third of it.
Actually my field is 35 ft wide and 2100 feet and I do these things in it.
Some on this list would land in only 450 ft of it....but I take nearly 700
cause I land NOT like GA but hot...always! ....its safer!...especially around
rotors!
george Randolph
Firestar driver from akron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
I checked all the links and I couldn't find a short runway. If you have
no breaks and you are landing downwind with 15 knot tail winds the
concrete one could get short. Assuming you are taking off into the wind
and landing into the wind you have tons of runway. If you put the thing
on full power you'll be off the runway before you get 1/3 of the
distance of the concrete strip. Your landing will be a little bit
longer. One side has a grass extension and a road! That means that if
you go long toward the grass extension that the grass will give you
plenty of extra stopping room. If you are going the other way come in a
safe distance from the tree tops and after you make the trees slow it
down and point at the grass. When you get to 10 feet chop the power and
roll out my friend you wont make it a third of the way down that runway.
I am assuming that the transition to the grass portion doesn't have a
huge lip or curb.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Rains <rr(at)htg.net> |
| Subject: | Monument Valley trip |
Don't know which plane I'm flying, but am definitely going.
Dave Rains
-----Original Message-----
From: John Raeburn [SMTP:raeburn(at)snowhill.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: Monument Valley trip
Has anyone come up with an approx. number of aircraft flying in on the
Monument Valley trip in May?
John Raeburn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neitzel" <neitzel(at)newnorth.net> |
Thanks guys for all the input on the WS. I looked at Big Lar's gull wing doors
and am seriously considering going that route. Appears that it would be lots
of work but would make ingress and egress much easier plus eliminate the post
to look through. Even with the gull wings I will be able to incorporate many
of the suggestions that were made.
Really appreciate the flow of information on the list. Thanks again. Dick Neitzel
M III 582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Monument Valley trip |
> Don't know which plane I'm flying, but am definitely going.
> Dave Rains
Dave/John/Gang:
Me too. Even if I don't have my septic system
working. Beginning day four of excavation and
exploration. Will be fun to start working on my
airplane after this crap. hehehe
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier(at)cableone.net> |
Jim A.
You mentioned something about not liking heel brakes. This is the system on
my Firestar and I love it. Motorcycle components.
Arizona Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rudder pedal travel M3X |
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
I have a question on rudder pedal travel. I may need to redo the cables from
the pedals to the bellcrank, depending on the answers I get. One pedal
bottoms out befor the other, which is the nature of the rigging. However how
much travel does the bellcrank moves in relation to rudder movement?
Before I use more cable and nicopresses I figure to waite for answers.
I feel like if there is a way to get it wrong I will certainly discover it.
:-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "johnjung(at)compusenior.com" <johnjung(at)compusenior.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firestar II for Sale |
James,
A picture is worth a thousand words. After seeing the aerial photo of
your runway, I take back what I said about it sounding marginal. Just
fly the Firestar from grass first, and when you are comfortable with it,
that 35 ft wide runway will be no problem.
John Jung
snip.....
Your runway does sound marginal, at best, for any plane.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neitzel" <neitzel(at)newnorth.net> |
Greetings
I was reviewing the comments on fogging and someone mentioned that the fogging
mixture has enough fire power to cause an engine to start. As a safety precaution
the plug caps should be pulled. Good advice unless your ignition system
is of the newer variety (electronic CDI) the plug caps must be attached to a grounding
stud so that the spark is fed directly to ground. If this is not done
serious damage will done to the electronic control module. Like someone else
has said so many times, ask me how I know this!
Appreciate all the comments on fogging. Always learning something!
Dick Neitzel Sayner WI Mark III 582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
(electronic CDI) the plug caps must be attached to a grounding stud so that
the spark is fed directly to ground. If this is not done serious damage
will done to the electronic control module.
thanks you probably justy saved me some moola
topher
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Folks,
I'm fixing to make the hub for the Tenn.. prop and are wondering? The hole in the
center of the prop is 1" and the shaft that I am using is 1". Should I let
the shaft extend thru the face of the hub into the prop or stop it at the face
of the hub? Or does it matter at all?
Thanks
pp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Should I let the shaft extend thru the face of
the hub into the prop or stop it at the face of
the hub? Or does it matter at all?
> pp
Paul/Gang:
That 1" hole is a centering hole. Could not think
of a better way to center things up than with the
1" shaft inserted into it.
Just though of something. You will probably need
a crush plate to put on that wood prop. They come
with Rotax redrives.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman(at)dejazzd.com> |
Paul Petty wrote:
>
>
> Hi Folks,
> I'm fixing to make the hub for the Tenn.. prop and are wondering? The hole in
the center of the prop is 1" and the shaft that I am using is 1". Should I let
the shaft extend thru the face of the hub into the prop or stop it at the face
of the hub? Or does it matter at all?
>
> Thanks
>
> pp
With the kind of wallop the HD can produce having the shaft extent into
the prop as a prop pilot seems like a good idea to me. This is an
experiment only, right? Secure the beast to a cement truck before you go
full throttle.
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder pedal travel M3X |
----- Original Message -----
From: CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Rudder pedal travel M3X
>
> I have a question on rudder pedal travel. I may need to redo the cables
from
> the pedals to the bellcrank, depending on the answers I get. One pedal
> bottoms out befor the other, which is the nature of the rigging. However
how
> much travel does the bellcrank moves in relation to rudder movement?
> Before I use more cable and nicopresses I figure to waite for answers.
> I feel like if there is a way to get it wrong I will certainly discover
it.
> :-)
> Ron,
By bell cranks, I am assuming you refer to the rudder horns?
Starting with the rudder centered, each of my horns move forward 1.25
inches when the corresponding rudder pedal is pushed to full deflection in
each direction. The rudder trailing edge deflects about a foot in each
direction, at which point it contacts the elevators. So the answer is the
rudder horns move 1.25" at the cable bolt hole, to each foot of rudder
deflection.
I hope this is what you were looking for. Also, my pedals deflect the same
amount.
Denny Rowe
Mk-3 N616DR
Leechburg, PA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> I guess that I need to have a inner drive hub with the shaft extending through
the prop with an outer hub sandwiching the prop in between. du?
> pp....
Paul/Gang:
How about this?
Prop hub is attached to the prop shaft. The end
of the prop shaft is also the centering boss which
fits into the center bore of the prop. The prop
is attached to prop hub with bolts, first through
a crush plate, then the prop, and finally into the
prop hub. If you really want to do it up right
you can also make drive lugs on the prop hub.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Allman" <fisherallman(at)earthlink.net> |
Anyone know the do not exceed speed for a slingshot with full flapperon
extension?
I'm having tons of fun playing with these things!
Thanks,
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> Anyone know the do not exceed speed for a slingshot with full flapperon
> extension?
> Joe
Joe/Gang:
I do not know what the published flap extension
speed is for Sling Shot.
I usually used 70 to 75 mph as max. Structurally,
I do not think there is a problem. Aerodynamicly,
I have not had any control problems with those max
speeds. They do help you slow down quickly, and
drop the nose cosiderably when you need to see
where you are going. The lack of normal Kolb
incidence in the wings contributes to the tail
dropping excessively when airspeed is slowed
down. Pulling on full flapperons will turn the
nose down into somewhat level flight.
john h
PS: Got a call this morning, early, to come on
down and fly the brand new Fire Fly at Lakeland.
On again, off again, on again. Sounds like the
Army doesn't it. After 23 years of civilian life
I had forgotten that part of the military. :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Allman" <fisherallman(at)earthlink.net> |
Thanks John.
I've also used them when trying to cruise with slower ULs I fly with. Seems
a notch or two of flaps keeps me from dragging my tail around when flying at
speeds around 65 or so.
Thanks again,
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Hauck
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: flapperons
> Anyone know the do not exceed speed for a slingshot with full flapperon
> extension?
> Joe
Joe/Gang:
I do not know what the published flap extension
speed is for Sling Shot.
I usually used 70 to 75 mph as max. Structurally,
I do not think there is a problem. Aerodynamicly,
I have not had any control problems with those max
speeds. They do help you slow down quickly, and
drop the nose cosiderably when you need to see
where you are going. The lack of normal Kolb
incidence in the wings contributes to the tail
dropping excessively when airspeed is slowed
down. Pulling on full flapperons will turn the
nose down into somewhat level flight.
john h
PS: Got a call this morning, early, to come on
down and fly the brand new Fire Fly at Lakeland.
On again, off again, on again. Sounds like the
Army doesn't it. After 23 years of civilian life
I had forgotten that part of the military. :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
First off my post should have read (per 5 gallon bucket, not gallon bucket).
you stingy bastard!!! I though you were giving them a raw deal at 80 cents
a gallon bucket. now I am going to have to come down there and start a
labor movement! lets see, I will get them up to $1.60 a gallon and will
only take 10 dollars in union dues. they will break even in 10/$4extra per
5 gallon bucket=2.5 buckets.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Armstrong <cen33475(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: ramblings
>
>
> First off my post should have read (per 5 gallon bucket, not gallon
bucket).
>
>
> you stingy bastard!!! I though you were giving them a raw deal at 80
cents
> a gallon bucket. now I am going to have to come down there and start a
> labor movement! lets see, I will get them up to $1.60 a gallon and will
> only take 10 dollars in union dues. they will break even in 10/$4extra
per
> 5 gallon bucket=2.5 buckets.
>
> Chris,
Bring it on ! These kids know who owns the swimming pool and controls who
uses it. :-)
Besides they want me around for the entertainment I provide when the dirt
bike or airplane comes out of the garage.
Denny (the crazy cheapskate capitalist) Rowe
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net> |
As some of you know I bought a RANS S7 back last November. This plane
had MATCO MH6B rims that are manufactured by a "stamping" process. I
was told that there were some newer rims available that were heavier and
that are made by a CNC lathe process. There had been 2 RANS pilots in
the area that had had cracks in the older "stamped" rims (1 of which
came apart on landing...) I decided to put the new rims on my plane as
a just in case thing and to upgrade the brakes to the single
caliper/dual piston models for more stopping power. Anyway when I
pulled the old rims off 1 was cracked in 2 places and the other side was
cracked in 1!!! All the cracks where on the inside half of the rim
where it is hidden by the brake rotor. The rim with the worse cracks
would have been visible if it was taken off the axle (since you would
have to remove the rotor to do that) but the other one that was just
starting to crack WOULD NOT have been visible without splitting the rim
halves apart. All 3 cracks where at the ends of the "arms" of the hubs.
I assume there is some kind of stress riser there causing it. I am NOT
trying to bad mouth MATCO!! They make a great product for the
EXPERIMENTAL market at a great price. (IF they charged certified prices
they could afford to send replacement rims to everyone...but they didn't
;-) )
All that to say this...Pull those wheels off and look at them. If you
really want peace of mind, split them apart and inspect the inside...or
just sleep better at night and order the newer CNC machined rims. Mine
were the MH6B rims...the older stamped kind. Only took about 2 hours to
swap them out.
See picture here...
http://kilocharlieaero.homestead.com/files/crack.jpg
Jeremy Casey
BCD Drafting, Inc.
jrcasey(at)ldl.net
P.S. The S7 is probably 50-70 pounds heavier than a 912 Mark 3 which
might aggravate the issue but I wanted to pass this on to the Kolb-list
cause I know these rims are options on the Mark 3's and Slingshots...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Jeremy/Guys:
Thanks for the heads up on the ultralight wheel
problem.
In addition to cracking rim halves, the 5/8" ball
bearings are stressed to max when used on the MK
III, especially heavy ones like mine. The
bearings dry out quickly, rust and wear rapidly.
They should be checked frequently if you are using
them.
During my 2000 Alaska flight, my MK III was
equipped with these wheels. Had I not broken an
axle socket, the wheel bearings would have gotten
me a short ways down the road. When I got home
and pulled them apart, one or both sets of
bearings had already seized and the races were
turning on the axles.
Before the 2001 Alaska flight I upgraded to M62
wheels and brakes by Matco. They are 1185 lb
static instead of 600 lb, and use 3/4" axles and
tapered roller bearings instead of 5/8" axles and
ball bearings. Can be adjusted infinitely. Am
happy with these wheels and brakes.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H MITCHELL" <mitchmnd(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | 447 lighting coil/ Key West regulator |
I have noticed that the connector that joins the black/yellow wire coming from
my 447's lighting coils to the wire going to my Key West regulator is discolored
as if it has been very hot and the adjacent insulation appears to be melting.
The last time I shut the engine down I hurried back to the engine and burned
the (bleep) out of my fingers when I touched this connector. When I disconnected
all of the wires from the regulator's output the heating continued after
a short engine run. When I disconnected the wire going to the regulator's input
the heating stopped. I did not get a chance to test but I suspect that one
of the diodes in the Key West regulator's rectifier is burned up. This would allow
the output from the lighting coil to go directly to ground.
Has anyone else had this problem ?
Thanks in advance,
Duane the plane
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Key West Regulator |
Hi Folks:
Tried two Key West reg/rec's (not at the same
time) in a pinch on a 912 during a flight to and
from Oshkosh. The 912 electrical system ate them
up post hast. Also tried the heavier more
expensive Timpanian reg/rec on the 912. Even made
the first flight to Alaska with it. Accidentally
burned up the one that came with the engine. It
worked for several hundred hours and finally went
belly up. When I replaced it with an original 912
model, was astonished to find that the electrical
system provided more power than the incorrect
part. Sometimes we have to do what we have to do
in a pinch.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
Can't seem to find the list of people going to Sun & Fun. Can someone please
put up an address or link to it?
Thanks
Bob Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dr jay <drjay10002000(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark III Xtra |
Greets to you all:
Does anyone known of a MarkIII Xtra in the Phoenix Arizona area that I could get
a look at? I have a PPL and am interested in this plane.
TIA, drjay
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gherkins Tim-rp3420 <rp3420(at)motorola.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark III Xtra |
TIA,
My uncle and myself are building a Mark III Xtra here in the valley of the sun.
We are located in Gilbert, a 20 minute drive S/E of the greater Phx area. Give
him a call and come and see us, we are working on the plane early tomorrow
morning and afternoon. His name is Craig Nelson and can be located at his place
of business at 480-632-9300.
Regards,
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: dr jay [mailto:drjay10002000(at)yahoo.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Mark III Xtra
Greets to you all:
Does anyone known of a MarkIII Xtra in the Phoenix Arizona area that I could get
a look at? I have a PPL and am interested in this plane.
TIA, drjay
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor |
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
3/21/03 12:43Larry Bourne
> He installed a redrive, and can now
> keep up with the big kids and also carry a passenger much more comfortably,
> . Same exact engine, and what a difference.
====================
Yes I remember his posts on that.
That makes sense because he effectively increased his horsepower, by revving
his engine higher and keeping his prop speed with an rdu within normal
limits.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor |
As I understand it, the horsepower remains the same...............the
redrive, if 2:1, doubles the effective torque, minus friction losses.
Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "CaptainRon" <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor
>
> 3/21/03 12:43Larry Bourne
>
> > He installed a redrive, and can now
> > keep up with the big kids and also carry a passenger much more
comfortably,
> > . Same exact engine, and what a difference.
> ====================
>
> Yes I remember his posts on that.
> That makes sense because he effectively increased his horsepower, by
revving
> his engine higher and keeping his prop speed with an rdu within normal
> limits.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick & Martha Neilsen" <neilsenrm(at)cs.com> |
| Subject: | kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor |
Actually I'm not turning any more RPMs with the reduction drive (1.61 to 1).
The engine size and engine RPMs are the same. Only the reduction drive and
the prop has changed. With the reduction drive I'm able to turn a much
larger prop at a lower prop RPM. The net result is more efficient transfer
of HP to thrust. I never would have believed it but I'm getting app. twice
the thrust. The performance differences in flight are spectacular.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIII
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of CaptainRon
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor
3/21/03 12:43Larry Bourne
> He installed a redrive, and can now
> keep up with the big kids and also carry a passenger much more
comfortably,
> . Same exact engine, and what a difference.
====================
Yes I remember his posts on that.
That makes sense because he effectively increased his horsepower, by revving
his engine higher and keeping his prop speed with an rdu within normal
limits.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor |
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
3/21/03 18:39Larry Bourne
> As I understand it, the horsepower remains the same...............the
> redrive, if 2:1, doubles the effective torque, minus friction losses.
> Lar.
=============
Right! I saw his post just after I sent mine. Yes his motor was turning at
3.6K which was putting out whatever hp,, his prop however was over speeding.
By interjecting an rdu he brought his prop within limits, getting them to
make mostly thrust, not mostly noise. :-)
Any of those variables has an impact on the other, it will be fun to play
with.
Btw how did you route your brake lines? I just installed the brake
cylinders, dual breaks, and am wondering about the hose routing to the
wheels. I have no idea what it looks like with the floor in, and the pod on.
Can they be run under the floor or do they run along the sides in cabin?
I like to run it under the floor but aint sure about space in that area.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
Thanks for the list John. I checked it over and not counting the ones who
were going to be there all week, the majority of Kolbers being there only 2
or 3 days, are going to be there Sat 4/5 (about 9 of them). Would this be a
good day to plan a dinner out? John, if this is ok with you, can you throw
out a time to meet at the Kolb Trailer?
Looking forward to the show.
Fly Safe
Bob Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | twoschmoops(at)yahoo.com |
| Subject: | Instruments for sale |
Instrument sale (ELT, EIS/Hotbox, transp/30,000' encoder, ASI, vert
compass) from a MkIII/912 that crashed. All excellent condition. My
MkIII can't use them. $$ back guarantee. Call my cell 386-937-0541 if
interested, e-mail twoschmoops(at)yahoo.com.
*********
VIEW PICTURES
John Richmond is sharing pictures with you
using Shutterfly, the leading online photo service.
To view John Richmond's pictures at Shutterfly,
simply go to:
http://www.shutterfly.com/osi.jsp?i=67b0de21b335103484af
(If you can't click on this link, try copying and pasting it
into your web browser.)
NEED HELP?
If you have any questions about this message, please use our
convenient Customer Service contact form at:
http://www.shutterfly.com/support/form8.jsp
*************************************
Shutterfly
Where your pictures live
http://www.shutterfly.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank & Margie Clyma" <frank-margie(at)worldnet.att.net> |
I have a new Powerfin I'm about ready to fly for the first time, and I called the
company to ask what they knew about the "delamination" that was involved in
John Wood's accident. Stuart Gort was evidently not successful in posting the
below response, so I'm going try and share his info.
Frank Clyma
Hello folks,
I am writing in response to an e-mail posted by John Woods, wherein he
makes a claim of prop failure with one of our products resulting in
damages to his airplane. I do not generally attend Internet forums. This
was brought to my attention by customers of mine whom I thank for their
concern. I hope this note will suffice to address the matter but please
write to: info(at)powerfin.com if you feel compelled to discuss the
matter further or call 1 (800) 581-8207 to speak with me directly and I
will be happy to inform you of any further developments. I will most
likely not make any further response to this matter on any internet
forum.
First:
Any time a pilot gets his airplane down after equipment failure without
injury is cause for both celebration and reflection. I am happy John and
his Young Eagle passenger are safe. Let us all reflect, however, that
this engine out landing could have had far graver results. We should be
ever vigilant to train ourselves for the INEVITABILITY of engine out
landings. As a high time general aviation and ultralight flight
instructor - Good job on your landing, John!
That having been said I need to point out four issues regarding this
event and let the reader use this reply to help himself determine the
culpability of Powerfin Inc. in this matter.
1. The reader of anything posted on the internet (including this
response) has a duty to hold all reports with a certain skepticism
unless he has first hand information relating to a particular event
described. At the very least, no judgment should be made against
Powerfin products until I've been given the opportunity to evaluate the
broken part and render an opinion on the matter. I have not been given
that opportunity and yet it is implied that Powerfin Inc. is
"determined" to be responsible for this by an official government
agency. Perhaps Mr. Woods does not mean to imply that. If not, it would
be nice for me and the rest of the internet to know that.
2. With all due respect to Mr. Woods, any implication that the FAA made
a determination about this incident is simply not true. The NTSB (not
the FAA), which is the primary investigator of airplane accidents rarely
considers cases involving ultralights, especially if there is no injury
or fatality. There can be no official "determination" without myself or
my company being contacted directly by the NTSB. I have not been
contacted by any representative of the FAA or the NTSB regarding Mr.
Woods' incident. Perhaps the person mentioned works for the FAA in some
capacity. That fact alone does not render him or her qualified to
conclude anything with respect to composite propellers. I hope the
reader will ponder for a moment why there is any mention of the FAA at
all in Mr. Woods' post.
3. I have attempted to e-mail Mr. Woods several times at the e-mail
address attached to his post but I cannot get an e-mail through.
4. John Woods posted his comments on Monday, March 3, 2003 indicating
the accident occurred on the previous Saturday. It is now three weeks
since this incident and I have not yet been contacted by Mr. Woods or
anyone representing him. I consider this quite odd because I'm sure I
would have contacted the manufacturer very soon had this happened to me.
Powerfin Inc. has been producing quality propellers since 1995. Looking
further down this list you are apt to find more than a few satisfied
customers. Since my first propeller was released I have been constantly
updating and improving my product in an effort to produce the best
quality with safety being the primary design factor. To date, I have not
yet produced a propeller that takes every bit of abuse thrown at it.
This is mostly due to the fact that I've attempted to make the prop very
light so it will operate within the limits for inertial mass that Rotax
has set for its gearboxes. The way the props are constructed now, I
could make them much stronger at the leading edge but then they would
drastically exceed the Rotax limit for moment of inertia. My current
offering, therefore, is a compromise between leading edge strength and
light weight, which I freely admit. My current offering, however, cannot
be considered fragile by any means and it will take a considerable
impact on the leading edge without sustaining structural damage. For
instance, we have a prop on a Rans S-12 on the field here at Arlington
Airport that took a direct hit with a spark plug at full power, climbing
out. There was a gouge the size of quarter in that blade but we
repaired it and that airplane is still flying with it. I wouldn't send
this prop out the door to any of you but I allowed this because it is
here on the field and I can monitor it. I have another example of an
F-model blade that had a 3/8" drive socket wrench handle go through the
prop and slam into the tail boom so hard that it bent the tail boom 6"
out of whack. Most of that blade remained on the airplane although it
did delaminate and it was ruined. My point is that it took a wrench
going through that prop to produce what Mr. Woods describes. I'm not
saying a wrench went through Mr. Woods' prop but until I have a chance
to inspect it, I must assume something other than air went through it.
I am currently working on a method of construction that will result in a
blade that is considerably stronger at the leading edge but actually
weighs less than the one I offer now. If I am successful with this
project, I will have accomplished a great deal indeed when you consider
the other products available.
I thank you for reading this and considering the matter carefully before
making a judgment. I also thank those who support my efforts and enjoy
their Powerfin propellers. I have worked very hard, and very
conscientiously to produce a respectable product. I will always,
therefore, protect myself against unwarranted claims. Mr. Woods' claim
is unwarranted until proof of abject blade failure is offered. So far,
there is no proof offered. I ask the reader, therefore, to consider the
large number of other possibilities that exist to explain this incident.
That is all I can do until I have his broken blade to inspect.
Sincerely,
Stuart Gort - Powerfin Inc.
The following is Mr. Woods' post of March 3, 2003
Hi Everyone,
As a few of you have noticed, from the accident reports, my
Firestar was
involved in an accident this past Saturday. I was reluctant to
discuss it
until the FAA and a chance to look at it. What they had determined
is that
my "new" Powerfin prop delaminated and consequently struck the
aileron tube.
The new prop had only about 12 hrs on it. I was about 1500 agl when
this
occurred. It made a very loud noise and got the attention a several
folks on
the ground. I immediately pulled the power back and began setting
up for
landing the plane. Below me was a grass field. I positioned the
plane to
take advantage on the long direction of the field. As I got closer
to the
ground it became apparent that is was not grass but 18" new growth
from the
recent rains. The ground was soft and wet. As the rollout
continued, I could
see the tires were starting to settle into the soft ground. A
combination of
the soft ground the tall grass a plowed field and the recent rains,
the
plane came to an abrupt stop at about 25 mph and as in slow motion
the nose
dipped forward and the rest of the plane followed coming to rest
upside
down. My passenger and I were left hanging upside down. I undid my
seat belt
and the then undid hers. I was conducting young eagle flights which
I have
done ever since I have started flying my Firestar. We were both not
injured.
With all the forces in play, had the cage not been made of
chromally, I am
sure the outcome would have been different.
The insurance representative, I could tell, was having a hard time
trying to
figure out how he was going to evaluate the damage. He was new at
this and
had not probably reviewed too many experimental homebuilt
airplanes. How do
you value a homebuilders time or apply a standard when there are no
shops
that would even work on one of our planes. I do have hull coverage,
so I
will be compensated in some way. The actual damage includes bent
cage front
and top, both wings bent, wing struts bent, prop broken and rudder
bent. As
the engine was still operating at idle at the time of the flip, the
engine
would have to be at least completely gone through.
I was so looking forward to Monument Valley. I am not sure now what
my plans
will be. I love flying my plane and I usually get out at least once
a week
and take a little jaunt around the countryside. I am going to miss
this
while I work on getting a flying solution in place.
Take care,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor |
> > Smaller
> > prop with more RPM is more efficient the faster you go...but Kolb's
> > aren't fast. Jeremy Casey
> ==================
>
> But the above is false! :-) Ron
Ron/Jeremy/Gang:
If Jeremy's statement is false, as you say with a
smile, then possibly you could enlighten us why
you say so?
You use the rank of captain quite freely. Was
wondering how you came about that prestigious
rank? Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, Coast
Guard, Merchant Marines, Captain Kangaroo? :-)
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor |
> As I understand it, the horsepower remains the same...............the
> redrive, if 2:1, doubles the effective torque, minus friction losses.
> Lar.
>
> Larry Bourne
Larry/Kolbers:
That's the way I understand it. Reduction drive
works on same principle as two speed axle.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Brake Line Routing |
> Can they be run under the floor or do they run along the sides in cabin?
> I like to run it under the floor but aint sure about space in that area.
Ron
Ron/Gang:
The brake lines, if you are using what most folks
do, are only about 5/6" in diameter. I route mine
under the deck. I bet they would do the same on
an Extra. Does the Extra have fabric bracing on
the belly to give some standoff from the fuselage
tubes?
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CaptainRon" <captainron(at)theriver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor |
Well its not a rank!
Its based on the movie Captain Ron, a commedy. I did captain for a commuter
airline once, if that satisfies your longing for an hyrarchial validation.
As for prop speeds, and thrust you can dig through the archives and
enlighten yourself.
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. :-)
================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor
>
>
> > > Smaller
> > > prop with more RPM is more efficient the faster you go...but Kolb's
> > > aren't fast. Jeremy Casey
> > ==================
> >
> > But the above is false! :-) Ron
>
> Ron/Jeremy/Gang:
>
> If Jeremy's statement is false, as you say with a
> smile, then possibly you could enlighten us why
> you say so?
>
> You use the rank of captain quite freely. Was
> wondering how you came about that prestigious
> rank? Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, Coast
> Guard, Merchant Marines, Captain Kangaroo? :-)
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Noyer <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor aka Cap'n Spkg |
I was a Captain in the U.S. Navy.......Captain of the Head.
Now hear this--sweepers start yer brooms, clean sweepdown fore & aft,
empty all trash cans and spit kits over the lee rail........This was 60
years ago.
Bob N.
do note archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <whyme(at)vci.net> |
| Subject: | Re: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor |
I don't post any more on this list but I had to respond to this one.
Great post Captain Ron.
Colonel Ron
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Saturday, March 22, 2003 03:25:49 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor
Well its not a rank!
Its based on the movie Captain Ron, a commedy. I did captain for a commuter
airline once, if that satisfies your longing for an hyrarchial validation.
As for prop speeds, and thrust you can dig through the archives and
enlighten yourself.
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. :-)
================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor
>
>
> > > Smaller
> > > prop with more RPM is more efficient the faster you go...but Kolb's
> > > aren't fast. Jeremy Casey
> > ==================
> >
> > But the above is false! :-) Ron
>
> Ron/Jeremy/Gang:
>
> If Jeremy's statement is false, as you say with a
> smile, then possibly you could enlighten us why
> you say so?
>
> You use the rank of captain quite freely. Was
> wondering how you came about that prestigious
> rank? Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, Coast
> Guard, Merchant Marines, Captain Kangaroo? :-)
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
>
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor |
In a message dated 3/22/03 4:59:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, whyme(at)vci.net
writes:
>
> I don't post any more on this list but I had to respond to this one.
> Great post Captain Ron.
>
> Colonel Ron
>
>
This is basic stuff, you put a VW direct drive with a 56" prop an a KR-2 and
fly 60 mph its somewhat efficient, fly the same airplane 100mph it becomes
more efficient, it becomes even more efficient at 130 to 140 mph. Now put
that engine on a Kolb and you got a dog. Seems obvious to me but what do I
know.
Tom O.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
Here's Larry Fuller's reply regarding his crash. I've asked him for more detail,
and the pics. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From:
Subject: Re: Crash
Hi Larry, Yep, I smaked the earth again-- this time my IVO prop disintegrated!!
One of the steel shafts is gone and the other two are bare and bent. About
10 inches of each blade remain. No broken bones this time only one crushed disk.
More later. Would you like a pix of the prop?
Larry F.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Bourne
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 7:50 AM
Subject: Crash
Hi Larry: One of the guys on the Kolb List saw the accident report on your
plane, so I thought I'd better check, and see if you're OK. Report says "no
injuries," so I hope that's correct. What happened ?? Do you still have the
VW engine on your plane ?? I've been kind of "off again, on again"
on my Mk III project with the VW/re-drive power, but finally it's almost ready
to go. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D Smalec" <dsmald(at)michonline.net> |
Listers:
Sadly, it looks like I may have to part with my FS1 and was wondering what
it may be worth. Can anyone give me a ballpark figure?
FS1, assembled 1995, Hirth 2702 40 hp. 2 blade 64" warp prop, brs cannister
chute, needs repack, short windshield,195 hrs.airframe, 77 hrs.engine.
Thanks in advance, Darren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Instruments for sale |
Hey got your list and photos, still can't view the photos so I will download
them at work tomorrow. (I work Sunday's).
I will take the vertical compass for sure.
You said the ELT comes with the antenna, how about the instrument controller
and mounting harness etc. ?? I will take it as well if it does. (did it go
off)
I would like to be second in line for the ESI if the other person does not
take it. I need to however call EIS on Monday and talk to them, I want to use
a Jabiru and need to ask them if yours will work for me. You said it's a
model 2000, I can't find that listed anywhere. They offer 2 models for the
4stroke motors. I will wait to see on this depending on what the other
fellow does. Just let me know.
Do you have the wireing harness with the Val com radio???
I am very interested in the motor as well, I need to talk to some of my
friends about the possiblity. How has it been stored since the accident, I
assume the oil tank and everything else comes with it. I assume the oil
cooler was destroyed, did anythign else get damaged??
Nice talking with you.
As for now, consider these I listed sold, I will decide on the others after i
get your email.
Thanks.
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman(at)dejazzd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor |
Ron or Mary wrote:
>
>
> I don't post any more on this list but I had to respond to this one.
> Great post Captain Ron.
>
> Colonel Ron
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Saturday, March 22, 2003 03:25:49 PM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor
>
>
> Well its not a rank!
> Its based on the movie Captain Ron, a commedy. I did captain for a commuter
> airline once, if that satisfies your longing for an hyrarchial validation.
> As for prop speeds, and thrust you can dig through the archives and
> enlighten yourself.
> Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. :-)
>
> ================================
"Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not."
"I don't post any more on this list but"
"Seems obvious to me but what do I know."
Don't ya just luv what ya kin lern bout sum peepil from dare recen poses
on duh klob leist.
ez
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | 7-Day Matronics List Browse Enhancement... |
Dear Listers,
Neil Hulin of the Zenith-List at Matronics wrote to me suggesting I add a
"total of available messages" column to the 7-Day List Browse Main page,
and it seemed like a great idea! I've made the modifications and I think
many will find it extremely helpful as well. Have a look at the following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse/
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin...
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar Value |
In a message dated 3/22/03 9:03:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dsmald(at)michonline.net writes:
> :
> Sadly, it looks like I may have to part with my FS1 and was wondering
> what
> it may be worth. Can anyone give me a ballpark figure?
> FS1, assembled 1995, Hirth 2702 40 hp. 2 blade 64" warp prop, brs cannister
> chute, needs repack, short windshield,195 hrs.airframe, 77 hrs.engine.
> Thanks in advance, Darren
>
>
>
My guess would be about $6k, maybe a little more if everything is A1 with a
great paint job. The Hirth & the needed re-pack hurts you a little.
Shack
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | SPRING LANDING GEAR |
Well, I finally bent my landing gear in a very rough cow pasture in my Mark
III. I've seen a spring landing gear for the Kolbs but I don't know where.
Does someone know where I can get them?
Thanks,
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 3rd Annual Cajun Fly-in & Camp-out |
Hi Tommy,
I was looking on the kolb List and my Wife mentioned You and we
got to wondering how you were. We trust You are doing well. Weve got plans to
go to sun n fun in April. Let us know how You are. I have my trailer
finnished except for fenders, about 30 screws in the roof, tiedowns, internal
lighting and a few external lights.
Regards;
Ed & Patt Diebel
________________________________________________________________________________
SpamAssassin (Message larger than max testing size)
Ron,
Started the HD last night with redrive fitted and without the prop to check for
clearance. Everything is ok. Revved it up to 5 grand! Mounted the prop and quit....
Going to weld in those support angles this morning and finish some wiring.
We have a video digital camera and plan to film the disaster!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alderson, James" <James_Alderson(at)jdedwards.com> |
| Subject: | Shoulder Belt / BRS Deployment Question |
In the process of getting into my Firestar II to do some SLOW speed taxi
testing, I opted to do it with the shoulder harness on (obviously). In doing
so, and tightening them up sufficiently, something struck me. I could not
reach the mags key to turn off the engine in the air in order to deploy the
BRS! I started looking at a few of the pictures that people have here and
there on the web, and almost all that I could find had placed the mags
somewhere out of reach for anyone except Stretch Armstrong (am I dating
myself there?). So, in case I don't end up being able to sell my Firestar
II, does anyone have any pictures or suggestions of where to place the mags
that is more suitable for an emergency? Thanks.
James Alderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Hauck" <jimh474(at)velocityonline.net> |
Folks;
I spent some time with Homer yesterday afternoon.
He is rebuilding a J-3 and restoring some of his collector John Deere
tractors. Of which his has a barn full.
He will be at Sun & Fun.
Jim Hauck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Pierzina" <planecrazzzy(at)lycos.com> |
Hey Major Pain,
These guys "DO" try to help you......
So you think anything that is found in the archives is "FACT"? I haven't heard
of anything going through a verification process....you'll find that there are
alot of contradiction thru-out the archives, so answer the question.
or are you Ignant or Stew Ped....
Gotta Fly...
Planecrazzzy , Mike in MN
Starting Poly Spray - FSII,503,3 blade IVO
SNIP>>>
As for prop speeds, and thrust you can dig through the archives and
enlighten yourself.
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. :-)
---
Sometimes you just have to take the leap
and build your wings on the way down...
Gotta Fly...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EVO/AIR/ new 2si's???? |
Paul, I for one , am watching you posts, wishing I was there hep'in....and
hopeing terribly that you are successful in getting some sort of viable
alternative powerplant to what is in the so-called "mainstream" of
lightplane power!
BTW Kolbers, Speaking of Engines....Being in the Engine biz...I have heard
rumors that 2SI will announce 3 more new engines at Sun'n'Fun for us
Fly-boys. I come by these rumors at various meetings at Honda sometimes as
sort of a "keep an eye on the competition" informational gathering orders,
FYI's , and just general discussions amoungst peers.
NO...we at Honda does not consider 2SI a threat to our market share of
course but we are always looking at companies trying to blaze down the path
of inovation in the markets, be it with technology or market tactics or
distribution methods or what ever...
Anyhow what I heard is at some sort of seminar they will unveil something
for us engine guys to keep an eye on. Rumor has it ( now this is the "not
too sure part") they will show a heavy fuel spark ignited version and a new
fuel injected, computer controlled 3 cyl 2 cycle for the aircraft people
that someone here thinks might be a player in the PWC biz....(This is where
Honda is interested of course, not aircraft). and also 2 cyl 50 hp Liquid
cooled . The 50hp I saw at a month ago at a booth at a show and it impressed
me quite a lot..looks like a real lightweight.
I wonder if anybody on this list is "in the know" about these possible new
offerings and what day and where this "2si" seminar might be at Sun'n' fun.
???
I wasn't planning on going due to Business considerations...but if I was
able to "expense" the trip on the company tab...hmmmmm.....?????
Also....how hard is it to get a checkout in a Kolb during this show...??
My Firefly is coming along well and the time is near for me to get a ride .
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Don Gherardini-
FireFly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Belt / BRS Deployment Question |
Hi James,
You may want to consider putting in a "Kill" switch if you can't reach the
mag/starter key.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Olenik Aviation" <olenik-aviation(at)buyitsellitfixit.com> |
| Subject: | EVO/AIR/ new 2si's???? |
Don,
You have some good sources I think. Although, except for the 430L-50, these
are all still in development. The 430L-50 has been completed and ran, but
is still in testing. They took their 460L-45, went back to the original
bore of the 430's, put high compression heads on it, dual Bing 84 carbs, and
made provision for a pull start. This makes for a very light and powerful
engine. In testing it has been a little hard to pull with those high
compression heads. I believe they are going to install automatic
compression release valves that will automatically close after starting. I
think the whole engine package weighs not much more than a 447 and is
supposed to put out 503 power at the price of a 447. Hopefully, I will get
to do some of the flight testing for this engine sometime in the next year.
The heavy fuel, spark ignited engine is something 2SI has had for a while.
I believe they have a 100 hp 4-cylinder which is direct port fuel injected
which allows the heavy fuel to be atomized to allow for the spark ignition.
Rumor has it that the US military is looking at this engine to replace the
Rotax engines on their Predator UAV's because the Rotax engine violates
their one fuel forward policies. I don't think they have any near term
plans of making this available for the civilian market yet, but maybe
someday.
The 690L-70, now that they have taken care of all the major bugs, is gaining
more and more popularity all the time. At $1000 to $1300 less than a Rotax
582, making better power, it is very attractive. However, there is no doubt
that an electronic fuel injected model may be even more attractive if they
can make it work nicely without being too expensive. It was supposed to be
a little bit of a secret, but I've learned that the prototype of this 690FI
is going to be ready for testing soon for aircraft applications. There is a
possibility that I may be doing some flight testing for this as well, but I
won't know for sure for several weeks. For myself, I am happy with the Bing
carbs, but if we can make a reliable fuel injection, that could be a really
nice feature for some folks. Since the carb version is so much less than a
Rotax 582, they think they can go to the electronic fuel injection and be in
the same price range as a carbureted 582. Of course the 690 still requires
less maintenance than the 582 in both cost and frequency.
None of these are yet available to the general public, and still in testing.
If tests do not go well, they could very well get scrapped. I really do
think, however, that 2SI is a serious player in the UL market. I think you
will see more and more of their engines being used in this market in the
coming years. I have been in contact with some airframe makers that have or
plan to develop installation packages for the 2SI engines and some have even
asked us to do the development work for them.
Tom Olenik
Olenik Aviation
http://www.buyitsellitfixit.com
877-247-6686 ...we support what we sell.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Don Gherardini
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: EVO/AIR/ new 2si's????
Paul, I for one , am watching you posts, wishing I was there hep'in....and
hopeing terribly that you are successful in getting some sort of viable
alternative powerplant to what is in the so-called "mainstream" of
lightplane power!
BTW Kolbers, Speaking of Engines....Being in the Engine biz...I have heard
rumors that 2SI will announce 3 more new engines at Sun'n'Fun for us
Fly-boys. I come by these rumors at various meetings at Honda sometimes as
sort of a "keep an eye on the competition" informational gathering orders,
FYI's , and just general discussions amoungst peers.
NO...we at Honda does not consider 2SI a threat to our market share of
course but we are always looking at companies trying to blaze down the path
of inovation in the markets, be it with technology or market tactics or
distribution methods or what ever...
Anyhow what I heard is at some sort of seminar they will unveil something
for us engine guys to keep an eye on. Rumor has it ( now this is the "not
too sure part") they will show a heavy fuel spark ignited version and a new
fuel injected, computer controlled 3 cyl 2 cycle for the aircraft people
that someone here thinks might be a player in the PWC biz....(This is where
Honda is interested of course, not aircraft). and also 2 cyl 50 hp Liquid
cooled . The 50hp I saw at a month ago at a booth at a show and it impressed
me quite a lot..looks like a real lightweight.
I wonder if anybody on this list is "in the know" about these possible new
offerings and what day and where this "2si" seminar might be at Sun'n' fun.
???
I wasn't planning on going due to Business considerations...but if I was
able to "expense" the trip on the company tab...hmmmmm.....?????
Also....how hard is it to get a checkout in a Kolb during this show...??
My Firefly is coming along well and the time is near for me to get a ride .
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Don Gherardini-
FireFly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor |
In a message dated 3/22/03 8:07:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, TSO1953(at)aol.com
writes:
>
> >
> >I don't post any more on this list but I had to respond to this one.
> > Great post Captain Ron.
> >
> >Colonel Ron
> >
> >
>
> This is basic stuff, you put a VW direct drive with a 56" prop an a KR-2
> and
> fly 60 mph its somewhat efficient, fly the same airplane 100mph it becomes
> more efficient, it becomes even more efficient at 130 to 140 mph. Now put
> that engine on a Kolb and you got a dog. Seems obvious to me but what do I
> know.
>
> Tom O.
>
speed kills....George Randolph
Firestar driver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Johann G." <johann-g(at)talnet.is> |
| Subject: | Shoulder Belt / BRS Deployment Question |
Hi James,
My cage has a plate on the left side on the seat steel rod. Would be
located under your left thigh. This plate has two holes drilled big enough
for the mags switches I have on my Firestar. You could bolt an angle
to that plate, which is big enough for the ignition switch. Just an idea.
Another idea was to extend the instrument panel to your reach.
I plan on doing that when I can find the time.
Happy flying.
Johann G.
Iceland.
Firestar II.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Alderson, James
Subject: Kolb-List: Shoulder Belt / BRS Deployment Question
In the process of getting into my Firestar II to do some SLOW speed taxi
testing, I opted to do it with the shoulder harness on (obviously). In doing
so, and tightening them up sufficiently, something struck me. I could not
reach the mags key to turn off the engine in the air in order to deploy the
BRS! I started looking at a few of the pictures that people have here and
there on the web, and almost all that I could find had placed the mags
somewhere out of reach for anyone except Stretch Armstrong (am I dating
myself there?). So, in case I don't end up being able to sell my Firestar
II, does anyone have any pictures or suggestions of where to place the mags
that is more suitable for an emergency? Thanks.
James Alderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor |
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
3/23/03 10:39GeoR38(at)aol.com
>
> In a message dated 3/22/03 8:07:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, TSO1953(at)aol.com
> writes:
>
>>
>>>
>>> I don't post any more on this list but I had to respond to this one.
>>> Great post Captain Ron.
>>>
>>> Colonel Ron
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This is basic stuff, you put a VW direct drive with a 56" prop an a KR-2
>> and
>> fly 60 mph its somewhat efficient, fly the same airplane 100mph it becomes
>> more efficient, it becomes even more efficient at 130 to 140 mph. Now put
>> that engine on a Kolb and you got a dog. Seems obvious to me but what do I
>> know.
>>
>> Tom O.
>>
====================================
Kinda slow day here, so I'll provide some ancedotal observations why a
smaller prop should not be any more efficient at higher speed.
In the Day :-) when I used to fly the Super King airs at close to 280 Knots
our props turned at about 1700 RPM's. A cold war TU-??? something or other
that routinely flew iirc at close to 400+ knots had their giant counter
rotating props turn at 1400 RPM's or slower.
For the unconvinced do a search and find out the prop RPM of any of the
large Turbo props (C-130 etc...), and you will find out that the blades turn
rather slowly.
the only thing that happens at a higher speed within subsonic regim is the
effective angle of attack of the blades. The same prop turning faster in
that scenario as far as I can tell will not be any more efficient.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Ed Steuber ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Ed Steuber
Subject: Progress of Modified Ultrastar
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/esteuber@rochester.rr.com.03.23.2003/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Dave Pelletier ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Dave Pelletier
Subject: Kolb BRS & Brakes
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/pelletier@cableone.net.03.23.2003/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Possum ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Possum
Subject: Blimp
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/possums@mindspring.com.03.23.2003/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> For the unconvinced do a search and find out the prop RPM of any of the
> large Turbo props (C-130 etc...), and you will find out that the blades turn
> rather slowly.Ron
Hi Ron/Gang:
I took the liberty to change the subject to
"Props". Hope you all do not mind.
I certainly agree with your statement above. Big
airplanes, even King Airs, big slow turning
props. However, we were thinking more in the
realm of light planes, ultralights, Crickets,
KR2s, Formula 1 racers, etc. The fast planes, of
this family of aircraft, must use small props with
a lot of pitch. The Formula 1 racers turn up a
lot of revs, I would think. I do not know. At
lower airspeeds these props are lousy performers,
because they are designed to fly at much faster
airspeeds. Again, I do not know. That is why I
requested you explain it to us, the Kolb List.
Just trying to benefit from the vast aviation
experience of others.
I remember looking at Pushy Galore, down at
Lakeland one year. She had a tiny three blade
Warp Drive prop which was ground adjustable. I
would think to get the airspeeds out of Pushy that
they got, they must dial in maximum pitch. With a
prop diameter of what looked like less than four
feet, closer to three feet, take off performance
is lousy. However, at her design race speeds, I
imagine that little prop is getting pretty
efficient to turn high rpm power into airspeed.
Again, just guessing. Looking for an expert.
I did as Google search, but did not find the
answers I was looking for. Got too much outside
work to spend on the computer today.
Later gang,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Paul Petty ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Paul Petty <ppetty@c-gate.net>
Subject: Harley engine project
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/ppetty@c-gate.net.03.23.2003/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CaptainRon" <captainron(at)theriver.com> |
Ok one more time!!!! :-)
The laws of physics are the same across the board! May it be a Firestar or
a P51. Rule -1 props should not exceed mach, rule 2 they have to be large
enough to absorb the HP put into them. Other than that all else equal they
should be adequate for the task.
=========================
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Props
>
>
> > For the unconvinced do a search and find out the prop RPM of any of
the
> > large Turbo props (C-130 etc...), and you will find out that the blades
turn
> > rather slowly.Ron
>
> Hi Ron/Gang:
>
> I took the liberty to change the subject to
> "Props". Hope you all do not mind.
>
> I certainly agree with your statement above. Big
> airplanes, even King Airs, big slow turning
> props. However, we were thinking more in the
> realm of light planes, ultralights, Crickets,
> KR2s, Formula 1 racers, etc. The fast planes, of
> this family of aircraft, must use small props with
> a lot of pitch. The Formula 1 racers turn up a
> lot of revs, I would think. I do not know. At
> lower airspeeds these props are lousy performers,
> because they are designed to fly at much faster
> airspeeds. Again, I do not know. That is why I
> requested you explain it to us, the Kolb List.
> Just trying to benefit from the vast aviation
> experience of others.
>
> I remember looking at Pushy Galore, down at
> Lakeland one year. She had a tiny three blade
> Warp Drive prop which was ground adjustable. I
> would think to get the airspeeds out of Pushy that
> they got, they must dial in maximum pitch. With a
> prop diameter of what looked like less than four
> feet, closer to three feet, take off performance
> is lousy. However, at her design race speeds, I
> imagine that little prop is getting pretty
> efficient to turn high rpm power into airspeed.
> Again, just guessing. Looking for an expert.
>
> I did as Google search, but did not find the
> answers I was looking for. Got too much outside
> work to spend on the computer today.
>
> Later gang,
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Im certainly no expert here, but doesnt the size and speed of the prop have
alot to do with the size and speed of the column of air you need to move?
and that will be assigned by our performance envelope?
Of course we all want the most thrust in about any application we can get ,
and to use all the hp available..
So if we want to go fast...we need a faster moving column of air...and with
the given hp we have available, we will use a prop that will move that much
air that fast.
In other words, ( I think)...if we are only gonna try to accomplish 70
mph....then we will pick a prop that will move as much air as the hp will
allow at 70 mph......and if we wanna go 200 mph, on a similar bird with
similar hp, then we will need to spin the prop much faster,to get that
column of air moving faster, and as we have not installed a larger
engine...the prop will need to be smaller so the hp available will spin it
that fast at what ever pitch will accomplish the desired speed.
By the same reasoning, when our performance envelope is slower...then with
what ever Hp we have...we can move MORE air with a larger prop, but we move
it slower. This works better for us low an slow fellas, because our birds
wont stand the high speed anyway, we just like to get up quicker, climb
quicker at a slower speed, and so on.
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Don Gherardini-
FireFly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 3/23/03 9:57:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
donghe@one-eleven.net writes:
> Im certainly no expert here, but doesnt the size and speed of the prop have
> alot to do with the size and speed of the column of air you need to move?
> and that will be assigned by our performance envelope?
>
> Of course we all want the most thrust in about any application we can get ,
> and to use all the hp available..
> So if we want to go fast...we need a faster moving column of air...and with
> the given hp we have available, we will use a prop that will move that much
> air that fast.
> In other words, ( I think)...if we are only gonna try to accomplish 70
> mph....then we will pick a prop that will move as much air as the hp will
> allow at 70 mph......and if we wanna go 200 mph, on a similar bird with
> similar hp, then we will need to spin the prop much faster,to get that
> column of air moving faster, and as we have not installed a larger
> engine...the prop will need to be smaller so the hp available will spin it
> that fast at what ever pitch will accomplish the desired speed.
> By the same reasoning, when our performance envelope is slower...then with
> what ever Hp we have...we can move MORE air with a larger prop, but we move
> it slower. This works better for us low an slow fellas, because our birds
> wont stand the high speed anyway, we just like to get up quicker, climb
> quicker at a slower speed, and so on.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
> Don Gherardini-
> FireFly 098
>
Hey Don.....you sound like an expert to me, buddy. Dunno as I've ever heard
it put so well....thanks for making a complicated facet of flying simple. Now
all you have to do is explain why a prop put on backwards ...... still makes
the plane fly.... The guy who taught me about ultralights didn't even know
this one....as a matter of fact ...he actually did it one time by accident
and walked around with his eyes crossed for a week.....n...he's been around
flying all his life. He couldn't understand how his rpms came up, but he just
barely got over the trees.
Now I suppose there is truly a problem of efficiency. Not exactly puttin the
pedal to the metal, but puttin the wood to the air.....
George Randolph
firestar driver in Akron, O
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Instruments for sale |
I will take the virtcle card compass, the elt and if I can get it separately
the hotbox. Let me know on the hot box and how I can get the other two paid
for
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Sun n Fun questions |
From what I understand, we "ultralights" can enter the Lakeland Class "D" from
the south and not talk to anybody. Is this correct? Also, If I can't make it down
there in one day, does anyone know a good place in FL to camp with the plane.
See you there,
Kip
http://www.springeraviation.net/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sun n Fun questions |
> Remember to stay below 500
> feet south of the airstrip.
Kip/Gang:
I didn't do a good job on the above.
Stay below 500 feet AGL, from 5 miles out and
south of the field. GA traffic to the main
Lakeland runway is at 500 feet and above. To the
east of the UL strip is the rotary wing airspace,
so stay south of the UL airstrip.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CaptainRon" <captainron(at)theriver.com> |
Yes the size of a prop has a lot to do with the thrust produced. (Within
reason. A one inch prop is not going to absorb 100 hp at any angle of
pitch). But it can be done with high pitch slow turn, and low pitch high
turn. The objective of a prop is to screw itself through the air.
since we are talking about screws :-) think about a fine pitch screw and a
coarse pitch screw. The fine pitch screw can rotate like a son of a gun and
go slow, a coarse pitch screw can make one turn and go further.
In other words a higher pitch prop turning slow can pull the airplane
further than a fine pitch prop turning faster.
Conversly a small prop turning very fast subsonic with a high pitch below
its stall speed can produce about the same amount of thrust. As long as
the hp/work is being transferred into the oncoming wind you will get the
same result. One hp will do one Hp worth of work in either form. Can turn
very fast or slow. As long as the energy gets converted to thrust it should
make no difference. One hp can only do one hp of work. It comes down to
which prop can better transfer 100 hp worth of work to the ambiant air.
Anyway thats how I see it.
=========================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Props
>
> Im certainly no expert here, but doesnt the size and speed of the prop
have
> alot to do with the size and speed of the column of air you need to move?
> and that will be assigned by our performance envelope?
>
> Of course we all want the most thrust in about any application we can get
,
> and to use all the hp available..
> So if we want to go fast...we need a faster moving column of air...and
with
> the given hp we have available, we will use a prop that will move that
much
> air that fast.
> In other words, ( I think)...if we are only gonna try to accomplish 70
> mph....then we will pick a prop that will move as much air as the hp will
> allow at 70 mph......and if we wanna go 200 mph, on a similar bird with
> similar hp, then we will need to spin the prop much faster,to get that
> column of air moving faster, and as we have not installed a larger
> engine...the prop will need to be smaller so the hp available will spin it
> that fast at what ever pitch will accomplish the desired speed.
> By the same reasoning, when our performance envelope is slower...then with
> what ever Hp we have...we can move MORE air with a larger prop, but we
move
> it slower. This works better for us low an slow fellas, because our birds
> wont stand the high speed anyway, we just like to get up quicker, climb
> quicker at a slower speed, and so on.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
> Don Gherardini-
> FireFly 098
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
There isn't an aerodynamic advantage to spinning small props fast for fast
aircraft. the fastest production piston aircraft in the world is the p-51
mustang. It has a Four-blade constant-speed propeller that is an enormous
11' and 1" in diameter. Blades are set at 23 degree-angle low pitch and 58
degree angle high pitch, which you see is not a rediculous range. This is a
plane that can go 487mph at 25,000 feet. Cruise speeds average 350mph.
prop spins around 1500 rpm after a 2 to 1 (i think) reduction drive.
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html
is an interesting web page about the little known p-38k. this was a
significantimprovement on the p-38 j that consisted amoung other things
changing the reduction ratio from 2 to 2.36 and increasing the prop diameter
and blade chord.
the results: faster, better climb, better performance in all categories.
the basic rule is bigger, slower spinning propeller, gives more thrust.
more thrust is faster, climbs better... just plane better. the only reason
to put a small prop on a plane is to spin a motor faster, to get more power
out of the motor. when you do this the blade tips have to be kept subsonic,
so you make the diameter small. and you get the classic no reduction drive
solution, a plane that goes fast but can hardly climb and needs miles of
runway. add a reduction drive and you get a great climbing plane that is as
fast as you want to crank the pitch in, and minimize drag. Our planes are
slow cause they are very draggy, not cause of the "big" prop diameter.
This is an incorrect rumour, that is based on the no reduction drive engine.
which should really be interpreted as: if you can't have a reduction drive
and have to spin the motor fast to get power then you have to use a small
prop. not the other way around.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
Jeez George...I sure didnt know ya could do that!!!!!
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor |
In a message dated 3/23/03 4:15:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
CaptainRon(at)theriver.com writes:
> Kinda slow day here, so I'll provide some ancedotal observations why a
> smaller prop should not be any more efficient at higher speed.
> In the Day :-) when I used to fly the Super King airs at close to 280 Knots
> our props turned at about 1700 RPM's. A cold war TU-??? something or other
> that routinely flew iirc at close to 400+ knots had their giant counter
> rotating props turn at 1400 RPM's or slower.
>
>
How you can compare a king airs large props to the kolb props is beyond me,
try turning the King air props at 1000 RPM's you will soon see slower has
less power, every prop has there peak efficant RPM obviously the King air
would be alittle slower than a 80HP direct drive, no one is saying the faster
it turns is unlimited. The original statement was a small prop does better on
a faster plane.Ask ANY Engineer.
Tom O.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
As long as
the hp/work is being transferred into the oncoming wind you will get the
same result. One hp will do one Hp worth of work in either form. Can turn
very fast or slow. As long as the energy gets converted to thrust it should
make no difference. One hp can only do one hp of work.
Actually one hp can only do .7 hp worth of work, because of losses!!! THe
deal is that the big prop has a greater efficiency at making thrust then the
small one. this is because the the big prop puts a small delta velocity on
lots of air, and the little prop puts a big delta v on a little air. the
big delta v creates lots of turbulance and drag. so your arugments about
pitch which are right, fall apart when it comes to efficiency. the little
prop can absorb power with big pitch or lots of blades, but it is
inefficient at making thrust. Ya wanna go fast for a given power, put a
bigger prop on it and reduced rpm with a redrive and you can still crank in
all the pitch you want. reduce the blade area to allow you to turn the
blade with the hp available and violla, better performance. this really
comes down to the aspect ratio. sailplanes are more efficent then low
aspect ratio wings, and long skinny props are more efficent then short fat
props, even if both have the same wing area and lifting capability. move
lots of air a little not a little air alot.
Trust me ron little props are not better at high speeds, unless you have to
spin it fast. which is the assumption that was made with the standard
engines. add a redrive and you can put a huge prop on and go faster. want
proof, see the p-51 example, 11 foot diameter! and a bit faster then a kolb
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 3/24/03 12:24:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
captainron(at)theriver.com writes:
> very fast or slow. As long as the energy gets converted to thrust it should
> make no difference. One hp can only do one hp of work. It comes down to
> which prop can better transfer 100 hp worth of work to the ambiant air.
> Anyway thats how I see it.
> =========================
>
Not to beat this to death ( well probly should ) but a small prop doesn't
work well on a Kolb at any normal HP.
Tom O.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | kalifornia kolb/revmaster motor |
How you can compare a king airs large props to the kolb props is beyond me,
try turning the King air props at 1000 RPM's you will soon see slower has
less power, every prop has there peak efficant RPM obviously the King air
would be alittle slower than a 80HP direct drive, no one is saying the
faster
it turns is unlimited. The original statement was a small prop does better
on
a faster plane.Ask ANY Engineer.
Tom O.
I r an engineer... and i say only if you are spinning the engine faster to
make more power. dont apply the rules from that requirement of all the
formula 1 and formula v racers to the generic argument. if you can add a
reduction drive then bigger is better, as long as you can keep the prop tip
subsonic, and can build it strong enough. in the limit as they say in
calculus, if you had an infinately large diameter, single bladed prop that
had almost zero chord it would absorb an infinte amount of power at zero
rpm, have zero drag and create infinite thrust... ok thats just being silly
cause you need infinately strong maerial to make it out of, and the tip
would be eceeding the speed of light.
really just look at the fastest prop plane ever mass produced, you got 2 to
1 redrive and 11' of prop. over 450 mph. end of lesson
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 3/24/03 12:25:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,
cen33475(at)centurytel.net writes:
>
> There isn't an aerodynamic advantage to spinning small props fast for fast
> aircraft. the fastest production piston aircraft in the world is the p-51
> mustang. It has a Four-blade constant-speed propeller that is an enormous
> 11' and 1" in diameter. Blades are set at 23 degree-angle low pitch and 58
>
We all know large props are more efficiant, the original statement was that
SMALL props do better on faster airplanes.
I've said enough Tom O.
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 3/24/03 1:31:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, TSO1953 writes:
>
> In a message dated 3/24/03 12:25:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> cen33475(at)centurytel.net writes:
>
>
> >>
>> There isn't an aerodynamic advantage to spinning small props fast for fast
>> aircraft. the fastest production piston aircraft in the world is the p-51
>> mustang. It has a Four-blade constant-speed propeller that is an enormous
>> 11' and 1" in diameter. Blades are set at 23 degree-angle low pitch and 58
>>
>
> We all know large props are more efficiant, the original statement was that
> SMALL props do better on faster airplanes.
> I've said enough Tom O.
What I ment to say was If you have to use a smaller prop,it works best on a
faster plane, but always use the largest prop you can. ( was that better )
Tom O.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dixieshack(at)webtv.net (Mike and Dixie Shackelford) |
| Subject: | Re: mag switch and BRS |
Jim, I mounted my BRS release handle to the right of the seat bottom on
one of those diagonal fuse gussets....easy to reach with my right hand.
I mounted my mag switch (off, L,R, both) on the right side of the seat
bottom frame on a bracket of it's own. Both the BRS release and the mag
switch are within easy natural reach of my right hand, convenient to
each other in an "awshit" situation.
I believe in the basic laws of nature: what goes up must come down, it
ain't the fall, it's the sudden stop, green side up and flat side back,
and I also believe in regime change in Washington.
Hope to see you guys in Lakeland
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> Here's what I think: I have upgraded from a 64 HP 532 to a 65 HP 582, and
> from a 66" Ivo 2 blade to a 68" Ivo 2 blade, and I expect to both climb
> faster and go faster.
> Richard Pike
Morning Richard/Gang:
I have never used anything smaller than a 3 blade
70" prop on the Mark III, when powered with the
582. I did test a 72" 3 blade Warp Drive Taper
Tip Prop for about 100 hours. It produced the
best overall performance but it also produced the
most noise. Even with the increased noise, I
would have left it on the airplane, but had a
blade strike a few days prior to departure for
Alaska, 2001. Built a jig and cut an inch off
each blade, reducing its diameter to 70". I still
get nearly the same performance, perhaps a little
less, but overall noise is reduced and I get an
additional 1" of clearance.
I did test a 70" two blade Warp Drive, but was not
nearly as satisfied with it as with the 3 blade.
I think a lot of prop noise is produced based on
proximity of the blades to the aircraft
structure. I was flying with a 2" prop
extension. Went to the 4" after the blade
strike. This also reduced prop noise.
Another problem I was experiencing was prop/gear
box back lash at start up of the 912S engine. The
old 912 started pretty violently with 9.5 to 1
compression ratio. The new 912S with 10.5 to 1
compression ratio even more so. If the torsional
vibration dampner gets a little worn/loose, this
agrevates the problem. Also additional weight of
the prop helps induce backlash. What happens is,
at startup the engine gets in a back lash mode and
will not come above idle and out of this mode.
What is happening is the shaking is aeriating the
fuel in the float bowls. Best way to start the
912S, IMO is normal start when cold, full choke,
throttle closed. When warm, crack the throttle to
a position that equates to aprx 2800 rpm, no
choke. If backlash is encountered, shut down the
engine immediately. Do not attempt to make the
engine overcome the startup problem. This usually
only adds to the problem. Let the engine sit long
enough to expell the air from the fuel in the
float bowl. Attempt restart.
I might add. I flew down to Ronnie Smith's, South
Mississippi Light Aircraft (Rotax service center
and a good one) a few weeks ago. Ronnie pulled my
gear box and reshimmed the torsional vibration
dampner absolutely as tight as he could get it.
Time on engine was 412 hrs. This adjustment also
improved start up of the 912S and eliminated some
minor in flight vibes.
I enjoyed everyones discussion of prop
performance.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> The old 912 started pretty violently with 9.5 to 1
> compression ratio. The new 912S with 10.5 to 1
> compression ratio even more so.
Morning Gang:
Made a mistake. 912 comp ratio is 9.0 to 1.
912S " " " 10.5 to 1.
Meant to check it out before I hit the send
button, but...............
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Two Stroke Power Bands |
> I have heard the
> arguments, - you run your engine your way, and I'll run mine my way.
Richard P
Richard/Gang:
I don't mess with two strokes anymore, except on
this List. Been years, 13+, since I have owned
and flown one.
I flew every two stroke I ever owned on cross
country flights at 5,800 rpm. That was everything
from Cuyuna to 582. 5,800 rpm with 582 on my MK
III gave me a good solid 80 mph cruise. Not bad
for a big fat two place UL. Burned 5 to 5.5 gph
at that power setting.
Of course the 582 was propped to bump the redline
at WOT straight and level flight.
Perhaps some of our two stroke experts can help
educate me on operation of our two stroke power
plants. I prefer to operate them above the point
in the power band where the two stroke gets on the
pipe. My belief is that the two stroke will
operate more efficiently and perform optimally
above this point where it shifts from operating on
port timing to the point that it operates on port
timing in conjunction with the benefit of the
tuned expansion chamber exhaust system. I do not
know about the newer two strokes, but on the older
ones we used for UL aviation, it was quite
noticeable at about 5200 to 5500 rpm. In that
particular rpm range the engines would not settle
down. Like trying to balance on a ball. Engine
revs would roll up and down depending on what part
of that rpm bracket you were in. Above where the
engine came up on the pipe, things cleaned up, put
out a lot of power, ran and felt good.
My question, is there a lot of difference
operating below and above the point in the power
band where the engine comes on the pipe?
Do we get better performance, reliability,
endurance, above or below the engine comes up on
the pipe?
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Gerken" <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
03/24/2003 10:52:13 AM
What's the name and phone number of the aircraft tire retailer you guys
have talked about? Time for the Cheng Chins to go on the burning pile.
The size they read is 15x6.00-6, I assume there is a real aircraft tire of
same size. Thanks.
Jim Gerken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
3/23/03 23:23TSO1953(at)aol.com
> Not to beat this to death ( well probly should ) but a small prop doesn't
> work well on a Kolb at any normal HP.
> Tom O.
==========================
Don't worry about beating this to death. I for one like looking at this
stuff from different angles.
If you remember what I said earlier, my rules for evaluating props. rule-1
it has to be below mach, rule-2 it has to absorb/convert the power put to it
into thrust.
Lets assume that you are right,,, that small props don't work well on a
Kolb. But you also know that that *a* particular smaller prop should be able
to absorb the power put to it, because we set down and done the math. Then
what is the problem? I mean you and I just figured out that a 60 incher at
3200 rpm should (an example didn't do any math) be able to turn 100hp into
100 hp worth of thrust. But for some reason that 75 incher turning at 2500
rpm's is doing a world of good better, but the math says that both should
perform the same in their respective optimal/pitch/rpm range. :-)
Well its not really a puzzler, because math don't lie if you done it right.
So why do you think there would be a difference in noticable performance?
:-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BRS Parachutes |
John,
Check out my pic of the installation of a BRS on my MK III.. I included
a couple more pics with the compartment open and a view from the left front
but maybe I didn't do it right cuz they didn't get posted.
AzDave
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Raeburn" <raeburn(at)snowhill.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: BRS Parachutes
>
> I am planing on installing a BRS parachute on my Kolb MK III (Classic). It
> has a Rotax 582 engine.
>
> BRS recommends either using 1050 VLS or a 1050 canister system.
> Any suggestions on which is the better type to buy?
>
> John Raeburn
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> The trick
> is to get just the right size of prop were you get good cruise speed AND
> good climb performance. This a trial and error process with a new engine and
> airplane combination.
>
> Rick Neilsen
Rick/Gang:
Agree with you 100%.
I think you eliminated an important point:
*Prop to bump the red line, wide open throttle
(WOT) straight and level flight.
Something else to consider. Most engines for
ultralights and light planes have two red lines.
One is similar to military power. For the 912 it
is 5,800 rpm for 5 minutes maximum. The other red
line is max continuous duty at 5,500 rpm. 912S is
the same thing. I use max continuous red line of
5,500 rpm because I use a ground adjustable prop.
The only way to get that additional horse power is
with an inflight adjustable prop.
I am not sure about the two stroke mil power and
continuous duty power redlines, but I thing they
are 6,800 for 5 min and 6,500 rpm max continuous.
If I was flying a two stroke I would pitch for
6,500 rpm WOT straight and level flight.
Rotax doesn't spell out "mil power" as such.
However, for all the two strokes, 582, 503, and
447, Power and Torque rpms are the same. Max
torque is at 6,000 rpm and max power is at 6,500
rpm. Red line is 6,800 rpm. So.......to me
anything over 6,500 rpm is wasted. I would pitch
for WOT straight and level flight bump the red
line at 6,500 rpm. If I do that, the EGTs as the
engine comes from the factory will be right where
they are supposed to be.
If I prop this way I will get the best cruise and
the best climb at that pitch setting. A lot of
you do not want to pitch this way. You want to
pull more pitch and slow down the two stroke.
That is ok too (for you) but it ain't the way I do
it. Start loading the prop and you will have to
lean out the mixture. Unload the prop and you
will have to increase fuel and richen it up.
Pitch it right and it will fly right out of the
box without diddling with it. hehehe
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Vertical Stabilizer |
Hi Kolbers:
Got the fabric off the upper vertical stabilizer
this afternoon. Sure enough, it is worn out and
ready for a complete rebuild. This particular
part of my Mark III has taken a pretty good
beating over the last 1,760.0 hours. Based on
marks on the inside of the fabric, the prop blast
is hitting the left side of the stabilizer and
little or nothing on the right side. Thus the
reason for a lot of yaw trim to overcome this
effect.
I believe the leading edge of the vertical
stabilizer failure recently on two seperate
occassions was agrevated by experimentation of
offsetting the leading edge to attempt to overcome
some of the adverse yaw characteristic. That is
the price I have paid for seeing if that mod would
work. It didn't. The trim tab size,
configuration, I have now has neutralized this
adverse yaw characteristic. As a side note, the
MK III doesn't really care if it is in yaw trim or
not. Most of the time on the airframe was flown
with the slip/skid indicator 1/2 ball out of
trim. No significant performance/handling
increase has been noted. Probably should have
said, no performance/handling increase noted,
other than the ball is now centered. :-)
I haven't cleaned up the vertical stabilizer stubs
on the tailpost enough to see if I have a stress
crack on the edge of the welds or not. But this
is one area that will get a particularly good look
before I start my rebuild. I'll probably take the
tail post with me to Lakeland so I can stop by my
big brother's on the way home to check this part
out for me. Jim has always wanted to build the
entire tailsection out of 4130. This may be a
good time to do the upper vertical stabilizer. We
shall see. Our lower vertical stabilizer is all
4130, no aluminum.
I'll try to keep you all posted as I continue with
the rebuild and refinish.
I do not think this is a concern for most Kolb
aircraft. If you have pushed the leading edge of
the upper vertical stabilizer off center in an
attempt to reduce adverse yaw, then it would be a
good idea to keep you eye on the leading edge
tube. If you have a high time Kolb, more than
1,200 to 1,500 hours, then it wouls also be a good
idea to keep this area checked out.
I do not know of any other Kolb that has
experienced this problem. Anybody else heard of
this problem?
john h
PS: If I rebuild out of aluminum, I did
originally and will this time, use .058 for the
leading edge. In addition, I will use a 6 to 12
inch sleeve inside and centered on the area where
the internal bracing is reveted to the leading
edge. Should not have a problem here in the
future.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute |
Sounds good. By the way does anybody sell MOGAS anymore or I am looking at
getting a crew car to chase down po-dunk Amoco's?
Thanks,
Kip
http://www.springeraviation.net/
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Sun n Fun questions
>
>
> > Remember to stay below 500
> > feet south of the airstrip.
>
> Kip/Gang:
>
> I didn't do a good job on the above.
>
> Stay below 500 feet AGL, from 5 miles out and
> south of the field. GA traffic to the main
> Lakeland runway is at 500 feet and above. To the
> east of the UL strip is the rotary wing airspace,
> so stay south of the UL airstrip.
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Stabilizer & Yaw Compensation |
>
>Hi Kolbers:
>
>....... As a side note, the
>MK III doesn't really care if it is in yaw trim or
>not. Most of the time on the airframe was flown
>with the slip/skid indicator 1/2 ball out of
>trim. No significant performance/handling
>increase has been noted. Probably should have
>said, no performance/handling increase noted,
>other than the ball is now centered. :-)
>
John,
You are correct in that in cruise uncompensated yaw probably does on make much
of a difference. But uncompensated yaw can make quite a difference in one's ability
to side slip the plane for cross wind landings. For some reason, I did
not have a problem with the FireFly until I changed engines, and mounted a larger
propeller that rotates in the opposite direction. Currently, it is very
easy to run out of rudder when slipping to the left compared to slipping to the
right. I have been making parts to add an in cockpit adjustable right wing
tip drag rudder. I should be getting it installed this week.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)charter.net> |
>
>*Prop to bump the red line, wide open throttle
>(WOT) straight and level flight.
>
>If I prop this way I will get the best cruise and
>the best climb at that pitch setting. A lot of
>you do not want to pitch this way. You want to
>pull more pitch and slow down the two stroke.
>That is ok too (for you) but it ain't the way I do
>it. Start loading the prop and you will have to
>lean out the mixture. Unload the prop and you
>will have to increase fuel and richen it up.
>Pitch it right and it will fly right out of the
>box without diddling with it. hehehe
>
>Take care,
>
>john h
Absolutely agree. This assumes you use the max diameter prop for a given
application. But I submit that if you use a prop somewhat smaller in
diameter than optimum for climb, and still pitch it to turn 6,500 RPM at
full throttle in level flight, you are now carrying more pitch than a full
size prop, and the engine can now run slower at a given airspeed as the
coarser pitch is biting through longer hunks of air. (Screwing itself
through the ether with a coarse pitch rather than a fine pitch takes you
farther per prop revolution at a given prop speed)
The engine is not working harder at any given RPM, because you are not
loading it down any more at any point on the power curve than it would be
anyway.
Since you have pitched it normally, (6,500 RPM WOT, level flight) the load
at any other RPM will still be the same at that RPM as if you used a larger
prop pitched for 6,500 RPM WOT, level flight.
You trade off best climb rate for improved cruise - assuming that your goal
at a given cruise speed is a slower engine RPM.
But assuming that you are using a full size prop, then your choice is still
the best solution.
(I need to quit discussing this and go work on the airplane. Maybe if I get
back flying I can put my money where my mouth is and back this argument up
with some real data...)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
(Pee Ess: Once again I am so glad to have a Kolb. Visited by a guy with a
Kitfox. Which he always flys solo. Because his useful load -he says- is
only about 350 pounds. That's Sad)
Help Stop Spam!
Delete all address information (especially mine) off everything you
forward, and make Blind Carbon Copy a way of life.
Thanks! And have a blessed day.
rp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Stabilizer & Yaw Compensation |
> You are correct in that in cruise uncompensated yaw probably does on make much
of a difference. But uncompensated yaw can make quite a difference in one's
ability to side slip the plane for cross wind landings.
> Jack B. Hart FF004
Jack/Gang:
Shouldn't make any difference with power off.
There is no yaw problem when power is reduced,
only when I am making power. In fact, dead stick
I could get away with no pitch or yaw trim.
Aircraft is trimmed perfectly in these axis's.
Don't know why you have a difference unless:
-You are landing with power.
-More rudder travel one direction over the other.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Stabilizer |
> >If I were you, I'd go with Jim. 4130 would not be that much heavier.
>
> Richard Pike
Richard/Gang:
I am inclined to agree with you. Would be easy to
do away with piano hinges and go to single pin
steel hinges.
We shall see.
All this time I thought I had upgraded the upper
vert stab leading edge to .058". Well.........I
didn't. It is .035". May not have broken (as
soon) had it been .058".
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
Good post JH
There ya go!!!, You have hit upon what we in the engine biz discuss as "duty
cycle".
There was a discussion some time back in which I feebly attempted to
explain this rating, but from the responses I knew all did not do a very
good job for all to understand.(although I know some did too!)
From your numbers , one can assume that Rotax 912 is running at 100% duty
cycle at 5500rpms, and 106% at 5800. what Rotax is telling you is you can
run at a tad over 100% duty cycle for a short time and you wont hurt it. The
Time factor (5 min) is likely a limit imposed due to heat build up above
what normal cooling apparatus can handle, as heat generated generally goes
up on a logrithmic scale with rpms and cooling system capacity has a very
finite maximum. These ratings apply to both 2 and 4 cycle power[plants. The
big difference in the real world is that a 4 stroke does not build up heat
as fast as a 2 cycle, and over reving a 4 to destruction with no load is
more difficult due to valve float and such...a 2 cycle..particularly a
piston ported engine with no vavle apparatus...can usually be run very fast
very quickly under no load...but again, with NO LOAD...then the duty cycle
is very low at any rpm level. For duty equates to load.
Max hp will be at or near the rpm where the BMEP is the highest, and this
takes WOT.....lets say that 5500 is that spot....without WOT the engine is
NOT producing max hp because the throttle is not open because there is no
load, so the cylinder filling/cylinder pressure is only what it takes to
spin the engine past frictional loads..and that aint much! Could be running
at 20% duty cycle in this condition...maybe less...and making 20 hp...
Now induce a heavy load..where it takes WOT to get 5500and BAM////cylinder
pressure/heat /fuel/ everything is maxed out....making 100 hp and this IS
100%duty cycle..
IN your airplanes you have told us how you set the prop....some people read
it as not using all the power avail....I READ IT as so when you cruise you
are running at less 100% duty cycle and prolonging your engine life
dramatically. Yet you have 106% rated engine rpms available when ya need em!
IF a fella thinks he can run any engine at over 100% continues duty cycle
ratng for very long with out hurting it....Then he is thinking he knows more
than the design team that created the powerplant...the company that built it
and warranties it ...and he likely thinks he can get thru the pearly gates
without the archangel seein him!
BTW....I asked before...as I have never been there, what do you
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Don Gherardini-
FireFly 098all think the chance of getting a check ride in a Kolb is at a
show as busy as Sun'n'Fun must surely be????...Do I have a chance??
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> BTW....I asked before...as I have never been there, what do you
all think the chance of getting a check ride in a
Kolb is at a
> show as busy as Sun'n'Fun must surely be????...Do I have a chance??
Don/Gang:
You are probably addressing the wrong crowd. You
need to be snugling up to New Kolb Aircraft and
whoever is going to be flying demo rides at
Lakeland. Actually, they will probably fly out of
Lakeland South (Circle X) a few miles south of
Lakeland AP on the Bartow highway between Plant
City and Bartow. Flying demos out of Paradise
City is a real hassle because of the traffic in
the UL traffic pattern and restrictions.
Just guessing, because I have nothing to do with
demo flights anymore, but those customers and
potential airplane kit buyers are given priority.
It is a matter of business. Be glad to fly you if
I was going to have my airplane there, but the
little Fire Fly that I am to fly is shy on seating
capacity. It would probably fly two, if you could
get them in there somewhere. Wing area is about
the same as a Sling Shot. I was surprised, first
passenger I flew in the Sling Shot, that it
performed better in the air with the added weight
than it did solo. Of course it took a little
longer to get off the ground and climbed a little
slower, but the overall flying feel was better, to
me, dual than solo.
Take care and see you all there,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ALLENB007(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Belt / BRS Deployment Question |
James,
You could put a kill switch down on the bottom left hand corner of the seat.
There is a place there that is set up to be used for an ignition button. The
rough harnessing for the cigarette lighter is going through there now.
Allen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tire retailer |
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Tire retailer
>
> What's the name and phone number of the aircraft tire retailer you guys
> have talked about? Time for the Cheng Chins to go on the burning pile.
> The size they read is 15x6.00-6, I assume there is a real aircraft tire of
> same size. Thanks.
>
> Jim Gerken
>
> Jim,
Try Tom Olenik right here on the list, he has a wide variety of tires on his
web page.
olenik-aviation(at)buyitsellitfixit.com
Denny Rowe
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce McElhoe" <mcelhoe(at)cvip.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 447 lighting coil/ Key West regulator |
Duane,
Yes, We had the same problem with the Key West regulator on our 447. The
input terminals got so hot they turned black and burned away the wire
terminal. Key West replaced the regulator at no charge. Fortunately the
lighting coil in the engine was not damaged.
We put the new regulator on the FireFly, and it worked for three flights.
The regulator overheated again. This time it caused a ground fault in the
lighting coil.
We will have to open the engine to repair the lighting coil....haven't done
it yet.
I'm giving up on Key West.
Regards,
Bruce McElhoe FireFly #88
Reedley, Calif.
>
>
> I have noticed that the connector that joins the black/yellow wire coming
from my 447's lighting coils to the wire going to my Key West regulator is
discolored as if it has been very hot and the adjacent insulation appears to
be melting. The last time I shut the engine down I hurried back to the
engine and burned the (bleep) out of my fingers when I touched this
connector. When I disconnected all of the wires from the regulator's output
the heating continued after a short engine run. When I disconnected the wire
going to the regulator's input the heating stopped. I did not get a chance
to test but I suspect that one of the diodes in the Key West regulator's
rectifier is burned up. This would allow the output from the lighting coil
to go directly to ground.
>
> Has anyone else had this problem ?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Duane the plane
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vincehallam(at)aol.com |
HI
Tell us about Chuck Zksx??s redrive
Vnz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Stabilizer & Yaw Compensation |
>
John,
>
>> You are correct in that in cruise uncompensated yaw probably does on make much
of a difference. But uncompensated yaw can make quite a difference in one's
ability to side slip the plane for cross wind landings.
>> Jack B. Hart FF004
>
>Jack/Gang:
>
>Shouldn't make any difference with power off.
>There is no yaw problem when power is reduced,
>only when I am making power. In fact, dead stick
>I could get away with no pitch or yaw trim.
>Aircraft is trimmed perfectly in these axis's.
>
>Don't know why you have a difference unless:
>
>-You are landing with power.
On gusty cross wind approaches, I use power.
>
>-More rudder travel one direction over the other.
Rudder travel limits are the same. As I said before:
"For some reason, I did not have a problem with the FireFly until I changed engines,
and mounted a larger propeller that rotates in the opposite direction.
Currently, it is very easy to run out of rudder when slipping to the left compared
to slipping to the right."
>
>john h
>
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles White" <c.f.white(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | 912 Prop Pitch / Best Cruising Performance |
John H./Fellow Kolbers
Need some help please... For several days now I have read everyone's posts
on the theoretical performance of large vs. shorter dia. props - running
your engine to develop it's max. power curve, 100% duty cycle, etc. All very
interesting and helpful in understanding the theory of converting H.P to
thrust.
Here's my question/ problem:
My friend Gary Haley and I are both flying our MK3/912's over to Lakeland
from Houston next week and while flying together recently discovered his
plane is considerably faster at cruise than mine. Same prop (Ivo3), same
engine, etc. I just assumed it was my prop pitch and began adjusting it for
more top speed. Naturally, as I increase the pitch the max. available RPMs
come down, but it appears to have increased my speed considerably. Before, I
had it pitched to produce 5800 max. @ take-off, but even when cruising at
5500, his plane running at 5000 is faster than mine. If I increase my pitch
all the way up to max. only 5200 @(take-off) backing off to 5000 we both
seem to run about the same speed - although I feel like I am running my
engine at almost full throttle... pretty scary!
Please... what am I missing here, your thoughts on proper pitch/RPMs and why
would my plane be so much slower than his? As far as workmanship or weight
goes - let's just say there's no issue here either :)
Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. It's a long way to Lakeland
and hearing him tell me to "speed-up" for 800 miles each way, doesn't do
much for me either!
Charles White
N970CW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J.D. Stewart" <jstewart(at)inebraska.com> |
| Subject: | Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute |
Change your plugs pretty often while using 100LL.
On my last Oshkosh trip (1155 miles), I used 100LL gas everywhere but OSH
itself. A few days after getting home, I had a cylinder overheat on the way
back from a fly-in, and put me down on a road a couple of times. I could
keep it under control but not maintain altitude at 4500 rpms, so I'd climb
up a thousand feet, and gradually end up landing about every 10 miles. I'd
taxi down the country road for a mile or so (rural Nebraska roads are
deserted and flat) to let it cool down, and take off for another leg.
http://challenger.inebraska.com/503_decarbon.htm shows what I found when
I
took the heads off.
J.D. Stewart
UltraFun AirSports
http://www.ultrafunairsports.com
Challenger Owners E-mail list and Website Administrator
http://challenger.inebraska.com
If you think that 30 gallons of 100LL won't hurt the
> 503, I'd much
> rather go that route.
> Kip
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 Prop Pitch / Best Cruising Performance |
> My friend Gary Haley and I are both flying our MK3/912's over to Lakeland
> from Houston next week and while flying together recently discovered his
> plane is considerably faster at cruise than mine.
> Any and all help would be greatly appreciated.
> Charles White
Charles/Gang:
OK. Here goes.
I prop airplanes, the kind I build and fly, just
like I prop a boat with a fixed pitch or ground
adjustable pitch prop. WOT, straight and level
flight, just bump the red line. Plain and
simple. Other people may do it different, but
that is the way I do it with my boat, and all my
different airplane engine combonations. By using
that method, I get the best cruise and climb
performance from my airplanes and boats. Well, my
boats don't climb, but ya know what I mean. :-)
If I were you, I would forget about your buddy's
airplane and concentrate on your own airplane.
My MK III with a 912S proped to turn 5,500 rpm WOT
straight and level flight, turns about 5400
static, and about 5200 to 5300 rpm once the
airplane starts rolling. I have a 70" 3 blade
tapered Warp Drive Prop.
I do not know what else to say. Have at it.
Oh, I cruised the 912 at 5,000, 5,200, and 5,400
rpm. I cruise the 912S 5,000. On the last Alaska
flight I cruised 5,200 rpm for the entire flight,
135 hours I think.
Each airplane, engine, and pilot combo has a sweet
spot where everything comes together. That is
where the airplane and pilot want to fly.
Everybody is happy. One reason why it is
difficult for me to fly with others on long cross
country flights. No two airplanes want to fly the
same way.
Hope this helps. I think it will if you try it.
john h
PS: That is the way I do it and have done it for
the last 19 years playing with these little
airplanes and cross countrying.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute |
> A few days after getting home, I had a cylinder overheat on the way
> back from a fly-in, and put me down on a road a couple of times.
> J.D. Stewart
JD/Gang:
What rpm do you cruise and what engine are you
running?
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "boyd young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | kolb mag switches |
I could not
reach the mags key to turn off the engine in the air in order to deploy the
BRS
James Alderson
check my pages at http://www.brigham.net/~byoung/gapseal.html the last
photo has a picture of a black box mounted on the front of the windshield bow.
it containes the master switch, start switch, eis switch, fuel pump, mags-
cdi, and remote switches for the eis. the photo is taken from inside the nosecone.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
Ok Guy's,
For those of you that wish to see the first test run of the Harley project here
it is!
Be patient while it downloads it's 15 megs! enjoy!
http://c-gate.net/~ppetty/
pp.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
03/25/2003 11:38:20 AM
John H and others:
I have not yet experienced the start-up problem you describe on the 912S,
but a buddy of mine has. The folks at Lockwood aviation indicated that
for a temporary solution, one can keep the starter motor going a little
longer than you normally would, which results in a slightly higher RPM to
get you through the rough period. The ultimate solution is to replace the
starter with the newer, faster spinning model which I believe Rotax is
supplying for replacement purposes at a "discounted" price of $400. It is
my understanding that if you buy a new 912S today, it comes with the new
model starter. I m not sure if the same is true for the standard 912 or
not. Guess I'll wait till this problem finds me ....
Happy motoring..
Erich Weaver
erich_weaver(at)urscorp.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 Prop Pitch / Best Cruising Performance |
Charles,
It all has to do with what Richard Pike has alluded to. If you set your prop as
John says, you are very limited in the cruise range. On the FireFly, I found
the same thing. I could sacrifice climb and I got a lot better cruise, at much
lower engine speeds and in my case more stable EGT's.
I found a pretty good site that explains much of this at:
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/BA-Background.htm
Basically what happens is, that if you pitch for climb and fly WOT at cruise the
pitch is too flat and you fall off the prop efficiency curve, and so you put
a fair amount of horsepower and gas into beating air but not getting any where.
If you add a little more pitch to the prop, you will sacrifice climb and static
thrust, but at cruise with WOT, you will move up on the prop efficiency
curve so that the prop can produce a greater velocity change (thrust) at speed
and you fly faster, at lower rpm and HP burning less fuel and less wear and tear
on your engine for the distance flown and the time in the air. It sounds
like your buddy has it figured out.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
>
>Here's my question/ problem:
>
>My friend Gary Haley and I are both flying our MK3/912's over to Lakeland
>from Houston next week and while flying together recently discovered his
>plane is considerably faster at cruise than mine. Same prop (Ivo3), same
>engine, etc. I just assumed it was my prop pitch and began adjusting it for
>more top speed. Naturally, as I increase the pitch the max. available RPMs
>come down, but it appears to have increased my speed considerably. Before, I
>had it pitched to produce 5800 max. @ take-off, but even when cruising at
>5500, his plane running at 5000 is faster than mine. If I increase my pitch
>all the way up to max. only 5200 @(take-off) backing off to 5000 we both
>seem to run about the same speed - although I feel like I am running my
>engine at almost full throttle... pretty scary!
>
>Please... what am I missing here, your thoughts on proper pitch/RPMs and why
>would my plane be so much slower than his? As far as workmanship or weight
>goes - let's just say there's no issue here either :)
>
>Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. It's a long way to Lakeland
>and hearing him tell me to "speed-up" for 800 miles each way, doesn't do
>much for me either!
>
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912 Prop Pitch / Best Cruising Performance |
Charles....think of what you are doing like this...
if you let the load dictate max rpms..lets say 5800 is max.(if thes is
factory recommended 100% continuous duty rpm)..then when you throttle back
to 5000 you are running the engine at 90% duty cycle.
If you let the LOAD reduce the rpms to 5000, you are running the engine at
110% duty cycle, that is why you "feel "like you are running you engine
hard...ARE....I like to say it like this..."Listen, that baby is just about
loaded to its knees"
You are actually running the powerplant at a level that would compare with
110% max rpms under load..not exactly..but close...This is whay we use the
terms "Duty cycle" in the engine biz, because it takes rpms, throttle
position (hence fuel quantity thru the engine), and Load to determine how
"hard "and engine is running........NOT simply rpms as so many believe.
Don Gherardini
sales/engineering dept
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
800- 626- 7326
btw men...Just got the authorization to Sun,n, Fun on expenses!!!!! Thankyou
American Honda!
I wont be there Sat nite for the get together...couldnt get em to go that
many days, but I will be there thurs an fri!
Looking forward to shaking a few hands and expressing personal gratitude for
the help I have recieved here.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Asusalite wheels? |
I have seen a few planes wth those nylon Asusa wheels and i winder if anyone here
has any experience with them on something lite..like a FireFly??. There wheelbarrow
wheels and tires that came with it..well..they are light, but the tire
quality looks pretty cheesy, one of em never has held air more than 2 days sittin
on the shelf and no way to put brakes on em easily. Ive been considering
these nylon wheels ..
MTOW should be around 500 lbs I think on this bird.
Don G
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912 Prop Pitch / Best Cruising Performance |
| From: | ":-)" <captainron(at)theriver.com> |
on 3/25/03 6:41 AM, Charles White at c.f.white(at)att.net wrote:
> although I feel like I am running my
> engine at almost full throttle... pretty scary!
==================
I fly my aircraft full throttle all the time. I adjust my power by varying
my prop rpm's and mixture to give me about 65% power. You seem to have done
it by setting your fixed prop pitch for that. Full throttle only means that
you opened your carb full open, but not maxxing everything out. Your buddy
is probably doing the same thing but not telling you. :-) Presuming all else
is the same. If your temps and all the rest is within limits, and you wanna
keep up with him then just do it.
By the way what is your indicated air speed at 5000ft when you got it all
maxxed out?
I would like to have some idea what to expect with my M3X have no idea what
it is supposed to do. John is the only one that mentions that and he's is
around 75-80 mph with an original M3.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rayfield, Bill" <brayfield(at)kcc.com> |
I can't view the movie - says path not valid.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Petty [mailto:ppetty@c-gate.net]
Subject: Kolb-List: Test Run
Ok Guy's,
For those of you that wish to see the first test run of the Harley project
here it is!
Be patient while it downloads it's 15 megs! enjoy!
http://c-gate.net/~ppetty/
pp.
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may contain privileged,
confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt from disclosure
under law. If you have received this message in error, please inform us promptly
by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and destroy any printed copy.
Thank you.
==============================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J.D. Stewart" <jstewart(at)inebraska.com> |
| Subject: | Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute |
503 DCDI, running normally around 57~5800.
This is the only time it's happened, as I've made the trip before. Temps
went up towards 425, whereas they're normally 310. I was able to keep them
down below 375 with a 4500 cruise. New plugs solved the problem, but only
after I tore the top end off to make sure it wasn't something else.
J.D.
>
> > A few days after getting home, I had a cylinder overheat on the way
> > back from a fly-in, and put me down on a road a couple of times.
> > J.D. Stewart
>
> JD/Gang:
>
> What rpm do you cruise and what engine are you
> running?
>
> john h
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman(at)dejazzd.com> |
| Subject: | Honda? for Don Gherardini |
Hey Don,
Would a GX 670 Honda industrial be a suitable ultralight engine? Doesn't
Honda make engines with built-in 2:1 gear reduction? I know it would not
be a powerhouse but it is close to the same hp as a 277 Rotax. The fuel
economy should be great. Perhaps if they made a 4 cylinder version of it?
dreaming,
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 Prop Pitch / Best Cruising Performance |
> If you set your prop as John says, you are very limited in the cruise range.
> Jack B. Hart FF004
Jack/Gang:
How about explaining this so I can understand. I
certainly do not feel I am limited in my cruise
range. I am cruising exactly like I want to be
cruising.
What is your Fire Fly cruise speed?
What is Richard Pike's MK III cruise speed?
Thanks,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Johann G." <johann-g(at)talnet.is> |
| Subject: | Asusalite wheels? |
Hi Don.
I am using the Tri-Star Wheel 5/8 Axle, 6x4 Azusa wheels. Also the C-90
Hydraulic Disc Brakes for Cub Style Gear
from Tracy O'Brian. Very happy with the set-up.
Here is also a link to their home page.
http://www.tracyobrien.com/
Best wishes,
Johann G.
Iceland.
Firestar II.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Don Gherardini
Subject: Kolb-List: Asusalite wheels?
I have seen a few planes wth those nylon Asusa wheels and i winder if anyone
here has any experience with them on something lite..like a FireFly??. There
wheelbarrow wheels and tires that came with it..well..they are light, but
the tire quality looks pretty cheesy, one of em never has held air more than
2 days sittin on the shelf and no way to put brakes on em easily. Ive been
considering these nylon wheels ..
MTOW should be around 500 lbs I think on this bird.
Don G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 Prop Pitch / Best Cruising Performance |
> By the way what is your indicated air speed at 5000ft when you got it all
> maxxed out?
>
> I would like to have some idea what to expect with my M3X have no idea what
> it is supposed to do. John is the only one that mentions that and he's is
> around 75-80 mph with an original M3.
Ron
Ron/Gang:
What do you mean 5,000 feet? We fly at 500 or
less.
Between 1,100 and 1,200 lbs, two years ago on the
Alaska flight, 5,200 rpm, 85 mph, 5.0 to 5.5 gph
on 100ll. At 5,000 feet and higher when terrain
and winds dictated.
Loaded with 10 gal fuel, pilot, 5,000 rpm equals
about 88 mph, give or take a mile an hour here or
there.
john h
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute |
> New plugs solved the problem, but only
> after I tore the top end off to make sure it wasn't something else.
>
> J.D.
JD/Gang:
Strange indeed. Would never have figured that a
lead fouled plug would raise the CHT. Would think
it would have the opposite effect.
My 1994 flight I would start get a little thump in
the airframe every now and then after about 75
hours on straight 100ll. The 2000 and 2001 flight
I used Alcor TCP and never fouled a plug.
You would think if the plug was actually
misfiring, it would not be generating as much heat
as when it was doing its normal duty.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 Prop Pitch / Best Cruising Performance |
John,
The best way to explain it is to do it and see if it works. If you have a ground
adjustable propeller, try it, you may like it. If you don't like it, you can
always put it back.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
>
>
>> If you set your prop as John says, you are very limited in the cruise range.
>> Jack B. Hart FF004
>
>Jack/Gang:
>
>How about explaining this so I can understand. I
>certainly do not feel I am limited in my cruise
>range. I am cruising exactly like I want to be
>cruising.
>
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J.D. Stewart" <jstewart(at)inebraska.com> |
| Subject: | Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute |
Yes it was strange, and I would have never thought to look at the plugs
then. Someone else on the Challenger list had the same thing happen to him
and told me to pull the plugs. Sure enough, the gap was almost closed off.
The only thing I can think of was that the lead was getting superhot somehow
and affecting the whole cylinder. The other cylinder was normal the whole
time. Both EGTs were OK, too.
J.D.
>
> JD/Gang:
>
> Strange indeed. Would never have figured that a
> lead fouled plug would raise the CHT. Would think
> it would have the opposite effect.
>
> My 1994 flight I would start get a little thump in
> the airframe every now and then after about 75
> hours on straight 100ll. The 2000 and 2001 flight
> I used Alcor TCP and never fouled a plug.
>
> You would think if the plug was actually
> misfiring, it would not be generating as much heat
> as when it was doing its normal duty.
>
> john h
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 Prop Pitch / Best Cruising Performance |
>
>What is Richard Pike's MK III cruise speed?
>
>Thanks,
>
>john h
Currently about 65 at 5200 RPM, 70 at 5400 RPM, 75 at 5600 RPM,
80 at around 5800 RPM, top end is around 88-90 at 64-6500 RPM.
That was with a 532 and 66" Ivo 2-blade prop.
I had more top end before I modified my upper fuselage/cabin last year,
so this year I am undoing/revising the upper fuselage just above and
behind the windshield.
Tinker, tinker, tinker....
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Help Stop Spam!
Delete all address information (especially mine) off everything you
forward, and make Blind Carbon Copy a way of life.
Thanks! And have a blessed day.
rp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 Prop Pitch / Best Cruising Performance |
> The best way to explain it is to do it and see if it works. If you have a ground
adjustable propeller, try it, you may like it. If you don't like it, you
can always put it back.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
Jack/Gang:
Thanks for the advice. However, I have already
gone through the experimentation cycle with fixed
pitch and ground adjustable props for the last 19
years on my Kolb aircraft.
I don't tune my airplane for anyone else but
myself. If I like it fine. If someone else likes
it. That is also fine. If they don't like it,
then they can do it another way.
Personally, I do not like the feeling of an
overloaded engine on takeoff. It really cuts my
options if I have an emergency. I might mention
that I do not fly out of 3,000 ft airfields. I
like small unimproved field, confined areas,
fields that are a challenge. Propping the way I
have always done gives me the best of both worlds,
climb and cruise. My own extensive
experimentation in this area proves to me that I
am not being penalized in either. That said, I
will be more than happy to put my old 1991 Mark
III up against any Kolb out there to compare
performance in all areas, except super slow cross
countries. Those are a drag. hehehe
The reason I asked what airspeed you and Richard
flew on cross countries is to compare you bogged
down over pitched props and airspeed to mine and a
freed up engine prop combination that performs.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912 Prop Pitch / Best Cruising Performance |
Richard..that does sound like a marvelous idea!!!!
It brings to mind all kinds of ideas...like...the ability to tell when a 2
cycle engine gets leaned out from overpropping...due to wot position and low
rpms...slowing down the velocity of the air thru the carb and picking up
less fuel than it is calibrated for.....maybe a fella who is determined to
run in this condition might be better served to run a smaller carb....ya
gopt me thinking of all kinds of dif stuff!
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Asusalite wheels? |
>
>I have seen a few planes wth those nylon Asusa wheels and i winder if anyone here
has any experience with them on something lite..like a FireFly??. There wheelbarrow
wheels and tires that came with it..well..they are light, but the tire
quality looks pretty cheesy, one of em never has held air more than 2 days
sittin on the shelf and no way to put brakes on em easily. Ive been considering
these nylon wheels ..
>MTOW should be around 500 lbs I think on this bird.
>
>Don G
>
Don,
I have been using Asusa wheels with the original CHENG SHIN tires on my FireFly.
They have 300+ take off/landings and are holding up well. I had some bearing
problems at first, but when I got the camber set correctly the bearing problems
disappeared. I replaced the original bearings with Boca Bearing, RF1222-14PP,
precision bearing with seals, $13.95 each, 1-800-332-3256, 7040 W. Palmetto
Park Rd., Suite 2304, Boca Raton, FL 33433, bearing(at)gate.net. They are pricey,
but I have not had to replace one. It is important to keep end play along
the axle to a minimum or the bearings will work inside the wheel bores.
I have installed band brakes on these wheels, and they work quite well. I started
out with leather brake linings and currently the bands are lined with a high
coefficient braking material. The design/build progression can be seen at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly34.html
and
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly44.html
I have made recent changes to make them more robust, but I have not put up any
new pictures to reflect these changes.
If I had it to do over, I would use a modified mountain bike disk brake. Again
they are a little pricey, but it would save a lot of time.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Honda? for Don Gherardini |
oh Yes Gene....I personally believe the the GX670, (670 cc's) which has an
very unusual cam grind that in effect continues to increase the horsepower
when the governer is disabled....all the way up to 55 hp at
6000rpms.(basically it is a camshaft ground for a 6500rpm engine)
the big question is...how long would it last at that rate?....I know they
last for 2500 hours at 3800, what I dont know is how how long they will last
at ...say....4500? , where it approachs 40 hp.
We do not make any v-twins with a reduction...only smaller singles...2:1 and
6:1
I can also tell you this, my son and I ran a GX 620 (20hp) , older version,
custom cam pon alcohol for 2 years in a Pulling tractor. Stock bottom end,
dyno tested at 60 hp at 6500. We ran this engine for 2 solid years untill
they outlawed it....basically because nobody could beat it. After, I pulled
the engine and replaced the governer,cam, heads and intake with the stock
components...put it in a mower and it has been mowing my 3 acres now for 3
years, all on the exact same bottom end! (bearings included).
I will bet you fellas this, if back in the early 70's, we would have had the
light aluminum v-twin 4 cycles that we have today, the eveloution of which
powerplants we are using would have went down a different road!!
BTW...weight of a new GX670 WITH electric start, heavy flywheel and
Industrial air filtration is 90 lbs.and cost about 1200 bucks anywhere!
..Scott Perkins just sent me a pic of a 470lb aircraft witha pair of 20 hp
vtwins on it....direct drive tho....that FLYS!
Owner is working on a redrive now..for better performance!
I really dont think we are very far away from having some Vtwins that will
be very usable fellas...Honda has the 24hp....Kohler has a
26...Generac/Nagoya has a 30hp...all aircooled v-twins. And it will be Just
in time...cause them 2 strokes are being outlawed everywhere ya look!
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Don Gherardini-
FireFly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Asusalite wheels? |
Dwight
Honda will give is flyboys an engine when the market is big enuff for them
to pay attention to it.
At this point....I would speculate that the total Ultralite engine market in
the entire world would have to grow by about....hmmm......6 times it current
size.....and then only is some sales crew promised we could get 50% of it.
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute |
Strange is right JD....got me to thinking tho....where is the CHT sending
unit?...is it a ring/washer under the spark plug?...Could there be any
indication that the entire head was NOT getting hot...only the plug?
you statement about normal EGT kinda suggests this.......not sure how you
could tell..other than the color of the carbon upon dissambly maybe?
Don G
________________________________________________________________________________
Will,Gents,
The prop I have for testing is blowing the wrong way. I would like to hear some
ideas about a good prop for this for a Kolb. Perhaps one that I could use direct.
My engineer friend has a real neat idea that will allow direct drive.
pp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier(at)cableone.net> |
Kolbers,
My Mark III ignition switch is on the "roof" over my right shoulder. (I just
know one of these days the keys are gonna fall out.) Anyway, I don't like
it there so I'm repositioning it to the dash, which I can reach while strapped
in. Presently, right next to the ignition switch is a rocker switch that controls
the water temp gauge and the Hobbs. This switch gets its power directly
from the battery. I'm at a loss as to why the original (?) builder ran a 4'
wire from the battery to this rocker switch when he could have gotten power a
couple of inches away at the ignition switch. I am planning to do away with the
rocker and run right off the ignition switch. Do you guys know of any reason
why I should NOT do this.
Thanks,
Arizona Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute |
>
>
>> New plugs solved the problem, but only
>> after I tore the top end off to make sure it wasn't something else.
>>
>> J.D.
>
>JD/Gang:
>
>Strange indeed. Would never have figured that a
>lead fouled plug would raise the CHT. Would think
>it would have the opposite effect.
>
John,
Lead fouling can act as a glow plug. If so, this might act as a timing advance
which would explain the CHT increase.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 Prop Pitch / Best Cruising Performance |
>
>
> > The best way to explain it is to do it and see if it works. If you
> have a ground adjustable propeller, try it, you may like it. If you
> don't like it, you can always put it back.
> >
> > Jack B. Hart FF004
>
>Jack/Gang:
Thanks for the advice. However, I have already
gone through the experimentation cycle with fixed
pitch and ground adjustable props for the last 19
years on my Kolb aircraft.
I've also have done some experiments with ground adjustable props in the
last 20 years. In my old Firestar XP we were advised by Homer and the
gang not to put 503 engines on them because the cages weren't built to
handle the vibration. I guessing here.
So I didn't - and - my friend did. Well I also got tired of hearing the
Speed it up song and dance on the trips while flying with him. So to
make a long story long I dialed up the pitch on my prop 1 1/2 degrees on
one of the trips without testing it. I could hardly climb 300 fpm but
once I got up I could hit almost 90mph at 5500 rpm, which was all it would
turn anyway. Needless to say, I adjusted the pitch at the next stop.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912 Prop Pitch / Best Cruising Performance |
| From: | CaptainRon <captainron(at)theriver.com> |
on 3/25/03 12:54 PM, John Hauck at jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com wrote:
> What do you mean 5,000 feet? We fly at 500 or
> less.
==============
MSL 5K anything less and I am plowing corpses out of the ground at the
cemetery out here.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Martin Trusty" <martintr(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Switch |
Dave:
Hi, do you have enough "knee" room for your legs and can you get to the
pedals with comfort? Martin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Martin Trusty" <martintr(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Honda? for Don Gherardini |
Richard:
In your Kolb when seated, do you have enough knee room and are the pedal
locations comfortable? Martin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick & Martha Neilsen" <neilsenrm(at)cs.com> |
Thanks the video it was neat. It also appeared that it ran with little
vibration was that the case??? I wouldn't have expected that from a V twin.
Keep looking for a good reduction drive. This could really turn out to be a
good aircraft engine. For now don't worry which way the wind blows it will
keep that engine cool.
With my experience with a direct drive VW I can say that running that 80HP
HD with a direct drive prop will likely give you the thrust of a good 40-50
HP reduction drive engine. You will not be happy.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIII
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul Petty
Subject: Kolb-List: HD
Will,Gents,
The prop I have for testing is blowing the wrong way. I would like to hear
some ideas about a good prop for this for a Kolb. Perhaps one that I could
use direct. My engineer friend has a real neat idea that will allow direct
drive.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
>
>Will,Gents,
>The prop I have for testing is blowing the wrong way. I would like to hear
>some ideas about a good prop for this for a Kolb. Perhaps one that I could
>use direct. My engineer friend has a real neat idea that will allow direct
>drive.
>
>pp
I calculated 51 x 28 for direct drive 4000 rpm 65 hp. If your buddy is
thinking of putting it on the cam shaft somehow be sure there is a lot of
isolation between the prop shaft and the cam or the cam will soon break (
from what I have heard )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute |
>
>Agree with John but swear that after the second top-off with 100LL on a
>cross country the engine sounds different...especially over trees. Yes,
>check your plugs when you burn it. And another thing, remember that the
>100LL
>does not have the same efficiency as auto gas. It will burn faster.
It will burn cooler too. My plugs only last about 30 hours on AVgas.
I CHANGE MY PLUGS EVERY 30 HOURS ANYWAY. I use the
Gold/ $4.00 plugs - so it cost me x 4!!
The EGT's will drop noticeably. Last year we compared plugs after
using mostly 100LL down and back - and like you - found plugs almost
closed with lead deposits on Ben Methvin's plane and "getting there" on mine.
If you are going to do cross country - you are going too have to use
AVgas - just changing your plugs more often - will generally fix the problem.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Richmond <twoschmoops(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Transceiver and antenna for sale |
TRANSCEIVER and ANTENNA for sale; $ 750 includes shipping and insurance.
One VAL COM 760 TSO, VHF communications transceiver. FCC i.d. EZN5PRCOM760, s/n
11609, TSO C37c C38c, p/n 801000, wt 3.0 lbs., 100 NM, 25kHz. Unit is undamaged
and clean. Approximately 2 of antenna wire and wiring harness included.
Also, frame mounted antenna plug (automatically plugs into unit when slid into
frame). Mounting frame is 4-sided aluminum box style, extending full length
of unit, with locking mechanism to prevent unit from slipping out. Frame is undamaged
and clean. Size of frame is; 2' 2" from front of knobs to back ofwiring
harness, 6 1/4" width of frame, 1 1/2" high. Unit in mint condition except
for minor scratches on corners of case from sliding in and out of mounting
frame. This unit sells for $895 including the wiring harness from Aircraft Spruce.
Mfg. is VAL Avionics, Ltd., 3280 25th St. SE, Salem, Oregon, 97302-1131,
503-370-9429.
Included is AV-534 antenna, TSO-C37d & C38d, (R.A. Miller Industries, Inc., Grand
Haven, Mi.), with 4 antenna wire and porcelain mounting insulators. New from
Aircraft Spruce $47.
Manual - Documentation is a 24-page manual, revision 6, August 1999, for the Com
760 TSO, VHF communications transceiver. It shows; Revision instructions and
history, tech specs, license requirements, installation / mounting, etc.
Pictures will be posted next. Or write me to see them.
John & Lynn Richmond
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | twoschmoops(at)yahoo.com |
| Subject: | Transceiver and antenna pictures |
Call me with any questions about this sale, 386-937-0541.
*********
VIEW PICTURES
John Richmond is sharing pictures with you
using Shutterfly, the leading online photo service.
To view John Richmond's pictures at Shutterfly,
simply go to:
http://www.shutterfly.com/osi.jsp?i=67b0de21b335b59b45fa
(If you can't click on this link, try copying and pasting it
into your web browser.)
NEED HELP?
If you have any questions about this message, please use our
convenient Customer Service contact form at:
http://www.shutterfly.com/support/form8.jsp
*************************************
Shutterfly
Where your pictures live
http://www.shutterfly.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Kill switch placement |
I used a toggle switch with a switch guard and placed it on the cross tube next
to the throttle by welding a small bracket.
The switch guard is protecting(closed) when the engine is running.
Ed in Western NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Asusalite wheels? |
RGR that Dwight!...it is frustarting huh! The japanese engine companies have
the ability to give us engines that we would just love, with little change
in existing production. But...as it stands now, if I have an account tht
wants even a simple modification to an EXISTING engine we offer, it takes a
Purchase order for 10,000 engines before my boss will even attempt to run
the request up the chain! At current market estimates, the entire ultralight
engine market in the world is just a little more than that! Luckiliy, it is
growing, hence we at least are keeping an eye on it!
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Don Gherardini-
FireFly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J.D. Stewart" <jstewart(at)inebraska.com> |
| Subject: | Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute |
CHT sending units were under the plug, and connected to an EIS.
I first noticed a loss of power before the temps went up. Almost like
the
beginning of a seizure. I had a demo/student flight going, and was about 4
miles from the airport, so I throttled back immediately and headed for the
runway, lining up on a country road in case I lost everything. After a
minute, the temps went down and the power came back, so I made it back to
the airport. Everything seemed normal again.
I should have pulled the plugs there, but nothing in my experience pointed
to that. On the way back home, the same thing happened after about 20
minutes of flying. Throttling back to 4500 kept it below 400 degrees, and
left me with about a 200'/minute descent.
The plug had to be the thing overheating. The little lead balls must've
been white hot.
J.D.
>
>
> Strange is right JD....got me to thinking tho....where is the CHT sending
> unit?...is it a ring/washer under the spark plug?...Could there be any
> indication that the entire head was NOT getting hot...only the plug?
> you statement about normal EGT kinda suggests this.......not sure how you
> could tell..other than the color of the carbon upon dissambly maybe?
> Don G
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Guy Swenson" <guys(at)rrt.net> |
Az Dave,
I would think that placing all of the power control on the keyed
ignition switch would make it kinda hard to isolate a bad circit
inflight. Total engine shutdown in the event of a shorted wire is
more of a problem than having a "Master" switch to manage. This
switch should actuate a master solinoid so the battery will be
removed from the system. Of course if you are not using a Hot Box
your charging system should be on the battery side of the solinoid so
it can be isolated also.
Just my .02 worth.
Guy S.
---- Original Message ----
From: pelletier(at)cableone.net
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Ignition Switch
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:28:27 -0700
>
>
>Kolbers,
> My Mark III ignition switch is on the "roof" over my right
>shoulder. (I just know one of these days the keys are gonna fall
>out.) Anyway, I don't like it there so I'm repositioning it to the
>dash, which I can reach while strapped in. Presently, right next to
>the ignition switch is a rocker switch that controls the water temp
>gauge and the Hobbs. This switch gets its power directly from the
>battery. I'm at a loss as to why the original (?) builder ran a 4'
>wire from the battery to this rocker switch when he could have gotten
>power a couple of inches away at the ignition switch. I am planning
>to do away with the rocker and run right off the ignition switch. Do
>you guys know of any reason why I should NOT do this.
>Thanks,
>Arizona Dave
>
>
>===
>===
>===
>===
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Who done it 1st?? |
OK men....maybe some of you have not had the pleasure of browsing the Vintage Altralights
assoc pages, since I had so many off line requests for that pic Scott
sent me, ......and also..every time I look at Paul Pettys progress with that
Harley It just makes me dream of all the pioneers who have come before, blazing
new trails on designs and powerplants...any, for those who dont have it on
their favorite list here is the link
http://vulaorg.hostme.com
BTW...Paul, There is a harley powered airplane in there somewhere, maybe a couple,
must be at least 60 or 70 years ago!! I remember seeing one with a chain re-drive
and the chain musta been 4 ft long!
Don Gherardini
Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
800-626-7326
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
Duncan McBride wrote:
<< I have the VLS and I've seen Mark III's with both the VLS and the
canister. If I had to choose between them I'd go with the canister. The
VLS is too big to fit in the overhead gap seal, so it has to stick out
above. It requires a much bigger hole and sealing around it is a problem.
A canister completely above the gap would fit better and I don't think it
would have that much more drag. The best solution? A soft pack fitted
completely within the airframe. That's what I'll do when I build another
plane. >>
Duncan, and other Mark-III owners considering a BRS -
There is an alternative to a VLS or Canister for your M-3.
I am in the process of installing a 1050-Softpack in mine.
It will be mounted entirely within the pod, at floor level, just behind the
pax seat. Fires out the bottom, right thru the fabric.
I had to go this route because my Verner engine has a forward engine strut,
precluding the installation of any kind of BRS in the traditional location
forward of the engine. My 'chute had to go somewhere else, and inside the
pod was the only option left.
In talking with BRS, I learned that they did not have an installation scheme
for an internally-mounted Softpack in the Mark-3, but their engineers worked
with me in designing a setup for my plane. They even asked me to send them
the drawings of my completed installation, so they could use them for future
Mark-3 BRS customers.
I'll post some pictures on Photoshare when the installation is complete.
Dennis Kirby
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Stuart" <tcstuart(at)adelphia.net> |
This won't be available but to a few of you on Kentucky Educational TV, but Kolb
will be on:
Kentucky Life - March 29 8:30 PM Eastern and March 30 4:30 PM Eastern on KET1
Program 911 - the 140th anniversary of the Battle of Perryville, the D-H Western
Village, New Kolb Aircraft's build-it-yourself ultralights, and bluegrass musician
J.D. Crowe
I'll try to give a synopsis later for everyone outside the viewing area.
Clay Stuart
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Stuart" <tcstuart(at)adelphia.net> |
Fabricated my two 8.2 gal gas tanks out of 5052H32 aluminum. They will fit into
my Mark IIIXtra without cutting any fuselage tubes. I have a metal brake and
I fabricated them and took them to the welder. He seemed really confident that
he would have no trouble welding them as he welds aluminum pontoons for boats
frequently. Turns out it wasn't so easy, but he did a good job, pressure
tested them (only had to repair one leak), but I had sticker shock when I paid
him. He charges $65/hour and it took him 12 hours. We negotiated a bit and
I paid him $600.00. If I was to do it over, I would probably just make one tank
as per Steven Green and reweld the fuselage. The welder was only able to weld
the tanks by using the clecos I provided to hold the lapped seams in contact
because the aluminum changed shape during heating.
Now some questions: I was thinking about powder coating the outside of the tanks.
Does anyone know if the 5052H32 0.50" aluminum will be damaged by heating
to 400 degrees? I have not been able to find any table on the internet about
this for certain, but I have found various boat parts that are done this way.
To slosh-seal or not to slosh-seal. Can I bank on the pressure tests that he said
he has done? If I powder coat the outside, will that offer any leak insurance?
Thanks,
Clay Stuart
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FRED2319(at)aol.com |
Hi guys I been following this page for a while. It has been a big help to me.
I bought a used Mark III in pieces completely restored it. Got done today
Am waiting for long time Kolber Will Tatum to come and test fly in a couple
of days. when runway dries.
Fred Brown Mark III 582 Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Clay/Gang:
12 hours???? Wow!!! This guy fell asleep on the
job. hehehe
Highly recommend sloshing with Randolph
Aviation/Auto Slosh/Sealer. It is like insurance
and it works well. I have never had a leak of any
kind on my last fuel tank.
Based on the amount of time the welder took to
weld up those tanks for you and the problems he
had, yes, slosh.
We pop rivet our aluminum fuel tanks together,
then weld right over the aluminum rivets.
Brother Jim cut some tubes, welded plates on them
and the fuselage. If I ever have to remove my
fuel tank, I take out a few 3/16 bolts and the
langeron comes right out.
Just curious, did you baffle your tanks?
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Richmond <twoschmoops(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | HOT BOX for 912 for sale |
For sale, $125........pictures coming next
Unit - One Kuntzleman Electronics, Inc. Hot Box. (1660 South Hanover St., Pottstown,
Pa. 19465, 610-326-9068). Unit is undamaged and clean with terminal strips
and fuses intact. Also has 2 to 3 of wiring harness attached in 3 primary
cable systems. No particular model number or s/n is shown, but system was
designed to match a Rotax 912 engine.
Manual - Documentation includes the installation instructions for the hot box
(pusher configuration), plainly stating THIS HOT BOX WAS SPECIALLY BUILT FOR A
ROTAX 912 ENGINE AND IS DIFFERENT THAN THE STANDARD MODEL . Manual is 4 pages
of text with a wiring diagram.
John & Lynn Richmond
Mk III - 582
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | twoschmoops(at)yahoo.com |
| Subject: | Hot Box pictures |
*********
VIEW PICTURES
John Richmond is sharing pictures with you
using Shutterfly, the leading online photo service.
To view John Richmond's pictures at Shutterfly,
simply go to:
http://www.shutterfly.com/osi.jsp?i=67b0de21b335a5ab45c2
(If you can't click on this link, try copying and pasting it
into your web browser.)
NEED HELP?
If you have any questions about this message, please use our
convenient Customer Service contact form at:
http://www.shutterfly.com/support/form8.jsp
*************************************
Shutterfly
Where your pictures live
http://www.shutterfly.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Switch |
> Thanks for the comment. I went with the Master switch because of your
> comment about a short in some other system shutting down the engine.
> AzDave
Total engine shutdown in the event of a shorted
wire is
> > more of a problem than having a "Master" switch to manage.
> > Guy S.
Hi Gang:
How do you suppose "a shorted wire" is going to
shut down the engine, other than the "P" Leads
from the two ignition systems? I guess a wiring
bundle could catch on fire and short out the "P"
leads. Guess I answered my own question.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Switch |
Keep your electrical power and ignition switches separate - you might some
day need to shout down one or the other but not both at the same time.
You should have a separate Main Power Bus Switch or use Master Power
Control Switch which control a remote master power solenoid normally
located near the battery or power source. Don't use a starter solenoid for
this feature as most are not rated for continuous on duty. The advantage
of using the Master Switch and remote solenoid is that power is controlled
near the battery or power source thus if there should be a short to the
power cable going to the panel, the power can be killed at a point near the
power source. I didn't want the extra weight of the solenoid so I wired a
fused power bus cable to a Main Power Switch on my panel. My wires are
fairly well protected. From the Main Power Switch I have separate switches
to control various loads, i.e. EIS, lights, strobe, warp drive, etc.
jerb
>
>
>Kolbers,
> My Mark III ignition switch is on the "roof" over my right
> shoulder. (I just know one of these days the keys are gonna fall
> out.) Anyway, I don't like it there so I'm repositioning it to the dash,
> which I can reach while strapped in. Presently, right next to the
> ignition switch is a rocker switch that controls the water temp gauge and
> the Hobbs. This switch gets its power directly from the battery. I'm at
> a loss as to why the original (?) builder ran a 4' wire from the battery
> to this rocker switch when he could have gotten power a couple of inches
> away at the ignition switch. I am planning to do away with the rocker
> and run right off the ignition switch. Do you guys know of any reason
> why I should NOT do this.
>Thanks,
>Arizona Dave
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
Atduck and run position at all times!!!! Woody (the young
>stud horse) said I'm out'a'here if that was caught in the video.
Not me! I am the old stud horse from up north a bit
>I spent 3 hours this evening in the shop trying to get the starter in line
>and I am going to have to scrap the current configuration. May just have to
>hand prop the thing
Thats what you do if you're a tough guy. In fact I hand prop my lawn
mower just to be macho.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hugh" <hmhumes(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | grass/dirt strip question |
Hello All.
I know that a few of you are lucky enough to have a landing strip right on
there own property. Those of you that do, would you mind telling us about
it? I'm especially interested in hearing from those of you that "built" you
own. What are the dimensions, how much of it do you typically use on normal
takeoff and landing, what things you do to maintain it, what might you do
different if you had to build another one, etc. If anyone has links to
relevant articles on the internet, those comments are also welcomed.
Thanks,
Hugh
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
This one kinda stuck a little crossways...................! ! ! Clay, I
hate to say it, but I think he ripped you off. 12 HOURS ?? To weld 2
little tanks ?? What...............did he manufacture the aluminum while he
was at it ?? When I lived in Weippe, ID., there was a welding shop in
town, whose owner would start your job - and the clock - then BS with his
buddies, wife, etc. on the phone; go to lunch; give estimates on other jobs
(all involving plenty of BS); and even work on the "clock job" from time to
time. I think you ran into one of his breed. Next time you need welding
done, keep this old saying in mind..................."If he gets you once,
shame on him. If he gets you twice, shame on you." On
the powder coating, it's been my (extensive) experience that it's very
difficult to patch a leak from the outside - fluid pressure pushes the patch
away from the base material. Patch it from the inside if you feel the
need - slosh it. There's been several threads in the past
about powder coating tail booms. Lot's of pro & con, and got pretty heated
at times, but so far as I know, none have ever failed...............powder
coated or otherwise, so I doubt if it'd hurt your tanks. It IS fairly
heavy, tho', and you may want to consider regular paint. Also, I'm not
overly impressed with the powder coating on Vamoose' frame, and if there was
to be a next time, I'd epoxy primer it for sure. Twice Shy
Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clay Stuart" <tcstuart(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: gas tanks
>
> Fabricated my two 8.2 gal gas tanks out of 5052H32 aluminum. They will
fit into my Mark IIIXtra without cutting any fuselage tubes. I have a metal
brake and I fabricated them and took them to the welder. He seemed really
confident that he would have no trouble welding them as he welds aluminum
pontoons for boats frequently. Turns out it wasn't so easy, but he did a
good job, pressure tested them (only had to repair one leak), but I had
sticker shock when I paid him. He charges $65/hour and it took him 12
hours. We negotiated a bit and I paid him $600.00. If I was to do it over,
I would probably just make one tank as per Steven Green and reweld the
fuselage. The welder was only able to weld the tanks by using the clecos I
provided to hold the lapped seams in contact because the aluminum changed
shape during heating.
>
> Now some questions: I was thinking about powder coating the outside of
the tanks. Does anyone know if the 5052H32 0.50" aluminum will be damaged
by heating to 400 degrees? I have not been able to find any table on the
internet about this for certain, but I have found various boat parts that
are done this way.
>
> To slosh-seal or not to slosh-seal. Can I bank on the pressure tests that
he said he has done? If I powder coat the outside, will that offer any leak
insurance?
>
> Thanks,
> Clay Stuart
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Guy Swenson" <guys(at)rrt.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Switch |
John,
If the primary power is run through the ignition switch, then the only way
to shut down the power due to a short is to turn off the switch!! Instant
silence.
Now I'm up to .04 worth.
Guy S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ignition Switch
>
>
> > Thanks for the comment. I went with the Master switch because of
your
> > comment about a short in some other system shutting down the engine.
> > AzDave
>
> Total engine shutdown in the event of a shorted
> wire is
> > > more of a problem than having a "Master" switch to manage.
> > > Guy S.
>
> Hi Gang:
>
> How do you suppose "a shorted wire" is going to
> shut down the engine, other than the "P" Leads
> from the two ignition systems? I guess a wiring
> bundle could catch on fire and short out the "P"
> leads. Guess I answered my own question.
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Clay/Gang:
I forgot to mention in my post yesterday about
powder coating. I didn't powder coat anything in
my airplane. For the tank I put a nice coat of
epoxy primer on the outside. Because my tank is
hidden, I could have saved the time and material
by not priming at all.
Again, let me encourage you to slosh/seal your
tank. We did not slosh the first tank we did for
the Firestar, an 18 gal tank. We thought we had
gotten all the pin holes and leaks. I got a leak
in an area that was almost impossible to get to.
To get the tank out, would mean cutting fabric. I
spent many hours trying to get JB Weld, and other
conglomerations to stick and seal the leak. I
always had the odor of gasoline in that airplane.
PIA!
I sloshed the tank in the MK III 4 days in a row.
It has worked perfectly.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Switch |
> If the primary power is run through the ignition switch, then the only way
> to shut down the power due to a short is to turn off the switch!!
> Guy S.
Guy S/Gang:
Now I am with you. :-) I never considered, and
did not understand, anyone would do it that way,
like an automobile. Sorry about that. Sometimes
little things get confused in my tired old brain.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: grass/dirt strip question |
> I know that a few of you are lucky enough to have a landing strip right on
> there own property.
> Hugh
Morning Hugh/Gang:
I have been blessed with a grass strip since I
started building and flying these things 19 years
ago. My airstrip is in a cow pasture, in a
friend's front yard, about 5 minutes by truck from
my house. The location of the airstrip is good.
If it were right here at home, I would be spending
too much time with the airplane and not enough
time doing my chores.
I strarted out with approximately 600 feet of
unimproved pasture, cut with the Bush Hog a few
times, then I started cutting it with a finishing
mower. I finally quit playing with the Ultrastar
long enough to start work attempting to level the
strip. I used a Kubota B6100, 14 hp 4wd diesel
tractor and a 4 foot box blade.
Hardest part of improvement was breaking up the
grass and getting it off the strip so I could work
the dirt. I spent all Summer moving dirt and
extended my airstrip to 750 feet. A road grader
could have done the job in a day, but I did not
have a road grader. My strip is about 50 feet
wide.
I don't have the best approaches to my field, but
the Kolbs have plenty capability to get in and get
out. I think of primary importance are the open
areas I can get to in case of an engine
failure/forced landing. If you do not have an
option for forced landing areas around your
airstrip, that is exactly what you have if you
have a problem, nothing!
Even though I had options, I still got myself into
a situation and ran out of them and into a big old
red oak tree. Don't reckon you can have enough
ways out.
Maintenance means bush hogging about once a week
in the Summer, if we have rain. Another
maintenance problem I have is cow manure. For
some reason the herd loves my airstrip. It is
very special to them. So special, in fact, that
they want to keep it fertilized for me. Cow crap
on fabric, when it dries, is like epoxy. Yuck!
To solve this on going problem, after all these
years, recently built a cow crap leveler and drier
out of 4 truck tires bolted together in a diamond
shape with a 10 foot chain attached to hook to the
truck or tractor. Takes about 5 minutes to run up
and down the airstrip and level all the fresh
piles, spreading them out so they will dry
quicker.
I am truly blessed to have my own airstrip, Gantt
International Airport, Titus, Alabama. We have an
8 foot wind sock that is bigger than the air
field, European style, international
orange/white. All are welcome to use my strip.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Grass/Dirt Strip Question |
> I know that a few of you are lucky enough to have
a landing strip right on
> there own property.
> Hugh
Morning Hugh/Gang:
I have been blessed with a grass strip since I
started building and flying these things 19 years
ago. My airstrip is in a cow pasture, in a
friend's front yard, about 5 minutes by truck from
my house. The location of the airstrip is good.
If it were right here at home, I would be spending
too much time with the airplane and not enough
time doing my chores.
I strarted out with approximately 600 feet of
unimproved pasture, cut with the Bush Hog a few
times, then I started cutting it with a finishing
mower. I finally quit playing with the Ultrastar
long enough to start work attempting to level the
strip. I used a Kubota B6100, 14 hp 4wd diesel
tractor and a 4 foot box blade.
Hardest part of improvement was breaking up the
grass and getting it off the strip so I could work
the dirt. I spent all Summer moving dirt and
extended my airstrip to 750 feet. A road grader
could have done the job in a day, but I did not
have a road grader. My strip is about 50 feet
wide.
I don't have the best approaches to my field, but
the Kolbs have plenty capability to get in and get
out. I think of primary importance are the open
areas I can get to in case of an engine
failure/forced landing. If you do not have an
option for forced landing areas around your
airstrip, that is exactly what you have if you
have a problem, nothing!
Even though I had options, I still got myself into
a situation and ran out of them and into a big old
red oak tree. Don't reckon you can have enough
ways out.
Maintenance means bush hogging about once a week
in the Summer, if we have rain. Another
maintenance problem I have is cow manure. For
some reason the herd loves my airstrip. It is
very special to them. So special, in fact, that
they want to keep it fertilized for me. Cow crap
on fabric, when it dries, is like epoxy. Yuck!
To solve this on going problem, after all these
years, recently built a cow crap leveler and drier
out of 4 truck tires bolted together in a diamond
shape with a 10 foot chain attached to hook to the
truck or tractor. Takes about 5 minutes to run up
and down the airstrip and level all the fresh
piles, spreading them out so they will dry
quicker.
I am truly blessed to have my own airstrip, Gantt
International Airport, Titus, Alabama. We have an
8 foot wind sock that is bigger than the air
field, European style, international
orange/white. All are welcome to use my strip.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Kearbey" <kearbey(at)cncnet.com> |
To anyone interested.
I have a Kolb MarkIII that we built about 5 years ago. It has about 130 hours on
it, is in good shape, no accident history. Has a 582 with 3 blade ivo electric
prop, com radio with intercom.
I need to sell it and get it out of my hangar. I need more room for my helicopter.
I just don't fly the kolb enough. Finished the annual and flew it last week.
I will sell it or I am going to take the engine off it and take the aircraft
apart.
I am asking $10,000.00 firm! Unbelievable deal! Will start dissasembling it in
two weeks if no buyer!
Robert Kearbey
2690 Olive hwy
Oroville, Ca. 95966
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "info" <info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com> |
Hi everyone, please stop by the Poly-Fiber booth in commercial building "B", &
say "hi" !!
We would like to go to the dinner get together, so please let us know when and
where.
Thanks, & see ya'll there!!
Jim & Dondi Miller
Aircraft Technical Support, Inc.
Poly-Fiber & Ceconite Distributors
(Toll Free) (877) 877-3334
Web Site: www.poly-fiber.com
E-mail: info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick & Martha Neilsen" <neilsenrm(at)cs.com> |
| Subject: | grass/dirt strip question |
I have a 1400 X 30-50 foot strip next to my house. Years ago when I was
flying a Weedhopper it was 750 foot long with power lines and trees on one
end and 30 foot trees on the other end. On warm days I would brush the tops
of the trees on climb out. About seven years ago I bought more land and
hired a back hoe and dozer to clear the woods through to a farmers field so
that I now have a one way strip with clear approaches on one end. I have
30-50 ft trees 50ft from the sides of the runway. When the wind is not down
the runway there can be some interesting air currents. With my weedhopper I
would frequently be moving the control stick from one extreme stop to the
other on takeoff and landing to stay out of the trees. My MKIII has the
control power that so far control movements are only slight but with old age
I find I'm a bit more conservative in the weather I fly in.
The runway is long enough for me take off and climb to 100 ft and land my
MKIII on the strip. In landing mode the strip looks short but they all do.
For a MKIII I feel this strip is a minimum size for safe operations. Yes you
can get by with less. For safeties sake I have the length to abort a take
off in the early stages if something happens, that you can't do with a
shorter strip. Now that said if you have flat smooth land around you were
you can land in an emergency then 700 ft would be enough.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Honda engine |
Bill, Richard.....
The GX 620KO was the engine we used in the pulling tractor. It was 3 or 4
years ago...hmmm ...maybe 5, and we used it because the 670 was not out
yet. Todays current production GX620K1 and GX670K1are different then the 620
KO models in several areas...not the least of is the fact that the older 20
hp 620KO had steel rods and bearing inserts like a auto engine. Also the
camshaft and lifter mechanism was much different. with the old cam being
very hard to modify , as it was not cast iron, which most custom cam
grinders will accept readily. WHatever it was made of, it was very hard to
weld up.
I wont go into the details, but I made the camshaft. And it was difficult!
othe areas modified were....
shaved the heads .030 for higher compression...
fabricated a custom intake from tubing and used a Mikuni 40 mm modified for
alcohol...also ran 2- 32mm carbs for a time on individual runners....
Heavier valve springs...(stock valves and rocker arms)
Removed flywheel fan..didnt need the cooling on alkey
2 into 1 header....
Thats about it....oh ya....threw away the governer.
That engine dynoed at 60 hp at 6500 rpms...but ...it was strung out pretty
tight!!! Had it where it would float the valves at about 6800 to 7000....and
my son saw that area quite abit!
Now...I have not Modified the new K1 versions yet...but will get to it this
summer...The 670 of course because it has more displacement
The current 620k1 and 670K1 have a cast iron cam that will be much easier to
regrind..
the rods however are aluminum, with no bearing inserts, so they would
probably not stand 6500, but old rods will fit in the new version....
The heads on the new version flow much better and have larger valves..BIG
plus, as the old heads were arranged so that no larger valves could be
accomidated.
The biggest question I have in my mind is, if the new Cam follower
arrangement will stand the increased rpms...or better yet....HOW MUCH of an
increase will they stand???? This can only be answered by trying!
What makes the current production GX670K1 so interesting, is that it
produces torque approaching a rotax 503 already, in the stock 24 hp config,
so obviously it probably would not have to be "strung out" so far to be
satisfactory in an aircraft. By using a desktop dyno program to estimate
configurations, im thinking around 45 to 50 hp and 60 to 75 lbs torque at
4500 to 5000 oughtta be just right...and it may have a decent life...but,
who knows!!! If I had a redrive to install on one to test with a prop, I
would probably be working on that project right now!
What also gives one interest, is HKS is getting 60 hp out of 700cc's at a
higher rpm level with apparantly acceptable lifespan, so 50 hp out of 670
cc's shouldnt be all that far away! And at the 40 to 45 hp level, might
just be a 2000 hour engine ...
questions still brought up in aircraft use...
will the crank hold up?
can we use a lighter flywheel?
where can a suitable redrive be obtained?
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman(at)dejazzd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Honda engine |
Don Gherardini wrote:
>
>
> Bill, Richard.....
>
> The GX 620KO was the engine we used in the pulling tractor. It was 3 or 4
> years ago...hmmm ...maybe 5, and we used it because the 670 was not out
> yet. Todays current production GX620K1 and GX670K1are different then the 620
> KO models in several areas...not the least of is the fact that the older 20
> hp 620KO had steel rods and bearing inserts like a auto engine. Also the
> camshaft and lifter mechanism was much different. with the old cam being
> very hard to modify , as it was not cast iron, which most custom cam
> grinders will accept readily. WHatever it was made of, it was very hard to
> weld up.
> I wont go into the details, but I made the camshaft. And it was difficult!
> othe areas modified were....
> shaved the heads .030 for higher compression...
> fabricated a custom intake from tubing and used a Mikuni 40 mm modified for
> alcohol...also ran 2- 32mm carbs for a time on individual runners....
> Heavier valve springs...(stock valves and rocker arms)
> Removed flywheel fan..didnt need the cooling on alkey
> 2 into 1 header....
> Thats about it....oh ya....threw away the governer.
> That engine dynoed at 60 hp at 6500 rpms...but ...it was strung out pretty
> tight!!! Had it where it would float the valves at about 6800 to 7000....and
> my son saw that area quite abit!
>
> Now...I have not Modified the new K1 versions yet...but will get to it this
> summer...The 670 of course because it has more displacement
> The current 620k1 and 670K1 have a cast iron cam that will be much easier to
> regrind..
> the rods however are aluminum, with no bearing inserts, so they would
> probably not stand 6500, but old rods will fit in the new version....
> The heads on the new version flow much better and have larger valves..BIG
> plus, as the old heads were arranged so that no larger valves could be
> accomidated.
> The biggest question I have in my mind is, if the new Cam follower
> arrangement will stand the increased rpms...or better yet....HOW MUCH of an
> increase will they stand???? This can only be answered by trying!
> What makes the current production GX670K1 so interesting, is that it
> produces torque approaching a rotax 503 already, in the stock 24 hp config,
> so obviously it probably would not have to be "strung out" so far to be
> satisfactory in an aircraft. By using a desktop dyno program to estimate
> configurations, im thinking around 45 to 50 hp and 60 to 75 lbs torque at
> 4500 to 5000 oughtta be just right...and it may have a decent life...but,
> who knows!!! If I had a redrive to install on one to test with a prop, I
> would probably be working on that project right now!
> What also gives one interest, is HKS is getting 60 hp out of 700cc's at a
> higher rpm level with apparantly acceptable lifespan, so 50 hp out of 670
> cc's shouldnt be all that far away! And at the 40 to 45 hp level, might
> just be a 2000 hour engine ...
>
> questions still brought up in aircraft use...
> will the crank hold up?
> can we use a lighter flywheel?
> where can a suitable redrive be obtained?
>
> Don
>
OK Don, so which engine are you going to use on your plane?
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James, Ken" <KDJames(at)berkscareer.com> |
I was at Oshkosh last year and attended the Poly Fiber Seminar and It was a
Hoot! I learned a boat load and had fun so if you get a chance to attend It,
It is well worth it!
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: info [mailto:info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: Sun-'N-Fun!!
Hi everyone, please stop by the Poly-Fiber booth in commercial building "B",
& say "hi" !!
We would like to go to the dinner get together, so please let us know when
and where.
Thanks, & see ya'll there!!
Jim & Dondi Miller
Aircraft Technical Support, Inc.
Poly-Fiber & Ceconite Distributors
(Toll Free) (877) 877-3334
Web Site: www.poly-fiber.com
E-mail: info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FRED2319(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | kold 582 starter |
Hi on my 582 starter opposite the wire thermal there is an approx. 7/16 hole
is this normal or should it be cohered some how?? thanks Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
| Subject: | Kolb Checkride at Sun-n-Fun |
Don Gherardini wrote:
<< What do you all think the chance of getting a check ride in a Kolb is at
a show as busy as Sun'n'Fun must surely be???..Do I have a chance?? >>
Don, and Kolbers -
I, too, am needing a checkride in a Mark-3.
I called TNK to set one up, and Ray Brown told me that they're planning to
have their brand new R-912 powered Mark-3 Classic on display at Sun-n-Fun.
But they also told me they could not guarantee rides in it, as it may not
have its 40 hours flown off yet. But it would definitely be there as a
static display.
For your planning consideration ...
Dennis Kirby
Mark-3, Verner-powered, in
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Honda engine |
Hehe Gene, Because of the desire to keep it a legal ultralite, im using a
ULII-02 Cuyuna, and will sell this bird most likely before too long.
BTW, I should mention that an airboat builder claims to be getting some
March 12, 2003 - March 27, 2003
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-ef